What if he was framed!

[WarmNCozy]

When I heard the verdict read live I was in my car driving on the Turnpike. I had to pull off the road, because I was crying so hard ... I felt he "got away with murder".

I was glued to the TV during the trial, read everything I could about this case, and after the verdict searched the web for articles, media, etc.

I found the following website in 2000, read it all about a half dozen times! I needed to read it that many times, because I did not have an open mind about the possibility of anyone but OJ as the culprit in the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

The painstaking details of Mr. Wagner's website leave me wondering if in fact OJ is innocent.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other at this late date. Confused is more like it!

Read the following, and let's discuss the possibilities, if you want:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/

:confused:

[William Anthony]

When I heard the verdict read live I was in my car driving on the Turnpike. I had to pull off the road, because I was crying so hard ... I felt he "got away with murder".

I was glued to the TV during the trial, read everything I could about this case, and after the verdict searched the web for articles, media, etc.

I found the following website in 2000, read it all about a half dozen times! I needed to read it that many times, because I did not have an open mind about the possibility of anyone but OJ as the culprit in the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

The painstaking details of Mr. Wagner's website leave me wondering if in fact OJ is innocent.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other at this late date. Confused is more like it!

Read the following, and let's discuss the possibilities, if you want:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/

:confused:

Welcome aboard.

I took a quick look at the link you provided and waited for you to post. One section of the link causes me to wonder not only about the planting but something else that I have pondered for quite sometime.

[WarmNCozy]

I did not mean to convey that I was minimizing the efforts taken by Mr. Wagner. What I was saying is that one section of the link was of particular interest to me and I will read all the link. I read the section that was of particular interest and, it fits into something that I have considered possible.
I recently saw again the movie, JFK. I think the line from that movie was "its a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma." I am not a fan of massive conspiracies, although I realize that conspiracies exist. Like you, I am not sure who the murderer is. I am sure of one thing, which is some of the things just do not add up, imho.

Need to read Double Crossed! It's out of print but available on Amazon.com as a used book. Read it after you read Wagner's website! And then comment!

[martin II]

When I heard the verdict read live I was in my car driving on the Turnpike. I had to pull off the road, because I was crying so hard ... I felt he "got away with murder".

I was glued to the TV during the trial, read everything I could about this case, and after the verdict searched the web for articles, media, etc.

I found the following website in 2000, read it all about a half dozen times! I needed to read it that many times, because I did not have an open mind about the possibility of anyone but OJ as the culprit in the deaths of Nicole and Ron.

The painstaking details of Mr. Wagner's website leave me wondering if in fact OJ is innocent.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other at this late date. Confused is more like it!

Read the following, and let's discuss the possibilities, if you want:

http://www.wagnerandson.com/

:confused:

Warmncozy

I read Wagner over a year ago and have readit many times since. I refer to it all the time for facts.

It is the most detail investigation.
I find the motive for nicoles killing by the mob to be quite believable and within their capabilities to carry out without a trace to them.

The setup is exactly how i believe they would have done it based on other killings i have read about that was mob involved.

I think that for those that have ignored his investigation because of their preconceived notion of oj guilt have missed some important issues in this case.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Welcome aboard.

I took a quick look at the link you provided and waited for you to post. One section of the link causes me to wonder not only about the planting but something else that I have pondered for quite sometime.

what is that?
you can pm it to me if you like
martin II

[WarmNCozy]

Warmncozy

I read Wagner over a year ago and have readit many times since. I refer to it all the time for facts.

It is the most detail investigation.
I find the motive for nicoles killing by the mob to be quite believable and within their capabilities to carry out without a trace to them.

The setup is exactly how i believe they would have done it based on other killings i have read about that was mob involved.

I think that for those that have ignored his investigation because of their preconceived notion of oj guilt have missed some important issues in this case.imo
martin II

I think they need to read this website and then try to figure out what is right or wrong!

I'm still confused, but confused on the side of maybe he was framed and is totally innocent of murder!

[William Anthony]

I think they need to read this website and then try to figure out what is right or wrong!

I'm still confused, but confused on the side of maybe he was framed and is totally innocent of murder!

There is scientic information that came out in August, 1997 that shows that the blood on the m (magical) socks and the gate may have been planted.

[fbgweezer]

There is scientic information that came out in August, 1997 that shows that the blood on the m (magical) socks and the gate may have been planted.

you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

[William Anthony]

you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

I stand by my post and will continue the discussion of the other evidence that some believe does not favor planting as soon as the issue of the additional scientific evidence has bee resolved.

[martin II]

I stand by my post and will continue the discussion of the other evidence that some believe does not favor planting as soon as the issue of the additional scientific evidence has bee resolved.

william

Please continue to post information that seeks to speak to the truth.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william

Please continue to post information that seeks to speak to the truth.

martin II

Martin,

I have found that truth like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. When what one believes is shown to be the truth through science, math and common sense, others dimiss it saying it is wrong. They would rather rely on human error, mistakes and confusion to ignore the obvious, imho. A scientist should know that, if his machine is giving results of EDTA in substances where none should be, he should either clean the machine or use another one and rerung the test, imho. He should not come to a court of law and say I do not know what I found but, if I did find it, it came from a ghost in the machine, and expect others to convict on this testimony. I believe the criminal jurors were much too sophisticated to accept this testimony. However, some seem to have accepted it and point to the testimony of another scientist to say, yes, if he did find it even though he should not have, the ghost did it. :)

[martin II]

Martin,

I have found that truth like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. When what one believes is shown to be the truth through science, math and common sense, others dimiss it saying it is wrong. They would rather rely on human error, mistakes and confusion to ignore the obvious, imho. A scientist should know that, if his machine is giving results of EDTA in substances where none should be, he should either clean the machine or use another one and rerung the test, imho. He should not come to a court of law and say I do not know what I found but, if I did find it, it came from a ghost in the machine, and expect others to convict on this testimony. I believe the criminal jurors were much too sophisticated to accept this testimony. However, some seem to have accepted it and point to the testimony of another scientist to say, yes, if he did find it even though he should not have, the ghost did it. :)


william
I am in complete agreement with your post. If i had been one to believe oj guilty, after listening to Martz testimony i would have been forced to say
'SOMETHING WRONG HERE"
IMO
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

I think you should be more careful about the harshness of your accusations.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

I think you should be more careful about the harshness of your accusations.

martin II

:no: it wasn't an accusation. . . :D

[fbgweezer]

william
I am in complete agreement with your post. If i had been one to believe oj guilty, after listening to Martz testimony i would have been forced to say
'SOMETHING WRONG HERE"
IMO
MARTIN ii

does this mean you believed him innocent?

[William Anthony]

:no: it wasn't an accusation. . . :D

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
you are posting dishonestly! There is no evidence -- and has never been -- any evidence that there was any evidence was planted in this case. In fact, there is undisputed proof that the evidence as presented by the prosecution and plaintiffs that the evidence could not have been planted.

I think you should be more careful about the harshness of your accusations.

martin II

If there had been undisputed proof, as you posted, then there would not have been research done to answer the question of planting in September, 1997.

I thank you Martin for attempting to have others stick to the posting rules. I think that others may make accusations to try to hide the lack of honesty in their own posts.

[packy]

If I remember right, Fung collected the socks and didn't make any note of any blood on the sock, and then a laboratory supervisor and two others noted no blood. Then the blood stain was suddenly discovered. Sure seems like it had been planted or it would have been seen by experts before it was.

I have seen the Wagner site before, and thanks for bringing it up again. He mentions Wasz, and I haven't been keeping up for awhile but was Wasz the person who had a website and was ordered to remove much of his material? Or who am I thinking of?

[martin II]

does this mean you believed him innocent?

weezer

Since for many not guilty does not equate with innocence i have no idea as to why you ask such a question.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer

Since for many not guilty does not equate with innocence i have no idea as to why you ask such a question.

martin II

I was referring to your statement, ". . .If i had been one to believe oj guilty. . " Seems to me that the converse would be that you believed orenthal was innocent. This isn't a trick question. imo

[martin II]

I was referring to your statement, ". . .If i had been one to believe oj guilty. . " Seems to me that the converse would be that you believed orenthal was innocent. This isn't a trick question. imo

i think you already know that the court system does not equate innocence with not guilty. Many here have made that distinction on this issue.

Try not to read my post and then try to ask me a question that is not included in my post. If i wanted to state that i believe oj to be innocent i would have had no problem doing so. i don't need you to try to say it for me in the form of a quesiton.

Stop twisting my words.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

If I remember right, Fung collected the socks and didn't make any note of any blood on the sock, and then a laboratory supervisor and two others noted no blood. Then the blood stain was suddenly discovered. Sure seems like it had been planted or it would have been seen by experts before it was.

I have seen the Wagner site before, and thanks for bringing it up again. He mentions Wasz, and I haven't been keeping up for awhile but was Wasz the person who had a website and was ordered to remove much of his material? Or who am I thinking of?

Packy
here is part of what you mentioned.

Now, 9 days after meeting her, and 11 days after she met with Kardashian I get a demand to take down from my web site material that is critical (if you believe Wasz) of Kardashian. After it has been there for 3-1/2 years without any complaint. If you think this is only a coincidence, I've got some fine Florida lakefront property for sale.

Anyway, if you think you may ever want to see what Wasz actually said, you had better go get these articles quick: http://wagnerandson.com . It is in "The Bresnahan Series" under the section BILL WASZ near the bottom of the table of contents. The presentation there includes graphic facsimiles of six actual pages from the Wasz diary.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/CONTROL.htm
--dick wagner

[socaldiva]

i think you already know that the court system does not equate innocence with not guilty. Many here have made that distinction on this issue.

Try not to read my post and then try to ask me a question that is not included in my post. If i wanted to state that i believe oj to be innocent i would have had no problem doing so. i don't need you to try to say it for me in the form of a quesiton.

Stop twisting my words.
imo
martin II

I don't know why you are stating the "court system does not equate innocence with not guilty". That wasn't an issue in the posts being discussed.


I don't see any "twisting" from fbg, she was just asking you to clarify your post & was simply asking you if you thought Simpson was innocent. It's a yes or no answer & if you don't want to answer, why not just say so?

[packy]

Packy
here is part of what you mentioned.

Now, 9 days after meeting her, and 11 days after she met with Kardashian I get a demand to take down from my web site material that is critical (if you believe Wasz) of Kardashian. After it has been there for 3-1/2 years without any complaint. If you think this is only a coincidence, I've got some fine Florida lakefront property for sale.

Anyway, if you think you may ever want to see what Wasz actually said, you had better go get these articles quick: http://wagnerandson.com . It is in "The Bresnahan Series" under the section BILL WASZ near the bottom of the table of contents. The presentation there includes graphic facsimiles of six actual pages from the Wasz diary.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/CONTROL.htm
--dick wagner

Yes that's it and thank you, Martin. It would be very hard to believe that was just a coincidence.

[Athena]

I stand by my post and will continue the discussion of the other evidence that some believe does not favor planting as soon as the issue of the additional scientific evidence has bee resolved.

Well I know I watched the entire trial and I sure was convinced that planting could have occurred. One thing I know for sure is that the OJ's defense team attacked every single piece of evidence and created doubt. IIRC photos of the gate were shown from one day and showed no blood but 2-3 days later photos taken showed blood where there was none previously. It's been a long time and I haven't really participated in these message board conversations - so this is strictly from memory and it's been a long time.

This is some of the articles that were actually written during the trial:

Bloody socks:

Pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife.

Prosecution: contended this directly linked a victim to Simpson.

Defense: suggested socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson; most compelling evidence of tampering is that some blood soaked all the way through one sock to other side, which it shouldn't have done if a foot was in it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm

Archives:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns0.htm

Jurors' comments:

Jurors say acquittals were based on lack of evidence

At 10 a.m., Cryer told the Los Angeles Times, they took a straw vote. It was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. One of the two negative votes came from a 61-year-old white woman, Anise Aschenbach, who would later tearfully say that while Simpson may be guilty, the evidence didn't prove it.

The other dissenter has not been identified.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070.htm

[Athena]

I also believe that some people are not aware of the fact that some evidence that we saw and knew about the jurors never saw and were not aware of until the trial was over. I also want to apologize in advance because you all have probably discussed all of this stuff but not having participated I am not sure -- so just tell me to go away. I suppose recent events have gotten me interested again. :)

e.g.
All the 'evidence' the jury will not take into deliberations

Remember the testimony of Rosa Lopez? The O.J. Simpson jury surely won't.

The woman billed in Johnnie Cochran Jr.'s opening statement as the 'Maid With the Alibi' came to court in February 1995, testified under protest, hopped on a plane to El Salvador and hasn't been heard from since.

Her testimony, preserved on videotape, was never shown to the jury. Lopez joins legions of people, things and events that became part of American pop culture but will never be considered by panelists who will soon deliberate Simpson's fate on murder charges.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns31.htm

[bobaugust]

I also believe that some people are not aware of the fact that some evidence that we saw and knew about the jurors never saw and were not aware of until the trial was over. I also want to apologize in advance because you all have probably discussed all of this stuff but not having participated I am not sure -- so just tell me to go away. I suppose recent events have gotten me interested again. :)

e.g.
All the 'evidence' the jury will not take into deliberations

Remember the testimony of Rosa Lopez? The O.J. Simpson jury surely won't.

The woman billed in Johnnie Cochran Jr.'s opening statement as the 'Maid With the Alibi' came to court in February 1995, testified under protest, hopped on a plane to El Salvador and hasn't been heard from since.

Her testimony, preserved on videotape, was never shown to the jury. Lopez joins legions of people, things and events that became part of American pop culture but will never be considered by panelists who will soon deliberate Simpson's fate on murder charges.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns31.htm

Athena, the reason the jury never heard Rosa Lopez's testimony is that Simpson's defense didn't want her to hear it. Cochran had claimed in his opening statement that Lopez came outside to walk her dog at 10:15 that night and she saw the Bronco parked on Rockingham. But when Lopez testified she didn't say that. She testified she took the dog out at 10:00 not 10:15 for a very short time,. Allan Park the limousine driver testified that when he arrived at Rockingham at about 10:25 the Bronco was not parked there.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Athena, the reason the jury never heard Rosa Lopez's testimony is that Simpson's defense didn't want her to hear it. Cochran had claimed in his opening statement that Lopez came outside to walk her dog at 10:15 that night and she saw the Bronco parked on Rockingham. But when Lopez testified she didn't say that. She testified she took the dog out at 10:00 not 10:15 for a very short time,. Allan Park the limousine driver testified that when he arrived at Rockingham at about 10:25 the Bronco was not parked there.

bobaugust

bob
what differance does 10:00 and 10:15 make.
A Park did not see the Bronco even when everyone knows it was there. so i don't believe he is reliable as he said he was not looking for a car when he arrived. he was looking for a address on the curb
martin II

[martin II]

WarmnCozy

I took your advice and read WAGNER again.
I found his Scenario very believable and possible.
There are many instances of mob killings about business in America.


The Bundy Murder Scenario



The following scenario is an account of the crime as the author has deduced it from courtroom evidence and testimony, information in books on the subject, input from contributors to AFOJS, private correspondence and interviews, and independent investigations, reconstructions, and experiments. (See the author's site, http://www.wagnerandson.com for details.) Those sources collectively indicate that several individuals played specific roles in the crime. Even though they can not be identified yet, the killers have been given fictitious names in the scenario for convenience in following them through the events. The motive for the crime and the involvement of named individuals (e.g., Kardashian, Barbieri, Resnick, etc.) is speculative, but the conduct of the crime and the sequence of associated events conforms to the evidence and other factual information.

WHY: Simpson's long-time friend, Robert Kardashian had made his fortune in the recorded music business and had met many and varied people during that career; among them some with connections to the underworld. One such person (professional gambling branch) approached Kardashian for an introduction to Simpson in the summer of 1993. This contact represented an immense and very modern professional sports betting ring with (800) phone numbers, off-shore banking, internet web sites, and every modern resource. It was their aim to build a clientele among very wealthy "high rollers." Through his affiliation with Hertz, Simpson routinely met such men -- corporate officers, other celebrities like himself, influential people in government,... So, a deal was concluded. When Simpson was playing golf with such men he would pass along an (800) phone number that would connect with a world-class virtual sports betting parlor. In exchange for new clients that he brought, Simpson would get a "finder's fee." It was like free money to Simpson ("off the books," and untaxed), and he considered that the arrangement was a real windfall for him, and it gave him a thrill to deal with actual underworld figures.

But, in the latter part of 1993 Simpson was in a state of reconciliation with his ex-wife, Nicole, and she got wind of his favors for the mob. She went ballistic. She recalled the furor over Pete Rose's betting with professional gamblers, and his downfall as a result. Rose had only been a customer of the mob, and Simpson's connection would undoubtedly bring worse public ostracism, if it was ever found out. Nicole saw the prospect that her gravy train was about to become derailed, and she prevailed on OJ to withdraw from his mob connection and denounce it to those he had already steered. The mob was VERY angry with this development and threatened Simpson. He demurred that it was not his fault, Nicole made him do it. That was not a good enough answer, but it did raise the specter that she could expose the operation, since she herself was not at risk. The mob threatened Nicole, but she was adamant. A deal was struck: Nicole, OJ, and Kardashian would keep quiet about OJ's previous affiliation with the mob, and the mob would let bygones be bygones. However, in the tense and frightening weeks leading up to this stand-off Nicole did confide about OJ's mob involvement, and the mob's threats on her own life, to one person -- her closest confidant at the time -- Cora Fischman.

DECEPTION: As sometimes happens in dealings with the mob, those people were less than forthright, and they let it be known to Kardashian that the understanding with the Simpsons was only a stop-gap. The mob had suffered loss of face with those that Simpson had denounced the mob to, and rumors were spreading through the sports betting community that the mob had knuckled under to Nicole and OJ. That was intolerable, and it was necessary to make an example of somebody to restore a sense of discipline among those the mob dealt with. The mob would be satisfied, they said, if Nicole were murdered, and they encouraged Kardashian to arrange such a thing himself. In this way, the ill-fated Wasz plot to murder Nicole came into being in January, 1994. But, by the end Nicole was still alive, Wasz was in jail, and there was a trail of circumstantial evidence (and Wasz' own story) to implicate Kardashian, OJ and Barbieri in a plot to murder Nicole. (It is possible that this result -- Nicole not actually being murdered in January -- was just what the mob wanted. It left in its wake circumstances with which Simpson could be intimidated later, when the actual murder occurred, and be kept quiet about the mob's involvement.) At that point, the mob told Kardashian they would take matters into their own hands. (See, "Handing Off the Problem," on our site, http://www.wagnerandson.com.)

www.wagnerandson.com

[bobaugust]

bob
what differance does 10:00 and 10:15 make.
A Park did not see the Bronco even when everyone knows it was there. so i don't believe he is reliable as he said he was not looking for a car when he arrived. he was looking for a address on the curb
martin II

martin II, what difference does 10:00 and 10:15 make? Just more misinformation Cochran told the jury and additional time Simpson was able to leave Rockingham go to Bundy. The reality is that if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park arrived at Rockingham he would have seen it. The reality is if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park returned to the Rockingham gate some fifteen minutes later to look up the Rockingham driveway he would have seen it.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* ". . .IThere are many instances of mob killings about business in America."

judging from orenthal's ongoing escapades, don't you think the mob scenario better suits his lifestyle? Me too.

[martin II]

judging from orenthal's ongoing escapades, don't you think the mob scenario better suits his lifestyle? Me too.

you got me on that one. Have no idea as to what you are trying to say.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

you got me on that one. Have no idea as to what you are trying to say.
martin II

what did you think about one of his posse having the name of "Charlie"? dang -- you can't find this stuff written for daytime tv. LOL

[martin II]

martin II, what difference does 10:00 and 10:15 make? Just more misinformation Cochran told the jury and additional time Simpson was able to leave Rockingham go to Bundy. The reality is that if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park arrived at Rockingham he would have seen it. The reality is if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers when Park returned to the Rockingham gate some fifteen minutes later to look up the Rockingham driveway he would have seen it.

bobaugust

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin II

[socaldiva]

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin II

It looks like you only believe Parks testimony when it's something that you like or agree with. ;)

[fbgweezer]

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin II

how many feet from the bronco back bumper?

[tvdinner]

bob
I can only go by what Park testified to,. He said he was not looking for a car when he was at rockingham as he was concentrating on looking for the address numbers on the curb which was just a few feet behind the bronco back bumper.
If he says he was not looking for the bronco i guess he was not.
martin IIHe wasn't looking for an elephant either but he would have seen it if it were sitting next to the house numbers he was looking for.

[martin II]

He wasn't looking for an elephant either but he would have seen it if it were sitting next to the house numbers he was looking for.

tv
ok

his answer was he did not see the bronco because he was not looking for it and was looking for the house numbers.

when he left the rockingham driveway he was about 3 feet from the WHITE bronco parked on his right at the curb by the house numbers. He testified that the bronco was not there THEN even when the prosecution said it was.

It is like when he was parked at the Ashford gate, he said he saw TWO cars
parked inside the property in the driveway even thought M Clarke and the defense challanged him on the two cars he said he saw, he still said he saw two cars.there was only one car.the bently
imo
martin II

[martin II]

how many feet from the bronco back bumper?

Fron the crime scene picture i have it looks like the back bumper of the bronco is about 1 1 1/2 feet from the address numbers on the curb.
I think you also have or have seen this picture.
martin II

[martin II]

judging from orenthal's ongoing escapades, don't you think the mob scenario better suits his lifestyle? Me too.

weezer
what i think is that people that try to disrupt regular mob business can find themselves in big trouble which is Wagners theory about why the mob decided to have nicole killed. If she had caused oj to try to back ouf of the gambling business i would think this would not have been looked at kindly by them.

martin II

[Heyes]

weezer
what i think is that people that try to disrupt regular mob business can find themselves in big trouble which is Wagners theory about why the mob decided to have nicole killed. If she had caused oj to try to back ouf of the gambling business i would think this would not have been looked at kindly by them.

martin II
so the blame is now off Faye Resnick?
:rolleyes:

[martin II]

so the blame is now off Faye Resnick?
:rolleyes:

i am not sure wagner ever claimed faye was involved directly in nicoles death.
I do not know who killed nicole but i do not discount reasonable theories
when presented as a result of a detailed investigation such as wagners.
If you dissagree with his theory what specifically in his scenerio do you dissagree with?

martin II

[WarmNCozy]

WarmnCozy

I took your advice and read WAGNER again.
I found his Scenario very believable and possible.
There are many instances of mob killings about business in America.


The Bundy Murder Scenario



The following scenario is an account of the crime as the author has deduced it from courtroom evidence and testimony, information in books on the subject, input from contributors to AFOJS, private correspondence and interviews, and independent investigations, reconstructions, and experiments. (See the author's site, http://www.wagnerandson.com for details.) Those sources collectively indicate that several individuals played specific roles in the crime. Even though they can not be identified yet, the killers have been given fictitious names in the scenario for convenience in following them through the events. The motive for the crime and the involvement of named individuals (e.g., Kardashian, Barbieri, Resnick, etc.) is speculative, but the conduct of the crime and the sequence of associated events conforms to the evidence and other factual information.

WHY: Simpson's long-time friend, Robert Kardashian had made his fortune in the recorded music business and had met many and varied people during that career; among them some with connections to the underworld. One such person (professional gambling branch) approached Kardashian for an introduction to Simpson in the summer of 1993. This contact represented an immense and very modern professional sports betting ring with (800) phone numbers, off-shore banking, internet web sites, and every modern resource. It was their aim to build a clientele among very wealthy "high rollers." Through his affiliation with Hertz, Simpson routinely met such men -- corporate officers, other celebrities like himself, influential people in government,... So, a deal was concluded. When Simpson was playing golf with such men he would pass along an (800) phone number that would connect with a world-class virtual sports betting parlor. In exchange for new clients that he brought, Simpson would get a "finder's fee." It was like free money to Simpson ("off the books," and untaxed), and he considered that the arrangement was a real windfall for him, and it gave him a thrill to deal with actual underworld figures.

But, in the latter part of 1993 Simpson was in a state of reconciliation with his ex-wife, Nicole, and she got wind of his favors for the mob. She went ballistic. She recalled the furor over Pete Rose's betting with professional gamblers, and his downfall as a result. Rose had only been a customer of the mob, and Simpson's connection would undoubtedly bring worse public ostracism, if it was ever found out. Nicole saw the prospect that her gravy train was about to become derailed, and she prevailed on OJ to withdraw from his mob connection and denounce it to those he had already steered. The mob was VERY angry with this development and threatened Simpson. He demurred that it was not his fault, Nicole made him do it. That was not a good enough answer, but it did raise the specter that she could expose the operation, since she herself was not at risk. The mob threatened Nicole, but she was adamant. A deal was struck: Nicole, OJ, and Kardashian would keep quiet about OJ's previous affiliation with the mob, and the mob would let bygones be bygones. However, in the tense and frightening weeks leading up to this stand-off Nicole did confide about OJ's mob involvement, and the mob's threats on her own life, to one person -- her closest confidant at the time -- Cora Fischman.

DECEPTION: As sometimes happens in dealings with the mob, those people were less than forthright, and they let it be known to Kardashian that the understanding with the Simpsons was only a stop-gap. The mob had suffered loss of face with those that Simpson had denounced the mob to, and rumors were spreading through the sports betting community that the mob had knuckled under to Nicole and OJ. That was intolerable, and it was necessary to make an example of somebody to restore a sense of discipline among those the mob dealt with. The mob would be satisfied, they said, if Nicole were murdered, and they encouraged Kardashian to arrange such a thing himself. In this way, the ill-fated Wasz plot to murder Nicole came into being in January, 1994. But, by the end Nicole was still alive, Wasz was in jail, and there was a trail of circumstantial evidence (and Wasz' own story) to implicate Kardashian, OJ and Barbieri in a plot to murder Nicole. (It is possible that this result -- Nicole not actually being murdered in January -- was just what the mob wanted. It left in its wake circumstances with which Simpson could be intimidated later, when the actual murder occurred, and be kept quiet about the mob's involvement.) At that point, the mob told Kardashian they would take matters into their own hands. (See, "Handing Off the Problem," on our site, http://www.wagnerandson.com.)

www.wagnerandson.com

I just wish everyone would read this thoroughly not once or twice, but more if necessary. There is an awful lot he covered, including all his experiments to get to the truth.:rose:

[socaldiva]

so the blame is now off Faye Resnick?
:rolleyes:

It looks like it. Anyone but Orenthal. Now it's the mob. :D

[WarmNCozy]

It looks like it. Anyone but Orenthal. Now it's the mob. :D

Have you read this? http://www.wagnerandson.com


And I suppose you think the Warren Commission report to be fact?

[socaldiva]

Have you read this? http://www.wagnerandson.com


And I suppose you think the Warren Commission report to be fact?

Thanks, I've read all that I need to relative to that site.

I'm not going to go OT here & discuss the Warren Commission. It has no bearing on the Simpson case(s).

[WarmNCozy]

Thanks, I've read all that I need to relative to that site.

I'm not going to go OT here & discuss the Warren Commission. It has no bearing on the Simpson case(s).

Just seems to me the same people who believe OJ a murderer believe in the lone bullet!

[bobaugust]

tv
ok

his answer was he did not see the bronco because he was not looking for it and was looking for the house numbers.

when he left the rockingham driveway he was about 3 feet from the WHITE bronco parked on his right at the curb by the house numbers. He testified that the bronco was not there THEN even when the prosecution said it was.

It is like when he was parked at the Ashford gate, he said he saw TWO cars
parked inside the property in the driveway even thought M Clarke and the defense challanged him on the two cars he said he saw, he still said he saw two cars.there was only one car.the bently
imo
martin II

martin II, you are talking about completely different situations. When Park left Rockingham he was concentrating on an oncoming car to his right because he had to make a left hand turn. When the car went past he turned left and followed it. Park said he didn't pay any attention to parked vehicles to his right. He wasn't concerned about them.

When Park arrived at Rockingham he located Simpson's house by looking at the house numbers on the curb. If there was a large white Bronco parked right next to those house numbers he would have seen it. He testified he never saw it. After Park located Simpson's house he continued on and saw another street Ashford. He turned on Ashford and saw another entrance into Simpson's estate. Because he was so early he drove down a little ways, made a U-turn and parked opposite Simpson's Ashford gate and waited a while. About fifteen minutes later he got back in the limousine, drove back to Rockingham and pulled up to the Rockingham gate with his driver's side window looking down the Rockingham driveway. If the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers Park would have seen it. Park said that the way the cars were parked in the driveway and where the garage was it didn't look like it would be easy to make that turn with his limousine so he put the limousine in reverse and backed it up to Ashford, tuned left, and pulled up to the Ashford gate. Again if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers Park would have seen it. Park never saw any parked car next to Simpson's Rockingham gate.

The undisputed fact is that the Bronco was not parked on Rockingham when Allan Park arrived at about 10:25 P.M. or when he went back to that gate at about 10:39 P.M.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you are talking about completely different situations. When Park left Rockingham he was concentrating on an oncoming car to his right because he had to make a left hand turn. When the car went past he turned left and followed it. Park said he didn't pay any attention to parked vehicles to his right. He wasn't concerned about them.

When Park arrived at Rockingham he located Simpson's house by looking at the house numbers on the curb. If there was a large white Bronco parked right next to those house numbers he would have seen it. He testified he never saw it. After Park located Simpson's house he continued on and saw another street Ashford. He turned on Ashford and saw another entrance into Simpson's estate. Because he was so early he drove down a little ways, made a U-turn and parked opposite Simpson's Ashford gate and waited a while. About fifteen minutes later he got back in the limousine, drove back to Rockingham and pulled up to the Rockingham gate with his driver's side window looking down the Rockingham driveway. If the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers Park would have seen it. Park said that the way the cars were parked in the driveway and where the garage was it didn't look like it would be easy to make that turn with his limousine so he put the limousine in reverse and backed it up to Ashford, tuned left, and pulled up to the Ashford gate. Again if the Bronco was parked next to the house numbers Park would have seen it. Park never saw any parked car next to Simpson's Rockingham gate.

The undisputed fact is that the Bronco was not parked on Rockingham when Allan Park arrived at about 10:25 P.M. or when he went back to that gate at about 10:39 P.M.

bobaugust


bob

I know all about the scenerio of park at rockingham.
My point is that PARKS testimony is not to be believed on some issues.

he said he did not see the bronco because he was not looking for it.
He said he saw two cars when there was only one.
He said he did not see the bronco when he left rockingham because he was not looking for it BUT it was right in front of his sight.

So if he did not see the bronco when he left because he said he was not looking for it does not mean it was ot there because we know it was.

If he did not see the bronco when he arrived because he was not loking for it does not mean it was not there.

i believe Park was overly briefed by the prosecution and became confused as to what he was suppose to say.
imo
martin II
martin II

[martin II]

I just wish everyone would read this thoroughly not once or twice, but more if necessary. There is an awful lot he covered, including all his experiments to get to the truth.:rose:

warmn cozy
i think discussing wagners scenerio would be more beneficial here than tossing insults at posters because of different opinions.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

warmn cozy
i think discussing wagners scenerio would be more beneficial here than tossing insults at posters because of different opinions.

martin II

I think most have read wagner's theories. My question to the posters who buy into it is: If as the NG's say, orenthal was through with Nicole and had moved on with his life, why would the 'mob' believe that she had any influence over him?

[WarmNCozy]

warmn cozy
i think discussing wagners scenerio would be more beneficial here than tossing insults at posters because of different opinions.

martin II

Amen to that, Martin!:seeya:

[tvdinner]

Have you read this? http://www.wagnerandson.com


And I suppose you think the Warren Commission report to be fact? The theories on this site are full of non-existent characters, fabricated conversations and a warped timeline. There are a lot of things I find wrong in reading over it (again!) but I'll just pick one. Why on earth would Nicole be afraid that Simpson would suffer the same fate as Pete Rose for gambling? OJ Simpson was retired; Pete Rose was actively involved in baseball at the time he was gambling.

Pure hogwash and speculation.

[bobaugust]

bob

I know all about the scenerio of park at rockingham.
My point is that PARKS testimony is not to be believed on some issues.

he said he did not see the bronco because he was not looking for it.
He said he saw two cars when there was only one.
He said he did not see the bronco when he left rockingham because he was not looking for it BUT it was right in front of his sight.

So if he did not see the bronco when he left because he said he was not looking for it does not mean it was ot there because we know it was.

If he did not see the bronco when he arrived because he was not loking for it does not mean it was not there.

i believe Park was overly briefed by the prosecution and became confused as to what he was suppose to say.
imo
martin II
martin II

martin II, like I said these were entirely different situations. One had nothing to do with the other. If you can't understand this reality than the problem is yours and yours alone. Your reasoning is flawed and your opinion is wrong.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The theories on this site are full of non-existent characters, fabricated conversations and a warped timeline. There are a lot of things I find wrong in reading over it (again!) but I'll just pick one. Why on earth would Nicole be afraid that Simpson would suffer the same fate as Pete Rose for gambling? OJ Simpson was retired; Pete Rose was actively involved in baseball at the time he was gambling.

Pure hogwash and speculation.
tv
i think you missed wagners point.


I am sure you know sports gambling on mob run gambling sites are definately illegal.
NICOLE was suppose to have been afraid that if the gambling ring had been busted by the FBI and IRS oj would go to jail and her lifestyle would crumble.
That is why wagner says she pushed oj to quit.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

tv
i think you missed wagners point.


I am sure you know sports gambling on mob run gambling sites are definately illegal.
NICOLE was suppose to have been afraid that if the gambling ring had been busted by the FBI and IRS oj would go to jail and her lifestyle would crumble.
That is why wagner says she pushed oj to quit.

martin II

I continue to ask my question: If, as the NG's say, orenthal was through with Nicole and had moved on with his life, why would the 'mob' believe that she had any influence over him? We know that orenthal threatened her with the IRS so why would she have cared if IRS came after orenthal?

[martin II]

tv

oj played golf as various golfing events with high end men that would bet on sports sheets. oJ would give out the privatre 800 phone number to these men.
They use the number to make private bets and Oj is paid for his referrals of each gambler. This would be a very good profit business for the mob and oj.

It had nothing to do with OJ playing ball.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

tv

oj played golf as various golfing events with high end men that would bet on sports sheets. oJ would give out the privatre 800 phone number to these men.
They use the number to make private bets and Oj is paid for his referrals of each gambler. This would be a very good profit business for the mob and oj.

It had nothing to do with OJ playing ball.

martin II

and it had nothing to do with Nicole --

[martin II]

I continue to ask my question: If, as the NG's say, orenthal was through with Nicole and had moved on with his life, why would the 'mob' believe that she had any influence over him? We know that orenthal threatened her with the IRS so why would she have cared if IRS came after orenthal?

Weezer

try to stick to the subject
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Weezer

try to stick to the subject
martin II

LOL -- now you've hurt my feelings. I thought we were talking about who killed Nicole and you posted wagner's theory that it was the mob. So, which subject would you like for me to stick with? The 'mob' did it or the 'fbi' did it or 'columbian drug lords' did it?

[martin II]

Amen to that, Martin!:seeya:

you know i was not talking about you tossing insults right.

martin II

[martin II]

I continue to ask my question: If, as the NG's say, orenthal was through with Nicole and had moved on with his life, why would the 'mob' believe that she had any influence over him? We know that orenthal threatened her with the IRS so why would she have cared if IRS came after orenthal?

wagner says this happened in 1993 oj wrote nicole the leter in 1994 just before she wa killed.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

wagner says this happened in 1993 oj wrote nicole the leter in 1994 just before she wa killed.
martin II

they were divorced when wagner says this happened so what kind of impact do you think it was going to have on Nicole's life?

[martin II]

LOL -- now you've hurt my feelings. I thought we were talking about who killed Nicole and you posted wagner's theory that it was the mob. So, which subject would you like for me to stick with? The 'mob' did it or the 'fbi' did it or 'columbian drug lords' did it?

weezer

we were talking about the question tv asked about oj was not playing ball and why would the irs/fbi be concerned as they were when pete rose was playing and betting on sports.I was trying to give her a answer without confusing the issue by tossing a lot of other stuff. No one so far is arguing.
martin II

[martin II]

they were divorced when wagner says this happened so what kind of impact do you think it was going to have on Nicole's life?

they were divorced but still fooling around and trying to get back togeather.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

they were divorced but still fooling around and trying to get back togeather.
martin II

or so orenthal says -- ;)

[socaldiva]

you know i was not talking about you tossing insults right.

martin II

This belongs in a PM, NOT on the board. Didn't you just post for another poster to "stick to the subject", or words to that effect? :rolleyes:

[WarmNCozy]

you know i was not talking about you tossing insults right.

martin II
Right!:beer:

[socaldiva]

Right!:beer:


These little personal assessments belong in PM's, not here on the board :no:

[tvdinner]

tv
i think you missed wagners point.


I am sure you know sports gambling on mob run gambling sites are definately illegal.
NICOLE was suppose to have been afraid that if the gambling ring had been busted by the FBI and IRS oj would go to jail and her lifestyle would crumble.
That is why wagner says she pushed oj to quit.

martin III know what I read and the whole story is not believeable. Also, once again we have Nicole characterized as only being concerned with herself and her lifestyle. That was a very messy hit for the mob, by the way.

[martin II]

I know what I read and the whole story is not believeable. Also, once again we have Nicole characterized as only being concerned with herself and her lifestyle. That was a very messy hit for the mob, by the way.

tv
Did my above answer give you the answer to the question you asked?
martin II

[martin II]

I know what I read and the whole story is not believeable. Also, once again we have Nicole characterized as only being concerned with herself and her lifestyle. That was a very messy hit for the mob, by the way.

not really, considering a knife was used just as knife was used to cut the neck of the guy ron knew. Bret Cantor i think his name was. Killed in the same manner imo
martin II

[tvdinner]

tv
Did my above answer give you the answer to the question you asked?
martin IIMy question as to why Nicole would think Simpson would suffer the same fate as Pete Rose is answered. The answer is that she wouldn't. I think the whole theory is unbelievable. :)

[martin II]

My question as to why Nicole would think Simpson would suffer the same fate as Pete Rose is answered. The answer is that she wouldn't. I think the whole theory is unbelievable. :)

Many agree that Wagner conducted the most detailed investigation of this case and prevented his findings in a orderly and understandable report. He says it is based on the evidence and testmony given in the case.

I was not sure i belived his work until i read it the second time. as i go back to make referance to it more of what he says i believe in. Wagner did not seem to be BIASED as most of the other reports were.

At any rate i posted his scenerio looking for something to discuss to try to cut down on the
Jr high school type insults being made on the thread by others.
imo
martin II

[WarmNCozy]

Many agree that Wagner conducted the most detailed investigation of this case and prevented his findings in a orderly and understandable report. He says it is based on the evidence and testmony given in the case.

I was not sure i belived his work until i read it the second time. as i go back to make referance to it more of what he says i believe in. Wagner did not seem to be BIASED as most of the other reports were.

At any rate i posted his scenerio looking for something to discuss to try to cut down on the
Jr high school type insults being made on the thread by others.
imo
martin II

I happen to agree with you Martin having read this first in 2000 at a time when I was one of those who felt OJ got away with murder. After reading it the first time, I was amazed in its meticulous details and experiments. And then I asked myself, why would OJ kill Nicole and Ron -- it didn't make sense and it still doesn't. It didn't fit his profile then, nor now! Wagner's work is to be commended. I feel it is the only solution possible for these murders.

[fbgweezer]

I happen to agree with you Martin having read this first in 2000 at a time when I was one of those who felt OJ got away with murder. After reading it the first time, I was amazed in its meticulous details and experiments. And then I asked myself, why would OJ kill Nicole and Ron -- it didn't make sense and it still doesn't. It didn't fit his profile then, nor now! Wagner's work is to be commended. I feel it is the only solution possible for these murders.

orenthal is the typical abuser/sociopath -- he murdered Nicole when he could no longer in control her -- imo

[martin II]

I happen to agree with you Martin having read this first in 2000 at a time when I was one of those who felt OJ got away with murder. After reading it the first time, I was amazed in its meticulous details and experiments. And then I asked myself, why would OJ kill Nicole and Ron -- it didn't make sense and it still doesn't. It didn't fit his profile then, nor now! Wagner's work is to be commended. I feel it is the only solution possible for these murders.

warmncozy

I discounted some of wagner when first read it. But as i read more criminal trial testimony, flashes of wagenr kept comming back. I then did more comparisons of wagner and testimony and found that he was more logical than the prosecution. Wagner was not biased against either party. Which helps. In many ways he looked underneath what was believed to be the truth
from prosecution and defence witnesses.

His discription of how rom and Nicole were killed fits very well with their injuries.imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

warmncozy

I discounted some of wagner when first read it. But as i read more criminal trial testimony, flashes of wagenr kept comming back. I then did more comparisons of wagner and testimony and found that he was more logical than the prosecution. Wagner was not biased against either party. Which helps. In many ways he looked underneath what was believed to be the truth
from prosecution and defence witnesses.

His discription of how rom and Nicole were killed fits very well with their injuries.imo
martin II

except now we know from orenthal's written confession that he committed the murders. Case closed. imo

[William Anthony]

except now we know from orenthal's written confession that he committed the murders. Case closed. imo

Case reopened based on new evidence. Simpson wrote "If I Did It". Someone others wrote and changed the title to "I Did It".

[fbgweezer]

Case reopened based on new evidence. Simpson wrote "If I Did It". Someone others wrote and changed the title to "I Did It".

not one word, punctuation, scenario or title was changed from what orenthal wrote -- this is his confession and only his.

[William Anthony]

not one word, punctuation, scenario or title was changed from what orenthal wrote -- this is his confession and only his.

Then, if the title was not changed, this is not a confession but a scenario to a questionable hypothesis.

[fbgweezer]

Then, if the title was not changed, this is not a confession but a scenario to a questionable hypothesis.

it can be found in the non-fiction section -- that's where the 'true story' books are sold.

[martin II]

it can be found in the non-fiction section -- that's where the 'true story' books are sold.

weezer
if the tiotle of the book that oj signed off on was 'IF I DID IT" and the title of the goldman book is 'I DID IT' then the latter is not the words of oj simpson.

HC contracted for a book that was a hypothetical account by oj simpson. imo
a new book under a new title not approvred by oj with biased opinions added is not the book by oj.

imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer
if the tiotle of the book that oj signed off on was 'IF I DID IT" and the title of the goldman book is 'I DID IT' then the latter is not the words of oj simpson.

HC contracted for a book that was a hypothetical account by oj simpson. imo
a new book under a new title not approvred by oj with biased opinions added is not the book by oj.

imo
martin II

let me say this one more time: not one word, punctuation, scenario or title to orenthal's book has been changed. It can be purchased in the NON-FICTION section. The book was not contracted as a hypothetical account.

[martin II]

let me say this one more time: not one word, punctuation, scenario or title to orenthal's book has been changed. It can be purchased in the NON-FICTION section. The book was not contracted as a hypothetical account.

HC contracted for the book that they printed under contract with LBA and the title on the cover.
Any other book with any book cover and or title change or additions by anyone is not the book by oj simpson ragardless of what some would like to call it. imo
it does not work that way. imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

HC contracted for the book that they printed under contract with LBA and the title on the cover.
Any other book with any book cover and or title change or additions by anyone is not the book by oj simpson ragardless of what some would like to call it. imo
it does not work that way. imo
martin II

NOT one word, punctuation, scenario or title to the book written by orenthal was changed. the book can be found in the NON-FICTION section.

that's exactly how it works. imo

[martin II]

NOT one word, punctuation, scenario or title to the book written by orenthal was changed. the book can be found in the NON-FICTION section.

that's exactly how it works. imo

ok i see that the presentation of the title was changed where the if is very small and will be easily overlooked by most. But any book with any biased additions contrary to the
original workd of oj simpson is not a book by oj simpson.
period it is a book by fred goldman and his friends.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

weezer
i also noticed that oj's image has been removed from the cover of the book and that the cover represents that the book is by F Goldman with contributions by some others. The cover does not represent that the book is by oj simpson.I don't think the public will be fooled by this scheme to change what oj said in HIS book in word or intent.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

B&N
the book has slipped a little from #2 to #24 today.

martin ii

[fbgweezer]

weezer
i also noticed that oj's image has been removed from the cover of the book and that the cover represents that the book is by F Goldman with contributions by some others. The cover does not represent that the book is by oj simpson.I don't think the public will be fooled by this scheme to change what oj said in HIS book in word or intent.

imo
martin II

not one word, punctuation, scenario or title has been changed in the orenthal book. it can be found in the NON-FICTION section.

I found it listed as #23 on amazon and #2 on the New York Times Best Seller list in the NON-FICTION section.

[martin II]

weezer
i also noticed that oj's image has been removed from the cover of the book and that the cover represents that the book is by F Goldman with contributions by some others. The cover does not represent that the book is by oj simpson.I don't think the public will be fooled by this scheme to change what oj said in HIS book in word or intent.

imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer
i also noticed that oj's image has been removed from the cover of the book and that the cover represents that the book is by F Goldman with contributions by some others. The cover does not represent that the book is by oj simpson.I don't think the public will be fooled by this scheme to change what oj said in HIS book in word or intent.

imo
martin II

not one word, punctuation, scenario or title has been changed in the book orenthal wrote and now being published. it can be found in the NON-FICTION section.

[martin II]

not one word, punctuation, scenario or title has been changed in the book orenthal wrote and now being published. it can be found in the NON-FICTION section.

the book by oj simpson had never been sold to the public as hc cancelled distribution on his book.

There is a simular book being sold now and the cover says it is by fred goldman not oj.

martin II

[tvdinner]

the book by oj simpson had never been sold to the public as hc cancelled distribution on his book.

There is a simular book being sold now and the cover says it is by fred goldman not oj.

martin IINew Corp.discontinued the distribution not OJ Simpson.

[fbgweezer]

the book by oj simpson had never been sold to the public as hc cancelled distribution on his book.

There is a simular book being sold now and the cover says it is by fred goldman not oj.

martin II

not one word, punctuation, scenario or title has been changed in the book orenthal wrote and is now being published. it can be found in the NON-FICTION section.

[martin II]

New Corp.discontinued the distribution not OJ Simpson.

I have not said oj cancelled his book as the contract was between HC and LBA. The current book being sold is by Fred Goldman according to the jacket over the pages.

imo
martin II

[tvdinner]

I have not said oj cancelled his book as the contract was between HC and LBA. The current book being sold is by Fred Goldman according to the jacket over the pages.

imo
martin IIOkay, I see. I thought "hc" was "he". :)

[William Anthony]

not one word, punctuation, scenario or title has been changed in the book orenthal wrote and now being published. it can be found in the NON-FICTION section.

I guess that Goldman, as do so many others who wrote books, are entitled to categorize them as they see fit, even though informed people understand what they really are.

[fbgweezer]

I guess that Goldman, as do so many others who wrote books, are entitled to categorize them as they see fit, even though informed people understand what they really are.

Mr. Goldman didn't categorize the book -- orenthal did. And, you are right -- informed people recognize the book for what it is: an attempt to blame Nicole for his sociopathic/narcisstic character and a poor attempt to veil his confession as a 'hypothetical'. imo

[William Anthony]

Mr. Goldman didn't categorize the book -- orenthal did. And, you are right -- informed people recognize the book for what it is: an attempt to blame Nicole for his sociopathic/narcisstic character and a poor attempt to veil his confession as a 'hypothetical'. imo

Why fbgweezer,

You made the statement that nothing was changed and Simpson has vehemently denied that it was a confession. Ergo, after Goldman received the rights to the book and subsequent categorization of it as non-fiction was a change to the author's statement and, as such, a change in the author's intent. I think we have different opinions on this issue as usual.:)

[fbgweezer]

Why fbgweezer,

You made the statement that nothing was changed and Simpson has vehemently denied that it was a confession. Ergo, after Goldman received the rights to the book and subsequent categorization of it as non-fiction was a change to the author's statement and, as such, a change in the author's intent. I think we have different opinions on this issue as usual.:)

your post makes absolutely no sense! :shrug:

imo

[William Anthony]

your post makes absolutely no sense! :shrug:

imo

What makes no sense, imho, is trying to say that someone, who claimed the book was a work of fiction but lost the rights to the book, would then have his book turned into a work of non-fiction by the right's holder who claimed to know what was in the original author's mind when he wrote the book but was not present during the writing and to say that nothing was changed. :)
I do not believe Goldman has claimed to be clairvoyant.

[fbgweezer]

What makes no sense, imho, is trying to say that someone, who claimed the book was a work of fiction but lost the rights to the book, would then have his book turned into a work of non-fiction by the right's holder who claimed to know what was in the original author's mind when he wrote the book but was not present during the writing and to say that nothing was changed. :)
I do not believe Goldman has claimed to be clairvoyant.

orenthal never said the book was a 'work of fiction' -- he said he was telling his and Nicole's 'love story'. Oh, maybe you're saying the whole book is fiction?

[William Anthony]

orenthal never said the book was a 'work of fiction' -- he said he was telling his and Nicole's 'love story'. Oh, maybe you're saying the whole book is fiction?

As I recall, he did in fact deny that he committed the murders and that the book was a confession.

[fbgweezer]

As I recall, he did in fact deny that he committed the murders and that the book was a confession.

so what you're saying is that the whole book is fiction? or just the parts you don't agree with?

[William Anthony]

so what you're saying is that the whole book is fiction? or just the parts you don't agree with?

I am saying that the original author stated his intent and I am not clairvoyant and that some claim this was not his original intent and that classifying his book from fiction to non-fiction was not a change, because, imho, they must be clairvoyant. I think another trial is necessary to see, if there is evidence from which his original intent can be gleemed. It is similar to the statement, At the time I said I did not have sex with that woman, it was not sex in my mind. Was there an act of pejury or was the mindset of the speaker that his acts did not constitute haveing sex? I will leave that decision, which does not need to be addressed, to those who seemingly have clairvoyant powers and will only say that such a statement would be legally and pragmatically hard to prove as perjurous or a lie, imho.

[martin II]

orenthal never said the book was a 'work of fiction' -- he said he was telling his and Nicole's 'love story'. Oh, maybe you're saying the whole book is fiction?

I think his words were directed at the 'HOOK' chapter when he said it was hypothetical. The other part was his love story with Nicole.

Look, people using some common sense after reading that 'HOOK' chapter know quite well it was all BS with no provable facts as it was necessary to add something to the book to help generate sales.

One may want to twist and streatch this chapter into something that makes sense to them but this only indicates a inability to accept the facts of the book.

I think it is with a certain amount of arrogance that anyone would try to tell the public that this book is anything other than what oj has said it was and that it is NOW a book by fred.

ps
It had been reported that fred won the right to oj's IMAGE but i see he removed ojs picture from the cover. I wonder if he also had to remove oj s signature?

I doubt the public will be fooled by this hanky panky.

imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

I think his words were directed at the 'HOOK' chapter when he said it was hypothetical. The other part was his love story with Nicole.

Look, people using some common sense after reading that 'HOOK' chapter know quite well it was all BS with no provable facts as it was necessary to add something to the book to help generate sales.

One may want to twist and streatch this chapter into something that makes sense to them but this only indicates a inability to accept the facts of the book.

I think it is with a certain amount of arrogance that anyone would try to tell the public that this book is anything other than what oj has said it was and that it is NOW a book by fred.

ps
It had been reported that fred won the right to oj's IMAGE but i see he removed ojs picture from the cover. I wonder if he also had to remove oj s signature?

I doubt the public will be fooled by this hanky panky.

imo
martin II

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[martin II]

so what you're saying is that the whole book is fiction? or just the parts you don't agree with?

I doubt many people would agree that the 'HOOK' chapter has or was meant to have any truth to it at all. I think that the 'love story' is oj's account of their life togeather.
martin II

[martin II]

William
When HC signed the contract with LBA and paid oj. HC, Regan books, Fejventis (ghost writer) were all on board and keep their lips SIPPED tight
as they were all on board and had nothing negative to say about the book.

When HC cancelled the book everyone ran for cover. Regan came out with a long story about her personal abuse by some man. Claimed she was a unfair target of her boss. All for public consumption. Then Fejventis was uncovered as the ghost writer and he then strated making comments that he really was "kinda the ghost writer" but he only acted as a secretary to oj andn one of the words were his.
Although all of them were in on the 'SECRETE" project.They all blammed oj for everything when it all became public. It is my opinion that if fred had not attacked HC,Regan and exposed the project, all would have been very pleased if that book had been a big sale as they all would have made good money.

Now Fenjvis is trying to deny involvement, ragan is gone and HC considers it all a closed issue.

Oj now receives all the blame for the concept,the publishing, printing and marketing , payments and cancelling of the book. Everyone else says their hands are clean. Fejventis is to receive $300,000 for secretary work and is now giving tv interviews claiming he had nothing to do with the content and saying that he actually told oj that he did murder nicole and ron as he worked daily with oj to create the book.

If oj received 'BLOOD MONEY' so did fejventis fred and everyone else.

I think it is ok for some to believe oj was guilty in their minds but to switch blame to him for everyting in this venture just points to the level of bias against him.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I think it is ok for some to believe oj was guilty in their minds but to switch blame to him for everyting in this venture just points to the level of bias against him.


Yes, guilty of spousal abuse & a double homicide & a host of other appalling behavior that goes on & on to this very day. "biased against him"? Your adulation for him seems to have no bounds & you always seem to see him as the victim of each debacle he instigates.

[fbgweezer]

William
When HC signed the contract with LBA and paid oj. HC, Regan books, Fejventis (ghost writer) were all on board and keep their lips SIPPED tight
as they were all on board and had nothing negative to say about the book.

When HC cancelled the book everyone ran for cover. Regan came out with a long story about her personal abuse by some man. Claimed she was a unfair target of her boss. All for public consumption. Then Fejventis was uncovered as the ghost writer and he then strated making comments that he really was "kinda the ghost writer" but he only acted as a secretary to oj andn one of the words were his.
Although all of them were in on the 'SECRETE" project.They all blammed oj for everything when it all became public. It is my opinion that if fred had not attacked HC,Regan and exposed the project, all would have been very pleased if that book had been a big sale as they all would have made good money.

Now Fenjvis is trying to deny involvement, ragan is gone and HC considers it all a closed issue.

Oj now receives all the blame for the concept,the publishing, printing and marketing , payments and cancelling of the book. Everyone else says their hands are clean. Fejventis is to receive $300,000 for secretary work and is now giving tv interviews claiming he had nothing to do with the content and saying that he actually told oj that he did murder nicole and ron as he worked daily with oj to create the book.

If oj received 'BLOOD MONEY' so did fejventis fred and everyone else.

I think it is ok for some to believe oj was guilty in their minds but to switch blame to him for everyting in this venture just points to the level of bias against him.
imo
martin II

for pete's sake -- please, please check your posts before you submit! :punch: