Othellean Syndrome

[Big Ben]

I often wonder, was Shakespeare keenly aware of a delicate issue of race, and racial politique, during the 16th and early 17th century England to know the impact that a fictional account of a victorious Black general, and his alleged fatal, yet fanatical infatuation with a White woman would have on that general population.

Further, would his contemporaries of today's America intentionally promulgate a similiar tale, knowing the proclivity of the masses to become enveloped, again, in fascination and debate of a purely fabricated saga, namely "The Trial of the Century" as a result of a similiar racial politique.

In other words is racial politique the common denominator in both eras, then and now?

[socaldiva]

:confused: I don't think race has anything to do with it :shrug:

[tvdinner]

I often wonder, was Shakespeare keenly aware of a delicate issue of race, and racial politique, during the 16th and early 17th century England to know the impact that a fictional account of a victorious Black general, and his alleged fatal, yet fanatical infatuation with a White woman would have on that general population.

Further, would his contemporaries of today's America intentionally promulgate a similiar tale, knowing the proclivity of the masses to become enveloped, again, in fascination and debate of a purely fabricated saga, namely "The Trial of the Century" as a result of a similiar racial politique.

In other words is racial politique the common denominator in both eras, then and now?The answer to that is no. You can't make OJ Simpson out to be the tragic hero of a Shakespearian-style drama. He's simply a thug with money.

Race was only made an issue in the criminal trial because that was the only way to defend OJ Simpson with any hope of success. Celebrity and class issues were much more relevant to the murders and subsequent trial.

[Big Ben]

:confused: I don't think race has anything to do with it :shrug:

Why this great fascination with everything Simpson? A star well past his shining glory. How did he deserve 12 months of hour by hour coverage?
Spector didn't! McVeigh didn't! Blake didn't! Shatner didn't! Even Osama didn't. Only O.J., and that is a fascinating observation to people around the world, a society preoccupied with one man.

It's almost like OJ gives America that needed boost to get back in the fight when facing a losing battle. "If we can't win here, pull out OJ. If we can't win there, pull out OJ."


I think that our shyness prevents us from examining the reality that it is this subliminal fascination with race that has brought us to this point.

[Big Ben]

You can't make OJ Simpson out to be the tragic hero of a Shakespearian-style drama.

I wasn't trying to.

The tragedy,to me,appears to be a predetermined belief that America is manipulable given an embarrassingly simplistic theory that a Black man will become blindly enraged at the thought of losing a White woman. That with no further regard, would kill her, the mother of his children and then throw the incriminating glove into his own back yard and his blood splattered socks onto his pristine bedroom rug.

Something is wrong with that picture.

[tvdinner]

I wasn't trying to.

The tragedy,to me,appears to be a predetermined belief that America is manipulable given an embarrassingly simplistic theory that a Black man will become blindly enraged at the thought of losing a White woman. That with no further regard, would kill her, the mother of his children and then throw the incriminating glove into his own back yard and his blood splattered socks onto his pristine bedroom rug.

Something is wrong with that picture.The only time I even think about OJ Simpson being black is when someone like you mentions it. This case is about a man, who happens to be a celebrity, becoming enraged enough to kill his ex-wife and her friend while his children slept close by.

Believe it or not, white people don't get up every morning thinking of how they can frame an innocent black person for a crime they didn't commit. OJ Simpson isn't the only person, black or white, to gain attention in this way.

OJ Simpson was once a beloved athlete and celebrity. We felt we knew him personally due to his charismatic personality and his appearances in movies and commericials. McVeigh was a reviled person, Spector is weird, Osama is an evil terrorist. OJ Simpson was one of us, a beloved and talented icon at one time in this country. I'm sorry to tell you that I have no subliminal fascination with race. I believe you are the one that is fixated on race.

Shatner? As in William Shatner? Am I missing something?:confused:

[tvdinner]

:confused: I don't think race has anything to do with it :shrug:It doesn't. It's just another attempt at blaming others for the misfortune that OJ Simpson has brought to his own life and the lives of so many around him.

Wasn't a race thread removed from this board some time before I joined? If that's the case I think I'll shut up now. :chicken: :D

[Nickclone]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

[fbgweezer]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

oh my -- :eek:

[Bailey Boys]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

Wow! Don't think I'm in Kanasa no more..:eek:

[martin II]

The answer to that is no. You can't make OJ Simpson out to be the tragic hero of a Shakespearian-style drama. He's simply a thug with money.

Race was only made an issue in the criminal trial because that was the only way to defend OJ Simpson with any hope of success. Celebrity and class issues were much more relevant to the murders and subsequent trial.

tv
i believe race became a issue for the Armerican public before Furhman and the tapes.The tapes just added to the issue of race for some.

I point again to the cnn polls BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED which showed about 85% of whites believed he was guilty.
This belief came from someplace other than trial testimony/evidence.
Why was this?

PS. The Phil Spector case was just as horrible of death for that woman as the nicole's murder. Wonder why that case did not receive the 24/7 coverage that oj's case did by the media? Now His jury seems to be deadlocked and there may be a mistrial. Wonder why the media has decided from the beginning that this case did not warrant the same coverage as oj?

There must be a reason. right?

martin II

[martin II]

It doesn't. It's just another attempt at blaming others for the misfortune that OJ Simpson has brought to his own life and the lives of so many around him.

Wasn't a race thread removed from this board some time before I joined? If that's the case I think I'll shut up now. :chicken: :D

tv
there was a thread called something like "RACE IN THE CJS" it was set up because race was discussed on other threads. It stayed up for some time but some posters complained about it and the moderator deleted it for some reason. It seems that some decided that race was not a problem in the cjs.

imo

martin II

[martin II]

TV

Here is a comment on the issue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dyson.html

Many white people believed: "Look, we're going to show you that we are trusting, and we have reached a high plateau in race relations. We're going to treat O.J. like we treat any other white person in America. If he's guilty, we're going to send him to jail; if he's innocent, we'll let him go." So he was the ideal person to bring out these contrasting viewpoints, but it all broke down.

Broke down how?

Well, it broke down because O.J. refused to follow suit, and black America refused to follow the script, and white America then saw that all bets were off.

O.J. refused to follow through because he claimed his blackness again in a way that was troubling to many white Americans: "Wait a minute, O.J. You haven't talked about blackness in our circles for years, indeed for decades. You've never made us feel uncomfortable about the issue of race. All of a sudden now you're claiming your allegiance to black people. You're identifying publicly with black people."

Black people themselves had to squeeze and squirm. They had to re-inscribe O.J. into the black narrative. They had to baptize him again into the community; they had to accept him. Black people are typically, if you're willing to say you're sorry, always [willing to welcome you back] with open arms: "Come on back home, Michael Jackson. Come on back home, Kobe Bryant. Come on back home, O.J. Simpson."

And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal.

[Big Ben]

The only time I even think about OJ Simpson being black is when someone like you mentions it.

TV, that's a good line, but very difficult to believe given the psychic images promulgated of Black males today in the media, albeit many don't help their own cause by doing something stupid to place themselves in the bullseye. I can't put my finger on one Black male celebrity immediately that has not become the preoccupation of the media for some act of negativity. I would think that the flood of negativity would have a subliminal effect on most people as to their predetermined disposition regarding Black males.

It appears that the media writers can't avoid the titillation of being voyeurs on Black male celebrities' activities. I admit, I am curious as to the imbalance. With all of the dysfunctional White folk in America, with an 8:1 ratio over Blacks, you mean to tell me that no one is worthy of excoriation by the media on a regular basis.

Shatner? As in William Shatner? Am I missing something?:confused:

TV, I mentioned Shatner because there was never any question raised as to other possible causes of his wife's death. What was offered, in the midst of Shatner's tears, was unquestionably accepted. Its my personal bias but he has always appeared to me to be an unusual character since his weight and nose ballooned over his post Star Trek years. I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol has played a significant role in his life, as it was lleged to have been in the life of his deceased wife.

Your argument that subliminal messaging doesn't impact you in the Simpson matter is also unbelievable. A great many people in this country could not give you the name of the guy who bombed the OKLA City Federal Bldg. And most couldn't tell you the name of his co-defendant who received the same sentence as the now deceased perpetrator received. But let the TV display a White Bronco cruising along! And guess what!

[Kate Sachel]

I wasn't trying to.

The tragedy,to me,appears to be a predetermined belief that America is manipulable given an embarrassingly simplistic theory that a Black man will become blindly enraged at the thought of losing a White woman. That with no further regard, would kill her, the mother of his children and then throw the incriminating glove into his own back yard and his blood splattered socks onto his pristine bedroom rug.

Something is wrong with that picture.

The reality is that women lose their lives everyday in America as a result of men who become blindly enraged at the thought of losing them.

What I find embarassing is the fact that so many people routinely ignore that fact.

Kate

[fbgweezer]

TV, that's a good line, but very difficult to believe given the psychic images promulgated of Black males today in the media, albeit many don't help their own cause by doing something stupid to place themselves in the bullseye. I can't put my finger on one Black male celebrity immediately that has not become the preoccupation of the media for some act of negativity. I would think that the flood of negativity would have a subliminal effect on most people as to their predetermined disposition regarding Black males.

It appears that the media writers can't avoid the titillation of being voyeurs on Black male celebrities' activities. I admit, I am curious as to the imbalance. With all of the dysfunctional White folk in America, with an 8:1 ratio over Blacks, you mean to tell me that no one is worthy of excoriation by the media on a regular basis.



TV, I mentioned Shatner because there was never any question raised as to other possible causes of his wife's death. What was offered, in the midst of Shatner's tears, was unquestionably accepted. Its my personal bias but he has always appeared to me to be an unusual character since his weight and nose ballooned over his post Star Trek years. I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol has played a significant role in his life, as it was lleged to have been in the life of his deceased wife.

Your argument that subliminal messaging doesn't impact you in the Simpson matter is also unbelievable. A great many people in this country could not give you the name of the guy who bombed the OKLA City Federal Bldg. And most couldn't tell you the name of his co-defendant who received the same sentence as the now deceased perpetrator received. But let the TV display a White Bronco cruising along! And guess what!

Dude -- you need to back away from the keyboard! :tongue:

[Kate Sachel]

To think this isn't about race is assanine! The trial had nothing to do with it, OJ was all over the news before the trial or even his arrest. He was painted a villain by the media and whites ate it all up. The police also did everything in their power to make him guilty instead of finding the guilty party...did they even have any other suspects?

I don't think he was framed for the murders, I honestly believe OJ and the police had nothing to do with the deaths. However, I do think that the LAPD went out of their way to make Simpson guilty.

I suppose if anyone else's blood had been found at the scene they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had threatened her days prior to her death they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had beaten her previously they may have had other suspects.

If you don't believe that he was framed, then you believe that his blood was on Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then you believe his blood was all over the crime scene, then you believe Ron and Nicole's blood was in his Bronco, then you believe that Nicole's blood was on his socks in his bedroom, then you believe that the "murder glove" was on his property, etc. And if you believe all of that then how can you tell me that you find OJ innocent?

Kate

[tvdinner]

Dude -- you need to back away from the keyboard! :tongue:Yes, he needs to back away very slowly! He's managed to drag William Shatner into this. Amazing. :eek:

[tvdinner]

Dude -- you need to back away from the keyboard! :tongue:He needs to back away very slowly. I don't know how he's made this leap from OJ Simpson to William Shatner. It's scary. I think it's all about taking the attention off of Simpson's guilt with nonsense.

[tvdinner]

I suppose if anyone else's blood had been found at the scene they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had threatened her days prior to her death they may have had other suspects. I suppose if someone other than Simpson had beaten her previously they may have had other suspects.

If you don't believe that he was framed, then you believe that his blood was on Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then you believe his blood was all over the crime scene, then you believe Ron and Nicole's blood was in his Bronco, then you believe that Nicole's blood was on his socks in his bedroom, then you believe that the "murder glove" was on his property, etc. And if you believe all of that then how can you tell me that you find OJ innocent?

KateI'm really interested in Nicklone's answer. I don't see how you can have it both ways.

[Big Ben]

The reality is that women lose their lives everyday in America as a result of men who become blindly enraged at the thought of losing them.

What I find embarassing is the fact that so many people routinely ignore that fact.

Kate

You are absolutely right, Kate, except that in this case, strangely, there is so much contradictory evidence that was surrepticiously concealed from the jury and now you, the general public. That's the problem that I have with this case versus other similiar cases for which you speak. This case seems to have been intentionally manipulated to create the resulting outcome, i.e. this prolonged debate.

[Kate Sachel]

You are absolutely right, Kate, except that in this case, strangely, there is so much contradictory evidence that was surrepticiously concealed from the jury and now you, the general public. That's the problem that I have with this case versus other similiar cases for which you speak. This case seems to have been intentionally manipulated to create the resulting outcome, i.e. this prolonged debate.

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate

[Heyes]

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate


Yup I'm with TVdinner, He's just a thug with money!
AND....... Why do these posters assume that all of us that believe this thug needs to be locked up are white? Dude needs a reality check!

[Big Ben]

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate

If the issue of suppressed and concealed evidence were not involved, I don't think that you would have the perception of racial animus as your apparent sense of paranoia appears to suggest. The fact that you have concluded, with very sketchy evidence, that racial hatred is a motive here, appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend what has possibly been orchestrated intentionally to bring you to such conclusions relative to this OJ matter.

My thread was entitled "Othellean Syndrome" and I believe, not unlike Dominic Dunne, in his Vanity Fair article, that this whole affair has the appearance of a Shakespearean fictional plot. That is, however, about as much as we do mutually agree upon, but nevertheless, it is a start.

I'm certainly not blinded by a perception that a Black man has been wrongly accused. Nor do I have any reservation about the fact that Black men, as well as White, are involved in domestic abuse. For me, it would be a simple matter of fact, if so much of the crucial evidence was not in conflict with itself. However, it so happens that it is, and that makes your leap to conclusions based upon non-related events ever more troubling when examining the psychological well being of basic logic in greater Americana, today.

[socaldiva]

The resulting outcome is from, I believe, individuals who have a tendency to overlook the actual simplicity to purposely turn it into a forum of racial hatred.

Kate


I couldn't agree with you more :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

Hopefully this thread will sink down to the bottom soon & then disappear....

[WarmNCozy]

I often wonder, was Shakespeare keenly aware of a delicate issue of race, and racial politique, during the 16th and early 17th century England to know the impact that a fictional account of a victorious Black general, and his alleged fatal, yet fanatical infatuation with a White woman would have on that general population.

Further, would his contemporaries of today's America intentionally promulgate a similiar tale, knowing the proclivity of the masses to become enveloped, again, in fascination and debate of a purely fabricated saga, namely "The Trial of the Century" as a result of a similiar racial politique.

In other words is racial politique the common denominator in both eras, then and now?

The plot in Shakespeare's play, Othello, does not resemble "The Trial of the Century" in my opinion. OJ and Nicole were finished with each other romantically. Othello's actions were predicated by the tormenting by his so called friend about her loyalty and virtue.

[WarmNCozy]

Why this great fascination with everything Simpson? A star well past his shining glory. How did he deserve 12 months of hour by hour coverage?
Spector didn't! McVeigh didn't! Blake didn't! Shatner didn't! Even Osama didn't. Only O.J., and that is a fascinating observation to people around the world, a society preoccupied with one man.

It's almost like OJ gives America that needed boost to get back in the fight when facing a losing battle. "If we can't win here, pull out OJ. If we can't win there, pull out OJ."


I think that our shyness prevents us from examining the reality that it is this subliminal fascination with race that has brought us to this point.

Race? What has race to do with the fascination of OJ? Do you remember the OJ before all of this? First of all his rise from nothing to a super star on the football field, Hall of Fame, Heismann Trophy. Then the Hertz commercials, orange juice commercials, and playing a totally ridiculous character in the Naked Gun series! He always had a smile on his face before and after the trial. People liked him a lot! And a great many still do!

He must have gotten slammed in the head too many times on the football field to get involved in this latest fiasco!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
People liked him a lot! And a great many still do!



Ted Bundy, Charles Manson & Scott Peterson got/get marriage proposals! but the vast majority despise them for the killers they are (Simpson included).

[WarmNCozy]

Ted Bundy, Charles Manson & Scott Peterson got/get marriage proposals! but the vast majority despise them for the killers they are (Simpson included).

Simpson didn't kill anyone! Where do you get all that from?http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif

[socaldiva]

Simpson didn't kill anyone! Where do you get all that from?http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif

I think it was the murder scene, where Orenthal left his blood, glove, hat & fibers :rolleyes: :seeya:

[WarmNCozy]

I think it was the murder scene, where Orenthal left his blood, glove, hat & fibers :rolleyes: :seeya:

read http://www.wagnerandson.com

[Big Ben]

The plot in Shakespeare's play, Othello, does not resemble "The Trial of the Century" in my opinion. OJ and Nicole were finished with each other romantically. Othello's actions were predicated on the tormenting by his so called friend about her loyalty and virtue.

In other words, the fictional Moor's actions were predicated on the lies that were told, by Iago, taking advantage of his knowledge of the Moor's weakness, his fanatical infatuation with Desdemona, by implying that her fidelity towards Othello was no longer there.

It is a fact, that the argument that the (Iago) prosecution used, to befuddle the American public, was based upon an alleged fanatical infatuation on the part of Simpson with his wife Nicole, as the basis for the ferocity of this unbridled brutish and fatal attack.

The purveyors of deception knew the proclivity of the American insatiable appetite for voyeurism, as did Shakespeare the European, that the interest in what would normally be a mundane story is heightened by the cross cultural affiliation between two historically diametrically perceived races. In regard to America, it has deepened the curiosity, while reinforcing the apparent false indictment against O.J. Simpson.

This story, as told by the (Iagos) of the prosecution and abbetted by electronic media, would stand if not for certain salient observtions that appear to have been, intentionally concealed and suppressed by officers of the court and/or abscounded with by minions of deceit from O.J. Simpson's criminal file.

[WarmNCozy]

It is a fact, that the argument that the (Iago) prosecution used, to befuddle the American public, was based upon an alleged fanatical infatuation on the part of Simpson with his wife Nicole, as the basis for the ferocity of this unbridled brutish and fatal attack.



Oh, please! Do you not remember IBM's Motto -- KISS -- Keep it simple stupid!

Brutish and fatal attack????? The guy is innocent!

Why are you playing the race card?

[Heyes]

Ted Bundy, Charles Manson & Scott Peterson got/get marriage proposals! but the vast majority despise them for the killers they are (Simpson included).


Well as you witnessed today at the press conference that lasted longer than the hearing. :rolleyes:
We got to see first hand the killers "fans".
There were chicken suits and wingnuts.
Need I say more?

[socaldiva]

Well as you witnessed today at the press conference that lasted longer than the hearing. :rolleyes:
We got to see first hand the killers "fans".
There were chicken suits and wingnuts.
Need I say more?

Yes, I saw some of his "fans". They seemed to be as unbalanced as he is. Big surprise. :D

[Heyes]

Yes, I saw some of his "fans". They seemed to be as unbalanced as he is. Big surprise. :D


Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
:D
The guy that was Yales little buddy,( give me five dude),
now that was hysterical. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[socaldiva]

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
:D
The guy that was Yales little buddy,( give me five dude),
now that was hysterical. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Yeah, the high five dude that was blowing bubbles with his gum seemed to be missing a few teeth as well. What a fanbase :D

Did anyone else see Galanter blow a fuse last night with Greta? He's getting to be just as arrogant & nasty as Orenthal. He actually said "Is there any human being on this planet that doesn't know I'm OJ's lawyer"?

[Big Ben]

Oh, please! Do you not remember IBM's Motto -- KISS -- Keep it simple stupid!

Brutish and fatal attack????? The guy is innocent!

Why are you playing the race card?

What race card are you speaking of? I need to better understand your pressumption. I certainly have not intended to disturb anyone's delicate sensitivity relative to race, but to ignore the possibility that it was a factor in promulgating this judicial chirade would, in my opinion, be unrealistic.

I started this thread to hopefully explore deeper into this convoluted preoccupation that has even the most powerful media institutions, probably in the world, so preoccupied with this man, OJ Simpson, to the extent that its' coverage overshadows every other major news worthy event.

My position is well known, and only creates a standoff, that:

1.) The actual phone records, if ever produced, will undoubtedly place Simpson in the airport or on a plane when his wife was alive talking on an 11:00 PM phone call with her mother.

2.) There were other mitigating issues that should have been explored and divulged relative to this case, namely Ron Goldman's extensive criminal record, and its protection under Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 6254, "The Confidential Informant or Snitch Protection" law, and its' implication relative to this case.

3.) The apparent cover up by FBI agents regarding their stated knowledge of a common shoe sole found on 19 different brands of shoes besides the brand, Bruno Magli, that they allege created the bloody shoeprints at Bundy.

In short the American media fascination with OJ Simpson appears to suck all of the oxygen out of the news atmosphere. I am exploring with fascination the reasons why. If you want to KISS, there are several other threads that it appears do just that, and would likely accomodate your wishes.

I would advise that you go there, if this one is too heavy for you to appreciate.

[Kate Sachel]

If the issue of suppressed and concealed evidence were not involved, I don't think that you would have the perception of racial animus as your apparent sense of paranoia appears to suggest. The fact that you have concluded, with very sketchy evidence, that racial hatred is a motive here, appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend what has possibly been orchestrated intentionally to bring you to such conclusions relative to this OJ matter.

My thread was entitled "Othellean Syndrome" and I believe, not unlike Dominic Dunne, in his Vanity Fair article, that this whole affair has the appearance of a Shakespearean fictional plot. That is, however, about as much as we do mutually agree upon, but nevertheless, it is a start.

I'm certainly not blinded by a perception that a Black man has been wrongly accused. Nor do I have any reservation about the fact that Black men, as well as White, are involved in domestic abuse. For me, it would be a simple matter of fact, if so much of the crucial evidence was not in conflict with itself. However, it so happens that it is, and that makes your leap to conclusions based upon non-related events ever more troubling when examining the psychological well being of basic logic in greater Americana, today.

I appear to have a sense of paranoia because I believe that race was injected unfairly into a scenario that's as simple and as old as time? I think you're trying to make a circle fit into a square and I believe that appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend the fact that this case garners such strong opinions and debates because of the fact that many feel that justice was not served in one of the worst ways possible, which is 12 people attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time.

Kate

[Big Ben]

I appear to have a sense of paranoia because I believe that race was injected unfairly into a scenario that's as simple and as old as time? I think you're trying to make a circle fit into a square and I believe that appears to strongly affirm your limitation to comprehend the fact that this case garners such strong opinions and debates because of the fact that many feel that justice was not served in one of the worst ways possible, which is 12 people attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time.

Kate

Kate,

What is "as simple and as old as time"?

What jurors, which I assume that you are talking about, expressed to you or anyone else that they "were attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time?"

It appears that justice was intentionally usurped, to produce this very outcome of animosity, through intentional malfeasance based upon the conclusions that we have derived from the investigation that I have been deeply involved with.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

What is "as simple and as old as time"?

What jurors, which I assume that you are talking about, expressed to you or anyone else that they "were attempting to even the scales of racial wrongs that have occurred since the beginning of time?"

It appears that justice was intentionally usurped, to produce this very outcome of animosity, through intentional malfeasance based upon the conclusions that we have derived from the investigation that I have been deeply involved with.

What is as simple and as old as time is the man that kills the women he no longer has control over.

We are going to run into trouble if you'd like to begin suggesting that I claimed any juror expressed that sentiment to myself or another. My post reads that "many people feel" that was their agenda.

I have stated before, and for your sake once again, that I agree with the verdict of the jurors even though I also believe Simpson to be a murderer.

Kate

[bobaugust]

What is as old as time, Kate, is supplantation. In the bible Jacob, with the encouragement of his mother, supplanted false evidence in order to mislead his father with an intentionally fraudulent scheme of deception.

This is no different than the suppression of evidence, of the crucial Brown telephone records, that the defense and prosecution mutually concealed to deceive the American public. I've posted this Youtube excerpt from 'Serpents Rising' to show you the act of deception perpetrated on you, and as well the broader American public.

www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo


Furthermore, I never claimed anything in regard to you. I was simply wondering how you reached your conclusion.

My question again is what remarks has the jury stated publicly that has given you or those that you identify as "many people feel" that retribution for police misconduct or any other reason was the jury's agenda.

Even without the new evidence that our ongoing investigation has discovered and attempted to reveal since 1996, the jury simply could have been hampered by the real issue of reasonable doubt.

Big Ben, the only deception being perpetrated here is by you. You have dishonestly edited what was said in the court on July 6, 1995 by not only taking selected sentences, some even partial sentences, spoken by Clark and Cochran out of context but you even changed the order that those sentences were said in. And then you claim that Clark and Cochran were perpetrating a deception. I 'm sorry to say your Serpents Rising tape is a fraud. Any one who reads the transcript of the proceedings on July 6, 1995 will be able to see that for themselves.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, the only deception being perpetrated here is by you. You have dishonestly edited what was said in the court on July 6, 1995 by not only taking selected sentences, some even partial sentences, spoken by Clark and Cochran out of context but you even changed the order that those sentences were said in. And then you claim that Clark and Cochran were perpetrating a deception. I 'm sorry to say your Serpents Rising tape is a fraud. Any one who reads the transcript of the proceedings on July 6, 1995 will be able to see that for themselves.

bobaugust

Well, august, why don't you explain the context of Mr. Cochran's remarks.

Most people that have seen the video excerpt, rather than your proposition of just reading the transcript, are genuinely perplexed regarding Mr. Cochran's intention.

It appears to most that Cochran is pleading with Judge Ito to acknowledge the need for fair exchange, or quid pro quo, in his 352 argument regarding the prejudicial impact versus the probative value of allowing the jury to see the bloody murder photos.

But I'm waiting with baited breath to hear your explanation of why Cochran has reminded the Judge that they all agreed not to show the jury the telephone bills.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* ". . .But I'm waiting with baited breath. . ."

ewww -- I'm guessing you really meant 'bated' -- LOL

[bobaugust]

Well, august, why don't you explain the context of Mr. Cochran's remarks.

Most people that have seen the video excerpt, rather than your proposition of just reading the transcript, are genuinely perplexed regarding Mr. Cochran's intention.

It appears to most that Cochran is pleading with Judge Ito to acknowledge the need for fair exchange, or quid pro quo, in his 352 argument regarding the prejudicial impact versus the probative value of allowing the jury to see the bloody murder photos.

But I'm waiting with baited breath to hear your explanation of why Cochran has reminded the Judge that they all agreed not to show the jury the telephone bills.

Big Ben, of course some people might be perplexed. You cut and edited conversations to make it sound like you wanted it to sound not as it was actually said. Cochran's intent was to start the defense case. Cochran had already agreed to accept the stipulations Clark would offer and he didn't want Clark to show the photographs of the victims to the jury again. He said he wasn't going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point or "show them anything with regard to telephone bills," He didn't specifically refer to Juditha Brown's telephone bills. I don't recall any telephone bills being shown directly to the jury, not Simpson's, not Kaelin's, not Park's, not Pilnak's, except on an exhibit, or on the elmo.

(Cochran said in the partial portion on your tape)
"I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever."

(Cochran continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
"So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it."

THE COURT: People.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to showing the jury the photographs we stipulate to, how are they going to understand what the stipulations mean or refer to if we don't? With respect to telephone records, that's self explanatory. Photographs is a different matter.

(The partial portion you used out of order on your tape putting it before, not after Cochran's statement)
And if we can't show them to the jury and we're entering a dry stipulation, when it comes time for them to look at the exhibits, they're not going to have any recollection at all

(Clark continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
to the fact that--to what is descriptive in the stipulation concerning the change in circumstances with respect to one and the condition that is specifically referred to in these photographs, which is the key point of this stipulation in the other. So--

The conversation continued regarding the photographs and then regarding the stipulations. The jury was called back in and Clark offered the following stipulations:
A stipulation with respect to Juditha Brown's testimony.
A stipulation regarding the telephone records including those marked as exhibits for Simpson.
First for Simpson's complete GTE telephone Bill dated June 25, 1994
Second for Juditha Brown's complete GTE telephone Bill dated July 4, 1994
A stipulation for coroner photographs contained in People's 354 showing the body of Nicole Brown Simpson.
And for coroner photographs contained in Peoples 358-B showing the body of Ron Goldman.
And for photographs on People's exhibit 359 showing the bodies as they were found at Bundy.

Cochran agreed to all of the Stipulations.

And then the People rested.

bobaugust

[tvdinner]

Big Ben, of course some people might be perplexed. You cut and edited conversations to make it sound like you wanted it to sound not as it was actually said. Cochran's intent was to start the defense case. Cochran had already agreed to accept the stipulations Clark would offer and he didn't want Clark to show the photographs of the victims to the jury again. He said he wasn't going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point or "show them anything with regard to telephone bills," He didn't specifically refer to Juditha Brown's telephone bills. I don't recall any telephone bills being shown directly to the jury, not Simpson's, not Kaelin's, not Park's, not Pilnak's, except on an exhibit, or on the elmo.

(Cochran said in the partial portion on your tape)
"I also would object further--I don't think the jury needs to see these again. They've seen these photographs before. I see no reason for that at this point. We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever."

(Cochran continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
"So I think at this point of the case, we're now wrapping the case up, we expect the People to rest, and so I would submit it."

THE COURT: People.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to showing the jury the photographs we stipulate to, how are they going to understand what the stipulations mean or refer to if we don't? With respect to telephone records, that's self explanatory. Photographs is a different matter.

(The partial portion you used out of order on your tape putting it before, not after Cochran's statement)
And if we can't show them to the jury and we're entering a dry stipulation, when it comes time for them to look at the exhibits, they're not going to have any recollection at all

(Clark continued with the portion you did not put on your tape)
to the fact that--to what is descriptive in the stipulation concerning the change in circumstances with respect to one and the condition that is specifically referred to in these photographs, which is the key point of this stipulation in the other. So--

The conversation continued regarding the photographs and then regarding the stipulations. The jury was called back in and Clark offered the following stipulations:
A stipulation with respect to Juditha Brown's testimony.
A stipulation regarding the telephone records including those marked as exhibits for Simpson.
First for Simpson's complete GTE telephone Bill dated June 25, 1994
Second for Juditha Brown's complete GTE telephone Bill dated July 4, 1994
A stipulation for coroner photographs contained in People's 354 showing the body of Nicole Brown Simpson.
And for coroner photographs contained in Peoples 358-B showing the body of Ron Goldman.
And for photographs on People's exhibit 359 showing the bodies as they were found at Bundy.

Cochran agreed to all of the Stipulations.

And then the People rested.

bobaugustThanks for making this clear, bobaugust. That's something I've noticed some people doing on this forum -- posting things out of context and out of order to bolster their position. :)

[Big Ben]

ewww -- I'm guessing you really meant 'bated' -- LOL

LOL-OOPS! Thanks Weezer

[Big Ben]

Cochran's intent was to start the defense case. Cochran had already agreed to accept the stipulations Clark would offer and he didn't want Clark to show the photographs of the victims to the jury again. He said he wasn't going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point or "show them anything with regard to telephone bills," He didn't specifically refer to Juditha Brown's telephone bills.



Nice try, bob!

You have conveniently deleted the flavor of the passionate argument that was being made by Cochran, a lengthy argument that, may I remind you, Cochran demanded to have.

I see that you've conveniently overlooked a few salient remarks that constituted the flavor of the lengthy argument.

1.) Cochran stated that before he would accept the stipulations he wanted to be further heard in regard to another 352 argument he was prepared to offer the court,(mind you the jury was out).

This flies in the face of your implication that Cochran was eager to move on with the trial. He wasn't that eager to accept the stipulations unless those bloody photos were not going to be shown.

2.) Cochran waged a long and extensive 352 argument, full of passion, even reminding the judge that these photographs were so "gruesome" that they caused the judge to interrupt the trial for 15 minutes and let the jurors go out and collect themselves, the last time that they saw them.

3.) It was within the heated context of this passionate debate that Johnnie Cochran concludes his argument with the remark (which I noticed that you changed we for he).

Cochran said, "We're not going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point, we didn't---we're not going to show them the telephone bills or whatever".

It was a inclusive remark, (we), that implicity referred to the judge and prosecution lawyers and defense team.

Cochran was implying, Juditha Brown's telephone bill, could prejudice the jury if they saw it. Its' own prejudical impact out weighed the probative value. There is only one way that I know that Juditha Brown's phone records could have prejudiced the jurors.

We may have cut for the sake of expediency, august, but unlike you, we didn't attempt to misrepresent the intent. Here's the link. Let the people be the judge.
www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

[bobaugust]

Nice try, bob!

You have conveniently deleted the flavor of the passionate argument that was being made by Cochran, a lengthy argument that, may I remind you, Cochran demanded to have.

I see that you've conveniently overlooked a few salient remarks that constituted the flavor of the lengthy argument.

1.) Cochran stated that before he would accept the stipulations he wanted to be further heard in regard to another 352 argument he was prepared to offer the court,(mind you the jury was out).

This flies in the face of your implication that Cochran was eager to move on with the trial. He wasn't that eager to accept the stipulations unless those bloody photos were not going to be shown.

2.) Cochran waged a long and extensive 352 argument, full of passion, even reminding the judge that these photographs were so "gruesome" that they caused the judge to interrupt the trial for 15 minutes and let the jurors go out and collect themselves, the last time that they saw them.

3.) It was within the heated context of this passionate debate that Johnnie Cochran concludes his argument with the remark (which I noticed that you changed we for he).

Cochran said, "We're not going to show the jury any of the other exhibits at this point, we didn't---we're not going to show them the telephone bills or whatever".

It was a inclusive remark, (we), that implicity referred to the judge and prosecution lawyers and defense team.

Cochran was implying, Juditha Brown's telephone bill, could prejudice the jury if they saw it. Its' own prejudical impact out weighed the probative value. There is only one way that I know that Juditha Brown's phone records could have prejudiced the jurors.

We may have cut for the sake of expediency, august, but unlike you, we didn't attempt to misrepresent the intent. Here's the link. Let the people be the judge.
www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

Big Ben, the fact that you put your own distorted interpretation on Cochran's words doesn't change the fact that you cut and edited the film using partial sentences taken out of context and even changing the order they were said to create a deceiving fraudulent video.

1.) Cochran did not state that "before he would accept the stipulations he wanted to be heard in regard to another 352 argument, he said he would like to be heard and then we can proceed with THE simulation. The stipulation regarding the photographs.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. And I would like to be heard with regard to a 352 objection, a further 352 objection as to exhibits 354 and 358-B for the record, and then we can proceed with the stipulation.

2.) I'm not sure how long Cochran's argument was but in the end Ito overruled Cochran and allowed the display to be shown for five seconds.

THE COURT: All right. The probative value of 354, the board, I think is not only the individual photographs, but the group of photographs together because they give different perspectives to how Miss Brown Simpson was found and relative to the footprints and other things that are there. So the renewed objection under 352 is overruled for the previously stated reasons. I will allow the display, the brief five-second display merely to say, "This is what it is," five seconds so they can see which exhibit it is, and then it comes back down. Five seconds literally and I mean five seconds.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if there's any TV, can we cut the feed on that? Is that necessary?
THE COURT: No. The--Mr. Bancroft will be directed not to take--capture any of those images as will the photographers.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, your Honor, the People had anticipated doing it in that manner if we were allowed to do it and I've already requested that Dana, Mr. Escobar assist us in that he will simply hold it up and put it down. So we're ready to.

3,) As to Cochran concluding this "passionate" debate with his argument with the remark "We're not going to show them any of the other exhibits at this point and we didn't show them the--we're not going to show them anything with regard to the telephone bills or whatever." you are wrong again.

This was not Cochran's conclusion, the debate continued until Judge Ito ruled on it and then asked Cochran if he had discussed these stipulations with Simpson and if they were acceptable to him. Cochran said yes.

As to the word "We're" it is clear Cochran was referring to only the defense, not the prosecutors and not to the judge. He could not speak for the prosecutors or the judge.

When Cochran said it could prejudice the jury if they saw it and the prejudicial impact out weighed the probative value he was referring to the photographs. Cochran never made any such claim regarding any of the telephone records. More incorrect spin by you Big Ben.

"and even the Court has agreed in part because that is a cropped photograph, which certainly went along with our argument that the prejudicial effect of that photograph of Mr. Goldman and his injuries far outweighs any probative value."

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

You are completely off base, bobaugust, about the implication of Cochrans remarks relative to those phantom phone records. The record indicates that the crucial phone bills that we presently debate, the Juditha Brown Phone Records, would not be shown to the crucial entity that matters, the "trier of fact" or the jury. They do not show up on the exhibit Dept. Manifest. They are truly phantom phone records.

You would expect that the most vital piece of evidence that timewise either gives Simpson the time to commit the murders or it does not would not be mysteriously missing. However, they are.

I'm sorry but no one that I know reaches your conclusion in either the abbreviated or extended version of Cochran's 07/06/95 remark.

Here! I post the link again, you need to seek an unbiased opinion. www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

[William Anthony]

Thanks for making this clear, bobaugust. That's something I've noticed some people doing on this forum -- posting things out of context and out of order to bolster their position. :)

Thanks for remiinding Mr. August, :). I am glad that I do not have a navigator spell checker, :).

[bobaugust]

You are completely off base, bobaugust, about the implication of Cochrans remarks relative to those phantom phone records. The record indicates that the crucial phone bills that we presently debate, the Juditha Brown Phone Records, would not be shown to the crucial entity that matters, the "trier of fact" or the jury. They do not show up on the exhibit Dept. Manifest. They are truly phantom phone records.

You would expect that the most vital piece of evidence that timewise either gives Simpson the time to commit the murders or it does not would not be mysteriously missing. However, they are.

I'm sorry but no one that I know reaches your conclusion in either the abbreviated or extended version of Cochran's 07/06/95 remark.

Here! I post the link again, you need to seek an unbiased opinion. www.youtube.com/v/oZfbCRZvoyo

Big Ben, no I'm not off base, you are. Your film is a fraud. You have edited selected sentences and words spoken by Clark and Cochran taken out of context and rearranged to create a fictional account of what actually happened in court to try and deceive viewers to support your false beliefs.

Why you are allowed to continually post a link to this deception on this discussion group is the real question.

bobaugust

[tvdinner]

Thanks for remiinding Mr. August, :). I am glad that I do not have a navigator spell checker, :).William, you know I'm not referring to bobaugust, but thank you anyway. :)

[William Anthony]

William, you know I'm not referring to bobaugust, but thank you anyway. :)

Tv,

I am sorry, when I saw his name, I thought that you were reminding him-my bad! I am still glad I do not have his particular type of spell checker, :). Does your spell checker automatically check testimony that you cut and paste, because mine does not? Never mind-don't answer! We had better get back OT.

[bobaugust]

How many bites do you want on this apple, bob?

Big Ben, as many bites as necessary to explain the reality of what actually happened.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, as many bites as necessary to explain the reality of what actually happened.

bobaugust

LOL-Yep! bobaugust's reality for the mentally challenged.

Here's another one for you to lend your perspective on. Ronald Lyle Goldman's criminal record. Watch it and give me the bobaugust take on it too.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

[tvdinner]

LOL-Yep! bobaugust's reality for the mentally challenged.

Here's another one for you to lend your perspective on. Ronald Lyle Goldman's criminal record. Watch it and give me the bobaugust take on it too.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEoI didn't learn much. It looks to me like you have to spend money to find out the rest of the story. Why don't you just tell us all about it? :)

[Big Ben]

I didn't learn much. It looks to me like you have to spend money to find out the rest of the story. Why don't you just tell us all about it? :)

Well, TV

A follow up on residents that alleged Ron Goldman was involved in drug sales at the Cheviot Hills Tennis Courts produced no takers for a video taped interview due to fear.

A further follow up with the Park Board received cold shoulder for request to view any public files relative to Goldman's employment.

Heightened curiosity caused the investigative group to make use of the contacts within the L.A. Superior Courthouse to inquire about any criminal record of Goldman. This effort was rewarded with an affirmative response that Goldman in deed had a criminal file that was kept not downtown but out at the L.A. Municipal Court Bldg. in Malibu.

Subsequent inquiry at the Malibu Courthouse found a 6" criminal file for Ron. An argument ensued with one of the OMIG investigators and employees of the Courthouse that prevented a thorough examination of the file. Certified letters to all four judges that had released Goldman with no jail time for continuing to drive recklessly with suspended drivers' license, $16, 000 in fugitive arrest warrants, for failure to appear in court for arraignment, netted a final answer.

Ron Goldman's criminal file is not available for public examination and is exempt from the California Public Records Act, pursuant to the California Gov't Code, Sec. 6254, which protects the records of Confidential Informants who are cooperating with police and other law enforcement agencies within the State of California.

It appears that, if OJ was on a flight to Chicago while his wife was still alive talking on the telephone, the motive for the murders of the two victims may have been associated with criminal activity in which Ron Goldman appears to have been involved. If he was a snitch, acting as an informant for the police, certainly this would have placed him in harms way, since it would have been a very hazardous position for one to find themselves in. Certainly as it relates to trafficking in narcotics.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

[cat840]

This case seems to have been intentionally manipulated to create the resulting outcome, i.e. this prolonged debate.

So what is the purpose of having this prolonged debate?

[bobaugust]

It appears that, if OJ was on a flight to Chicago while his wife was still alive talking on the telephone, the motive for the murders of the two victims may have been associated with criminal activity in which Ron Goldman appears to have been involved. If he was a snitch, acting as an informant for the police, certainly this would have placed him in harms way, since it would have been a very hazardous position for one to find themselves in. Certainly as it relates to trafficking in narcotics.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

Simpson wasn't on a flight to Chicago when Nicole was still alive. All of the evidence is that Nicole was killed about 10:45 P.M. Simpson's flight took off about 11:45 P.M.

Ron Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ron was simply doing a favor for Nicole by dropping off her mother's eyeglasses at Nicole's condo on his way to meet some friends in Marina Del Ray when Simpson attacked him and killed him.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

LOL-Yep! bobaugust's reality for the mentally challenged.

Here's another one for you to lend your perspective on. Ronald Lyle Goldman's criminal record. Watch it and give me the bobaugust take on it too.
www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

Big Ben, my take on that video is that it is completely meaningless to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

So what is the purpose of having this prolonged debate?

Cat,

Do you mean this small group here?

Or

Are you asking a general question as to why the national news media, i.e. CNN-News, CNN-Larry King, CNN-Anderson Cooper, New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, CBS, E! Entertainment News, EXTRA, Entertainment Tonight, is so continually fascinated with this subject, to the extent that the coverage of OJ sucks all of the oxygen out of the news atmosphere, and virtually smothers every other newsworthy event?

[Big Ben]

Simpson wasn't on a flight to Chicago when Nicole was still alive. All of the evidence is that Nicole was killed about 10:45 P.M. Simpson's flight took off about 11:45 P.M.

Ron Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ron was simply doing a favor for Nicole by dropping off her mother's eyeglasses at Nicole's condo on his way to meet some friends in Marina Del Ray when Simpson attacked him and killed him.

bobaugust

It was the dog walker, Steven Schwab, whose sighting of Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita helped to narrow your perception of the time of the murders being around 10:45 PM. However, as you are undobtedly aware, Schwab changed his story from his initial police statement of initially encountering the dog at 11:15 PM. At that time Simpson was in the back seat of a chauffeur driven limousine on his way to LAX.

Yet again, bob, I know that you have an answer!

I think you used the old Lou Brown excuse for him too. The police rousted him out of bed too early, he still had sleep in his eyes, or he wasn't fully awake yet. Isn't that about right, brother bob?

As far as Ron just being a good samuritan carrying eyeglasses, eyebrows will raise if it is revealed that Ron has an extensive criminal file and that the police are restricting it from public scrutiny, using a Confidential Informant (Snitch) protection law as a shield.

Look at it again<*R> how could you or I remain a fugitive from the law with an outstanding arrest warrant still hanging over us, $16, 000 in just three and a half years for failure to appear for arraignment, drive other peoples' expensive cars with a suspended license, and no insurance. Get arrested again with the same suspended license and do no time. How could you even get a job without a proper criminal background search? All of these questions need to be answered, bob.

[fbgweezer]

It was the dog walker, Steven Schwab, whose sighting of Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita helped to narrow your perception of the time of the murders being around 10:45 PM. However, as you are undobtedly aware, Schwab changed his story from his initial police statement of initially encountering the dog at 11:15 PM. At that time Simpson was in the back seat of a chauffeur driven limousine on his way to LAX.

Yet again, bob, I know that you have an answer!

I think you used the old Lou Brown excuse for him too. The police rousted him out of bed too early, he still had sleep in his eyes, or he wasn't fully awake yet. Isn't that about right, brother bob?

As far as Ron just being a good samuritan carrying eyeglasses, eyebrows will raise if it is revealed that Ron has an extensive criminal file and that the police are restricting it from public scrutiny, using a Confidential Informant (Snitch) protection law as a shield.

Look at it again, <*R> how could you or I remain a fugitive from the law with an outstanding arrest warrant still hanging over us, $16, 000 in just three and a half years for failure to appear for arraignment, drive other peoples' expensive cars with a suspended license, and no insurance. Get arrested again with the same suspended license and do no time. How could you even get a job without a proper criminal background search? All of these questions need to be answered, bob.

watched your pay-per-view teaser clip and OMG, you're right -- Ron was a criminal -- did he really think he could outrun a traffic ticket? :eek: :tongue:

BTW, I believe it is against CL policy to advertise on this Board.

[cat840]

Cat,

Do you mean this small group here?

Or

Are you asking a general question as to why the national news media, i.e. CNN-News, CNN-Larry King, CNN-Anderson Cooper, New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, CBS, E! Entertainment News, EXTRA, Entertainment Tonight, is so continually fascinated with this subject, to the extent that the coverage of OJ sucks all of the oxygen out of the news atmosphere, and virtually smothers every other newsworthy event?

I got the impression that you thought the case was manipulated to give this effect. I then wondered what you think the manipulators wanted to accomplish by having this "prolonged debate" afterwards.

[socaldiva]

watched your pay-per-view teaser clip and OMG, you're right -- Ron was a criminal -- did he really think he could outrun a traffic ticket? :eek: :tongue:

BTW, I believe it is against CL policy to advertise on this Board.

Orenthal can only dream of having a reputation/record such as Ron had :rolleyes:

[Big Ben]

I got the impression that you thought the case was manipulated to give this effect. I then wondered what you think the manipulators wanted to accomplish by having this "prolonged debate" afterwards.

It would be reckless of me as an investigator to render a subjective opinion. That is a playing field for people that have not had their hands on contradictory evidence. My questions are hopefully objectively focused to question the irregularities in regard to what has been officially claimed to be the record. Thus, why is so much missing from the criminal file (The People of State of CA. vs. Orenthal J. Simpson), or denied freedom of information privilege, or sealed, or that which was intentionally kept from the jury, or misrepresented or understated, etc.etc.

Though I have my personal thoughts, I would have been dismissed from the investigative group a long time ago, had I ventured into the time ineffectiveness of subjective examination, of subjective evidence, with no viable evidence, circumstantial or otherwise to back it up.

I'm sorry I can't comment, it would do, in my opinion the exact thing that you are examining, promulgating the extention of prolonged debate.

[Big Ben]

watched your pay-per-view teaser clip and OMG, you're right -- Ron was a criminal -- did he really think he could outrun a traffic ticket? :eek: :tongue:

BTW, I believe it is against CL policy to advertise on this Board.

Yeah, I've said the same thing, Weezer. If you simply wanted to maintain this boy's reputation as a fair haired, all American, good Samuritan, then why hide his record???

Then embarrassingly have it discovered intentionally hidden in an unusual area, then restrict access under a provision of law that is meant to protect a "Snitch". You're right, Weezer, exactly what we said in 2000, all this hidden madness for a traffic ticket ???? But then again, what traffic tickets that you know of creates a 6 inch criminal file.

As far as the YouTube clip is concerned no one has twisted your arm to look at it. Shield your eyes, and your ears, like your momma taught you to do when you were a child.

[Big Ben]

Orenthal can only dream of having a reputation/record such as Ron had :rolleyes:

If he keeps creating those type of Las Vegas antics, he just may accomplish that type of record. With all the time in prison associated with some of those ridiculous charges they put on him, he might find it more beneficial to flip over and become a "snitch" too.

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, my take on that video is that it is completely meaningless to the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

Well my beef, bobsky, is that they didn't leak any of this to the public, since you all have become a part of this unofficial body deemed the 'court of public opinion'. Why not? Why didn't the media do their due diligence and reveal Goldman's criminal background. They could have let the public opinion court examine it and talk about its' relevance, like they have everything else whether relevant about the murders or not.

They showed you Simpson's criminal file photo (even darkened it, as I remember), but Goldman's five arrest photos for the one case that he ran up enormous arrest warrants, the authorities don't want to release and the media has not bothered to request. The media, however, was more than happy to leak information about Simpson's deceased father possibly having homosexual tendencies.

Yep, so much for fairness in the media and the press!

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* ". . .Simpson's deceased father possibly having homosexual tendencies.


IIRC, there was no 'possibly' to it. Your ranting about Ron's traffic ticket is ludicrous. imo

[Big Ben]

IIRC, there was no 'possibly' to it. Your ranting about Ron's traffic ticket is ludicrous. imo

Where there's smoke there's usually fire, that's been my experience, Weezer, especially with this case. My rant isn't about the traffic tickets, that's your misinterpretation. My rant is about the unusual favorable judicial treatment Ron received for more misconduct than Paris Hilton; the smoke.

This judicial abnormality, led to the requests to review his criminal record, that's when we discovered a thick criminal file. If there is a real Weezer in the world, we'd certainly have a right to review your criminal record, if you weren't a snitch. Why not his, unless there is more to it that they don't want people to see; the fire.

You act like you can't stand the thought of old Ron being a "snitch", show some balance at least, show about as much as you seem to in relishing Simpson's father being outed as gay.

It doesn't peek my interest though, whether Simpson's dad was gay or not, there's no law against that. My interest is whether Ron was involved in drug trafficking and was he an under cover informant, a "snitch". Because if he was, I need not remind you of how hazardess that profession can be.

It is a fact that he was protected, it's certainly not ludicrous that we question why the lawyers never mentioned that he was protected under a snitch law.

Therefore, it certainly is possible that if Simpson was on that plane while his wife was still alive, Ron Goldman being a snitch could have been probable cause for his and her deaths. Isn't that plausible, Weezer?

[bobaugust]

It was the dog walker, Steven Schwab, whose sighting of Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita helped to narrow your perception of the time of the murders being around 10:45 PM. However, as you are undobtedly aware, Schwab changed his story from his initial police statement of initially encountering the dog at 11:15 PM. At that time Simpson was in the back seat of a chauffeur driven limousine on his way to LAX.



Big Ben, your claim is incorrect. Schwab did not change his story. Schwab never told the police the time of 11:15 P.M.

The police woke Schwab up at about 5:00 A.M. the morning after the murders to interview him. Schwab testified after they told him that the Akita was somehow connected to a homicide he was shocked and scared. He said he wasn't thinking clearly when he first mentioned 11:30 and then said no it must have been around 11:00. After the police left, Schwab went back to sleep. When woke up he was able to recall what had happened based on television shows that were on that night. He recalled that he had left his house to walk his dog at 10:30, came across the Akita at approximately 10:55 and returned home with the both dogs at about 11:05. Schwab then called the police to correct his statement.

In his testimony Schwab also told how he flagged down a passing police car as the Akita was following him, and told the officer about finding the lost dog. The officer took his name, address, and telephone number telling him he would contact the animal shelter and that Schwab should continue on home with the dog. In the criminal trial Officer Benjamin Jones came forward after hearing about Schwab's testimony and realizing he was that officer. He was interviewed by the prosecutors and they obtained a copy of the report he made at the time. The interview and the report were given to the defense and Jones was available to testify. Since there was no dispute about the times Schwab testified to by Simpson's attorneys, Jones was never called.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Where there's smoke there's usually fire, that's been my experience, Weezer, especially with this case. My rant isn't about the traffic tickets, that's your misinterpretation. My rant is about the unusual favorable judicial treatment Ron received for more misconduct than Paris Hilton; the smoke.

This judicial abnormality, led to the requests to review his criminal record, that's when we discovered a thick criminal file. If there is a real Weezer in the world, we'd certainly have a right to review your criminal record, if you weren't a snitch. Why not his, unless there is more to it that they don't want people to see; the fire.

You act like you can't stand the thought of old Ron being a "snitch", show some balance at least, show about as much as you seem to in relishing Simpson's father being outed as gay.

It doesn't peek my interest though, whether Simpson's dad was gay or not, there's no law against that. My interest is whether Ron was involved in drug trafficking and was he an under cover informant, a "snitch". Because if he was, I need not remind you of how hazardess that profession can be.

It is a fact that he was protected, it's certainly not ludicrous that we question why the lawyers never mentioned that he was protected under a snitch law.

Therefore, it certainly is possible that if Simpson was on that plane while his wife was still alive, Ron Goldman being a snitch could have been probable cause for his and her deaths. Isn't that plausible, Weezer?

if you look hard enough, even an innocent shadow becomes menacing -- that's been my experience. We have your word that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron and quite frankly, you don't carry a whole lot of credibility with me. We also have a way big police file on orenthal that dates back to his young years. We know that orenthal was an abusive and controlling boyfriend/husband. We know that at the end of her life, Nicole and orenthal were in an all out 'war' and that she stated he was going to kill her and he stated he was going to kill her. imo

And quite frankly, it is neither plausible or probable that Ron had anything to do with orenthal murdering Nicole on that night other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the true shame of Ron's death. imo

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, your claim is incorrect. Schwab did not change his story. Schwab never told the police the time of 11:15 P.M.


bobaugust

"Schwab did not change his story???" What are you smoking, bobaugust?

Pretty convenient, wouldn't you say bobaugust, that Steven Schwab would have the same epiphany as Lou Brown, and later, Juditha Brown, about the time not being 11:00 PM or thereafter.

His revised time statement came in the same week that Juditha and Lou Brown revised their initial statement of 11:00 PM or thereafter. As you know the 11:00 PM statements strongly eliminated the possibility of Simpson being the perpetrator of these murders.

It appears that every uttered time statement favoring Simpson's elimination had to be changed.

Shapiro's stipulation of 10:17 PM of the Mezzaluna call ultimately became 9:37PM.

Tia Gavin's initial statement would have had Ron's time card at Mezzaluna at 10:33 PM, instead of 9:33 PM, but then they confirmed that the timeclock had been changed. No other Mezzaluna time devices changed, but after rethinking the matter, the timeclock was changed......Sure!!!!

Even Faye Resnick had to change her time statement of when she last talked with Nicole on Maury Povich's show when she said she was on the phone with Nicole at 10:45 PM....After prompting by Maury, "You mean 9:45 PM, don't you???" Faye Resnick: Oh yeah, I meant 9:45 PM.

But continuous revision of crucial time evidence is alright with you, because old bob's got an answer.

[martin II]

IIRC, there was no 'possibly' to it. Your ranting about Ron's traffic ticket is ludicrous. imo

weezer

Whether oj's father was gay or not has what to do with the case or oj personal life. On the one hand many have said oj was a womanizer and had relationships with too many women. So i am puzzled as to why you continue
to try to put forth the idea that oj's father, reported to be gay had anything to do with oj's sexual life or anything else. it seems that it is your opinion that since oj's father was gay this somehow means that so was oj and that oj had some sexual interest in Mr Woods. This idea i put into the catagory of character assinsation of Oj by you based a hugh dose of hate by you.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

I would like to know why a person like Ron Goldman would be able to have his records sealed if they are only about traffic tickets. This makes no sense at all. I have never heard of records being sealed for traffic tickets. I do remember that there was a story out that fred Goldman had refused to bail his beloved son Ron out of jail for some infraction of the law.I don't remember exactly what the charge was at that time. but it seems strange that fred would not put up the bail to get him out if the charge was a simple traffic ticket.
Why are rons records sealed???
martin II


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Goldman


The murder
On July 30, 1993, Brett Cantor, the owner of a Hollywood nightclub called the Dragonfly, was murdered with knife in a method identical to Ronald Goldman : from behind, across the throat, and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman frequented the club. Michael Nigg, a Mezzaluna waiter and Ron Goldman’s friend, was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.

One theory says that Goldman and Brown-Simpson were killed by a hitman, because they failed to pay debts to the local drug dealers. Supposedly, the two of them wanted to co-own Goldmans's dream restaurant. Brentwood was an area where illegal drugs were sold by Joey Ippolito and others at clubs and fancy restaurants. O.J. Simpson and Nicole were alleged cocaine users. Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said that Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ronald Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. She and her friends were “over their heads with some dope dealers” Hoestler said.

[fbgweezer]

I would like to know why a person like Ron Goldman would be able to have his records sealed if they are only about traffic tickets. This makes no sense at all. I have never heard of records being sealed for traffic tickets. I do remember that there was a story out that fred Goldman had refused to bail his beloved son Ron out of jail for some infraction of the law.I don't remember exactly what the charge was at that time. but it seems strange that fred would not put up the bail to get him out if the charge was a simple traffic ticket.
Why are rons records sealed???
martin II


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Goldman


The murder
On July 30, 1993, Brett Cantor, the owner of a Hollywood nightclub called the Dragonfly, was murdered with knife in a method identical to Ronald Goldman : from behind, across the throat, and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman frequented the club. Michael Nigg, a Mezzaluna waiter and Ron Goldman’s friend, was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.

One theory says that Goldman and Brown-Simpson were killed by a hitman, because they failed to pay debts to the local drug dealers. Supposedly, the two of them wanted to co-own Goldmans's dream restaurant. Brentwood was an area where illegal drugs were sold by Joey Ippolito and others at clubs and fancy restaurants. O.J. Simpson and Nicole were alleged cocaine users. Barry Hoestler, a private investigator hired for the Simpson case by Robert Shapiro, said that Nicole talked about the idea of opening a restaurant with Ronald Goldman as her partner, and financing it with cocaine profits. She and her friends were “over their heads with some dope dealers” Hoestler said.

this post is so ridiculous, it's laughable. orenthal's police record is much more substantial than Ron's and orenthal had drugs in HIS system on the night he murdered two human beings (neither victim had drugs in their system ONLY orenthal) but you want everyone to believe that the victims were responsible for orenthal's uncontrollable rage? Please. imo

[fbgweezer]

weezer

Whether oj's father was gay or not has what to do with the case or oj personal life. On the one hand many have said oj was a womanizer and had relationships with too many women. So i am puzzled as to why you continue
to try to put forth the idea that oj's father, reported to be gay had anything to do with oj's sexual life or anything else. it seems that it is your opinion that since oj's father was gay this somehow means that so was oj and that oj had some sexual interest in Mr Woods. This idea i put into the catagory of character assinsation of Oj by you based a hugh dose of hate by you.

imo
martin II

orenthal's father being gay could very well have played a critical role in orenthal character and sexual misbehavior. In fact, I would think that it did. imo At any rate, james woods said he believed orenthal was interested in a threesome. LOL, you were the one that posted the info on this. LOL

[martin II]

orenthal's father being gay could very well have played a critical role in orenthal character and sexual misbehavior. In fact, I would think that it did. imo At any rate, james woods said he believed orenthal was interested in a threesome. LOL, you were the one that posted the info on this. LOL

well according to your way of thinking all or most children of gay people
have some kind of hidden gay sex desires. Do you include females of gay parents also. Or is your bias limited to men children only?


MARTIN ii

[fbgweezer]

well according to your way of thinking all or most children of gay people
have some kind of hidden gay sex desires. Do you include females of gay parents also. Or is your bias limited to men children only?


MARTIN ii

you have purposely misinterpreted my statement -- so be it.

[Big Ben]

orenthal's father being gay could very well have played a critical role in orenthal character and sexual misbehavior. In fact, I would think that it did. imo At any rate, james woods said he believed orenthal was interested in a threesome. LOL, you were the one that posted the info on this. LOL

Do you see why I attempt to avoid nut case conversations. This is what subjective analysis, with examination of no objective evidence gets you, a lunatic conversation with all types of character assassination.

Weezeeeeer, wow! You need some real professional attention, my friend.

[tvdinner]

Do you see why I attempt to avoid nut case conversations. This is what subjective analysis, with examination of no objective evidence gets you, a lunatic conversation with all types of character assassination.

Weezeeeeer, wow! You need some real professional attention, my friend.You're the one who brought up Simpson's father's sexual orientation. It was something I wasn't even aware of until you mentioned it. Speaking of character assassinations, what do you call this whole conversation about Ron and Nicole and their supposed drug use and shady connections?

My question is if all this evidence exists that someone other than OJ Simpson killed these two people why hasn't he jumped on the evidence and tried to bring it to light? After all, he vowed to find the real killer or killers. Why isn't he interested in following these leads?

[fbgweezer]

Do you see why I attempt to avoid nut case conversations. This is what subjective analysis, with examination of no objective evidence gets you, a lunatic conversation with all types of character assassination.

Weezeeeeer, wow! You need some real professional attention, my friend.

Dude -- you're the one walking around in a tin hat and humming the theme to "Twilight Zone" -- imo

[Big Ben]

We have your word that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron and quite frankly, you don't carry a whole lot of credibility with me.
And quite frankly, it is neither plausible or probable that Ron had anything to do with orenthal murdering Nicole on that night other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the true shame of Ron's death. imo

That's right Weezer, kill the messenger! Although I have no reason to lie to you.

I know how thick it is because I saw it, and I saw the reactions of those attempting to hide his file, so that they could continue to perpetuate the myth for which people like you seem to be so fond.

Why hide it, Weezer? Whether it was 6" thick or 6 mm thick, there is no question about their intent to hide it, that is what the letter from the LAPD is stating in the documentary. Need I post the YouTube link again?

If my assertions are not valid in your opinion, I'm not afraid to tell you to submit your inquiry to the L.A. County law enforcement authorities and see what they say to you about examining Ron or Faye Resnick's criminal file.
They told us that Ron had 5 criminal arrest photos but again refused to give them up, citing some obscure law of restriction. Why not though? They gave up OJ's in less than 24 hours, with apparently no restriction, and darkened it too.

People like you just can't stand the agony of defeat, so just as rats do, scurry to the top of the Maste of this sinking vessel of lies. That hot coat of deceit for which you are covered completely with lies, cannot stand emersion in the cool waters of truth and purification. So scurry to the top, Weezer, before you drown in the truth. I don't think your system can take it.

However, beware of bobaugust, that he doesn't accidentally kick you in the head as you approach the top.

[Big Ben]

You're the one who brought up Simpson's father's sexual orientation. It was something I wasn't even aware of until you mentioned it. Speaking of character assassinations, what do you call this whole conversation about Ron and Nicole and their supposed drug use and shady connections?

My question is if all this evidence exists that someone other than OJ Simpson killed these two people why hasn't he jumped on the evidence and tried to bring it to light? After all, he vowed to find the real killer or killers. Why isn't he interested in following these leads?

I brought up what was carried on E! News Entertainment, and my question related to their lack of due diligence relative to the OJ father story. As far as what Simpson did or does not do, has nothing to do with the investigation I've been involved in. I don't give a d**** what he does or does not do. I care, however, about what tax supported government officials, operating under the color of authority do.

Ron and Nicole drug assertions were allegations that led nowhere for us, as I said to you before, because the allegors would not come forth and submit to an interview, and public officials denied us access to park employee records; thus, the smoke.

The finding of the criminal record came as a result of the resistance of the heretofore mentioned above. I haven't alleged anything about drugs that is not already out in the marketplace. My issue is with the continued resistance to withholding Ron Goldman's criminal file under a California "SNITCH PROTECTION LAW" ; the fire.

[Big Ben]

Dude -- you're the one walking around in a tin hat and humming the theme to "Twilight Zone" -- imo

Oh you think you're above me, Weezer? Don't forget your helmet when the bus comes to pick us up, 'cause you can't have mine.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* ". . .Ron and Nicole drug assertions were allegations that led nowhere. . ."

This should have been your first clue -- :tongue: :punch:

[martin II]

you have purposely misinterpreted my statement -- so be it.

WEEZER
Can you offer any proof that oj's dad was gay and that this had anything to do with oj's sexual desires? That is the quesiton.
martin II

[martin II]

This should have been your first clue -- :tongue: :punch:

you only posted part of his sentance.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

you only posted part of his sentance.
martin II

ahhh -- but it was the most important part! :D

[fbgweezer]

WEEZER
Can you offer any proof that oj's dad was gay and that this had anything to do with oj's sexual desires? That is the quesiton.
martin II

do I need proof? hmmmm -- here I was thinking I could just say I "believe" -- silly me! ;)

[Kate Sachel]

WEEZER
Can you offer any proof that oj's dad was gay and that this had anything to do with oj's sexual desires? That is the quesiton.
martin II

As far as proof that his dad was gay, OJ admitted such. As far as whether or not that had anything to do with OJ's sexual desires I haven't a clue.

Kate

[socaldiva]

*snip* This idea i put into the catagory of character assinsation of Oj by you


I don't think it's possible to assassinate Oj's character. He doesn't have any! :hat:

[Big Ben]

This should have been your first clue -- :tongue: :punch:

Your misrepresentation of an individual's remarks is my "first clue" to how weak your rebuttals are, let alone your initial premises. You and bobaugust must be first cousins.

[martin II]

Your misrepresentation of an individual's remarks is my "first clue" to how weak your rebuttals are, let alone your initial premises. You and bobaugust must be first cousins.

big ben
Very true

thanks:beer: :beer:

martin II

[fbgweezer]

Your misrepresentation of an individual's remarks is my "first clue" to how weak your rebuttals are, let alone your initial premises. You and bobaugust must be first cousins.

You are representing to this Board that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron Goldman that You have been privy to see. I say "Put up or shut up." imo

[martin II]

You are representing to this Board that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron Goldman that You have been privy to see. I say "Put up or shut up." imo

weezer it seems you may be getting angry again and getting ready to fight.

martin II

[Big Ben]

You are representing to this Board that there is a 6" thick police file on Ron Goldman that You have been privy to see. I say "Put up or shut up." imo

Stay tuned!

[Big Ben]

weezer it seems you may be getting angry again and getting ready to fight.

martin II

They always do! But you know I don't care about that. They can't get no more from me than they can get from trying to take something in Baghdad!

Instead of backing away, they got to save face, propelled into doom by government lies, fed by psuedo patriotic media frenzy, inventing more and more lies, misrepresentations, false facts.

Like the old Superman, Steve Reeves, used to say..... That's the American Way!

[tvdinner]

They always do! But you know I don't care about that. They can't get no more from me than they can get from trying to take something in Baghdad!

Instead of backing away, they got to save face, propelled into doom by government lies, fed by psuedo patriotic media frenzy, inventing more and more lies, misrepresentations, false facts.

Like the old Superman, Steve Reeves, used to say..... That's the American Way!Big Ben, you are the one that previously called posters on this board names. By the way, that was George Reeves, not Steve Reeves.

I'm not even going to ask you what this discussion has to do with 'taking something in Baghdad'. You're making less sense all the time.

[fbgweezer]

weezer it seems you may be getting angry again and getting ready to fight.

martin II

nope -- just getting tired of pay-for-view advertising and nut case theories.

IIRC, the rules say that if you post something as fact and are asked to supply proof, you are to do just that. benny has continually dinigrated Ron's name on this Board by posting about an alledged 6" thick police file -- I'm asking him to provide credible proof or to stop posting it.

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, you are the one that previously called posters on this board names. By the way, that was George Reeves, not Steve Reeves.

I'm not even going to ask you what this discussion has to do with 'taking something in Baghdad'. You're making less sense all the time.

Yeah, I received the admonishments about the name calling from CL. I simply haven't learned to be as slick as some of you characters, and do it in your fashion, as opposed to being so overt. I'm learning though.

In regard to the Baghdad comment. Baghdad is a metaphor for Iraq and as well a metaphor for this Simpson madness. To me the Simpson saga takes on many of the same elements that got you into this quagmire in Iraq.

The planned government lies and media frenzy made the reasoning environment too hostile for normally controlled individuals to give pause for rational thought. Especially so, when the personal injury is associated with race.

Many Americans became so offended about Iraq (Baghdad) from a racial standpoint, just as many of you became with Simpson, that you not only failed to examine the facts thoroughly but didn't want to examine them at all. Like with Simpson, you accepted only the truth from the self anointed holy grail, Gov't officials, FOX NEWS and CNN.

Well, my answer to anyone that says "shut up" regarding lies told in this Simpson matter, will benefit you about as much as the lies in effect have benefitted those who've tried to steal Baghdad. You get nothing over here.

[socaldiva]

Stay tuned!

I see a recent post about Baghdad, but nothing to backup the claims about Ron Goldman. :shrug:

[Big Ben]

nope -- just getting tired of pay-for-view advertising and nut case theories.

IIRC, the rules say that if you post something as fact and are asked to supply proof, you are to do just that. benny has continually dinigrated Ron's name on this Board by posting about an alledged 6" thick police file -- I'm asking him to provide credible proof or to stop posting it.

I say that there is a 6 inch criminal file on Ronald Lyle Goldman, DOB 07/02/68
there is a letter shown in the YouTube trailer from the last LAPD Police Chief, Bernard Parks, the letter states in the body that Ron Goldman's criminal file, along with that of Faye Resnick, is exempt from public examination, under the California Public Records Act, by virtue of its protection under California Gov't Code section 6254.

Sec. 6254, Weezer, is a law that is intended to protect the identity of people engaged with law enforcement as confidential informants. Confidential informants in street vernacular are called "Snitches", and snitching can be hazardess to one's health and general well being, wouldn't you agree, again, Weezer?

Now if the file is protected from public access, by law, how would you propose that I provide it to you at this time, Weezer?

[tvdinner]

Yeah, I received the admonishments about the name calling from CL. I simply haven't learned to be as slick as some of you characters, and do it in your fashion, as opposed to being so overt. I'm learning though.

In regard to the Baghdad comment. Baghdad is a metaphor for Iraq and as well a metaphor for this Simpson madness. To me the Simpson saga takes on many of the same elements that got you into this quagmire in Iraq.

The planned government lies and media frenzy made the reasoning environment too hostile for normally controlled individuals to give pause for rational thought. Especially so, when the personal injury is associated with race.

Many Americans became so offended about Iraq (Baghdad) from a racial standpoint, just as many of you became with Simpson, that you not only failed to examine the facts thoroughly but didn't want to examine them at all. Like with Simpson, you accepted only the truth from the self anointed holy grail, Gov't officials, FOX NEWS and CNN.

Well, my answer to anyone that says "shut up" regarding lies told in this Simpson matter, will benefit you about as much as the lies in effect have benefitted those who've tried to steal Baghdad. You get nothing over here.If you want to call avoiding name calling 'slick' so be it. I call it exercising common courtesy and civility and respecting the rules of this message board.

You seem to have a hard time staying focused on the topic at hand. You're literally all over the map with your comments. I had the feeling it was a mistake to join the discussion in this thread to begin and I see I was right. I'll be bidding you farewell now. You're just a little too :eek: for me. :seeya:

[Big Ben]

I see a recent post about Baghdad, but nothing to backup the claims about Ron Goldman. :shrug:

Here, socaldiva! www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

[socaldiva]

*snip*there is a letter shown in the YouTube trailer from the last LAPD Police Chief, Bernard Parks

Have you already supplied us with a link to this?

[socaldiva]

Here, socaldiva! www.youtube.com/v/itbSHYJAZEo

OMG it's your own video! Sorry, but that won't do it for me. GMAB! Perhaps someone needs to check into this with youtube. I wonder if the Goldman's know this is playing :rolleyes:

[bobaugust]

"Schwab did not change his story???" What are you smoking, bobaugust?

Pretty convenient, wouldn't you say bobaugust, that Steven Schwab would have the same epiphany as Lou Brown, and later, Juditha Brown, about the time not being 11:00 PM or thereafter.

His revised time statement came in the same week that Juditha and Lou Brown revised their initial statement of 11:00 PM or thereafter. As you know the 11:00 PM statements strongly eliminated the possibility of Simpson being the perpetrator of these murders.

It appears that every uttered time statement favoring Simpson's elimination had to be changed.

Shapiro's stipulation of 10:17 PM of the Mezzaluna call ultimately became 9:37PM.

Tia Gavin's initial statement would have had Ron's time card at Mezzaluna at 10:33 PM, instead of 9:33 PM, but then they confirmed that the timeclock had been changed. No other Mezzaluna time devices changed, but after rethinking the matter, the timeclock was changed......Sure!!!!

Even Faye Resnick had to change her time statement of when she last talked with Nicole on Maury Povich's show when she said she was on the phone with Nicole at 10:45 PM....After prompting by Maury, "You mean 9:45 PM, don't you???" Faye Resnick: Oh yeah, I meant 9:45 PM.

But continuous revision of crucial time evidence is alright with you, because old bob's got an answer.

Big Ben, mistaken recollections by different witnesses have nothing to do with each other except for the fact that when witnesses are asked about something not important to them to at the time it happened they may not recall details correctly. I find nothing wrong with a witness correcting a mistaken recollection or clarifying something they said in an interview.

After Schwab woke up and continued to think about what he had told the police he was able to recall additional details to narrow the time estimate he gave them. He then called the police to correct his statement. Schwab didn't change what he told the police in his interview, he clarified it and testified to it.

Shapiro was mistaken about a 10:17 telephone call. There was no call made by Juditha Brown at that time. A time that doesn't even have anything to do with your fictitious theory.

Tia Gavin testified that when she was interviewed she was confused as to whether they were talking about the time on the NCR machine or the time on the time clock. She corrected her statement when she testified that the only time that was incorrect was the time on the NCR machine.

bobaugust

[Big Ben]

If you want to call avoiding name calling 'slick' so be it. I call it exercising common courtesy and civility and respecting the rules of this message board.

You seem to have a hard time staying focused on the topic at hand. You're literally all over the map with your comments. I had the feeling it was a mistake to join the discussion in this thread to begin and I see I was right. I'll be bidding you farewell now. You're just a little too :eek: for me. :seeya:

Your parochial mentality,TV, is what screws you up. You apparently are not a good chess player, because I can assure you that the explanation that I have given you is within the boundaries of certain chess moves, and in the end the objective is to establish a checkmate. Gov't officials play chess and can afford to do it with peoples' lives.

I'm saddened in a way that you have chosen to leave on these terms, but I'm not totally surprised, it's appeared to me that you have been trying to find away to exit the hot seat, due to a lack of significant rebuttals.

I don't wish you any bad luck, you are doing right to find yourself a more elementary discussion. This topic has its own built in heat, you didn't expect that? Au Revoir, Mon Ami.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
you are doing right to find yourself a more elementary discussion. This topic has its own built in heat, you didn't expect that? Au Revoir, Mon Ami.

"built in heat"? Don't flatter yourself. All I've seen is a bunch of stuff that is either irrelevant, unsubstaniated, false or self promoting. I do give you props though, considering you state in your profile here that you're 101 years of age. ;)

[Big Ben]

OMG it's your own video! Sorry, but that won't do it for me. GMAB! Perhaps someone needs to check into this with youtube. I wonder if the Goldman's know this is playing :rolleyes:

Why don't you hurry up and tell the Goldman's what's on YouTube?

The docket sheet with Ron's record of thumbing his nose at the court and causing the issuance of $16, 000 in bench and arrest warrants, over 3 and 1/2 years for one case, and dying with outstanding arrests warrants pending is something that we'd like to take up with old Fred in the first place.

You let me know if you need their last known address, better yet just go to the link I just gave you, and you'll see the address on the criminal docket sheet.

But hurry up! Because you apparently think that you are making a bet that wont get faded. But I pretty much know how bold you are? You'll bet on something that's a cinch or run over a dead squirrel. But nothing I believe any more significant than that.

[fbgweezer]

I say that there is a 6 inch criminal file on Ronald Lyle Goldman, DOB 07/02/68
there is a letter shown in the YouTube trailer from the last LAPD Police Chief, Bernard Parks, the letter states in the body that Ron Goldman's criminal file, along with that of Faye Resnick, is exempt from public examination, under the California Public Records Act, by virtue of its protection under California Gov't Code section 6254.

Sec. 6254, Weezer, is a law that is intended to protect the identity of people engaged with law enforcement as confidential informants. Confidential informants in street vernacular are called "Snitches", and snitching can be hazardess to one's health and general well being, wouldn't you agree, again, Weezer?

Now if the file is protected from public access, by law, how would you propose that I provide it to you at this time, Weezer?

and without proof, I will say you are being dishonest. :seeya:

[Big Ben]

and without proof, I will say you are being dishonest. :seeya:

Well, I can understand your position, without calling you arrogant, because that's the same posture that we take when it comes to those missing Brown phone records.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* ". . . Ron Goldman does have a serious criminal background. . ."

I am requesting a link to Ron Goldman's serious criminal background. If you are unable to prove it up, then by the rules of this Board, you must stop posting this as fact.

[martin II]

I am requesting a link to Ron Goldman's serious criminal background. If you are unable to prove it up, then by the rules of this Board, you must stop posting this as fact.

why is it that when you seem to get angry you start your GIVE ME A LINK routine.
martinii

[fbgweezer]

why is it that when you seem to get angry you start your GIVE ME A LINK routine.
martinii

it has nothing to do with me getting angry but rather tired of irrational and dishonest posters who come on this board to make outrageous and outlandish posts. big ben has posted something he says is fact, I dispute his statement and I have a right to ask for a link. He either provides that link or stops posting his nonsense.

[Jasvon]

People seem to forget the fact that OJ paid his "dream team" BIG $$$$, not to search for the truth, but to plant doubt in the jurors' minds. Their job was to free their client and they did an excellent job of it, which they should have for what they charged. They used everything to plant doubt and the race card and planting of evidence stuck. Had I been on that jury, I would have had too much doubt planted in my mind to have convicted OJ. Those of us who followed the case/trial closely spent hours upon hours researching everything said in the courtroom, but the j