> >> "HE BE FREE" for now, does not change the reality of what happened. Our > hero is a > >> very lucky man, but no one knows how long his luck will hold. Maybe > forever, maybe > >> not.
> >If you read (and believe) the current issue of National Enquirer, it doesn't > >look like it will hold out much longer. He's either gonna get nailed with > >drug charges or he's gonna carry out one (or more) of the death threats he's > >throwing around. As for his photos and his reported sexual escapades, I'm > >feeling wooozy and can't write anymore. :(
> >kattail
> >Believe what some of ehat you see and none of what you hear.
> > >"Too many documented facts on the web put forth a cogent misconception of > > >what > > >happened"? I have no idea what that means or how it has anything to do with > > >the > > >reality of these murders. What facts are you talking about? There is a lot of > > >pure > > >bull crap and unsupported speculation on the web about this case, a lot of > > >from > > >Wagner. None of those unsupported fantasies have any resemblance to the > > >truth. > > >There are a lot of unsupported fantasy theories offered on this newsgroup. > > >They > > >have all been shown to be false. All pro-j's have a misconception of what > > >happened, > > >that is why those statements are not credible. The only way a reasonable > > >person > > >decides if a statement is credible, is if it is supported. Supported by > > >physical > > >evidence and witness testimony. A reasonable person use common sense to help > > >understand the facts. Pro-j's have no common sense.
> > >I do not expect to convince you of anything Betty. You are not capable of > > >being > > >convinced. The truth of the facts in this case did not take two years to come > > >out. > > >The majority of the true facts came out before the civil trial, starting with > > >the > > >Grand Jury Protocols. But it was at the civil trial that the whole story came > > >together. The reason is very simple. Simpson testified at the civil trial. We > > >finally heard his side of the story. And his side was nothing but a bunch of > > >lies. > > >Simpson was impeached by many witnesses, including defense witnesses. Simpson > > >was > > >impeached by telephone records. Simpson was impeached by photographs. Simpson > > >lied > > >about almost everything he did between the hours of 9:40 and 11:15 the night > > >of the > > >murders. All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only > > >Simpson > > >as the killer. Simpson's lying words confirm it.
> > >"HE BE FREE" for now, does not change the reality of what happened. Our hero > > >is a > > >very lucky man, but no one knows how long his luck will hold. Maybe forever, > > >maybe > > >not.
> > >It means the facts are on th WWW for all to see and make a determination and > > form their own opinion, you waste your time picking and choosing and trying to > > convince anyone of anything.
> > Most people have their own opinion and have not changed their minds since > > 10/3/95
> Reasonable people who did not follow the Simpson case and then learn the true > facts all come to the conclusion that Simpson was the killer. Fanatics who are not
Your facts don't prove OJ is guilty.
> reasonable and have no common sense will never be able to comprehend or admit to > the truth of this crimem no matter how many times the facts are explained to them. > That is you Betty.
> > The times overlap, the testimony changes and the questions remain.
> Estimated times overlap. That is why estimated times are not real times. You
<BB> Jim
> pro-j's use every excuse in the book to hold on to your denial. I have explained > to you before, many times, that it is not the estimated times that tell us what > happened the night of the murders, it is the sequence of events. Simpson was > moving very quickly that evening. He was speeding with his lights off to try and
<BB> Don't you wish?
> get back home as fast as possible after committing the murders. There could have > been ten witnesses all lined up on the street watching him and everyone of those
<BB> Bob
> witnesses could estimate a different time they thought they saw him. Some who may > have seen him earlier could estimate a later time than those who saw him after. > Estimated times only tell us the general time an event happened, not the exact > time.
> To understand the real times involved, there has to be a real time to start with. > A real time is a time supported by telephone records, or in another example
^^^^^^^^^ <BB> process control
> television times. In the Simpson case the real time supported by telephone records > is when Allan Park saw Simpson enter his house. Park was on the phone at the time.
<BB> Are you sure?
> That time was shortly before 10:55. Now I know it's hard Betty, but you have to > work backwards from that time to figure out the approximate times the other events > happened.
> The event that happened before Park saw Simpson, was that Kaelin heard noises on
<BB> Noises on his wall? What time?
> his wall. The event before that is when Shively encountered Simpson at San Vicente > and Bundy. The event before that was when Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speeding > away from the crime scene. The event before that happened was when Heidstra head
<BB> Need more detail.
> Goldman arrive and encounter Simpson. The event before that was when Heidstra > first heard Nicole's dog barking. Do you you understand now?
<BB> You mean the real murderer. Does Jay Rosenthal know who it is?
> Let me repeat it one more time, so that you don't make a response that tells us > you still can not comprehend this. It is not estimated times by different > witnesses that is important, it is the sequence of events that different witnesses > testified to that tell us what happened and when. Got it?
>> >work backwards from that time to figure out the approximate times the >other >> >events >> >happened.
>> >The event that happened before Park saw Simpson, was that Kaelin heard >noises >> >on >> >his wall. The event before that is when Shively encountered Simpson at San >> >Vicente >> >and Bundy. The event before that was when Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco >> >speeding >> >away from the crime scene. The event before that happened was when >Heidstra >> >head >> >Goldman arrive and encounter Simpson. The event before that was when >Heidstra >> >first heard Nicole's dog barking. Do you you understand now?
>> >Let me repeat it one more time, so that you don't make a response that >tells >> >us >> >you still can not comprehend this. It is not estimated times by different >> >witnesses that is important, it is the sequence of events that different >> >witnesses >> >testified to that tell us what happened and when. Got it?
>> >bobaugust
>> >Why? because only that which contradicted OJ was acceptable, anything else >was >> squashed. This truth is comparable to the discovery of America by Columbus.
>No Betty, all of the witnesses contradicted Simpson, even defense witnesses.
big lie;
>Nothing was squashed. There is not one single shred of evidence that >eliminates >Simpson from being the killer. Nothing. Everything points to him and only
because the refused to collect anything that didn't fit into their TIMELINE, anyone who said anything different were excluded on ignored.
>him. It >sounds to me like you still can not comprehend the difference between >estimated >times and real times. What lame excuses you use to avoid the truth.
>bobaugust
"the truth is not always popular, its always correct"
> >> "HE BE FREE" for now, does not change the reality of what happened. Our > >hero is a > >> very lucky man, but no one knows how long his luck will hold. Maybe > >forever, maybe > >> not.
> >If you read (and believe) the current issue of National Enquirer, it doesn't > >look like it will hold out much longer. He's either gonna get nailed with > >drug charges or he's gonna carry out one (or more) of the death threats he's > >throwing around. As for his photos and his reported sexual escapades, I'm > >feeling wooozy and can't write anymore. :(
> >kattail
> >Believe what some of ehat you see and none of what you hear.
> take another puff.
Betty, since you insist on starting your posts IN other people's messages, I suppose that first line under my name must be yours. Were you trying to say: Believe "some of what you see"....(that's the correct way it starts)?
The National Enquirer is NOT always wrong and I tend to believe THIS part of the article:
Quote by Cathy Bellmore (oj's girlfriend's mother)....... "Christie told me she and O.J. do Ecstasy. She says, 'It's a love drug. It makes sex better. O.J. and I do it all the time. O.J. gets on the phone and calls up his friend Adrian Burke to order some Ecstasy. Then Adrian comes over to O.J.'s house.'"
Adrian Burke is actually Andrew Anderson, 33, a massage parlor owner charged with smuggling Ecstasy from Europe to South Florida.
"FBI and DEA agents first connected Simpson to the drug-smuggling ring when a wiretap on Anderson's phone caught Simpson on tape ordering Ecstasy for his girlfriends," an insider told The ENQUIRER. "Federal agents started following Anderson and noted that he frequently visited Simpson's house. "That is what led to the search warrant at the Simpson home."
Simpson's attorney Yale Galanter claimed that "O.J.'s name came up on a tape of someone else who is the focus of the investigation." But a top law enforcement official confirmed to The ENQUIRER: "There are surveillance pictures of O.J. with known drug dealers and he has been taped talking to drug dealers on the phone about getting Ecstasy." Galanter also denied that Simpson uses illegal drugs. But the law enforcement official revealed: "During the raid on O.J.'s house, agents found residue of marijuana in the house." {note this, Betty:} Galanter admitted that he knew of the raid at Simpson's house a day before it occurred, but maintains he did not warn Simpson, which would have enabled O.J. to get rid of any drugs in the house.
[end of quote from ENQUIRER article] ______________
If Galanter was your attorney, would you trust or believe him, Betty?
kattail <who quit smoking cigarets 27 years ago and has never smoked anything else>
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:56:51 GMT, "kattail" <none@??.x> wrote: >The National Enquirer is NOT always wrong and I tend to believe THIS part of >the article:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:56:51 GMT, "kattail" <none@??.x> wrote:
> >The National Enquirer is NOT always wrong and I tend to believe THIS part of > >the article:
> Karen, please post the "confession" part.
> RHR
OK, here it is: {quoted exactly from the National Enquirer]
And as the investigation continues, the worried mother of Simpson's longtime girlfriend Christie Prody has come forward to reveal all the details behind the gridiron great's sordid drugs-and-sex lifestyle -- and the confession he blurted out in a jealous rage. "I've always known my daughter is in danger from Simpson -- he is a killer," Christie's mother Cathy Bellmore told The ENQUIRER in an exclusive interview. "And he got so angry with Christie when she surfaced after going on a cocaine binge that he threatened her. "When she returned to her apartment, it wasn't but a few minutes before O.J. showed up, shaking with fury and clenching his fists. It was obvious he'd been staking out her apartment. "Christie told me his eyes were blazing as he shouted at her: 'I killed Nicole and I can kill you too! So watch out! I got away with murder once and I can do it again!' "Then he went silent and sat down in a chair. But after 45 minutes he flared up again, pounding his fists on the dining room table and screaming: 'I told you not to party with other people. You party only with me. You're not going to be partying with anyone if you keep this up!' "But Christie turns a blind eye -- even though he's said 'I killed Nicole!' more than once. "She's so far gone on drug bingeing I don't think she cares whether Simpson is a killer or not. She says, 'So what if O.J. killed Nicole. He'll never do it again.'" A year ago Christie told The ENQUIRER she was convinced Simpson killed his ex-wife Nicole and waiter Ron Goldman. "But O.J. convinced her he was an innocent lamb once again and they started seeing each other and getting more and more caught up in the drug world together," Cathy disclosed. "O.J. doesn't hold back that he killed Nicole and he threatens my daughter too, but she doesn't know what to believe. She just can't come to grips that O.J. is a killer. "She thinks he says those horrible things when he is angry and he doesn't mean it. "On one occasion this summer, Christie told me, 'We were in a strip club. We were coked out and O.J. started talking about Nicole. "'He just sat there bleary-eyed, repeating her name over and over. "'At first it seemed he was fondly remembering a woman he loved, but then he started talking about how she was a two-timing bitch and his squinting eyes went really cold. It sent chills up my spine.'"
_____________________
This reminds me of Chris Jacobs who killed an entire family years back in Wisconsin. He was tried and found "Not Guilty". He has since "confessed" several times to various girlfriends. Why not? Guys like him and simpson can't be tried again. I wonder if they aren't bragging....
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:46:56 GMT, "kattail" <none@??.x> wrote: >> Karen, please post the "confession" part.
>> RHR
>OK, here it is: {quoted exactly from the National Enquirer]
Thanks, Karen. If I were an Enquirer editor, I'd make a deal with Christine to have her find out where OJ dumped the knife and shoes and what he was doing behind Kato's room. I'd break down and buy a copy of the Enquirer if they did that.
>> >> >"Too many documented facts on the web put forth a cogent misconception >of >> >> >what >> >> >happened"? I have no idea what that means or how it has anything to do >> >with >> >> >the >> >> >reality of these murders. What facts are you talking about? There is a >lot >> >of >> >> >pure >> >> >bull crap and unsupported speculation on the web about this case, a >lot of >> >> >from >> >> >Wagner. None of those unsupported fantasies have any resemblance to >the >> >> >truth. >> >> >There are a lot of unsupported fantasy theories offered on this >newsgroup. >> >> >They >> >> >have all been shown to be false. All pro-j's have a misconception of >what >> >> >happened, >> >> >that is why those statements are not credible. The only way a >reasonable >> >> >person >> >> >decides if a statement is credible, is if it is supported. Supported >by >> >> >physical >> >> >evidence and witness testimony. A reasonable person use common sense >to >> >help >> >> >understand the facts. Pro-j's have no common sense.
>> >> >I do not expect to convince you of anything Betty. You are not capable >of >> >> >being >> >> >convinced. The truth of the facts in this case did not take two years >to >> >come >> >> >out. >> >> >The majority of the true facts came out before the civil trial, >starting >> >with >> >> >the >> >> >Grand Jury Protocols. But it was at the civil trial that the whole >story >> >came >> >> >together. The reason is very simple. Simpson testified at the civil >trial. >> >We >> >> >finally heard his side of the story. And his side was nothing but a >bunch >> >of >> >> >lies. >> >> >Simpson was impeached by many witnesses, including defense witnesses. >> >Simpson >> >> >was >> >> >impeached by telephone records. Simpson was impeached by photographs. >> >Simpson >> >> >lied >> >> >about almost everything he did between the hours of 9:40 and 11:15 the >> >night >> >> >of the >> >> >murders. All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and >only >> >> >Simpson >> >> >as the killer. Simpson's lying words confirm it.
>> >> >"HE BE FREE" for now, does not change the reality of what happened. >Our >> >hero >> >> >is a >> >> >very lucky man, but no one knows how long his luck will hold. Maybe >> >forever, >> >> >maybe >> >> >not.
>> >> >bobaugust
>> >> >It means the facts are on th WWW for all to see and make a >determination >> >and >> >> form their own opinion, you waste your time picking and choosing and >trying >> >to >> >> convince anyone of anything.
>> >> Most people have their own opinion and have not changed their minds >since >> >> 10/3/95
>> >Reasonable people who did not follow the Simpson case and then learn the >true >> >facts all come to the conclusion that Simpson was the killer. Fanatics >who >> >are not >> >reasonable and have no common sense will never be able to comprehend or >admit >> >to >> >the truth of this crimem no matter how many times the facts are explained >to >> >them. >> >That is you Betty.
>> >> The times overlap, the testimony changes and the questions remain.
>> >Estimated times overlap. That is why estimated times are not real times. >You >> >pro-j's use every excuse in the book to hold on to your denial. I have >> >explained >> >to you before, many times, that it is not the estimated times that tell >us >> >what >> >happened the night of the murders, it is the sequence of events. Simpson >was >> >moving very quickly that evening. He was speeding with his lights off to >try >> >and >> >get back home as fast as possible after committing the murders. There >could >> >have >> >been ten witnesses all lined up on the street watching him and everyone >of >> >those >> >witnesses could estimate a different time they thought they saw him. Some >who >> >may >> >have seen him earlier could estimate a later time than those who saw him >> >after. >> >Estimated times only tell us the general time an event happened, not the >> >exact >> >time.
>> >To understand the real times involved, there has to be a real time to >start >> >with. >> >A real time is a time supported by telephone records, or in another >example >> >television times. In the Simpson case the real time supported by >telephone >> >records >> >is when Allan Park saw Simpson enter his house. Park was on the phone at >the >> >time. >> >That time was shortly before 10:55. Now I know it's hard Betty, but you >have >> >to >> >work backwards from that time to figure out the approximate times the >other >> >events >> >happened.
>> >The event that happened before Park saw Simpson, was that Kaelin heard >noises >> >on >> >his wall. The event before that is when Shively encountered Simpson at >San >> >Vicente >> >and Bundy. The event before that was when Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco >> >speeding >> >away from the crime scene. The event before that happened was when >Heidstra >> >head >> >Goldman arrive and encounter Simpson. The event before that was when >Heidstra >> >first heard Nicole's dog barking. Do you you understand now?
>> >Let me repeat it one more time, so that you don't make a response that >tells >> >us >> >you still can not comprehend this. It is not estimated times by different >> >witnesses that is important, it is the sequence of events that different >> >witnesses >> >testified to that tell us what happened and when. Got it?
>> >bobaugust
>> Why? because only that which contradicted OJ was acceptable, anything else >was >> squashed. This truth is comparable to the discovery of America by >Columbus.
>This is great! This is very great! The dipso is now going to put on her >geography teacher hat. >The potential humor in that is scary. Yer a riat, ya ol fule.
>So far, she says those islands aren't part of the Americas and O.J. "The >Real Killer" Simpson didn't do it. Batty Betty bats minus 1.000. Simpson's >guilt has been proven beyond all except imaginary doubt, and no one has >shown any evidence that Columbus wasn't among the people who have discovered >this part of the world in the last 40,000 years.
>Ask that a Native American, fool.
"the truth is not always popular, its always correct"
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:46:56 GMT, "kattail" <none@??.x> wrote:
> >> Karen, please post the "confession" part.
> >> RHR
> >OK, here it is: {quoted exactly from the National Enquirer]
> Thanks, Karen.
You are welcome, bob <spelled backwards> :)
If I were an Enquirer editor, I'd make a deal with
> Christine to have her find out where OJ dumped the knife and shoes and > what he was doing behind Kato's room. I'd break down and buy a copy > of the Enquirer if they did that.
I agree.
It's verrry seldom I buy the Enquirer, nor even glance at it at the checkout line. I had a weak moment in Walgreen's a couple days ago and tossed "oj's confession" in my cart.
oj is old news to me...unless he confesses and tells things like you mention above. My interest at present is in Gary Ridgway, our semi-local guy who is the (or one of) Green River Killer. This is a far more interesting crime than the basic "ex-husband with an explosive temper and no self-control who went ballistic with jealousy and went for his ex-wife's HEAD". We had one in Milwaukee who stabbed his wife in the face numerous times in TGIF parking lot and claimed it was a passerby black guy. The profilers knew better. It was Jesse Anderson, her husband, who was later killed in prison by the same black guy who killed Jeffrey Dahmer. Had *his* head beat to a pulp. Kinda got what he deserved.
> >> >work backwards from that time to figure out the approximate times the > >other > >> >events > >> >happened.
> >> >The event that happened before Park saw Simpson, was that Kaelin heard > >noises > >> >on > >> >his wall. The event before that is when Shively encountered Simpson at San > >> >Vicente > >> >and Bundy. The event before that was when Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco > >> >speeding > >> >away from the crime scene. The event before that happened was when > >Heidstra > >> >head > >> >Goldman arrive and encounter Simpson. The event before that was when > >Heidstra > >> >first heard Nicole's dog barking. Do you you understand now?
> >> >Let me repeat it one more time, so that you don't make a response that > >tells > >> >us > >> >you still can not comprehend this. It is not estimated times by different > >> >witnesses that is important, it is the sequence of events that different > >> >witnesses > >> >testified to that tell us what happened and when. Got it?
> >> >bobaugust
> >> >Why? because only that which contradicted OJ was acceptable, anything else > >was > >> squashed. This truth is comparable to the discovery of America by Columbus.
> >No Betty, all of the witnesses contradicted Simpson, even defense witnesses.
> big lie;
You believe the big lie Betty. Some of the more damning defense witnesses that contradicted Simpson were Robert Heidstra, Michael Baden, Paula Barbieri, and Lenore Walker. There are many, many more.
> >Nothing was squashed. There is not one single shred of evidence that > >eliminates > >Simpson from being the killer. Nothing. Everything points to him and only
> because the refused to collect anything that didn't fit into their TIMELINE, > anyone who said anything different were excluded on ignored.
You continue to lie and deceive yourself. You have things backwards again. The police collected everything they thought might even be possible evidence. Even having things photographed, they seemed to have no bearing on this case. Then they started testing and investigating everything. The time line was established from the results of physical evidence testing, and the many witnesses who testified. No one picked and chose evidence based on knowing it pointed to Simpson or not. As it turned out, everything pointed to Simpson. Why is that Betty? Because Simpson was the killer. If you knew half of what you claim you know about this case, you would know that many more things collected turned out to be unrelated to the crime. There was more things that turned out to be incriminating to Simpson that wasn't even collected. The empty knife box in his bathroom. The dark colored sweat suit in his washing machine. The bloody smear on the switch plate cover, The bloody finger print on the rear gate. Your ridiculous backwards thinking is contradicted by the facts.
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:46:56 GMT, "kattail" <none@??.x> wrote:
> >> Karen, please post the "confession" part.
> >> RHR
> >OK, here it is: {quoted exactly from the National Enquirer]
> Thanks, Karen. If I were an Enquirer editor, I'd make a deal with
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <BB> Alleluah <BB> They're not interested
> Christine to have her find out where OJ dumped the knife and shoes and
<BB> I still think you should talk some more to Nicole's neighbors. <BB> I think they might know more, like where the shoes ended up. <BB> Did the nazis/witches decide yet whether or not the shoes will show up <BB> again?
> what he was doing behind Kato's room. I'd break down and buy a copy > of the Enquirer if they did that.
bobaugust, can you draw up a time table to show your evidence?
Such as:
At ???? P.M. Arnelle's recital (correct me if I'm wrong.)
At 9:00 P.M. OJ is with Kato and they go out to eat out.
AT ????? OJ takes a nap. Maybe the witches wore him out.
AT ????? Maybe somebody takes OJ's bronco for a joy ride. Did he buy it used? Maybe someone is lying or mistaken, as well. Who saw OJ in his Bronco?
At 10:4? OJ answers his door because the driver rang the bell. Driver can't really ID OJ. Did OJ step outside for a minute just before when the driver arrived?
AT 10:4? to 11:?? OJ goes to the airport
At 12:30 A.M. Arnelle never arrives at OJ's home.
Remember bobaugust, judging by the way you present your evidence, this table is required to clarify your facts. Can you really do that?
I still don't know if OJ has a housekeeper for sure with the mind games that you all play.
Remember, this table is a requirement now, if you really want to justify your facts.
From what I tell, OJ is innocent. Read the quasi-transcript. M. Dolores Denman knew who the killer was.
>From: co...@bfn.org (Buffalo_Bandit) >bobaugust, can you draw up a time table to show your evidence?
Sure he can.
>Such as:
>At ???? P.M. Arnelle's recital (correct me if I'm wrong.)
It wasn't Arnelle's recital. It was Sydney's, Simpson's youngest daughter. Damn Fusel, you're more lost than I ever dreamed.
>At 9:00 P.M. OJ is with Kato and they go out to eat out.
>AT ????? OJ takes a nap. Maybe the witches wore him out.
They ate at McDonald's. Geeze, Simpson case 101. Simpson didn't take a nap after eating, that's when he went on his killing spree. Witches? Fusel, come back to earth.
>AT ????? Maybe somebody takes OJ's bronco for a joy ride.
Who? When? How?
> Did he buy it used?
He didn't own it, the Hertz company let him use it.
> Maybe someone is lying or mistaken, as well.
Simpson lies but isn't mistaken, he knows what he did.
> Who saw OJ in his Bronco?
When??
>At 10:4? OJ answers his door because the driver rang the bell.
Bullshit. He wasn't home at 10:04, the driver wasn't even there yet!
>AT 10:4? to 11:?? OJ goes to the airport
After 11:00. He didn't get home from his killing spree until very close to 11:00 when the limo driver saw him enter his home after the limo driver had rang and rang for him, getting no answer.
>At 12:30 A.M. Arnelle never arrives at OJ's home.
Huh?
>Remember bobaugust, judging by the way you present your evidence, this table >is required to clarify your facts. Can you really do that?
I'm sure he can, with the real facts, not your fantasies. I know you can read, Fusel. Buy a book about this case, since you claim to be interested, and learn the basic facts. You'd be amazed.
>I still don't know if OJ has a housekeeper for sure with the mind games that >you >all play.
He did at the time, I don't know if he does any more.
>From what I tell, OJ is innocent. >Read the quasi-transcript. M. Dolores Denman knew who the killer was.
So, who was the "real killer" according to your fantasy-transcript? Sorry, Fusel, when I try and determine what I believe about something, I use facts, not delusions. Try it sometime, your whole outlook on life will change, I'm sure. You poor ole' fella.
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:46:56 GMT, "kattail" <none@??.x> wrote:
> >> Karen, please post the "confession" part.
> >> RHR
> >OK, here it is: {quoted exactly from the National Enquirer]
> Thanks, Karen. If I were an Enquirer editor, I'd make a deal with > Christine to have her find out where OJ dumped the knife and shoes and > what he was doing behind Kato's room. I'd break down and buy a copy > of the Enquirer if they did that.
> RHR
I like that idea. I wish she would trick him into talking into a recorder and get him to describe the murders. It would be interesting to see how our wild guesses stack up against his story of the actual events, and it would be fun (and funny as hell) to see prien's reaction.
> >> >> >"Too many documented facts on the web put forth a cogent misconception > >of > >> >> >what > >> >> >happened"? I have no idea what that means or how it has anything to do > >> >with > >> >> >the > >> >> >reality of these murders. What facts are you talking about? There is a > >lot > >> >of > >> >> >pure > >> >> >bull crap and unsupported speculation on the web about this case, a > >lot of > >> >> >from > >> >> >Wagner. None of those unsupported fantasies have any resemblance to > >the > >> >> >truth. > >> >> >There are a lot of unsupported fantasy theories offered on this > >newsgroup. > >> >> >They > >> >> >have all been shown to be false. All pro-j's have a misconception of > >what > >> >> >happened, > >> >> >that is why those statements are not credible. The only way a > >reasonable > >> >> >person > >> >> >decides if a statement is credible, is if it is supported. Supported > >by > >> >> >physical > >> >> >evidence and witness testimony. A reasonable person use common sense > >to > >> >help > >> >> >understand the facts. Pro-j's have no common sense.
> >> >> >I do not expect to convince you of anything Betty. You are not capable > >of > >> >> >being > >> >> >convinced. The truth of the facts in this case did not take two years > >to > >> >come > >> >> >out. > >> >> >The majority of the true facts came out before the civil trial, > >starting > >> >with > >> >> >the > >> >> >Grand Jury Protocols. But it was at the civil trial that the whole > >story > >> >came > >> >> >together. The reason is very simple. Simpson testified at the civil > >trial. > >> >We > >> >> >finally heard his side of the story. And his side was nothing but a > >bunch > >> >of > >> >> >lies. > >> >> >Simpson was impeached by many witnesses, including defense witnesses. > >> >Simpson > >> >> >was > >> >> >impeached by telephone records. Simpson was impeached by photographs. > >> >Simpson > >> >> >lied > >> >> >about almost everything he did between the hours of 9:40 and 11:15 the > >> >night > >> >> >of the > >> >> >murders. All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and > >only > >> >> >Simpson > >> >> >as the killer. Simpson's lying words confirm it.
> >> >> >"HE BE FREE" for now, does not change the reality of what happened. > >Our > >> >hero > >> >> >is a > >> >> >very lucky man, but no one knows how long his luck will hold. Maybe > >> >forever, > >> >> >maybe > >> >> >not.
> >> >> >bobaugust
> >> >> >It means the facts are on th WWW for all to see and make a > >determination > >> >and > >> >> form their own opinion, you waste your time picking and choosing and > >trying > >> >to > >> >> convince anyone of anything.
> >> >> Most people have their own opinion and have not changed their minds > >since > >> >> 10/3/95
> >> >Reasonable people who did not follow the Simpson case and then learn the > >true > >> >facts all come to the conclusion that Simpson was the killer. Fanatics > >who > >> >are not > >> >reasonable and have no common sense will never be able to comprehend or > >admit > >> >to > >> >the truth of this crimem no matter how many times the facts are explained > >to > >> >them. > >> >That is you Betty.
> >> >> The times overlap, the testimony changes and the questions remain.
> >> >Estimated times overlap. That is why estimated times are not real times. > >You > >> >pro-j's use every excuse in the book to hold on to your denial. I have > >> >explained > >> >to you before, many times, that it is not the estimated times that tell > >us > >> >what > >> >happened the night of the murders, it is the sequence of events. Simpson > >was > >> >moving very quickly that evening. He was speeding with his lights off to > >try > >> >and > >> >get back home as fast as possible after committing the murders. There > >could > >> >have > >> >been ten witnesses all lined up on the street watching him and everyone > >of > >> >those > >> >witnesses could estimate a different time they thought they saw him. Some > >who > >> >may > >> >have seen him earlier could estimate a later time than those who saw him > >> >after. > >> >Estimated times only tell us the general time an event happened, not the > >> >exact > >> >time.
> >> >To understand the real times involved, there has to be a real time to > >start > >> >with. > >> >A real time is a time supported by telephone records, or in another > >example > >> >television times. In the Simpson case the real time supported by > >telephone > >> >records > >> >is when Allan Park saw Simpson enter his house. Park was on the phone at > >the > >> >time. > >> >That time was shortly before 10:55. Now I know it's hard Betty, but you > >have > >> >to > >> >work backwards from that time to figure out the approximate times the > >other > >> >events > >> >happened.
> >> >The event that happened before Park saw Simpson, was that Kaelin heard > >noises > >> >on > >> >his wall. The event before that is when Shively encountered Simpson at > >San > >> >Vicente > >> >and Bundy. The event before that was when Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco > >> >speeding > >> >away from the crime scene. The event before that happened was when > >Heidstra > >> >head > >> >Goldman arrive and encounter Simpson. The event before that was when > >Heidstra > >> >first heard Nicole's dog barking. Do you you understand now?
> >> >Let me repeat it one more time, so that you don't make a response that > >tells > >> >us > >> >you still can not comprehend this. It is not estimated times by different > >> >witnesses that is important, it is the sequence of events that different > >> >witnesses > >> >testified to that tell us what happened and when. Got it?
> >> >bobaugust
> >> Why? because only that which contradicted OJ was acceptable, anything else > >was > >> squashed. This truth is comparable to the discovery of America by > >Columbus.
> >This is great! This is very great! The dipso is now going to put on her > >geography teacher hat. > >The potential humor in that is scary. Yer a riat, ya ol fule.
> >So far, she says those islands aren't part of the Americas and O.J. "The > >Real Killer" Simpson didn't do it. Batty Betty bats minus 1.000. Simpson's > >guilt has been proven beyond all except imaginary doubt, and no one has > >shown any evidence that Columbus wasn't among the people who have discovered > >this part of the world in the last 40,000 years.
> >Ask that a Native American, fool.
Okay, I was born here. I'll ask me.
I say thousands of people independently discovered the Americas, starting long before any recorded discoveries, including those that you complaisantly refer to by the absurd "Native" nonsense. When the Indians arrived, they killed all the "natives," who had killed all the preceding "natives," who had exterminated the generation of "natives" before them...etc.
There is no doubt that Columbus was one of those discoverers, so what's your point here (other than to look stupid)? By the way, there would be no surviving Indians if the Chinese, Arabs or the Zulus had started immigrating to these continents at the time the Europeans did. I bet you're going to have a hissy because I said Zulu instead of African American.
> > >> >> >"Too many documented facts on the web put forth a cogent > misconception > of > > >> >> >what > > >> >> >happened"? I have no idea what that means or how it has anything to > do > with > > >> >> >the > > >> >> >reality of these murders. What facts are you talking about? There > is a > lot > of > > >> >> >pure > > >> >> >bull crap and unsupported speculation on the web about this case, a > lot of > > >> >> >from > > >> >> >Wagner. None of those unsupported fantasies have any resemblance to > the > > >> >> >truth. > > >> >> >There are a lot of unsupported fantasy theories offered on this > newsgroup. > > >> >> >They > > >> >> >have all been shown to be false. All pro-j's have a misconception > of > what > > >> >> >happened, > > >> >> >that is why those statements are not credible. The only way a > reasonable > > >> >> >person > > >> >> >decides if a statement is credible, is if it is supported. > Supported > by > > >> >> >physical > > >> >> >evidence and witness testimony. A reasonable person use common > sense > to > help > > >> >> >understand the facts. Pro-j's have no common sense.
> > >> >> >I do not expect to convince you of anything Betty. You are not > capable > of > > >> >> >being > > >> >> >convinced. The truth of the facts in this case did not take two > years > to > come > > >> >> >out. > > >> >> >The majority of the true facts came out before the civil trial, > starting > with > > >> >> >the > > >> >> >Grand Jury Protocols. But it was at the civil trial that the whole > story > came > > >> >> >together. The reason is very simple. Simpson testified at the civil > trial. > We > > >> >> >finally heard his side of the story. And his side was nothing but a > bunch > of > > >> >> >lies. > > >> >> >Simpson was impeached by many witnesses, including defense > witnesses. > Simpson > > >> >> >was > > >> >> >impeached by telephone records. Simpson was impeached by > photographs. > Simpson > > >> >> >lied > > >> >> >about almost everything he did between the hours of 9:40 and 11:15 > the > night > > >> >> >of the > > >> >> >murders. All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson > and > only > > >> >> >Simpson > > >> >> >as the killer. Simpson's lying words confirm it.
> > >> >> >"HE BE FREE" for now, does not change the reality of what happened. > Our > hero > > >> >> >is a > > >> >> >very lucky man, but no one knows how long his luck will hold. Maybe > forever, > > >> >> >maybe > > >> >> >not.
> > >> >> >bobaugust
> > >> >> >It means the facts are on th WWW for all to see and make a > determination > and > > >> >> form their own opinion, you waste your time picking and choosing and > trying > to > > >> >> convince anyone of anything.
> > >> >> Most people have their own opinion and have not changed their minds > since > > >> >> 10/3/95
> > >> >Reasonable people who did not follow the Simpson case and then learn > the > true > > >> >facts all come to the conclusion that Simpson was the killer. Fanatics > who > > >> >are not > > >> >reasonable and have no common sense will never be able to comprehend > or > admit > > >> >to > > >> >the truth of this crimem no matter how many times the facts are > explained > to > > >> >them. > > >> >That is you Betty.
> > >> >> The times overlap, the testimony changes and the questions remain.
> > >> >Estimated times overlap. That is why estimated times are not real > times. > You > > >> >pro-j's use every excuse in the book to hold on to your denial. I have > > >> >explained > > >> >to you before, many times, that it is not the estimated times that > tell > us > > >> >what > > >> >happened the night of the murders, it is the sequence of events. > Simpson > was > > >> >moving very quickly that evening. He was speeding with his lights off > to > try > > >> >and > > >> >get back home as fast as possible after committing the murders. There > could > > >> >have > > >> >been ten witnesses all lined up on the street watching him and > everyone > of > > >> >those > > >> >witnesses could estimate a different time they thought they saw him. > Some > who > > >> >may > > >> >have seen him earlier could estimate a later time than those who saw > him > > >> >after. > > >> >Estimated times only tell us the general time an event happened, not > the > > >> >exact > > >> >time.
> > >> >To understand the real times involved, there has to be a real time to > start > > >> >with. > > >> >A real time is a time supported by telephone records, or in another > example > > >> >television times. In the Simpson case the real time supported by > telephone > > >> >records > > >> >is when Allan Park saw Simpson enter his house. Park was on the phone > at > the > > >> >time. > > >> >That time was shortly before 10:55. Now I know it's hard Betty, but > you > have > > >> >to > > >> >work backwards from that time to figure out the approximate times the > other > > >> >events > > >> >happened.
> > >> >The event that happened before Park saw Simpson, was that Kaelin heard > noises > > >> >on > > >> >his wall. The event before that is when Shively encountered Simpson at > San > > >> >Vicente > > >> >and Bundy. The event before that was when Heidstra saw Simpson's > Bronco > > >> >speeding > > >> >away from the crime scene. The event before that happened was when > Heidstra > > >> >head > > >> >Goldman arrive and encounter Simpson. The event before that was when > Heidstra > > >> >first heard Nicole's dog barking. Do you you understand now?
> > >> >Let me repeat it one more time, so that you don't make a response that > tells > > >> >us > > >> >you still can not comprehend this. It is not estimated times by > different > > >> >witnesses that is important, it is the sequence of events that > different > > >> >witnesses > > >> >testified to that tell us what happened and when. Got it?
> > >> >bobaugust
> > >> Why? because only that which contradicted OJ was acceptable, anything > else > was > > >> squashed. This truth is comparable to the discovery of America by > > >Columbus.
> > >This is great! This is very great! The dipso is now going to put on her > > >geography teacher hat. > > >The potential humor in that is scary. Yer a riat, ya ol fule.
> > >So far, she says those islands aren't part of the Americas and O.J. "The > > >Real Killer" Simpson didn't do it. Batty Betty bats minus 1.000. > Simpson's > > >guilt has been proven beyond all except imaginary doubt, and no one has > > >shown any evidence that Columbus wasn't among the people who have > discovered > > >this part of the world in the last 40,000 years.
> I say thousands of people independently discovered the Americas, starting
^^^^^^^^^^ <BB> Norma, work
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <BB> Wants Plaintiff to build alcohol plant on his own.
> long before any recorded discoveries, including those that you complaisantly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> refer to by the absurd "Native" nonsense. When the Indians arrived, they > killed all the "natives," who had killed all the preceding "natives," who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <BB> I don't have that power
> had exterminated the generation of "natives" before them...etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ <BB> Are you going to try and cut me off again?
> There is no doubt that Columbus was one of those discoverers, so what's your
^^^^^^^^ <BB> Norma
> point here (other than to look stupid)? By the way, there would be no > surviving Indians if the Chinese, Arabs or the Zulus had started immigrating > to these continents at the time the Europeans did. > I bet you're going to have a hissy because I said Zulu instead of African > American.
^^^^ <BB> Hooker Chemicals
Try and answer this posting and see what you get. I think you're in the Buffalo area, Johnny Griffin.
