JFK AND O.J. SIMPSON
David Von Pein
JFK AND O.J.:
There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK
murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called
police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the
loony conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent
man for murder.
The following video clip comes from the live TV coverage of the
prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in
late September of 1995.
Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between
Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in
this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding
the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the
Connally stretcher bullet).
You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this
video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost
exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-
assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of
planting Bullet CE399:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
"Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police
misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive,
unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to
be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." --
David Von Pein; August 7, 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
lazu...@webtv.net
nutter....almost nobody thinks O.J. was framed...it's obvious he was a
lone nut, possibly Cowlings disposed of the knife..doubtful, but doesn't
look like we will ever know for sure. O.J. was the classic psychopathic
murdering lone nut...everything about the crime scene, O.J.'s past and
subsequent behavior tell you that.....everything that we know about the
JFK Assassination indicates..Oswald was framed..even if you were to say
LHO killed Tippit and fired at the president..the magic bullet theory
doesn't hold up...neither does the sole headshot from the rear, and most
people understand this..evidence does mean something to regular
people,despite all the propoganda from the Estabishment filtered down to
these boards...Laz
David Von Pein
The main point is:
Conspiracy kooks, without a stitch of evidence to support their crap,
NEED to have a bunch of stuff "planted" in order to pretend that their
"patsy" is innocent.
The same was true in the O.J. case, too. Because without all of that
incriminating evidence being PLANTED (or magically "degraded" to the
point where FIVE blood drops on the Bundy sidewalk somehow turned into
Simpson's own blood, which is impossible to begin with)....then the
defendant is guilty. Period.
Johnnie Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey, and the rest of the
Scheme Team of OJ lawyers were just EXACTLY like the kooks here at acj
-- they NEEDED a bunch of stuff to be planted in order to pretend
their guilty client was innocent. Simple as that.
bigdog
In defense of OJ's lawywers, they were doing their job, as revolting
as we might find it. They are supposed to work in their client's best
interest. The ethics of their profession demands it. CT's on this
board don't have that defense. So what is their excuse for trying to
subvert the truth?
bigdog
> Try and think outside the box for just once instead of a lone
> nutter....almost nobody thinks O.J. was framed...it's obvious he was a
> lone nut, possibly Cowlings disposed of the knife..doubtful, but doesn't
> look like we will ever know for sure. O.J. was the classic psychopathic
> murdering lone nut...everything about the crime scene, O.J.'s past and
> subsequent behavior tell you that.....everything that we know about the
> JFK Assassination indicates..Oswald was framed..even if you were to say
> LHO killed Tippit and fired at the president..the magic bullet theory
> doesn't hold up...
That is correct. Magic bullet theories do not hold up, but the Single
Bullet Theory remains rock solid. Magic Bullet Theory applies to any
and all alternatives to the SBT.
> neither does the sole headshot from the rear, and most
> people understand this..
Most people misunderstand this. The forensic evidence shows
conclusively that the head shot came from behind JFK and there is no
forensic evidence of any shot from any other direction.
> evidence does mean something to regular
> people,despite all the propoganda from the Estabishment filtered down to
> these boards...Laz
In the case of CTs, evidence is something that must be explained away.
Any straight forward explaination of the evidence yields the
conclusion that Oswald did it all.
David Von Pein
>>> "In defense of OJ's lawyers..." <<<
There is no reasonable "defense" for the lawyers' actions in the OJ
case (IMO). They overstepped every boundary of ethics and
professionalism, and they surely HAD to know it.
Yes, it's okay for lawyers to defend guilty clients. That happens
every day. It's the way the court system works. But Simpson's lawyers
went far beyond the norm when defending their client, and Johnnie
Cochran's "Fuhrman Equals Hitler" analogy in his final summation to
the jury boldly illustrates that sad fact.
aeffects
> JFK AND O.J.:
>
<snip the Von Pein lunacy>
you need to take up drinking, shithead...... Geeeez what-a-dumb fuck
lazu...@webtv.net
lazu...@webtv.net
heaven-JFK-everything about the media, and how it was investigated up
till today, none of the spineless, clothes and haircut men and women
will allow a fair examination of the evidence-they can only deal with
high paid scumbags to defer too...
As far as O.J.-Judge Ito was a piece of shit-Prosecutors Clark and
Darden not much better-Cochran was a prima donna who made outrageous
claims, but they worked..the jury let an insane psychopath who murdered
2 defenseless people in the most horrific, sickening way get off scot
free...and maybe the most pathetic sight of all was the people cheering
on O.J. in the ford bronco from overpasses and onlookers...it boggles
the mind that we came to this...Laz
David Von Pein
>>> "This muckracking, of trying to compare the assassination of JFK and the debate surrounding it, to other discredited, corrupt or unsavoury things, like the OJ trial or the belief in UFO's or the belief the moon landings were faked, is intellectually dishonest, and a sign of how desperate some Lone Nutters are becoming." <<<
Oh, pleeeease! You're dreaming.
I was merely pointing out a FACT, with that fact being: The OJ Simpson
and JFK murder cases have a lot of things in common.
And another point I was making (actually, I guess this was my biggest
"point" of all) is this----
When attempting to defend either killer (OJ and LHO), a person putting
on that defense is forced to ignore or mangle the evidence in each
murder case -- such as pretending all of the evidence was planted and/
or tainted in some way, which is exactly what the Simpson Scheme Team
of lawyers did in 1995, and it is exactly what the conspiracy kooks of
the world do every day of their lives with respect to Lee Harvey
Oswald and the JFK assassination.
So, Thalia, tell me again how my above observations turn me into a
"desperate" LNer?
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/vincent-bugliosi-vs-oj-simpson.html
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
Gil Jesus
> JFK AND O.J.:
>
> There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK
> murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called
> police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the
> loony conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent
> man for murder.
>
> The following video clip comes from the live TV coverage of the
> prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in
> late September of 1995.
>
> Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between
> Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in
> this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding
> the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the
> Connally stretcher bullet).
>
> You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this
> video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost
> exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-
> assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of
> planting Bullet CE399:
>
>
> � � � "Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police
> misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive,
> unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to
> be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." --
> David Von Pein; August 7, 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
One question:
Did the prosecution's "common-sense argument" ultimately win the
Simpson case ?
David Von Pein
>>> "Did the prosecution's "common-sense argument" ultimately win the Simpson case?" <<<
It sure would have helped if the prosecution had presented ALL of the
evidence against Simpson, but they didn't.
And it would have also helped (immeasurably) if the jury had some
"common sense" of its own. But, as we all know, they possessed none.
======================================
Quoting from my review of Vince Bugliosi's video series "Absolutely
100% Guilty":
"I had always thought when viewing the trial day by day, that
there simply must have been SOME legal roadblock which caused the
prosecution to NOT present to the jury two of THE biggest
incriminating pieces of evidence in the case that would have gone a
long way toward proving Simpson's guilt in the two brutal June 12,
1994, murders with which he was charged -- that evidence being:
"Simpson's 32-minute recorded statement to Los Angeles police
the day after the murders (in which he admitted to having been
bleeding the night before and further advised the authorities that he
just simply couldn't remember how he happened to receive the deep cut
on his left hand just hours earlier). ....
"Plus: The famous "Bronco Chase" of June 17, 1994, when Simpson
attempted to flee L.A. in his friend Al Cowling's Ford Bronco -- with
gun, passport, disguise, and thousands of dollars in cash safely
aboard the vehicle. All of this equipment and money, according to
Simpson, was needed to simply visit Nicole's gravesite. [LOL.]
"I kept telling myself that there MUST be some legal precedent
that kept Clark and Darden from introducing this crucial evidence,
damning to the defense's case, to the jury. But, alas, there was NO
such legal reason to have excluded this critical evidence, and Mr.
Bugliosi tells us this during this video program. (No wonder he's so
boiling mad at this prosecution team.)
"It was later learned that the prosecutors didn't introduce this
valuable evidence at the trial for the flimsiest of reasons -- They
didn't want the jury to feel "sympathy" toward Simpson. Plus, the
lawyers decided not to use Simpson's police statement because they
didn't want to have the jury "hear Simpson saying he was not guilty
out of his own mouth" (paraphrased quote).
"Mr. Bugliosi has a field day with that last piece of inane
reasoning. Because, when you think about it for a second, you can see
how flimsy (and silly) a reason that is to not introduce a critical
piece of damaging evidence against the defendant. It's ultra-silly
because the jury ALREADY OBVIOUSLY KNEW that Simpson had pled "Not
Guilty" to both counts of murder -- which is the whole reason there
was a trial in the first place! Why would hearing him say it on tape
make a huge difference?! It's the entire reason they (the jury) were
there at all, because he didn't plead "Guilty"!" -- DVP; September
2005
http://Amazon.com/review/RGA2WFXGVXCCJ
======================================
David Von Pein
http://Amazon.com/review/R21IRCSNWEZNW6
While rewatching the closing arguments of the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder
trial (as I edit together a massive multi-part series of videos
dealing with those closing arguments by the prosecution and defense),
something interesting occurred to me out of the blue that I had never
thought about before. (At least I think it's kind of interesting
anyway.)
And these observations concerning the O.J. Simpson case (at the link
provided above) could be generally applied in some areas of the JFK
case too -- by asking yourself this:
Is it reasonable to believe that PRE-assassination conspirators as
well as POST-assassination Government and law-enforcement agencies
would have possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame the very same
person (Lee Harvey Oswald) for the murders of both JFK and J.D.
Tippit?
Food for thought.
============================================
RELATED LINKS:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/vincent-bugliosi-vs-oj-simpson.html
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
http://YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=3C3290976C7F570A
http://YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=DC859A18EEE7B6EF
============================================
Steve
> http://Amazon.com/review/R21IRCSNWEZNW6
>
> While rewatching the closing arguments of the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder
> trial (as I edit together a massive multi-part series of videos
> dealing with those closing arguments by the prosecution and defense),
> something interesting occurred to me out of the blue that I had never
> thought about before. (At least I think it's kind of interesting
> anyway.)
>
> And these observations concerning the O.J. Simpson case (at the link
> provided above) could be generally applied in some areas of the JFK
> case too -- by asking yourself this:
>
> Is it reasonable to believe that PRE-assassination conspirators as
> well as POST-assassination Government and law-enforcement agencies
> would have possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame the very same
> person (Lee Harvey Oswald) for the murders of both JFK and J.D.
> Tippit?
>
> Food for thought.
>
> ============================================
>
> RELATED LINKS:
>
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities...
>
> http://YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=3C3290976C7F570A
>
> http://YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=DC859A18EEE7B6EF
>
> ============================================
But one of the main similarities with the Simpson defense team and
nutty conspiracy believers is their mutual use of the "shotgun"
approach to creating their conspiracy theory. The SImpson defense
team threw several different scenerios into the air and hoped that the
jury of poorly-educated, racially charged jurors would buy one of
them.
1. The LAPD was racist and planted Simpson's evidence at the scene
(none of which was ever established with supporting evidence.)
2. The real murders were actually in carrying out a "lesson murder"
because of Faye Resnick's drug debts.
3. Nicole was the real drug user and Columbian drug lords killed her
to teach other cocaine users a lesson to always pay for their drugs
(of course WHY Columbian drug lords wanted to make it look like O.J.
did the crimes was never explained.)
But with the Simpsion jury (and with conspiracy loonies) evidence does
not need to support theories: The theories alone are sufficient. In
the JFK case conspiracy nuts still maintain that at least one gunman
fired from the right-front in spite of the fact that NO medical
evidence and virtually no acoustic testimony places two gunmen in
different locations. To the conspiracy mindset, the evidence needed
to support such a belief is superfluous. Conspiracy nuts believe in
multiple gunmen in spite of the fact that NO balistic evidence exists
of bullets other than Oswald's MC ammunition. Conspiracy nuts
maintain that a second rifle was found inthe TSBD in spite of the fact
that no such rifle has ever been produced and NO bullets fail match
Oswald's rifle.
It is clear that conspiracy nuts will always be conspiracy nuts.
aeffects
you two trolls need to form the .john Lone Nut-KOOK-STER bandwidth pud
pullers association of Indiana. Maybe David Letterman will give you a
plug (sic).
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
As disgusted as I was with the OJ verdict, I cannot place blame with
the defense team. They did what they were hired to do and what the
ethics of their profession demanded. They were responsible for one
thing, looking out for the best interests of their client, even if
they knew he was actually guilty, which I'm sure they knew. The blame
for the verdict clearly rests with an incompetent prosecution and a
gullible jury, both of which were no match for the multi-million
dollar dream team OJ hired let him get away with murder.
lazu...@webtv.net
Cochran....Judge Ito did not control the courtroom and Clark and Darden
were something else..I'd have to go thru Bugliosi's book again to
refresh my mind on the specifics, but he wasn't kidding when he said he
would have given them a F-...laz
David Von Pein
>>> "As disgusted as I was with the OJ verdict, I cannot place blame with the defense team. They did what they were hired to do and what the ethics of their profession demanded." <<<
Nonsense.
You think that Cochran's and Scheck's professional ethics demanded
that the defense team go about the task of accusing the entire LAPD of
trying to frame Simpson for 2 murders?
The defense FAR overstepped their bounds in the Simpson case and
everybody knows it, with respect to basic ethics and otherwise.
Philip Vannatter probably should have sued the expensive pants off of
Johnnie Cochran for defamation. Phil just might have won that lawsuit
too, considering the nonexistent "case" that Mr. Cockroach (er--excuse
me--Cochran) had against Phil and the LAPD.
Steve
In addition when the jury toured Simpson's Rockingham estate as part
of the trial Johnnie Cockroach had the interior completely redecorated
to make it appear as if Simpson was in touch with his black roots.
Prior to Cockroach's touch, Simpson's house was filled with modern art
and painted nudes of various women. AFTER Cockroach touched things up
he had paintings of Martin Luther King, a copy of Norman Rockwell's
"The Problem We All Live With" featuring Ruby Bridges, a young black
girl walking to school while being escorted by federal agents. This
was all designed to manipulate the jury (jury tampering) into siding
with Simpson, NOT over the evidence but over some ridiculous sense of
black solidarity. It is no wonder that after the verdict was read,
one juror stood and gave the Black Power sign of a clenched fist as he
left the courtroom. The ONLY consolation in the Simpson case was the
civil suit and his subsequent imprisonment. And in addition, the
civil suit gave all literate Americans the chance to see Robert Groden
exposed as the charlatan, fake, phony, and pseudo-photographic expert
that he really is. The Simpson civil case did for Groden's reputation
what the HSCA investigation did for crazy old Jack White. After these
two public de-pantsings no educated person would ever take ANYTHING
Groden or White said seriously ever again. The fact that White is a
"God" at the Education Forum speaks volumes about the gullibility and
intellectual innocence of that crowd.
aeffects
Steve-o-reno.... another 20+ words rant over nada..... the epitome of
lone nut lunacy, Steve-o-reno dancing for the trolls.... ROTFLMFAO!
You shitheads can't get a lone nut campaign of any sort underway can
ya? JFK and OJ. Did you trivialize your own parents passing, too? Ypou
be a sicko-boyo, along with super KOOK - STER, David Von Pein.....
carry on! don't let me interrupt your rant!
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Could there be ANYTHING more ironically hilarious than David Healty
criticizing other posters for "ranting over nada"?
An author couldn't WRITE a gem like that
aeffects
that's why you can't get past the JV shithead, no, as in ZERO,
talent... Now go bang on your tom-tom.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was in Idaho Falls over Spring Break and I was approached my a
homeless man who was rambling about the telephone company, the
Cleveland Browns football team and their coach, and a the number of
cats he had to deal with. He had on mismatched shoes, a flannel
shirt, Sunday-best dress slacks, and a scarf wrapped around his neck.
As he spoke I smiled and thought, "Me hell, he talks EXACTLY the same
way David Healy writes. EXACTLY. Your last post reminded me of this
demented homeless nut.
Jeff
There was a segment on the PBS News Hour this week that talked about
how money contaminates peoples' behavior.
The so called Wall St. meltdown was driven by pure greed and very
short term objectives. The people running these financial companies
wanted to get the stock price as high as possible, obtain as much
stock as they could, and then sell it before anyone realized the
company was nearing total collapse.
This same contamination has infected the legal profession also. Big
time.
Given enough money people can get away with basically any crime in
America.
Yes OJ Simpson's defense team was doing what they were paid to do.
But they were paid too much that's the problem.
The legal parasites are always looking to capitalize on the mistakes
within American society. Drugs that accidentally kill people.
Somebody slipping and falling in a grocery store. Artificial breast
implants that unattractive women get put into their bodies which then
explode. People who smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years
and get cancer and now want to sue the tobacco companies.
That's fine but the lawyers should just get a fee for doing this. Why
do the lawyers get most of the money ?
There was a case where the FBI had video of a guy giving someone a
paper bag containing $ 25,000 in cash as payment to kill someone. Ten
million dollars in legal fees later and the guy never spent a day in
jail.
Doctors also feed on society's ills in some cases. They are trained
to make money, not prevent illness.
Most of the commercials we see on TV today are for drugs, lawyers
looking for the next societal mistake so they can sue everyone in
sight, etc..
"Tell your doctor about Lipitore."
Why ? Shouldn't he know about it already ? What the hell does the
average American know about Lipitore ?
There's drugs out to fight mental problems such as depression. Help
people fall asleep. Make kids pay attention in school.
Maybe the kid just doesn't like school, is lazy, etc..
Jeff Marzano
aeffects
<snip>
no advertising shithead, you know the rules....
David Von Pein
F.Y.I. note:
My new 100-part O.J. Simpson Trial series is now completed (with 18
hours of courtroom footage):