WHAT DID ALLAN PARK SEE?
dick wagner
illustrations, which are too bulky for the newsgroup. To see this in
the illustrated version, please visit our web site at,
As with nearly all of the testimony in the Simpson trial, the fairly
simple experience of limo driver Allan Park was rendered complicated and
filled with uncertainty by the attorneys. In the following review and
analysis I try to restore the simplicity that Allan Park's testimony
warrants.
ALLAN PARK IN THE GRAND JURY: (Examined by Marcia Clark.) In the grand
jury on June 21st limo driver Allan Park said that he arrived at
Simpson's estate by driving up Rockingham at 10:25pm. (When all
testimony from all sources and proceedings is considered, this is taken
to be 10:23pm.) He made a right turn on Ashford, a U-turn, and then
parked facing west until some time between 10:35 and 10:40, when he
repositioned the limo. This he did by driving the few yards to
Rockingam, turning left to go down and inspect the Rockingham gate, then
backing up past Ashford, turning left on Ashford, going down to
Simpson's Ashford gate, and pulling in there with his front bumper
almost to the gate. Eventually, he was admitted, loaded Simpson and his
luggage, and departed by continuing down the driveway as it curved to an
exit on Rockingham. There, he left the Simpson property with a left
turn to go south on Rockingham toward the airport. This departure
occurred at about 11:15, he said.
There was no testimony as to whether he saw a vehicle parked by the
Rockingham driveway when he arrived at 10:23. At the time he
repositioned the limo "just before 10:40" (this is taken to be 10:39) he
said there was no vehicle at the Rockingham driveway, and he said "I
would have saw it if it was there." Of the situation at the time he
left for the airport, he said he looked left and right before he entered
Rockingham from Simpson's drive, and "There were no cars... I'm pretty
sure." But he was looking for oncoming traffic, not parked cars. When
asked, "There might have been a car parked there and you didn't see it?"
he answered, "Correct."
ALLAN PARK IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING: (Direct examination by Marcia
Clark, cross examination by Robert Shapiro.) In the preliminary
hearing, July 5, 1994, Park essentially gave the same information about
the possible presence of the parked Bronco that he had given in the
grand jury. Specifically, he was asked if, when he repositioned the
limo at 10:39, he "noticed any white Ford Bronco parked on the
Rockingham side near the gate?" and he said, "No, I didn't." But, he
believed that the circumstances of his observation would have caused him
to see it if it were there.
He repeated his grand jury testimony that he left Simpson's estate by
turning left onto Rockingham from the south driveway at about 11:15. He
was asked, "Did you look to see whether any cars were parked on the
right side as you faced the driveway of Rockingham outside the
residence?" To which he said, "I didn't look to see." As in the grand
jury, there was no inquiry in the preliminary hearing as to whether he
saw the Bronco when he arrived at 10:23.
ALLAN PARK IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL: Park testified in the criminal trial
on March 28 and 29, 1995 (direct examination by Marcia Clark, cross
examination by Johnny Cochran). The time at which Park arrived at
Rockingham is re-evaluated as being "10:22 or 10:23." The obvious
question, not asked in earlier proceedings, was finally asked: When Park
first arrived at Simpson's estate, he did not see a car parked in the
position that the Bronco was seen the following morning. Prosecutor
Clark made a great point of showing that he had to see the house number
on the curb to know that he was at his destination, and that was only
five feet or so from the Bronco's back bumper. The implication was that
if Park saw the tiny house number (4-1/2" tall), he should have seen a
vehicle that was so near to it. However, Park also admitted that he was
"going by a little bit fast when" he first got to Rockingham, and was
"driving and looking at the [numbers on the curb] as [he] went past [and
he] went on up to Ashford," fifty yards beyond. But, for whatever
reason -- whether because it was not there or because he overlooked it
-- he did not see the Bronco at 10:23.
Concerning the 10:39 repositioning, Park is asked, "and as you pulled
down Rockingham this time going southbound on Rockingham and looked into
the Rockingham gate, did you see any car, white Bronco, parked to the
left of the gate as you faced it?" To which he says, "No, I didn't."
He is then asked, "And was that location in your field of view at the
time you looked into the Rockingham gate?" To which he says, "Yes."
The time at which Park believes he left Simpson's estate bound for the
airport now slips a little from the original estimate of 11:15. Now it
becomes "11:10 to 11:15" when talking to the prosecutor, and "11:05 to
11:15" when talking to the defense attorney. We will consider that this
happened at 11:10. He says that as he was about to enter Rockingham,
there was a car approaching from the north, his right - the direction in
which he would have to look to see the Bronco. He was also aware of a
car parked at the curb some distance down Rockingham to his left. He
waited for the southbound car to pass before proceeding. In the course
of this maneuver, he says, "something was obstructing my view over here
on the right, and I edged out and I let the [southbound] car go by." He
could not further identify this obstruction to his view, but it was in
the general position in which the Bronco was seen the next morning.
Then Park "followed [the southbound car] down" the hill.
Park also established, through phone records, benchmarks in the time he
did particular things. While he was parked at the Ashford gate waiting
to be admitted, he alternated his time between the intercom box, where
he would push the page button two to four times in one episode, and
sitting in the limo with the driver's door open (the side of the car
away from Rockingham), some of which time was occupied on the phone. In
particular, there were the following calls:
(Try the intercom)
* 10:43:44 (unknown duration, but brief) to his boss's pager
(Try the intercom)
* 10:46:30 (for 2:20) to his home to get his boss's home phone number
* 10:49:07 (unknown duration, but brief) to his boss's home: unanswered
(Try the intercom)
* 10:52:17 (for 2:55) incoming from his boss
On cross examination, Park is asked about what he heard, as well as
what he saw. He said that the night "was very quiet." He was able to
hear routine street sounds in his vicinity, and in fact did hear and see
cars pass by (presumably on Rockingham, which is the more traveled
street), but he "never heard a car pull up and stop." He did not hear a
door (as a car door) slam, and he did not see an indication that there
was a nearby car whose lights were suddenly turned off . However, Park
points out that between 10:23 and 10:39 he was outside the limo, with
that car between him and Rockingham.
He also said that at the 10:39 visit to the Rockingham gate he looked
down the driveway and saw two cars, one of which was the Bentley, and
the other of which was a smaller dark colored car. Of this observation,
he says, "I'm pretty sure, not positive, but that is what I observed."
He does not have a recollection, one way or the other, of parked cars in
the driveway at the time he left for the airport. He says that he
believes the limo he was driving that night was about 28 feet long.
On re-direct examination it is established that when Park went down
Rockingham at 10:39 to examine the south gate, he traveled in about the
middle of the street. Insofar as Rockingham is a three lane street,
including parking lanes, this would have caused him to pass within
inches of the Bronco if it were present. And yet, Park was not aware of
a vehicle there. (From the place where he stopped to look down the
south driveway, Park would have been about ten feet from the Bronco's
position.)
ROSA LOPEZ IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL: There is an additional witness that
was technically not part of the trial, but testified in court on
videotape, an appearance that was never presented to the jury. Ms.
Lopez was the Salvadoran housekeeper for Simpson's neighbors to the
south. Although her testimony has been treated as a joke by many, she
is a person who was in a position to know the whereabouts of the Bronco,
and she did testify to the fact.
She said that on that Sunday night at 10:00 she left her television set
to fix herself a cup of tea, and when that was done, put a leash on the
dog, and took him out in the front yard for a few minutes. From some
parts of the front yard she could see the place where the Bronco was
found the next morning and she said that during that episode, she did
see the Bronco, a vehicle that was familiar to her. The actual time of
this observation is uncertain; the defense attorneys tried to make it to
be as late as 10:20, but 10:10 seems to be a more reasonable value.
Therefore, we take her testimony to mean that she did see the Bronco at
the Rockingham gate at 10:10.
THE ATTORNEYS AND THEIR GAMES: The basic strategy of the attorneys was
predictable. The defense tried to persuade that the Bronco had been all
night in the same location that it was found the following morning, and
that since this is presumably the vehicle that Simpson would have used
to go to Bundy, he did not go there. (We know that is untrue by
Shively's testimony.) It was the prosecution's objective to show that
the Bronco was away from Rockingham for a substantial time during the
critical hour of 10 to 11pm, and so presumably Simpson was away, too.
We will make our own determination.
The prosecution began their misrepresentation with a distorted map of
the vicinity (see Figure 1). This gives the idea that a northbound
traveler on Rockingham is forced to turn right onto Ashford when he gets
to that point; that is not true. Rockingham continues for another block
north of Ashford; however, Ashoford does not continue west of
Rockingham. The map also implies that Rockingham is narrower than
Ashford; the two streets are actually of comparable width, and if either
is wider it is Rockingham. Considering the care to detail that is put
into other parts of the map, these errors are inexplicable.
The prosecution also presented a photograph of the Bronco parked at its
Rockingham place. I was not able to find the prosecution's picture, but
show an equivalent photograph from Court TV in Figure 2. An arrow
pointing to the ground five feet behind the Bronco has been added to
show the location of the house number painted on the curb. As we shall
shortly see, even though this photograph accurately portrays what it
purports to show, it is one of the most misleading exhibits in the
trial.
The defense antics consisted largely in defaming the witness, Park.
They leaked a rumor (later reprinted by Bosco) that the cigarette Park
smoked while he was waiting on Ashford for the time to page Simpson was
marijuana, not tobacco. Presumably, his powers of observation would
have been impaired by this. However, there has never been any witness
to raise this from the level of rumor. Then, they portrayed Park as a
spineless mamma's boy (also in Bosco) because he phoned his mother when
he was not able to rouse Simpson on the intercom. However, Park first
tried to get his boss through a pager number, and failing that wanted to
call him at home. But Park did not have Dale St. John's home phone
number with him, and called his own house to have whoever answered the
phone get if for him from his records. That happened to be his mother,
and after she supplied the number Park hung up, and called St. John
directly. On that account he is portrayed as being a mamma's boy.
Park has also been criticized for coming to court with his mother, and
consulting with her before making any arrangements with the prosecutors
or defense attorneys. Some have said that while he was on the witness
stand, he turned to his mother for non-verbal advice, and they have
characterized this as his having been "coached" by his mother. Perhaps
that is true, but it happens that Park's mother is an attorney, and she
came to court in the capacity of a legal representative, not a mother.
Park is hardly the only Simpson case witness that consulted with an
attorney about his appearance. Kato's attorney in the grand jury caused
him to refuse to testify until Marcia Clark took him before a judge
where he could get concessions to her steamrollering tactics. And, of
course, Mark Fuhrman had an attorney that instructed him in the ultimate
stonewalling -- he took the fifth amendment. Other witnesses also had
attorneys.
However, goofed up maps, misleading photographs, and engineered
character assassinations of witnesses are not really the best basis upon
which to understand Park's testimony. It is better to try to understand
the circumstances of his observations, and interpret his words within
that context.
MY OWN OBSERVATIONS: In November 1998 I visited the location of
Simpson's former estate, both during the daytime and at night. The
situation was far different than the impression I got from the court
proceedings. The most dramatic difference is the darkness, especially
at the location where the Bronco was found Monday morning. Although
there are some decorative lights on the fronts of a few of the houses in
that neighborhood, the only effective lighting on the street at
Simpson's estate comes from the street light at Rockingham and Ashford,
and the headlights of passing cars. Otherwise, the scene is pitch
black. When I was there, a dumpster was parked at the Bronco's
position, and when it was not illuminated by my car's headlights, it was
invisible.
I have prepared diagrams which show the lighting schematically. Figure
3 shows the situation as Park drove up Rockingham on his initial
approach to the house. The path ahead of him is illuminated by his own
headlights. To determine the angle of dispersion for typical
headlights, I measured my own, and found that the main beam falls off
abruptly 2-1/2 feet from the axis of the headlight at a point ten feet
in front of the car. I have used this proportion of 1:4 in all of my
diagrams, and I have showed shades of gray to indicate regions
illuminated by the limo's headlights.
The sodium vapor streetlight at Rockingham and Ashford casts a pinkish
glow. The light is on a utility pole on the north-east corner, and
surrounding trees block the light in several directions, however this
light does shine in full strength on the Ashford gate to Simpson's
estate. On my diagrams I have shown the region illuminated by the
streetlight as pink, and scalloped the south edge of this to indicate
the boundary caused by tree shadows. Points south of the pink area are
not illuminated by the streetlight. I have not attempted to show the
shadow boundary north of Ashford.
There are also exterior lights on Simpson's house. Though I did not
see the effect of these myself, they are alluded to in Park's
testimony. There is both one or more porch lights, and a light pointing
north on the garage roof, and Park says that these are effective out to
about twenty feet or so. I have tried to estimate the region
illuminated by these, and show that region in shades of yellow.
When one compares the reality of so much unilluminated area with the
picture of the Bronco in Figure 2 that Clark showed the jury, he can see
how misleading that photo is. Allan Park never saw, and never could
have seen, anything resembling that picture because of the lighting
conditions. Referring to that picture, Clark said that if a person
could see the house number, then he could see the Bronco. While that is
true in the daytime, as in her picture, it is not true there at night.
The only things that can be seen are those things which are artificially
illuminated, and that state needs to be defined before any other
discussions are meaningful.
In addition to the darkness, another unusual thing about that
Rockingham neighborhood is that there is little traffic and very little
parking on the street. The lots are very large, and there is much
parking on the properties. So, except when someone is having a party,
or there is some other kind of overflow, residents do not park on the
street. In some blocks there is not a single car parked at the curb; in
others there are only one or two. For this reason, it is not
inconvenient that the streets are narrow (3 lanes) by other standards.
In most places a traveler has all three lanes to himself. For this
reason, when Fuhrman said that the Bronco stood out because it was
parked "askew," and few of us thought that it looked at much of an odd
angle, he was not verbalizing the whole reason for his suspicion. The
very fact that a car was parked at the curb in any condition was
somewhat unusual for that neighborhood. In Simpson's case, there was a
good reason for this: two guest houses occupied (Arnelle and Kato) and
the garage not used. But, the appearance on the street was unusual.
APPROACHING 360 N. ROCKINGHAM: In Figure 3 we see the situation as Park
first drove up Rockingham to Simpson's estate. At some distance from
the south driveway, the curb address was illuminated by Park's
headlights, and from my experience there I would say that the address
would be readable from a distance of about 150 feet, up to the point
where it was no longer in the headlight beam (probably about 30 feet, if
Park was driving near the center of the roadway, which is common
there.) If the Bronco was there, the back of it would be flooded with
Park's headlights and because there was so little in the surrounding
dark field, it would be very conspicuous. And, the simple fact that it
was a car parked at the curb in that neighborhood would make it
noteworthy.
At the time he arrived, Park tells us, he did not yet know how he would
enter Simpson's property -- whether by the Ashford gate or from
Rockingham. One would expect that in this frame of mind he would be
gathering clues about the situation, and one of these would be the
proximity of an obstacle to the entrance he might use. So, the Bronco
as he approached would not only be conspicuous, but might be something
that he would be slightly inclined to remember for the moment. And yet,
he did not see it. I consider this to mean that it was not in that
place at 10:23 when he arrived.
REPOSITIONING THE LIMO: If the limo in Figure 3 is turned around facing
south, and positioned in the intersection, the situation is that in
which Park approached the Rockingham gate during the repositioning
maneuver. The Bronco's parking place is again in Park's full headlight
beam as he approaches the south gate, and because there is so little
else illuminated, it would be conspicuous. And, if it was there, it is
unlikely that he would drive down the middle of the street to check out
the south drive, as he said he did, but would have gone farther to the
right where he could avoid coming close to the Bronco. Both because he
did not see such a conspicuous object, and did not adjust his path to
avoid it, I conclude that it was not there at 10:39 when Park
repositioned the limo.
We also see from the Rockingham illumination charts that Park made a
terrible blunder in his testimony that when he said he peered down the
south driveway during the repositioning maneuver he saw two cars. From
his position on the street, he is not projecting his own headlights down
the drive. (He was asked specifically whether he pulled up to that gate
with the front of the limo, and he said he did not.) It would be
surprising if there was enough light in that view to see more than an
occasional glint reflected from chrome, and it would have surely been
impossible to tell how many cars or what kind they were from that
position. It must be concluded that he mixed into his actual
observations on Sunday night things he later saw on television, when
cameras looked down that same driveway during the daytime and saw the
Bentley and Arnelle's car.
PARK AT THE ASHFORD GATE: In Figure 4 we see the illumination at the
time when Park was at the Ashford gate trying to rouse someone in
Simpson's house. The front of the house is illuminated both by the
house's exterior lights, and by Park's headlights. Because the Ashford
driveway is at an angle to the front of the house, Park's headlights
point south-east, and do not illuminate the south end of the driveway.
None of the house lights reach this area either, and as Park testified,
he could not see from his vantage the region down by the garage and
farther. It is in this area where would have traveled a person who went
to pound on Kato's wall, and who would go to the place where the glove
was dropped. The lighting did not permit Park to see such a person, as
Figure 4 illustrates. However, this same lighting gives an excellent
view of anyone crossing the driveway to go into the front door of the
house.
Also notice that from Park's place at the Ashford gate he has a grazing
view of the front of the house. If there are interior house lights on
near the front windows, he will see them. But if there are lights on in
the house, back away from the front windows, they may not have an effect
that is very obvious to him. Such lights, however would be visible to
anyone on Rockingham with a high enough perch to look over Simpson's
walls and through the windows deeper into the rooms. This allows us to
understand how some after-the-fact reporters said that even when there
were lights on inside Simpson's house they could not be seen from the
Ashford gate. Lights toward the middle and back of the house would have
this effect. But, if as Park was watching, interior lights near the
front windows were turned on, he would perceive that "the lights inside
the house went on." Thus, there is no conflict between some reports
that say you can see interior lights from the Ashford gate and others
that say you can not.
THE SOUNDS OF SILENCE: These maps of Simpson's estate also allow us to
evaluate Park's observation that he did not hear the Bronco arrive.
Cochran made a point of the fact that during part of Park's stay there
he was out of the car and in a position to hear and see things nearby.
But, this was during the time before the reposition maneuver, and we
know that the Bronco did not come back during that interval, since Park
did not see it at 10:39. It is more relevant to ask what was his
ability to hear during the following period. In that interval, he
shifted his position from the intercom box, on the far side of the limo
from Rockingham, to the interior of the limo where he made and received
cell phone calls. In particular, analysis of the Heidstra and Shively
observations leads to the conclusion that Simpson got back to Rockingham
in the minutes just after 10:44, and this was a time when Park says he
was engaged in telephone business inside the limo, trying to reach his
boss at home. He was probably looking at things within the limo (like
the cell phone) or at the house (for signs of life) and not over his
right shoulder at Rockingham.
The Bronco parking place is about 150 feet from where Park was at the
Ashford gate, and there are two solid walls covered with ivy between the
two points. There are several large trees in Simpson's front yard, and
much foliage in the neighborhood to soak up sound. So, direct sound
between the two points is blocked by walls, and reflected sound is
prevented by foliage. If Simpson arrived at a moment when Park was
inside the limo and on the phone, it is almost certain that he would not
be noticed. It is simply a red herring to compare this situation -- as
Cochran did -- with that of ten or twenty minutes earlier when Park was
sitting on the curb with nothing else to do but watch an occasional
Rockingham car go by.
LEAVING FOR THE AIRPORT: Figure 5 shows the situation as Park was
pulling out of the south driveway and preparing to enter Rockingham; it
is the most revealing of the illumination charts. Notice that unlike
the two previous occasions when he was on Rockingham and his headlights
pointed along that street, now Park is positioned so that his headlights
are transverse to the street. The Bronco at its parking place is
outside the beam of his headlights, and he can not see it by direct
illumination. If one is in a leisurely state (as Rosa Lopez was) she
might see the Bronco silhouetted in the soft glow of the streetlight 70
yards farther on. Or, if he was in a hurry, he might see that a Bronco
as an "obstacle" that blocked the view of a car approaching from the
north, and prompted him to edge out farther into the street in
preparation for making the turn, as Park said he did. But unless he was
familiar with the Bronco and expected to see it there, it is unlikely
that in these lighting conditions he would be able to tell what it was.
This, I think, accounts for Park's vagueness on what the situation was
when he left Simpson's estate for the airport, but still allows him to
be so sure about the situation at two earlier times.
CONCLUSION: From the foregoing, I conclude that the Bronco was at the
Rockingham parking place when Rosa Lopez was in her front yard at 10:10;
it was not in its place when Park first arrived at 10:23; it was not in
that place when he repositioned the limo at 10:39; but it was in that
place when he left for the airport at 11:10. Furthermore, if Simpson
arrived at a time when Park was inside the limo and occupied with the
cell phone (as he was at several times after 10:43), Park would not have
noticed the arrival.
This conforms satisfactorily with my own understanding in which Simpson
left his estate bound for Bundy at 10:22, and arrived back at Rockingham
at 10:44.
Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (11/16/98) NG_515
John Junot
I want to strongly recommend Dick's site for all of you, though I have
strongly diagreed with much of it and his theory of the crime in
general.
I have one objection to his latest post, and one observation.
I must object to his timing of Lolpez's movements and his saying that
she was in her front yard at 10:10.
pat McKenna interviewed Lopez and his findings were reported in Bosco's
book. he discovered that Lopez fixed her tea using a microwave and put
the dog's leash on as the tea was heating. So this whole process
actually took only about one minute or so. I can't remember where the
"10:00" figure for her starting time came from, but have no reason right
now to dispute it. However, if accurate, she was in the yard with the
dog a good five minutes or so before 10:10.
the one truly well-timed moment at this general time is the 10:03 call
OJ made to Paula, which he made while standing at the rear of the
Bronco. When Lopez was in the yard, then, OJ was either chipping balls
and was out of her sight due to the darkness and foliage between them,
or else OJ had just moments before walked around he corner onto Ashford
on the way to the Ashford gate with his dog. She certainly did not
mention seeing OJ at the Bronco, and she certainly would have if she
had. IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO TIME THE MOVEMENTS OF OJ AND LOPEZ
DOWN TO THE LAST SECOND.
Now my observation:
Please note in dick's figure 4 how poorly the kitchen door is
illuminated. the kitchen door is that little "step" immediately north
of the garage in Dick's figure 4. Actualy, as shown in other diagramsof
Rockingham and in photos of the front of the estate, There is a little
notch between the garage and where the kitchen sticks out towards the
driveway (See Fuhrman, page 26). Furhtermore, photos and OJ videotape
show that there was a large v-shaped tree truck in that notch.
There has been much discussion at any number of places about the two
side door on the south pathway that "OJ" for one reason or another
supposedly failed to take. But, as far as I know, I am the only one to
point out that the KITCHEN door was also an available entrance for
someone going from the south path and around the garage and wanting to
get in the house. Now, as Dick said, and his fig. 4 shows, the front
entbrance was well lit by the limos headlights. But the kitchen door,
as Dick's own diagram shows, was not--or, at least not nearly as well
lit as the front door. The kitchen door was at the very edge of the
limos headlights.
So why, then, wouldn't "OJ" have used the kitchen door to get in?
BL Parker
I read all of what you said, I must say that I was fixated until the
conclusion. Are you now saying that the murders happened between 10:22
and 10:44 ? Maybe I missed something here. Who then are you suggesting
was driving the Bronco ?
Not the same person that committed the crime. Never in my life have I
seen so much accomplished in so short a time.
As an ex employee in manufacturing,
where seconds and minutes are utilized
to the maximum, this is the ultimate stretch.
Thinking about your account I'm am now more inclined to think that it
happened after 11:15. the Coroners estimation was from 9:00 to 12:00,
if I remember correctly. That not only gives ample ime
to commit the crime but clarifys the narrowness of time. As for Shively,
I
place little value on whatt she says, first
because she has been known to make claims in high profile cases before.
Plus the fact that the witnesses who supposedly drove the Nissan didn't
come forth to corroberate <sp> her story. Heidstra impeached his own
story by
claiming the white vehicle headed in the opposite direction from where
Shively
claimed to have seen it. Plus the claim of
hearing an older black male voice and later recanting that statement, I
take what he said with a grain of salt.
Under normal circumstances investigators would have searched far and
wide for the
car Shively claimed to have seen. I agree with you on Parks claim of
seeing two cars in the driveway, I do not think he could have easily
maneuvered that limo through the driveway were there another car there.
This only proves IMO, that his testimony
like others could be less than accurate.
I give you credit for doing a great job in your attempt to connect the
dots in this case. That is a step up from the ones who have few real
facts and accept all of the
incohernt jibberish that has been offered
as proof positive that OJ would have,
could have and did murder two people within the timeframe suggested.
The following are trouble areas for me.
1- The recital testimony vs the video.
2- The cuts on OJ's hands, how two or three became many small ones in
the civil trial.
3- The glove; its fit and location. How it got there, and why. Seems too
pat for me,
smells of much more.
4- The socks and shoe prints.In a crime of passion, I woukd expect that
so called crime of passion would mean simply
losing it and killing without cause or reason. I would not expect in
such a ase that the perpetrator would plan an outfit
and select special shoes and clothing.
It can't be had both ways.
5- The socks and the video showing they were not on the rug before the
video
was taken. The gloves lying in the living room that were extras.
6- The release of information throughout that would enhance the
prosecution's
case.
7- The acceptance of Kaelin's stupid alibi.
8- The claim of Vanatter that he passed the blood vial to Fung in the
vestibule
and that it was then placed in a garbage bag carried out by Mazzola,
unbeknownst
to her.
8- The squeezing everything into a timeframe that allowed time for OJ to
have committed the crime. I wonder what that timeline would have looked
like had he not left for Chicago ?
9- The prosecutions unwillingness to explore the cast of suspicious
characters
surrounding the case. Tales of drug use, shady dealing etc..
10- The hands on/hands off treatment of Faye Resnick the most dangerous
player
in the entire saga.
11- The recantation by Deniese Brown of
her awareness of abuse vs her eventual
claim to have photographed Nicole's bruises. They tols Diane Sawyer they
were unaware of any abuse. Yet they quickly embraced the idea that he
killed her.
12- The claim that his being excluded from a family dinner, receiving a
breakup
message from Paula and seeing her with Ron Goldman triggered the
killings.
13- Why did John Debello ask Goldman
not to take the glasses over to Nicoles.?
14- Who owned the car that Goldman drove over there ?
15- Who was the intended guest, who messed the bed, was the bath and
candles for, and why hadn't the ice cream melted in three plus hours.
16- Why was more time allocated for Goldman to change clothes than for
OJ
(the bloody murderer) to change for his trip ?
17- Why was it necessary for Vannatter to lie to the judge when applying
for thr search warrant,ask the coroner to "work with us on this one".
18- Why would an experienced coroner
discard the stomach contents of the victim, fail to do a rape test which
is
proper procedure ?
19- Why would the LAPD nurse (Paratia),
have to recant his story as to the amount of blood he actually drew.
20- Who believes Ron Shipp's story about
OJ's inquiry about the length of time it takes for DNA test results ?
Not knowing much about trials except what I've seen in movies, this is
the most
disconnected case I could have ever imagined.
cordially
b.l.p.
"Treat people as if they were what you think they ought to be, so they
can become what they should be".
bony...@my-dejanews.com
jaj...@webtv.net (John Junot) wrote:
> Group;
>
> I want to strongly recommend Dick's site for all of you, though I have
> strongly diagreed with much of it and his theory of the crime in
> general.
>
> I have one objection to his latest post, and one observation.
>
> I must object to his timing of Lolpez's movements and his saying that
> she was in her front yard at 10:10.
>
> pat McKenna interviewed Lopez and his findings were reported in Bosco's
> book. he discovered that Lopez fixed her tea using a microwave and put
> the dog's leash on as the tea was heating. So this whole process
> actually took only about one minute or so. I can't remember where the
> "10:00" figure for her starting time came from, but have no reason right
> now to dispute it. However, if accurate, she was in the yard with the
> dog a good five minutes or so before 10:10.
>
> the one truly well-timed moment at this general time is the 10:03 call
> OJ made to Paula, which he made while standing at the rear of the
> Bronco. When Lopez was in the yard, then, OJ was either chipping balls
> and was out of her sight due to the darkness and foliage between them,
> or else OJ had just moments before walked around he corner onto Ashford
> on the way to the Ashford gate with his dog. She certainly did not
> mention seeing OJ at the Bronco, and she certainly would have if she
> had. IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO TIME THE MOVEMENTS OF OJ AND LOPEZ
> DOWN TO THE LAST SECOND.
Of course, no one really believes Lopez - except MORONS.
>
> Now my observation:
>
> Please note in dick's figure 4 how poorly the kitchen door is
> illuminated. the kitchen door is that little "step" immediately north
> of the garage in Dick's figure 4. Actualy, as shown in other diagramsof
> Rockingham and in photos of the front of the estate, There is a little
> notch between the garage and where the kitchen sticks out towards the
> driveway (See Fuhrman, page 26). Furhtermore, photos and OJ videotape
> show that there was a large v-shaped tree truck in that notch.
>
> There has been much discussion at any number of places about the two
> side door on the south pathway that "OJ" for one reason or another
> supposedly failed to take. But, as far as I know, I am the only one to
> point out that the KITCHEN door was also an available entrance for
> someone going from the south path and around the garage and wanting to
> get in the house. Now, as Dick said, and his fig. 4 shows, the front
> entbrance was well lit by the limos headlights. But the kitchen door,
> as Dick's own diagram shows, was not--or, at least not nearly as well
> lit as the front door. The kitchen door was at the very edge of the
> limos headlights.
>
> So why, then, wouldn't "OJ" have used the kitchen door to get in?
Gee, why don't you ask him, MORON.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robert H. Risch
>In article <20298-36...@newsd-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> jaj...@webtv.net (John Junot) wrote:
>> Group;
>>
>>
>> There has been much discussion at any number of places about the two
>> side door on the south pathway that "OJ" for one reason or another
>> supposedly failed to take. But, as far as I know, I am the only one to
>> point out that the KITCHEN door was also an available entrance for
>> someone going from the south path and around the garage and wanting to
>> get in the house. Now, as Dick said, and his fig. 4 shows, the front
>> entbrance was well lit by the limos headlights. But the kitchen door,
>> as Dick's own diagram shows, was not--or, at least not nearly as well
>> lit as the front door. The kitchen door was at the very edge of the
>> limos headlights.
>>
>> So why, then, wouldn't "OJ" have used the kitchen door to get in?
>
It is interesting that none of the books on the case take up the
qustion of Simpson's movements right after exiting the Bronco up to
the time he was seen by Park. The problem seems to be that we don't
know what keys Simpson had on him at the time. There is also the
question of which entrances had alarms and whether they were delayed
or not. I think that the latter question was taken up in detail in
the depositions and testimony of Kaelin and Simpson at the civil
trial. There is some very hard to follow testimony from a Westec
employee about the alarms at the criminal trial.
A couple of years ago I came to the conclusion (guess) that Simpson
was headed for the pool door which had a delayed alarm when he bumped
into the air conditioner. During the civil trial I wrote the
following in another discussion group:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've raised the question before of tracking OJ's motions after leaving
the Bronco after returning from Bundy on June 12, 1994. Kato Kaelin's
testimony on Nov. 19, helps to clear this up quite a bit.
First he explained that he the noise he heard was not a signal like 3
knocks, but a noise like someone falling into the wall. He also
explained that it would be possible that OJ could have reached the the
pool entrance by going to the end of the walkway and also it was quite
likely for OJ to have plowed into the air conditioner in the dark:
(excerpt from Baker's cross)
Q. Now, in terms of Mr. Simpson's home, you had become aware from just
having the kids over and playing hide and seek
with your daughter and Mr.
Simpson's kids, that there was really no way out
around the east side of the
guest quarters, correct?
A. Correct. I mean, you could get by.
Q. You'd have to jump?
A. Yeah, or -- jump or crawl; I don't know which
one.
Q. And this air conditioner that is -- that's --
that stuck out in your room,
that was through the wall and stuck out about
chest height, did it not?
A. I think that's about right. _
Q. And if it -- that was the lower portion. And
the upper portion would be
about where my nose is, correct?
A. Approximately, yeah.
Q. And the walls to that house were -- of the
guest quarters were, in your
opinion, very sturdily built, true?
MR. PETROCELLI: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: You know, I don't know what it was
in
the back, if it was
cement or -- I don't know what it's called.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever take your fist
and
hit that wall behind that
bed at all, sir?
A. No.
Baker tried to suggest that OJ could have gotten in via an entrance
before reaching the air conditioner, however these might not have been
entrances for which OJ had the keys.:
Q. Now, in -- in the house, how many entrances, if you know, are there
to get
into the house from anyplace on the south side?
A. I believe that at the time I knew, there was
right by the maid's -- the
laundry room.
Q. Also, a door goes into the garage?
A. Right.
Q. That goes, then, into the house?
A. Correct.
Q. And so if anybody was coming over the fence,
they could -- and wanted
to get into the house, they could enter through
to get into the house, they could enter through
the maid's room or they could
enter through the garage, and then into the
garage, and then through the door
that goes from the garage into the main living
quarters?
MR. PETROCELLI: Assumes facts not in evidence,
incomplete hypothetical,
Your Honor, in terms of keys and locks and so
forth.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I imagine they could, yes.
We also learned that OJ and Kato were about to start a search of the
south walkway, Kato going by the garage while OJ going "the other way"
which I suppose must be the difficult way around Arnelle's room.
However OJ said he had to be going and the search didn't take place.
Robert R.
bony...@my-dejanews.com
BET...@webtv.net (BL Parker) wrote:
You are a fucking asshole moron. Not one of your assine stupid moronic
questions mean DIDDLY - what a group of fucked up asshole dipshit turd
suckers that worship the idol butcher BOY.
> Dick Wagner,
>
> I read all of what you said, I must say that I was fixated until the
> conclusion. Are you now saying that the murders happened between 10:22
> and 10:44 ? Maybe I missed something here. Who then are you suggesting
> was driving the Bronco ?
MORON - your idol.
> Not the same person that committed the crime. Never in my life have I
> seen so much accomplished in so short a time.
> As an ex employee in manufacturing,
> where seconds and minutes are utilized
> to the maximum, this is the ultimate stretch.
>
> Thinking about your account I'm am now more inclined to think that it
> happened after 11:15.
Gee asshole - best be telling the appeal team - they could not get past
10:45. What an true MORON you are. No wonder you love and kiss your idol's
big ass each and every day.
Go stick your head in the sand - with your asshole sticking in the air, maybe
something will fall in.
Ron
wrote:
>
>I read all of what you said, I must say that I was fixated until the
>conclusion. Are you now saying that the murders happened between 10:22
>and 10:44 ? Maybe I missed something here.
Apparently you've "missed" everything ever posted on this newsgroup while in
your years-long drunken stupor. Every one of your idiotic
statements/questions has been addressed several dozen times, but just for
grins....
<many snips of ridiculous crap>
>Who then are you suggesting was driving the Bronco ?
Duuuuuuhhh.....whose blood was in it beside the victims and Butch simpson?
>Not the same person that committed the crime. Never in my life have I
>seen so much accomplished in so short a time.
>As an ex employee in manufacturing,
>where seconds and minutes are utilized
>to the maximum, this is the ultimate stretch.
>
How many people did you murder in the factory? Was a time-study dude
clocking you with a stopwatch while you were in action?
> As for Shively, I place little value on whatt she says, first
>because she has been known to make claims in high profile cases before.
Really? Which ones? Not surprisingly, you don't even know who/what you're
talking about.
> Heidstra impeached his own story by claiming the white vehicle headed in
>the opposite direction from where Shively claimed to have seen it.
BWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
Back to your old standard. After all this time, you STILL can't grasp the
concept of turning a steering wheel and causing a vehicle to go in a
different direction. Incredible.
>
>Plus the claim of
>hearing an older black male voice and later recanting that statement, I
>take what he said with a grain of salt.
>
He did? When? Mr Johnnie attempted to bury it under his phony "everybody
sounds alike so he's a racist" horseshit, but I don't recall Heidstra
recanting anything.
>The following are trouble areas for me.
>
1. Thinking.
>1- The recital testimony vs the video.
Spare me. No matter how piss-poor he was, Butch had plenty of acting
experience. There was a camera rolling, fool.
>2- The cuts on OJ's hands, how two or three became many small ones in
>the civil trial.
Somebody planted them?
>3- The glove; its fit and location. How it got there, and why. Seems too
>pat for me,
>smells of much more.
Your breath smells of cheap gin.
>4- The socks and shoe prints.In a crime of passion, I woukd expect that
>so called crime of passion would mean simply
>losing it and killing without cause or reason. I would not expect in
>such a ase that the perpetrator would plan an outfit
>and select special shoes and clothing.
>It can't be had both ways.
Who says he went there intending to kill her?
>5- The socks and the video showing they were not on the rug before the
>video
>was taken.
Fool, there is no such thing. You simply swallowed team Butcher's line of
shit, and paid absolutely no attention when it was shown to be just that.
>7- The acceptance of Kaelin's stupid alibi.
What "alibi" cretin? Since exactly zero evidence points to him, he doesn't
need a damn alibi. You sound like jerkoff juno, which is the last thing you
need.
>8- The claim of Vanatter that he passed the blood vial to Fung in the
>vestibule
>and that it was then placed in a garbage bag carried out by Mazzola,
>unbeknownst
>to her.
What? Do you figure she has x-ray eyeballs? How the hell is she supposed
to know what was inside a trash bag? Also, what difference does it make?
>8- The squeezing everything into a timeframe that allowed time for OJ to
>have committed the crime. I wonder what that timeline would have looked
>like had he not left for Chicago ?
Who gives a shit about timeline speculation? The only important thing is
whether or not Butch had time to go there, kill them, and stroll past Park
on the way back into his dump. He had plenty.
>9- The prosecutions unwillingness to explore the cast of suspicious
>characters
>surrounding the case. Tales of drug use, shady dealing etc..
Who says they didn't explore it beside simpsonlickers? Also, Butch had an
army of lawyers and investigators that checked out every absurd rumor and
possibility imaginable. They found exactly nothing that pointed to anyone
but Butch.
>10- The hands on/hands off treatment of Faye Resnick the most dangerous
>player in the entire saga.
You are a total fucking idiot. How about a couple real-life examples of why
she's so "dangerous"? "Mr Johnnie said so" don't count.
>12- The claim that his being excluded from a family dinner, receiving a
>breakup
>message from Paula and seeing her with Ron Goldman triggered the
>killings.
Who fucking cares what actually triggered him? Only he can tell you that.
>13- Why did John Debello ask Goldman
>not to take the glasses over to Nicoles.?
Hahaha! Beautiful. He repeatedly warned Ron to stay away from Nicole
because he was afraid that jealous, crazy, Butch would harm him. Brilliant
question, Booty.
>14- Who owned the car that Goldman drove over there ?
A female friend of his, but what the hell difference does it make?
>15- Who was the intended guest, who messed the bed, was the bath and
>candles for,
How stupid. Who says there had to be an intended guest, and even if there
was, why would you rule Ron out? Like all simpsonlickers, you ignore the
actual evidence, and concentrate on meaningless nits.
.
>and why hadn't the ice cream melted in three plus hours.
Read the damn transcripts or a book. This aint Butch 101.
>18- Why would an experienced coroner
>discard the stomach contents of the victim, fail to do a rape test which
>is proper procedure ?
Proper procedure according to who, and exactly what difference would it make
in your fantasy world?
>19- Why would the LAPD nurse (Paratia),
>have to recant his story as to the amount of blood he actually drew.
Have you ever had blood drawn in your life? Did they take an hour or so
fucking around to get a precise amount, or did they just draw "about that
much" to suit their purposes? Only the dumbest of the dumb fell for that
nonsense.
>20- Who believes Ron Shipp's story about
>OJ's inquiry about the length of time it takes for DNA test results ?
>
Everyone with a functioning brain, but exactly what bearing does that have
on anything?
>
>
>Not knowing much about trials except what I've seen in movies
That says it all right there. Thanks.
>this is the most
>disconnected case I could have ever imagined.
>
That's because to you, 2+2=4 is a disconnected thought.
I'm happy to see that after more than 2 years of incoherent yammering,
you're finally getting around to wondering about the most rudimentary
aspects, (not to mention totally absurd horseshit) of the case. Have you
finally decided to sober up, or did the goat walk out on you?
kat...@my-dejanews.com
<evidence that Betty is off the political kick now and back on-topic snipped>
> The following are trouble areas for me.
<1-2-3 snipped>
> 4- The socks and shoe prints.In a crime of passion, I woukd expect that
> so called crime of passion would mean simply
> losing it and killing without cause or reason. I would not expect in
> such a ase that the perpetrator would plan an outfit
> and select special shoes and clothing.
> It can't be had both ways.
Betty, Betty - I'm disappointed in you. I would think a woman of your
maturity and "experience" <wink> would know better than to write something
like this. Didn't you learn anything a few days ago from my explanation of
some results of "passion"?
A Crime of Passion would mean simply losing it and killing without cause or
reason???? Betty! "Cause and Reason" is just WHY a Crime of Passion
happens. The killer is overwhelmed by his/her "reasons" for killing the
person who has "caused" all this rage and fury. Who goes around just killing
people for *no* reason or cause? Serial killers perhaps? Crimes of Passion
usually involve people who know each other very well...for whatever reason.
It's unlikely simpson will ever kill again unless he is lucky enough to
experience with another woman the feelings he shared with Nicole...ain't apt
to happen!
> 12- The claim that his being excluded from a family dinner, receiving a
> breakup
> message from Paula and seeing her with Ron Goldman triggered the
> killings.
No one but simp knows exactly why he flipped out that night...it was an
accumulation of many things building up. Don't you know about the "straw
that broke the camel's back"? That "straw" is not often something
major...just one more thing on a long list, but that "last straw" just sends
you over the edge. It applies to many things in life...not just to a Crime
of Passion. Haven't you ever experienced something troubling that builds
until you have just "had it"...this is going to stop and right now!!!???
<more of Betty's trouble areas snipped>
> Not knowing much about trials except what I've seen in movies, this is
> the most
> disconnected case I could have ever imagined.
Don't you know by now that little in life actually happens the way it is
shown on TV? Have you ever watched someone die? Quite unlike the way people
"die" on TV or in movies.
Are you so naive` that you think all the Ts and Is are crossed and dotted in
a Crime of Passion? Maybe in a Mob hit-killing, but unlikely in your
everyday murder/homicide.
And don't forget...those "trials" you see in movies or on TV have to fit in a
time slot and be wrapped up at the end to complete the story. Wouldn't it
have been nice at the simp criminal trial if one of the Dream Team could have
pointed to someone in the audience and revealed the REAL killer? Dramatic
stuff, but doesn't happen often in the "real" courtrooms, does it?
Maybe if old souse Bailey had been a little more on his game, he could have
gotten Mark Fuhrman to blurt out "I DID IT!" on the witness stand.
kattail
"Common Sense Isn't"
robert seigler
your article is certainly long, yet you manage to confuse rather than
clarify anything. i will have to read it again before making any
detailed comment.
what i notice at a first reading, however, is a determination to reach a
minute-by-minute timeline which is in itself unreasonable. park's
testimony only can be trusted for the exact times on the phone records -
everything else is an estimation which you then adjust to suit your
purpose.
rosa lopez, if she can be believed at all, had her times set by bill
pavelock. it's unlikely she ever once consulted a clock to determine the
half hour, let alone the minute. and as you must know by now, your
reliance on jill shively for any information invalidates your
conclusions for me.
what you seem to ignore entirely is a very odd circumstance of cars seen
by park which should not have been there: the small dark car parked by
the bentley AND the second small dark car parked outside the rockingham
gate as park left for the airport. you do say very few cars would be
expected to park on this street, so why is this one parked at simpson's
gate at that exact moment?
bob
Denn ein Haifisch ist kein Haifisch
Wenn man's nicht beweisen kann.
- Bertolt Brecht
bony...@my-dejanews.com
dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
<snipped and snapped> Dick, You love to write pages about this. I suspect
that you are planning a book soon. And why not - everyone and his/her
Grandmother has written one. However, as in ALL the books that have been
written giving some other motive and/or killer in the deaths of Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ronald Goldman, NONE have provided anything of substance. As in
the latest short story, you have given no NEW information. You have concluded
something based upon your idea of the crime. Yet, there is nothing that you
can point to that shows your idea of the crime is valid. In fact, there are
many other things that point to the fact that your idea is not valid. As with
all who support another theory, yours is no more than speculation. While the
scheme team is a group of men that I came to loathe, except for Shapiro who
in my opinion was the only honest lawyer in court, they at least came up with
some reasonable explanations to confuse the jury. While the theories that
float around here are either motivated by extrememly biased people or just
plain morons. You - don't strike me as either. Just a writer that hopes to
sell this story - a test drive here before trying to get someone to buy.
BL Parker
BL Parker
Stop your lying, for the past two years all you have done is attempt to
put others down, making a repeated ass of yourself.
As you have recognized your bullshit rolls off my back like sweat on a
greased ass.
To my knowledge you have neither addressed any evidence in the case that
could be taken seriously, let alone come to any rational conclusions.
I was addressing Dick Wagner, not Dick Head.
dick wagner
As lengthy as it was, my article, "What Did Allan Park See" was
confined only to interpreting his (and possibly Rosa Lopez’)
observations of the presence/absence of the Bronco at particular times.
There are, of course, many other sources of evidence in this crime that
were not discussed. A complete analysis of the crime requires a careful
review of each of these pieces of evidence, as I have tried here to
carefully review the details of Park’s observations of the Bronco.
Other details are analyzed at our site.
THUMBNAIL SKETCH: To give you a quick view of how Park’s observations
fit into my overall understanding of the crime, this is the very short
version. Two killers, who were personally unknown to Simpson (or to
us), but who acted for reasons he was aware of (and we are not), were
responsible. One of them waylaid Nicole as she came out of her condo to
admit Goldman at the gate; the other one popped out of the bushes by the
intercom and snared Goldman. The two victims were attacked
concurrently. The first contact of the victims by the killers occurred
at 10:09, and the killers had completed the crimes and left the scene by
10:11. Upon reaching their car and driving away, one of them used a
cell phone to call a conspirator, the "Project Manager," to report
success. She, thereupon called Simpson and told him something that
caused him to go to Bundy himself to recover his right hand glove which
he had been told had been left on Nicole’s corpse to frame him. He left
Rockingham at 10:22, went to Bundy and recovered the glove, and returned
at 10:44 in a state of panic and anguish. It was the objective from the
beginning of this carefully planned and professionally executed crime to
murder Nicole and frame Simpson, and both of those objectives succeeded.
I can not, of course, hope to persuade you of all of this by Park’s
testimony alone. My article only serves to show that the best
interpretation of what Park said about the Bronco is not in conflict
with my understanding of the crimes.
JILL SHIVELY: I think that you were not hanging around here (AFOJS)
last summer when I had the great good fortune to receive an e-mail from
Jill out of the blue. Since that time, I have met in person with her
several times, and had numerous e-mail and phone conversations with her
(most recently, last Monday.) I have also made a number of trips to
courthouses and other locations to investigate her background and her
story. Much of this is documented on our site, if you care for the
details.
But, in summary, I can tell you that Jill Shively is a woman of fine
character who I think was manipulated by defense attorneys into
appearing otherwise. Her grand jury testimony can be taken to the bank,
except for a single detail which she omitted on Marcia Clark’s demand:
The only mechanical time reference in her experience that night was a
"little battery operated stick-on clock" in her car which had a known
error, "eight to ten minutes fast." Although it was inconvenient for
Clark to do so, I have moved the time at which Shively saw Simpson
disappear up Bundy from San Vicente from Clark’s construction of 10:50
to 10:40. (Since Simpson was in the intersection for about one minute,
he entered at 10:39.) When combined with Shively’s grand jury
testimony, this provides a solid boulder upon which the other events can
be understood. I am sure if you knew Jill as I have come to know her,
you would have no reservation in holding to such an idea.
ROBERT HEIDSTRA: I have also here analyzed Heidstra’s testimony on a
number of occasions, though I have no personal experience with him. One
Sunday night last November I myself put my car in the position that
Heidstra saw the "white SUV" (eastbound on Dorothy facing Bundy) and
turned right to go south on Bundy. On three trials I followed different
routes that would take me to Bundy and San Vicente where Shively saw
Simpson. The time between the two points was 2 minutes +/- 15 seconds.
If Shively saw Simpson enter the intersection at 10:39, then Simpson
left Heidstra’s location at 10:37, which is entirely consistent with
Heidstra’s experience.
As for Heidstra’s "drifting testimony," I consider that the drift is
within the bounds of good conscience. In early reports he said that he
entered the alley at 10:30; and for his friend Johnny Cochran, Heidstra
said he entered the alley at 10:35. But, we realize that these are both
estimates, and it is probably as accurate and honest for Heidstra to
report one as the other. Similarly for his characterization of the
voice he heard. It is a matter of interpretation as to whether a voice
– so indistinct that you can not make out specific words -- was of "an
older black man" or not. I consider that "testimony drift" about such
debatable details does not impeach the witness. On the other hand, the
statement that he was standing under a particular tree after he emerged
from the alley, and saw a "white SUV" approach, turn right, and race off
at a high rate of speed is not ambiguous, and does not depend on
interpretation. I believe that he did have that experience.
RELIABILITY OF PARK’S TESTIMONY: You say of Park’s testimony that he
saw two cars in the driveway when he was at Simpson’s estate, "his
testimony, like others, could be less than accurate." I think that you
should understand that it is a deceptive trick (one of many) in the
repertoire of sleazy defense attorneys to ask questions – relevant or
not – until a witness trips up and makes a mistake. Then, he can be
portrayed as being unreliable. It worked with Park, it would have
worked with you, it would have worked with me. No person is infallible
if asked enough questions. Not only was Park asked about the number of
cars in the driveway, which is not relevant to Simpson’s coming and
going, but he was asked questions about his telephone conversation with
Shapiro, and about other irrelevancies. In my judgment, one of the ways
to undo this damage to the truth that is always a defense attorney’s
objective is to try to understand what a witness "could have seen." In
Park’s case, there was not enough light for him to be aware of this
"impeaching detail." And, I agree with your idea, he would have had so
much difficulty maneuvering with a second car present, that fact would
have been clear in his mind later.
TWENTY QUESTIONS: Then you pose 20 issues that you say are "trouble
areas" for you. Some of these are issues about what the attorneys or
the police did or did not do. All such questions are answered by the
simple fact that it is the objective of the attorneys only to "win"
their cases, and they are completely uninterested in the truth of the
matter. They have found by experience that winning is facilitated by
omissions, lies, and deception, and so all attorneys – prosecutors and
defense attorneys – practice these methods to the extent they can get
away with it. Insofar as the police perform as the obedient servants of
the prosecutors once the DA gets involved (before noon on the 13th in
the Simpson case) they act according to the attorneys’ agenda. Analysts
on both sides of the Simpson case have pointed out many, many
investigations that any seeker of the truth would have done, but which
were not done here. But, I interpret such things as no more than a
result of the nature of attorneys and the system that encourages them.
AT THE RECITAL: Another of your "trouble areas" is a category of what I
might call "soft evidence," indications that depend greatly on personal
interpretation, and the projection of one’s own expectations into a
situation. Your first issue is of this type; you say, "1. The recital
testimony vs. the video." In this, you are referring to the fact that
several of the people who were at the dance recital with Simpson
portrayed him and angry and brooding, whereas a home video of people
leaving the recital shows him cheerful and positive. I wonder why this
causes you a problem. Most of the people who portrayed Simpson in the
recital as angry were partisans (as Denise Brown) in the Nicole/O.J.
dispute. Their specific observations were that he sat apart from other
people, held his arms folded across his chest, and "glared" or
"glowered" at Nicole. I think there is no doubt about their objective
report: Simpson probably did sit apart, and he probably did sit with his
arms folded across his chest. But, words like "glared," or "glowered"
are subjective, and imply a state of mind. If Simpson did no more than
"stare" at Nicole, her partisans might interpret this as "glaring."
And, I think this is what we see here. Simpson was in a state between
"miffed" and "angry" during the recital, but then was heartened to
interact with his children afterward, and was cheerful at that time.
There is no contradiction for me.
OF THE GLOVE: You say, "3. The glove, its fit and location. How it got
there, and why. Seems too pat for me. Smells of much more." In your
last two statements you amuse by understatement; "too pat"? I should
say. And what in the world could be more pat than to find one glove at
the feet of two murder victims and the other behind the suspect’s
garage? Maybe to find the other one in his pocket, I suppose. But
surely we must wonder at how remarkably "convenient" the evidence was in
this case. This has led many to the suspicion that the evidence was
manufactured – or at least doctored – but that is not my
interpretation. I proceed by believing that all the witnesses told
what they believed was the truth, and in cases of objective
observations, this was the truth. In cases of subjective testimony, it
was colored by what they wanted to believe. So, if one believes the
witnesses (including the detectives) were telling the truth, and yet the
evidence seems "too pat," what is the conclusion? That Simpson was
deliberately framed by someone that had no connection with the
investigation.
On the specific question of the gloves… I have no doubt that the
evidence gloves in this case had belonged to Simpson at an earlier
time. There were videos showing him wearing such a pair of glove at
football appearances, and in those scenes, the gloves did not seem to
fit very well. In particular, they seemed small and did not reach as
far up his wrist as one would expect for correctly fitting gloves. I
interpret this to mean that the gloves he wore in the videos he did not
buy for himself (and try on before purchase) but were bought for him as
a gift. In this way, they could nominally be his size (extra large) as
also were the crime scene gloves, but still be ill fitting. When such
gloves were abused by being drenched in blood, there would result the
poor fit of the courtroom demonstration. I have no problem with the
gloves at all.
KATO’S ALIBI: You say that another problem area is "7. The acceptance
of Kaelin’s stupid alibi." I am not sure what you are referring to by
this; the phone call with Ferrara? They both attest to this, and give
similar versions. It is not a problem for me.
MOTIVE: You say, "12. The claim that his [Simpson’s] being excluded
from a family dinner, receiving a breakup message from Paula, and seeing
[Nicole] with Ron Goldman triggered the killings." I never heard
anything that began to rise to the level of a motive for Simpson to
commit murder, either. It is true that there were occasions when he had
gotten drunk – particularly years earlier – and acted like a brute,
beating Nicole, and humiliating her. But, there has been no testimony
that he was drunk on the night of the murders, and to have had a
murderous knife in his pocket when he went to Bundy implies a degree of
premeditation that he had never shown in his other episodes of limited
violence. Motive is just a non-starter for me.
MEZZALUNA CONNECTION: You say, "13. Why did John DeBello ask Goldman
not to take the glasses over to Nicole’s?" Personally, I do not believe
that DeBello asked any such thing of Goldman. I think that between the
time Goldman got off work and the time he left the restaurant, he had a
conversation with DeBello and Richard Arbolino in which the two of them
ENCOURAGED Goldman to form a closer friendship with Nicole. When the
call about the glasses came to Goldman (while he was talking to DeBello
and Arbolino); he saw it as a golden opportunity to advance his career
plans by building a closer relationship with a rich woman who could help
a budding restaurateur. After the murders, DeBello wanted to deflect
suspicion from himself and onto Simpson, and so claimed that he had
warned Goldman against visiting Nicole. The only other party to this
conversation who could confirm it is, of course, dead. My present
understanding is that DeBello and Arbolino were part of the conspiracy
to murder Nicole and frame O.J., and I think they are the only names in
the conspiracy that we have ever heard up until now.
STOLEN GARAGE DOOR OPENER: You say, "15. Who was the intended guest
[at Nicole’s condo that evening after 10:00], who messed the bed, who
was the bath and the candles for, and why hadn’t the ice cream melted in
three plus hours?" By these questions, I see that you do not understand
the significance of the Nicole’s stolen garage door opener. The most
critical and uncertain event in the killers’ primary plan (which was
actually executed) is revealed by the factors you indicate. But, the
explanation is rather lengthy, and I will devote an entire article to
the subject if there is any interest.
GOLDMAN’S LAST FREE ACTIVITIES: You say, "16. Why was more time
allocated for Goldman to change clothes than for OJ…" I don’t know who
has done this "allocation"; it was not me. But, I have recreated
Goldman’s likely actions when he went home after work, and before he
went to Nicole’s condo, and I did this with a stopwatch in hand. I also
drove from the block of Goldman’s apartment to the condo, parked where
Goldman parked, and walked to Nicole’s gate, again with the stopwatch
running. (See our site for these re-creations.) In this way, I
determined that the most likely time that Goldman came to Nicole’s was
10:09. In an entirely separate analysis that proceeds from the barking
dog witnesses, I determined the most likely time for the murders to have
commenced, and I got 10:09. Since this figure is produced by two
independent lines of reasoning, I consider it is very near the true
value.
THANO PERATIS: You say, "19. Why would the LAPD nurse (Peratis) have
to recant his story as to the amount of blood he actually drew?"
Because he was careless in his way of speaking the first time he was
asked, as you and I have also been occasionally careless in the way we
have spoken over the years.
RON SHIP: Finally, you ask, "20. Who believes Ron Shipp’s story about
OJ’s inquiry about the length of time it takes for DA test results?"
Me. I believe everybody. (Except the defendant, who has too much at
stake; he is excused from telling the truth, whoever he is.)
I realize that I have only addressed abut half (the most interesting
half) of your questions. But just look at how long I have run on in
doing that. Enough for one reply, already.
Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (2/18/99) NG_515a
dick wagner
ABOUT WRITING: You say, "Dick, You love to write pages about this. I
suspect that you are planning a book soon…" As a matter of fact, I
wrote my Simpson book long ago. My life circumstances in January of
1995 caused me to become rather sedentary, and writing was an activity
that was both satisfying to me and within my limits. By the end of
October of that year I had finished my Simpson book. Halfheartedly I
sent it to a few publishers, but I knew I was competing with "name"
authors, and to be quite honest, I was not seriously trying to get it
published. Somewhere, long ago, someone told me that life is a trip,
not a destination, and I have been overly influenced by that ever
since. I think that writing is the point, not being published. And,
half of that original book has now been superseded by things I have
learned here in the last year. Any book by me on the subject would have
to be a new book.
Also, you say that I love to write "about this." As a matter of fact,
I love to write… Period. After I finished the Simpson book, somebody
dropped the Randle & Schmitt book, "The Truth About the UFO Crash at
Roswell" on my desk, and I groaned and pushed it away. But, I was bored
and at loose ends, having finished writing the Simpson book, and
eventually I took it up, became interested, started to research, and …
Along the way I bought the comprehensive star catalogues (tables of
numbers) on CD ROM from NASA, and created graphic maps of the stellar
density of nearby regions, thereby coming to some idea of where "they"
most likely came from. (Have you ever seen elsewhere maps of the
density of class F & G stars in the local astronomical neighborhood? I
think mine is a first.) I resurrected my old anthropology books from
the 1950s and 1960s, and reacquainted myself with the Cro Magnin /
Neanderthal stories. I read for the first time Genesis and Exodus in
the Bible and interpreted that with what I had been seeing from other
sources. I read all of the contemporary information about UFOs, aliens,
and abductions that I could get my hands on, believing only half of what
is written. I sent the L.A. Times $100 to give me everything on the
subject the Times had published in the two weeks following July 19th,
1952 (18 articles). I scoured my own memory of what the times were like
in 1947 (I was 12). I visited the relativity newsgroup and asked a few
pointed questions (and got a few stunning answers, including the
intimate theoretical workings of the Global Position Satellite System,
which requires compensation for both the special and general relativity
effects.)
In the end, I began to write up my understanding of this situation,
beginning with the start of the human experience on earth some 20,000
years ago, veering into an explanation of a history of science,
relativity, Freudian psychology, 20th century history, the errors of
contemporary particle physics, the failure of fusion research, and other
topics. In October 1997 at page 367 I ran out of steam (after also
writing one and a half related science fiction novels) and found AFOJS
as a "temporary distraction." I keep promising myself that I will leave
this foolishness and return to explaining (to myself) the UFO question,
but it never seems to happen. People like you keep raising simple
questions about the Simpson case that I feel compelled to try to
explain. I don’t know what is the matter with me.
NO NEW INFORMATION? You say that I have given "no new information."
This is flat out untrue. I have published here extensively on my
discussions with and investigations into Jill Shively. Every bit of
that is new. You can scour the Simpson books or review tapes of TV
interview programs and you will find none of it. And, it is extremely
relevant in coming to a clearer understanding of the Simpson issue
(except for Seigler, who is a special case). If you are unacquainted
with this research, please visit out site at http://www.wagnerandson.com
where you will find extensive (but not exhaustive) articles on this
subject.
I have also undertaken many re-creations and firsthand observations
that you will find nowhere else. Where have you seen a description of
the Bronco’s parking place at night, and where else would you go to
learn where is located the streetlight at the Ashford/Rockingham
intersection, or how far the effect of its illumination could be seen?
Who else has re-created and timed Simpson’s drive from where Heidstra
saw him to where Shively saw him? Who else has timed Goldman’s route
from his apartment to Nicole’s gate? Who else has paced off the grassy
median at Bundy and San Vicente and prepared a detailed picture of what
the situation was at the time of Shively’s encounter, then verified that
diagram with Shively herself? Who else has thrown a knit cap at an
agapanthus plant 150 times and documented the result? Where else can
you go to find a photograph of a fresh blood stain at night, under a
sodium vapor lamp? When you say that I have given no new information,
you are just flat out wrong, and shows you are speaking from a knee-jerk
reflex that applies to others with whom you do not agree, but that you
have not been paying attention to what I have been saying.
The Shively situation was frankly a windfall for me; it is extremely
rare that a writer has the good fortune that I had in this. (Some,
however, like Seigler also have the chance, but foolishly throw it
away. But, that is another story.) More often, it is only possible to
review the information that has been available to others, and consider
it more carefully than others have done before. That is much of what I
did in "What Did Allan Park See?" It has been possible for four years
for someone to draw a picture of the Rockingham situation, and put
Park’s limo at the gate, and suddenly to see that his headlights pointed
to the front door of the house, not to the south drive. But nobody had
done that before. It had been possible all along to determine the
dispersion of a headlight beam, and put that into a picture of the limo
on Rockingham, but no one did. The explanation for why Park would not
have seen the Bronco when he left Simpson’s estate was possible for
anyone to deduce, but no one had ever explained it before… So, even
when I do not bring new information, I have brought new understanding,
and I think that your chant of "nothing new" is entirely misplaced with
regard to me.
Now, I will quickly admit that just because I have brought new insight
and meaning to some of the details in the Simpson case, that does not
mean that my overall concept is correct. But, you can not honestly
attack the overall concept with vague claims of "nothing new,"
especially when such a claim is so demonstrably false.
SPECULATION: You say, "As with all who support another theory, yours
is no more than speculation." First of all, let me say that if you
think Simpson killed the victims, then your concept is also
speculation. You and I both believe that Simpson was present at Bundy
on that Sunday night, and you jump to the conclusion that therefore he
must be the killer. I jump to a different conclusion. But your concept
and mine are equally speculative on the question of Simpson’s guilt.
(In fact, I have some indications in the timeline and the details of the
evidence that more support my concept than yours, but that is a long
discussion.)
I would once again like to point out that my ideas fall into two
classes: analysis and speculation. The analysis of the evidence leads
to an idea of what events occurred, and when they occurred; those
conclusions are very firm, and warrant a high degree of confidence.
Analysis does not tell who did the crimes or why. On the basis of
analysis I have been able to construct a comprehensive timeline (at our
site), and determine that Simpson left the scene some twenty or more
minutes after the blood started to flow. This is a bizarre idea, and
there is no explanation for this in the evidence. At this point, I turn
to speculation. I have speculated that important parts of this plan
were advanced at the Mezzaluna. That may not be true. But, an attack
on my speculative part does not thereby create doubt in the analytic
part, for one who understands what I have done here.
NOT A MORON: Finally, you say that I do not strike you as a moron.
Thank you for that.
Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (9/18/99) NG_515b
dick wagner
Thank you for your favorable comments about our site. I labor these
days to get my son's counter at our site to advance, and comments such
as yours help.
As to the time of the Lopez sighting of the Bronco, I agree that this
is vague. When I say that I think it was 10:10, that is only my best
guess as to when this was; there is a wide tolerance on it -- five or
ten minutes I should say. And, I realize that it is possible that there
is something entirely flawed about her story. What I described in my
article about Park is my best understanding of Lopez' testimoney; I do
not have absolute confidence in it.
Your comments about the 10:03 phone call are based on an accurate
datum, but it is an irrelevant datum. You do not have any accurate
basis to know where Simpson was when he made this call or what he was
doing when Lopez was in her front yard. All such claims are based on
Simpson's own version of what he was doing between 10 and 11, and I
think that a reasonable person would discount the uncorroborated story
of a murder defendant.
Then you SCREAM at me: "IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO TIME THE MOVEMENTS
OF OJ AND LOPEZ DOWN TO THE LAST SECOND." As I said above, there is
considerable uncertainty about the time of Lopez' observation, and I
never claimed to time anything down to the second (except, see below).
But I believe that many parts of the scenario are knowable to with in a
minute or two. Certainly, the time when the "shadowy figure" crossed
the driveway is known probably to within ten seconds. The entire ending
timeline (laying down the bloody Bruno Magli trail to the three thumps)
is knowable to within two or three minutes. If you don't think so,
John, you have just not spent enough time trying to put the pieces
together in various ways until you got them all to fit.
You claim that my Figure 4 (of which I am rather proud) shows a
condition of the "kitchen door" that supports your idea that it figured
somehow in events. Frankly I do not understand what you think happened
at this door, but if my labor has been useful to you, I am glad.
At the end, I guess you explain the significance of this door when you
ask, "So why, then, wouldn't OJ have used the kitchen door to get in?"
I don't know why he would or wouldn't have done this or done that. What
I do know is that the "shadowy figure" went in through the main front
door, and this figure is widely believed (and believed by me) to have
been Simpson himself. (Notice that the blood trail across the
Rockingham driveway goes to the main front door and not the "kitchen
door," and that eventually, Simpson himself admitted that he bled Sunday
night.) So, you may imagine whatever you wish about what Simpson "would
have done." There is a witness and physical blood drops that attest to
what he did do.
--dick wagner
dick wagner
You say, "What I notice at a first reading, however, is a determination
to reach a minute-by-minute timeline which is in itself unreasonable.
Park's testimony only can be trusted for the exact times on the phone
records -- everything else is an estimation which you then adjust to
suit your purpose."
I dispute this. As I commented to Junot here, I think that the idea
that a minute-by-minute timeline is impossible is a concept of those who
have not tried to fit together the various times that witnesses have
reported, giving due allowance for the likely tolerance of those
estimates. I think that an accurate timeline, good to within a couple
of minutes, is possible. For their own reasons, the attorneys did not
do this, but that does not mean it is impossible. (Marcia Clark did not
do it because it would have destroyed her case; the defense did not do
this because it requires admitting that Simpson went to Bundy on Sunday
night, and Simpson was unwilling to admit to this.)
You say that the time of Park's activities can not be trusted except
when he was on the phone. I dispute this, too. We know that he started
a phone call at 10:43:44 and he says that before this he had pulled up
to the Ashford gate, got out of the limo and tried the buzzer. He
waited, and tried again. He waited and tried four times before
calling. From this, he estimates that he pulled up to the Ashford gate
at 10:40. Considering the things he did between the time he pulled up
to the gate and the time he placed the first call, his estimate of
about 3-1/2 minutes seems quite reasonable to me, and thereby validates
his 10:40 estimate probably to within 30 seconds or so.
Then he says that before this he was inspecting the south gate on
Rockingham, backed up the limo 100 yards on that street, came back down
50 yards to Rockingham, turned left, went another thirty yards, and
pulled up carefully to the gate of Simpson's estate. He estimates one
minute for this maneuver, putting the inspection of the Rockingham gate
at 10:39. This also seems reasonable to me, and I would guess that the
tolerance on the time at the Rockingham gate is only about 30 seconds.
In this way, relating the time of one event to the time of another when
an elapsed time between the two can be estimated is reliable, I think.
--dick wagner
John Junot
I wish to go on record as agreeing with ALL of Dick Wagner's posting of
2/18/99 at 9:51pm.
John Junot
Dick and group:
I focused on the kitchen door as a way of negating all the theories of
the crime that have OJ going down the south path and coming out again --
this action usually being described as "OJ not wanting to be seen by the
limo driver".
Several others have objected to this theory because of the garage and
maid doors on the south path, arguing that if "OJ" had been trying to
avoid being seen, he would have gone in those doors. Maria Clark revuts
this rebuttal by claiming that the maid's door was bolted shut, and that
the garage door was blocked by stacked furniture and golf clubs. OJ, in
his video, points that that the garage door in question opens OUTWARDS,
so that it couldn't have been blocked; even if there had been stuff in
front of it, he would have been able to get past it.
But, even allowing that the maid's door was bolted, the garage door was
blocked, AND that OJ was afraid Kaelin might see him if he tried to get
to the patior door, there was still the KITCHEN door aavailable to him.
Ron
wrote:
>Ron,
>
>Stop your lying, for the past two years all you have done is attempt to
>put others down, making a repeated ass of yourself.
I'm glad you see it that way. Since you find it so enjoyable, I'll continue
to do it, just for you.
>As you have recognized your bullshit rolls off my back like sweat on a
>greased ass.
>
Knowledge is what rolls off your greased ass. Bullshit sticks to your
fogged brain like glue.
>To my knowledge
Hahaha! That ends that. The only knowledge you posess comes from that
dog-eared goat training manual of yours.
>you have neither addressed any evidence in the case that
>could be taken seriously, let alone come to any rational conclusions.
>
You wouldn't know a rational conclusion if it hopped up and bit you on your
greased ass.
>I was addressing Dick Wagner, not Dick Head.
>
Hahaha! Good one, Booty. That's the best laugh you've provided since you
claimed to be part "Cheerokee". Could you run that one by me again?
bony...@my-dejanews.com
dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
> ROCKETS:
>
> ABOUT WRITING: You say, "Dick, You love to write pages about this. I
> wrote my Simpson book long ago. My life circumstances in January of
> 1995 caused me to become rather sedentary, and writing was an activity
> that was both satisfying to me and within my limits. By the end of
> October of that year I had finished my Simpson book. Halfheartedly I
> sent it to a few publishers, but I knew I was competing with "name"
> authors, and to be quite honest, I was not seriously trying to get it
> published. Somewhere, long ago, someone told me that life is a trip,
> not a destination, and I have been overly influenced by that ever
> since. I think that writing is the point, not being published. And,
> half of that original book has now been superseded by things I have
> learned here in the last year. Any book by me on the subject would have
> to be a new book.
>
> Also, you say that I love to write "about this." As a matter of fact,
> dropped the Randle & Schmitt book, "The Truth About the UFO Crash at
> Roswell" on my desk, and I groaned and pushed it away. But, I was bored
> and at loose ends, having finished writing the Simpson book, and
>
> NO NEW INFORMATION? You say that I have given "no new information."
> This is flat out untrue. I have published here extensively on my
> discussions with and investigations into Jill Shively. Every bit of
> that is new.
Not really - she was questioned before she testified, what she said in
court is known.
You can scour the Simpson books or review tapes of TV
> interview programs and you will find none of it. And, it is extremely
> relevant in coming to a clearer understanding of the Simpson issue
Not really - it just shows that oj was lying. Which most people know anyway.
> (except for Seigler, who is a special case). If you are unacquainted
> with this research, please visit out site at http://www.wagnerandson.com
> where you will find extensive (but not exhaustive) articles on this
> subject.
>
> I have also undertaken many re-creations and firsthand observations
> that you will find nowhere else. Where have you seen a description of
> the Bronco?s parking place at night, and where else would you go to
> learn where is located the streetlight at the Ashford/Rockingham
> intersection, or how far the effect of its illumination could be seen?
> Who else has re-created and timed Simpson?s drive from where Heidstra
> saw him to where Shively saw him?
The police.
Who else has timed Goldman?s route
> from his apartment to Nicole?s gate?
The police.
Who else has paced off the grassy
> median at Bundy and San Vicente and prepared a detailed picture of what
> the situation was at the time of Shively?s encounter, then verified that
> diagram with Shively herself?
The police.
Who else has thrown a knit cap at an
> agapanthus plant 150 times and documented the result?
Probably no one doing it 150 times.
Where else can
> you go to find a photograph of a fresh blood stain at night, under a
> sodium vapor lamp? When you say that I have given no new information,
> you are just flat out wrong, and shows you are speaking from a knee-jerk
> reflex that applies to others with whom you do not agree, but that you
> have not been paying attention to what I have been saying.
Even if the police did not do ALL these things, in the end, you have PROVEN
nothing. Basically all you have done is confirm that Park could not see the
Bronco arrive, that Shively may or may not be telling the truth.
>
> The Shively situation was frankly a windfall for me; it is extremely
> rare that a writer has the good fortune that I had in this. (Some,
> however, like Seigler also have the chance, but foolishly throw it
> away. But, that is another story.) More often, it is only possible to
> review the information that has been available to others, and consider
> it more carefully than others have done before. That is much of what I
> did in "What Did Allan Park See?" It has been possible for four years
> for someone to draw a picture of the Rockingham situation, and put
> Park?s limo at the gate, and suddenly to see that his headlights pointed
> to the front door of the house, not to the south drive. But nobody had
> done that before. It had been possible all along to determine the
> dispersion of a headlight beam, and put that into a picture of the limo
> on Rockingham, but no one did. The explanation for why Park would not
> have seen the Bronco when he left Simpson?s estate was possible for
> anyone to deduce, but no one had ever explained it before? So, even
> when I do not bring new information, I have brought new understanding,
> and I think that your chant of "nothing new" is entirely misplaced with
> regard to me.
Again, you have PROVEN nothing new - Park could not see the Bronco arrive, he
may or may not have noticed it when leaving.
>
> Now, I will quickly admit that just because I have brought new insight
> and meaning to some of the details in the Simpson case, that does not
> mean that my overall concept is correct. But, you can not honestly
> attack the overall concept with vague claims of "nothing new,"
> especially when such a claim is so demonstrably false.
There is nothing new that PROVES your theory.
>
> SPECULATION: You say, "As with all who support another theory, yours
> is no more than speculation." First of all, let me say that if you
> think Simpson killed the victims, then your concept is also
> speculation. You and I both believe that Simpson was present at Bundy
> on that Sunday night, and you jump to the conclusion that therefore he
> must be the killer. I jump to a different conclusion. But your concept
> and mine are equally speculative on the question of Simpson?s guilt.
NO - the facts support my version. BTW, I have never understood how it is
that this phone call to oj's house was not known after obtaining his phone
records. I know that has been discussed by many people (the phone records)
but it is a fact that they were obtained. Whether they reflected local calls
or not is subject to question.
> (In fact, I have some indications in the timeline and the details of the
> evidence that more support my concept than yours, but that is a long
> discussion.)
>
> I would once again like to point out that my ideas fall into two
> classes: analysis and speculation. The analysis of the evidence leads
> to an idea of what events occurred, and when they occurred; those
> conclusions are very firm, and warrant a high degree of confidence.
> Analysis does not tell who did the crimes or why. On the basis of
> analysis I have been able to construct a comprehensive timeline (at our
> site), and determine that Simpson left the scene some twenty or more
> minutes after the blood started to flow.
With the infamous 2 1/2 gallon theory?
This is a bizarre idea, and
> there is no explanation for this in the evidence. At this point, I turn
> to speculation. I have speculated that important parts of this plan
> were advanced at the Mezzaluna.
You have too many people involved - something like what you think would have
been too complicated, someone would have slipped up by now. Like the defense's
version - they had a lot of people involved to frame oj, but again, no one has
slipped up. It is really very simple - what happens way too often throughout
the world - someone is killed by a relative or spouse/ex-spouse.
That may not be true. But, an attack
> on my speculative part does not thereby create doubt in the analytic
> part, for one who understands what I have done here.
>
> NOT A MORON: Finally, you say that I do not strike you as a moron.
> Thank you for that.
>
> Dick Wagner * Van Nuys, CA (9/18/99) NG_515b
bony...@my-dejanews.com
You is a moron!
>
> cordially
> b.l.p.
> "Treat people as if they were what you think they ought to be, so they
> can become what they should be".
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
dick wagner
You say of my writing about Jill Shively that it is not new, "she was
questioned before she testified, what she said in court is known." A
number of public charges against her credibility and character (Bosco
and Clark) have been made that have never been elsewhere examined. I
published information on this. That is new. You may haughtily discount
the importance of this, but it is new. Furthermore, her report of an
"eight to ten minute fast" error in the clock that she depended on for
her observation is new. You may also dismiss the importance of this,
but it causes her observation to dovetail perfectly with Heidstra’s, and
so seems important to me.
You say of the significance of Shively’s account, "It just shows that
OJ was lying. Which most people know anyway." In this, you seem to
resort to the most superficial kind of thinking: "He was there, he
denies it, therefore he must be the killer." While this might be
appropriate in a case in which nothing more was known, that is not the
situation here. I personally have tens of megabytes of transcripts,
photographs, diagrams, and other reports, and I only have a fraction of
what has been put on the internet. I also have a dozen and a half
books, and my own extensive notes. With this huge amount of information
available, you are content with "He was there, he denies it, he must
have done it." Of course, you are entitled to be satisfied with any
superficial level of analysis you wish, but under the circumstances it
seems to me to be little better than, "The police say he did it, so he
must have."
Then you claim that the police re-created the drive from the Heidstra
sighting to the Shively sighting. You claim the police timed Goldman’s
route from his apartment to Nicole’s gate. You claim the police created
a map depicting Shively’s encounter with Simpson. Where are the claimed
re-constructions? I have never seen them. Frankly, I doubt that the
police did any of these things, but if they did, they are of no use to
us in an unpublished state. (The LAPD did re-create the drive from
Rockingham to Bundy and back, but that is the only such investigation I
am aware of. And the police did not want to mess up Marcia Clark’s tidy
photo of the Bronco at the curb by pointing out what they knew so well,
that it was pitch black when Park was there, and looked nothing like the
picture shown in court.)
In reply to my article about the Singular book, a number of people
pointed out that even though the defense could have brought the trial to
an instant end by testing the evidence blood stains themselves for EDTA
and finding it, they did not even try. The reason for this is generally
considered to be that the defense wanted to create doubt, but did not
want to risk a test that would dispel that doubt. This has opened my
eyes to a general attorney trick of creating an impression, but avoiding
hard investigation that could destroy the impression. (That is why we
are in such a mess in the Simpson case: the air is full of impressions,
but too few facts.) From this, I am led to believe that the prosecution
was not overly anxious to have the police investigate further (as with
re-creations) and for this reason, I honestly doubt that the
investigations of which you are so sure, were actually done.
You say, "BTW, I have never understood how it is that this phone call
to OJ’s house was not known after obtaining his phone records." Around
these parts, records are made of calls placed FROM a particular phone,
but there are not records of calls TO that phone. Since this
hypothetical call (which I believe occurred) was incoming for Simpson,
it would not be shown in his phone records. It would be shown in the
caller’s records, but since the caller was never identified, those
records could not be examined.
You say of my concept, "You have too many people involved..." Too many
for what? Too many for you to comprehend? Too many to make a tidy
television drama? The idea that people involved in a conspiracy to
commit an infamous murder would have "slipped up by now," is
self-contradictory. You believe that Simpson committed the murders, but
he has not confessed by now. Why do you think that any other killer
would have? The real world may contain occasional things that are "too
much" for you, but that does not make them unreal.
You also say, "It is really very simple..." and then you go on to give
a simple explanation. But, you have nowhere demonstrated that this is,
in fact, a simple crime. That is only your conjecture. And this from a
person who is everlastingly crying "No proof!"
Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (2/19/99) NG_515d
bony...@my-dejanews.com
> questioned before she testified, what she said in court is known." A
> number of public charges against her credibility and character (Bosco
> and Clark) have been made that have never been elsewhere examined. I
> published information on this. That is new. You may haughtily discount
> the importance of this, but it is new. Furthermore, her report of an
> "eight to ten minute fast" error in the clock that she depended on for
> her observation is new. You may also dismiss the importance of this,
> so seems important to me.
>
> OJ was lying. Which most people know anyway." In this, you seem to
> resort to the most superficial kind of thinking: "He was there, he
> denies it, therefore he must be the killer." While this might be
> appropriate in a case in which nothing more was known, that is not the
> situation here. I personally have tens of megabytes of transcripts,
> photographs, diagrams, and other reports, and I only have a fraction of
> what has been put on the internet. I also have a dozen and a half
> books, and my own extensive notes. With this huge amount of information
> available, you are content with "He was there, he denies it, he must
> have done it." Of course, you are entitled to be satisfied with any
> superficial level of analysis you wish, but under the circumstances it
> seems to me to be little better than, "The police say he did it, so he
> must have."
>
> Then you claim that the police re-created the drive from the Heidstra
> route from his apartment to Nicole?s gate. You claim the police created
> a map depicting Shively?s encounter with Simpson. Where are the claimed
> re-constructions? I have never seen them. Frankly, I doubt that the
> police did any of these things, but if they did, they are of no use to
> us in an unpublished state. (The LAPD did re-create the drive from
> Rockingham to Bundy and back, but that is the only such investigation I
> photo of the Bronco at the curb by pointing out what they knew so well,
> that it was pitch black when Park was there, and looked nothing like the
> picture shown in court.)
>
> In reply to my article about the Singular book, a number of people
> pointed out that even though the defense could have brought the trial to
> an instant end by testing the evidence blood stains themselves for EDTA
> and finding it, they did not even try. The reason for this is generally
> considered to be that the defense wanted to create doubt, but did not
> want to risk a test that would dispel that doubt. This has opened my
> eyes to a general attorney trick of creating an impression, but avoiding
> hard investigation that could destroy the impression. (That is why we
> are in such a mess in the Simpson case: the air is full of impressions,
> but too few facts.) From this, I am led to believe that the prosecution
> was not overly anxious to have the police investigate further (as with
> re-creations) and for this reason, I honestly doubt that the
> investigations of which you are so sure, were actually done.
>
> to OJ?s house was not known after obtaining his phone records." Around
> these parts, records are made of calls placed FROM a particular phone,
> but there are not records of calls TO that phone. Since this
> hypothetical call (which I believe occurred) was incoming for Simpson,
> it would not be shown in his phone records. It would be shown in the
> records could not be examined.
>
> You say of my concept, "You have too many people involved..." Too many
> for what? Too many for you to comprehend? Too many to make a tidy
> television drama? The idea that people involved in a conspiracy to
> commit an infamous murder would have "slipped up by now," is
> self-contradictory. You believe that Simpson committed the murders, but
> he has not confessed by now. Why do you think that any other killer
> would have? The real world may contain occasional things that are "too
> much" for you, but that does not make them unreal.
>
> You also say, "It is really very simple..." and then you go on to give
> a simple explanation. But, you have nowhere demonstrated that this is,
> in fact, a simple crime. That is only your conjecture. And this from a
> person who is everlastingly crying "No proof!"
>
Well, Dickie, I have been away on vacation. Had a great time. Thought I would
take a peek at what the morons are saying. SAME OLD SHIT - for whatever
reason you have to defend this butcher, go right ahead. Make an ass of
yourself. Like your infamous 2 1/2 gallon theory. You folks that are hell
bent on worshipping this butcher need HELP and need it for the rest of your
life. You are one sick wacked out group. BTW - NO PROOF - that is all you
have. You have made up a story that might make you a few bucks if you could
get someone to publish it. You say megabytes of stuff - yes, indeed, and NOT
ONE byte of PROOF - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> Dick Wagner * Van Nuys, CA (2/19/99) NG_515d
kat...@my-dejanews.com
bony...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Well, Dickie, I have been away on vacation. Had a great time. Thought I would
> take a peek at what the morons are saying. SAME OLD SHIT -
You were expecting miracles? <G>
kattail
dick wagner
Rockets chants his usual refrain, "No Proof!" to which you say, "You
were expecting miracles? <G>". The amazing thing to me is that Rockets
is stuck so long in this "No Proof!" groove (one of several for him.) I
have read thousands of posts, and never seen anything proven -- either
Simpson's guilt or his innocence. The usual exchange is, "You're a
liar." "I am not, you're an asshole." "No I'm not. You're a Nazi."
And, what does that prove?
But, after all of his experience of reading posts to the contrary,
Rockets still expects "proof." A slow learner, I guess.
--dick wagner
kat...@my-dejanews.com
DICK: You have misunderstood my post. If you had copied it, this is what I
said:
__________________
In article <7be75h$f9r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bony...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Well, Dickie, I have been away on vacation. Had a great time. Thought I would
> take a peek at what the morons are saying. SAME OLD SHIT -
You were expecting miracles? <G>
kattail
______________
Dick: I deliberately snipped everything following *only* the part I was
responding to "...what the morons are saying. SAME OLD SHIT -"
Whatever else was directed at you, I don't recall and had no comment one way
or the other about it.
I'm sorry there was a mix-up. My comment was directed to Pro-Js in general,
but I realize it probably wasn't taken that way. Sometimes my attempts at
humor fail. You are set apart IMO from the general Pro-J group and I didn't
intend to offend you.
mea culpa,
kattail
Stewart Harris
>
> KATTAIL:
>
> Rockets chants his usual refrain, "No Proof!" to which you say, "You
> were expecting miracles? <G>". The amazing thing to me is that Rockets
> is stuck so long in this "No Proof!" groove (one of several for him.) I
> have read thousands of posts, and never seen anything proven -- either
> Simpson's guilt or his innocence. The usual exchange is, "You're a
> liar." "I am not, you're an asshole." "No I'm not. You're a Nazi."
> And, what does that prove?
>
> But, after all of his experience of reading posts to the contrary,
> Rockets still expects "proof." A slow learner, I guess.
>
> --dick wagner
But that is scientific methodology.
Feynmann states clearly that
science has proved nothing.
The job of science is to
disprove, not prove. I
suppose it is in line with
the requirement for falsifiability
in any theory.
So all we can do is idsprove
what is theorized.
Tstimony, evidence, logic
set the boundaries. And there can
be absolutes, certainties,
but not in legal matters.
That is why the standard in
criminal trials is beyond
a reasonable doubt.
It is sad but every time
this kind of stuff goes on
a little bit of freedom
and justice slips past our
hands.
Fortunately, I shall not
have to pay for those mistakes.
This is sosrt of a farewell
to all. I thought I would
post it on your message since
you are one orf the more
reasonable people. I got
the addresses I wasw looking
for and I am one who knows
very well that nothing said
in here will change a thing;
what is said in the courtrooms
in the future will make a
difference.
Regards and thaniks,
Pat Harris.
bony...@my-dejanews.com
dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
> KATTAIL:
>
> Rockets chants his usual refrain, "No Proof!" to which you say, "You
> were expecting miracles? <G>". The amazing thing to me is that Rockets
> is stuck so long in this "No Proof!" groove (one of several for him.) I
> have read thousands of posts, and never seen anything proven -- either
> Simpson's guilt or his innocence. The usual exchange is, "You're a
> liar." "I am not, you're an asshole." "No I'm not. You're a Nazi."
> And, what does that prove?
>
> But, after all of his experience of reading posts to the contrary,
> Rockets still expects "proof." A slow learner, I guess.
Well, Dickie, let me put it in simple terms for ya. Since butcher boy has
been found liable of killing two people based upon the evidence presented in
the civil trial, that would constitute PROOF in most people's mind. (BTW,
from the morons in the criminal trial, some have stated they would have voted
guilty after hearing the evidence in the civil trial). BUT, Dickie, this is
the point that none of you butcher followers seem to grasp - unless you can
PROVE your idiotic stories, hero boy is doomed and will never get his "life
back in spades". Now, since he does not seem to be too concerned about
PROVING anything on his own, as evidenced by failing to do EDTA testing along
with turning down FREE help from 6 PI firms plus a host of other things that
he has done or stated since the murders, it would appear that you and the
other morons are his only HOPE.
THE BOTTOM LINE, Dickie - YOU HAVE PROVED SQUAT - you have written MEGABYTES
OF USELESS SHIT, unless you can PROVE it. Your story is one of the most
absurd stories that has come out of this, which shows that you are not a
stable person. You have, I have no doubt, many many personal problems,
possibly physical as well as psychological (I say this, because I have found
that the vast majority of the people that support the butcher are indeed
handicapped in some way - while certainly, I am not putting down someone for
having a handicap, IN NO WAY I AM DOING THAT (just to be clear), what I have
found since the murders is that it eventually comes out that the people that
support the butcher do indeed have some serious problem. It may be the that
this problem has casued them to 'hate' society, to have wierd thoughts about
others, to cause them to believe things that are just not true (somewhat like
people that worshipped idols - they would ask/pray to these stone figures and
either nothing would happen but they would still worship them or something
would happen and they would attribute it to these idols). Whatever the case,
I think it is very evident that the people that support the butcher are a
group of people that are unstable, some extremely.
That to me is the what has come out of this tragedy - certainly, all through
human history, people have believed stupid things, weird things, crazy
things, but in today's world, these things can be communicated in an instant.
As time goes on, I fear as more and more people's memories fade, these
sicko wacko ideas that are spouted here will cause others to think these
things. I have no doubt that hero boy and Flea are counting on just that -
butcher boy to again laugh at the fools that follow him and Flea to go down
in history as the 'greatest'. But in the end, I KNOW EVIL will never win -
that is the only truth - God will not allow EVIL to triumph - butcher boy and
Flea will suffer even more. Of course, Dickie, unless you can PROVE
something. HA HA HA HA HA
- Rocket Power
>
> --dick wagner
dick wagner
No need for "mea culpa." My reply to you was really a carom shot aimed
at Rockets. I have never felt any hostility or misunderstanding from
you. Thanks, though, for taking the time to show that you cared about
my feelings (as I do here about yours).
--dick wagner
dick wagner
You say, "...nothing said in here will change a thing;" I am not sure
about that; everything changes everything, I think. That, however is
different than saying that the world will come to a new understanding
about the Simpson case because of what is said here. There are some
particularly hard cases, like Rockets, and such people will not budge
until they see the herd has left them behind. Then they'll run like
hell to catch up.
You continue, "...what is said in the courtrooms in the future will
make a difference." Sadly, I have to agree with this; what happens in
courtrooms DOES make a difference. Because the courts are structured by
attorneys for their own fun and profit, the difference they make is to
contribute to the well being of the attorneys, and to a lesser extent to
the wealthiest of attorneys' clients. But, the difference that comes
out of courtrooms has nothing to do with truth or justice.
The mystery to me is how the American people can believe the fiction
that courts are anything else than places where wealthy people come to
rent the power of the state for their own purposes.
SWAN SONG: You also say, "This is sort of a farewell to all." I am
sorry to hear that; I know you have been a source of recreation for the
no-J's, and sources of their recreation are becoming scarce. I never
have been able to understand their thinking. They make wonderful sport
of tearing pro-J's to shreds, and then lament the inevitable result that
pro-J's tire of the abuse and leave. It all seems very predictable to
me. But, new pro-Js come along after a while, and the sport begins
again. Whatever.
But, take heart, there is a place for pro-Js that are weary from being
pounded on. Maybe you'll get an invitation to go to the Institute.
Among the things that there is not in that place, is incivility
(generaly).
--dick wagner
bony...@my-dejanews.com
Geewhiz slam bang gadzooks egads holy cow suffen' succatash - if I had known
you were so sensitive, I would have cared about your feelings. Just beat me
with a wet noodle.
- Rocket Power crying
>
> --dick wagner
dick wagner
You have mixed into your usual scorn and shallow thinking an excursion
into an interesting topic ("HEALTH") which I consider below. But first,
I notice that you begin by saying, "Well, Dickie, let me put it in
simple terms for ya." I have noticed your preoccupation with simplicity
before, and think that this is a big part of your problem. I am not
sure whether you are constrained to think in simple terms by your own
intellectual limitations, or you just prefer to do things that way, but
it is a mistake in the Simpson case. This is not a one-two-three
issue.
That fact is clear even on a superficial level. There were three
witnesses that came and talked about a dog that barked in an unusual way
(one said a "plaintiff wail") and said that this began at some time
between 10:15 and 10:20. If one tries to explain to himself how this
sound could be related to the crimes, one comes to the conclusion that
the murders occurred at about 10:10. Then, if one reconstructs the
probable activities of Ron Goldman (everything we know) he comes to the
conclusion that the earliest that Goldman could have got to Nicole’s
condo was 10:09. From two different source, one comes to the idea that
the murders occurred at about 10:10.
But, there is Heidstra’s (apparent) sighting of a fleeing Simpson at
10:37, and Shively’s (certain) sighting of him at 10:39. This then
leads to the concept that Simpson fled the crime scene 25 minutes after
the victims were murdered. If nothing else, this fact should cause a
reasonable person to stop and wonder.
The only barriers to the foregoing understanding are the spin that the
attorneys put on the issue. Cochran interpreted what Heidstra said he
heard as being the murders in progress, even though Heidstra did not
himself give that interpretation. The defense attorneys brought
witnesses Aaronson and Pilnak to recount their experiences and the
attorneys CLAIMED that these refuted the barking dog witnesses. In
fact, there is no contradiction, if one thinks about it some. But, you
have chosen to believe the defense attorney’s spin, rather than the
witnesses’ own words, and that allows you to come to your confident
conclusion. I guess it is an example of your penchant for simplicity.
Let the attorneys digest the facts and regurgitate them for you, and
thereby avoid the labor of thinking for yourself. As you wish.
HEALTH: You have injected into the discussion the topic of the health
of those who disagree with you. This is interesting, I have not seen it
done with any pretension of seriousness before. You tell me that you
have been observing closely the indications of pro-Js and you discover
that as a group they seem to suffer from ill health, and then you go on
to hypothesize a connection between their health and their beliefs. I
have not noticed the connection you describe, but you may be right; I
have just not be looking for it. However, I did have the vague idea
that there is a generational difference: younger people seem more
confident in Simpson’s guilt than older people. And since there seems
to be a correlation between age and ill health, that makes the link you
talk about plausible to me.
Now, since much of your post is rather personally directed to me (you
address me as "Dickie" several times) I can comment on my own state of
health to help you with your survey of this topic. I have been blessed
with a healthy life, and until January of 1995 if anyone asked I would
have said that I was in "excellent health." When I was in my forties,
my weight began to get away from me, and I have struggled a few times to
bring that back into acceptable limits, and when I was in my early
fifties I found that I needed eyeglasses for the first time for
comfortable reading. Otherwise, no problem. However, in ‘95 I had a
frightening experience that caused me to understand that I have the
congestive heart dysfunction thing, and more recently I spent two fun
filled days in the hospital with the first ulcer of my life (due to
unfortunate prescriptions, not worry.)
In your hypothesis, you consider that people of ill health are inclined
to think Simpson is not guilty because they are bitter about life in
general, and somehow their Simpson ideas are an expression of that. (I
am not sure how that follows, but it seems to be your idea.) I will
quickly tell you though that I am not aware of any bitterness. Life has
been pretty good to me. And, it is only a matter of common observation
that health problems accompany the otherwise good fortune of getting
old. (Consider the alternative.) So, I am not bitter about my own
reversals. Congestive thing, ulcer, whatever may come later... I’ll
deal with them as they come up, and overcome all but the last of them.
I guess that’s life for everybody.
And, I had already formed my backbone concept of the Simpson case and
had written substantially about it before January 1995, so my concept
was not formed during a time of ill health. From these facts about
myself, I give you a single contrary example to your theory. One
example does not invalidate your idea, I realize, but I offer it for
whatever value it may be to you.
PROOF: Then there is your predictable (and now becoming tedious) rant
for proof. (Your "Dickie -- YOU HAVE PROVED SQUAT" is representative of
several mentions of "proof" in your note.) I have mentioned before, but
it seems to have escaped you: You yourself do not have proof that
Simpson is a killer. What you have is proof that Simpson was at the
crime scene at or shortly after the murders occurred, and the fact that
he denies that reality. From that, you jump to the conclusion that he
must have been the murderer. Your conclusion jumping is not the same
thing as proof to me. Particularly in view of the disturbing timeline
disconnect. I think it is frivolous for you to keep ranting about
"proof" until you yourself offer some proof that Simpson is the one who
held the knife.
HERO BOY, BUTCHER FOLLOWERS, ETC.: You use the usual terms of sandbox
scorn to describe people who do not think that Simpson committed the
crime, and seem to include me in that group. I think you have not been
paying attention, Rockets. I am no fan of Simpson, and in fact the best
explanation that I can come up with for the odd combination of facts in
this case is that before the murders he was involved in something
shameful, and possibly illegal, that would come out if he admitted to
having gone to Bundy after the fact. And, even though he did not hold
the knife that slit Nicole’s throat, I think that he feels a great
indirect responsibility for her murder.
You also speculate about an eventual reversal of his present state of
being an outcast, and seem to think that I labor to see that result. I
do not have an agenda about his predicament. I think it is the result
of his not telling what he knows about this situation, and if his
silence is so important to him as to endure being a pariah, I guess that
is up to him. I don’t see it as being any particular injustice that was
foisted on him. He always was -- and still is -- free to tell the
truth.
THE COURTS: Your devotion to simplicity reaches a zenith in your
concept of the role of the courts. Of course, we have two different
courts that reached opposite conclusions in this case, and your
explanation for that is that the criminal jurors were "morons." That
certainly is simple all right.
But, the Simpson case -- because it was televised -- gave us an unusual
opportunity to glimpse at the workings of the process. In doing that we
could see that witnesses said one thing, and attorneys told us to
believe something else. Some -- like you and the jurors -- took the
lazy way out, and believed the attorneys. If you really believe that
the problem is with the "morons" on the criminal trial jury, why do you
passively tolerate a justice system that puts morons on juries? I
should think that you would be devoting your posts to this obviously
corrupt system that has far more ramifications than whether Simpson is
guilty or innocent. But no; that does not seem to be simple enough for
you.
GOD ABHORS EVIL: At the end, you offer me your Pollyanna line for the
day. You say, "But in the end, I KNOW EVIL will never win -- that is
the only truth -- God will not allow EVIL to triumph..." Boy, I don’t
know what cave you’ve been living in, but my reading of history tells me
that all of human history is an ebb and flow of good and evil (as I
understand those terms, and God may have a different interpretation.)
There were some really bad times in Europe during World War II; some
would say "evil." For those many who died in those events, evil did
triumph: there was never a better day for them. The seventy year sway
of the Soviet "evil empire" was a lifetime for those who lived there,
and so evil triumphed over them. Pol Phot killed 1/3 of the people in
Cambodia, and during that time evil triumphed. The Europeans came to
the New World in the Sixteenth Century and destroyed all of the
indigenous civilizations there. If you were to ask the Incas, the
Mayans, the Cherokees, etc., they would probably say that evil triumphed
permanently for them. What the Romans did to the Christians for several
centuries would be considered by many people to be "evil."
With this little platitude, I’m afraid you have tripped and fallen on
you face. Come back when you have learned how to think for yourself.
You might have something interesting to say.
Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (3/02/99) NG_ 524
dick wagner
You say of an expression of interest in another person's feelings,
"Geewhiz slam bang gadzooks egads holy cow suffen' succatash - if I had
known you were so sensitive, I would have cared about your feelings.
Just beat me with a wet noodle."
I didn't expect that you would be able to deal with the topic. It's a
grown up thing.
--dick wagner
bony...@my-dejanews.com
NOW NOW DICKIE - don't be that way. One might think you don't like me.
Geewhiz, just because you can't PROVE anything should not make you bitter.
Just because you have written MEGABYTES, thown a hat under a plant 150 times,
talked to Jill (if one were to assume you are telling the truth), spent time
at the famous Rockingham estate scoping it out, done so many many many things
and have COME UP WITH NOTHING, should not make you bitter. OH WELL, such is
life in ojlala land.
>
> --dick wagner
bony...@my-dejanews.com
Another long post - maybe you need something else in life besides butcher boy.
Just a thought, Dick.
>
> You have mixed into your usual scorn and shallow thinking an excursion
> into an interesting topic ("HEALTH") which I consider below. But first,
> I notice that you begin by saying, "Well, Dickie, let me put it in
> simple terms for ya." I have noticed your preoccupation with simplicity
> before, and think that this is a big part of your problem. I am not
> sure whether you are constrained to think in simple terms by your own
> intellectual limitations
NO Moron - I will put up my intellectual capabilites against anyone here - the
reason I talk in simple terms is because the folk who post here that support
your idol are morons.
, or you just prefer to do things that way, but
> it is a mistake in the Simpson case. This is not a one-two-three
> issue.
YES IT IS - again PROVE otherwise. I know you hate that word PROVE, just like
all the other followers. You, like all the other followers have made this
complex, just like the scheme team tried to do, since that was their only
defense - to get people to look past the real facts and make up stories - just
like your little story - totally made up with no substance.
>
> That fact is clear even on a superficial level. There were three
> witnesses that came and talked about a dog that barked in an unusual way
> (one said a "plaintiff wail") and said that this began at some time
> between 10:15 and 10:20. If one tries to explain to himself how this
> sound could be related to the crimes, one comes to the conclusion that
> the murders occurred at about 10:10. Then, if one reconstructs the
> probable activities of Ron Goldman (everything we know) he comes to the
> conclusion that the earliest that Goldman could have got to Nicole?s
> condo was 10:09. From two different source, one comes to the idea that
> the murders occurred at about 10:10.
>
> But, there is Heidstra?s (apparent) sighting of a fleeing Simpson at
> 10:37, and Shively?s (certain) sighting of him at 10:39. This then
> leads to the concept that Simpson fled the crime scene 25 minutes after
> the victims were murdered. If nothing else, this fact should cause a
> reasonable person to stop and wonder.
I don't disagree that the murders occured before 10:30 - as for Heidstra, I
just don't beleive him - I think he was there earlier than what he said, but
even if wasn't, it does not eliminate butcher boy from being the murderer.
>
> The only barriers to the foregoing understanding are the spin that the
> attorneys put on the issue. Cochran interpreted what Heidstra said he
> heard as being the murders in progress, even though Heidstra did not
> himself give that interpretation. The defense attorneys brought
> witnesses Aaronson and Pilnak to recount their experiences and the
> attorneys CLAIMED that these refuted the barking dog witnesses. In
> fact, there is no contradiction, if one thinks about it some. But, you
> have chosen to believe the defense attorney?s spin, rather than the
> witnesses? own words, and that allows you to come to your confident
> conclusion.
Again WRONG Dick - want a just plain stupid statement - I don't beleive
anything the defense lawyers said - if you were not so lost in your
delusional world, you would have known that. Unlike most morons that post
here, I do not throw out something because I don't like it. I have used all
avaialble evidence, even your fancy story, to draw my conclusions.
I guess it is an example of your penchant for simplicity.
> Let the attorneys digest the facts and regurgitate them for you, and
> thereby avoid the labor of thinking for yourself. As you wish.
Again MORON - stick it where you want. You have come up with the most stupid
story of all the ones that the morons have come up with.
>
> HEALTH: You have injected into the discussion the topic of the health
> of those who disagree with you. This is interesting, I have not seen it
> done with any pretension of seriousness before. You tell me that you
> have been observing closely the indications of pro-Js and you discover
> that as a group they seem to suffer from ill health, and then you go on
> to hypothesize a connection between their health and their beliefs. I
> have not noticed the connection you describe, but you may be right; I
> have just not be looking for it. However, I did have the vague idea
> that there is a generational difference: younger people seem more
> confident in Simpson?s guilt than older people. And since there seems
> to be a correlation between age and ill health, that makes the link you
> talk about plausible to me.
>
> Now, since much of your post is rather personally directed to me (you
> address me as "Dickie" several times) I can comment on my own state of
> health to help you with your survey of this topic. I have been blessed
> with a healthy life, and until January of 1995 if anyone asked I would
> have said that I was in "excellent health." When I was in my forties,
> my weight began to get away from me, and I have struggled a few times to
> bring that back into acceptable limits, and when I was in my early
> fifties I found that I needed eyeglasses for the first time for
> comfortable reading. Otherwise, no problem. However, in ?95 I had a
> frightening experience that caused me to understand that I have the
> congestive heart dysfunction thing, and more recently I spent two fun
> filled days in the hospital with the first ulcer of my life (due to
> unfortunate prescriptions, not worry.)
>
> In your hypothesis, you consider that people of ill health are inclined
> to think Simpson is not guilty because they are bitter about life in
> general, and somehow their Simpson ideas are an expression of that. (I
> am not sure how that follows, but it seems to be your idea.) I will
> quickly tell you though that I am not aware of any bitterness. Life has
> been pretty good to me. And, it is only a matter of common observation
> that health problems accompany the otherwise good fortune of getting
> old. (Consider the alternative.) So, I am not bitter about my own
> reversals. Congestive thing, ulcer, whatever may come later... I?ll
> deal with them as they come up, and overcome all but the last of them.
> I guess that?s life for everybody.
>
> And, I had already formed my backbone concept of the Simpson case and
> had written substantially about it before January 1995, so my concept
> was not formed during a time of ill health. From these facts about
> myself, I give you a single contrary example to your theory. One
> example does not invalidate your idea, I realize, but I offer it for
> whatever value it may be to you.
>
> PROOF: Then there is your predictable (and now becoming tedious) rant
> for proof. (Your "Dickie -- YOU HAVE PROVED SQUAT" is representative of
> several mentions of "proof" in your note.) I have mentioned before, but
> it seems to have escaped you: You yourself do not have proof that
> Simpson is a killer.
What you have is proof that Simpson was at the
> crime scene at or shortly after the murders occurred, and the fact that
> he denies that reality. From that, you jump to the conclusion that he
> must have been the murderer. Your conclusion jumping is not the same
> thing as proof to me. Particularly in view of the disturbing timeline
> disconnect.
First, I hope you are never on a jury - when solid evidence is presented
showing the suspect to be at the crime scene causes you to come with this
just plain idiotic story of yours. Second, there is no disturbing timeline -
eyewitnesses, earwitnesses are never reliable when it comes to times. Your
'analysis' of these times, down to the minute, is useless. You cannot
pinpoint exact times, you were not there, you have only a few facts. All
anyone really knows is 10:03 and 10:56/57 - plenty of time to commit murder.
I think it is frivolous for you to keep ranting about
> "proof" until you yourself offer some proof that Simpson is the one who
> held the knife.
I DO - unexplained cuts, unexplained whereabouts, lies from his own wicked
soul, his blood at the scene, his blood mixed with the victims, etc. Your
story is just plain idiotic. Why don't you send it to cockroach, scheck, flea
and see what they think.
>
> HERO BOY, BUTCHER FOLLOWERS, ETC.: You use the usual terms of sandbox
> scorn to describe people who do not think that Simpson committed the
> crime, and seem to include me in that group. I think you have not been
> paying attention, Rockets. I am no fan of Simpson, and in fact the best
> explanation that I can come up with for the odd combination of facts in
> this case is that before the murders he was involved in something
> shameful, and possibly illegal, that would come out if he admitted to
> having gone to Bundy after the fact.
I LOVE IT - something worse than MURDER? I LOVE IT!! I think you best be
seeing a shrink - you are lost.
And, even though he did not hold
> the knife that slit Nicole?s throat, I think that he feels a great
> indirect responsibility for her murder.
>
> You also speculate about an eventual reversal of his present state of
> being an outcast, and seem to think that I labor to see that result. I
> do not have an agenda about his predicament. I think it is the result
> of his not telling what he knows about this situation, and if his
> silence is so important to him as to endure being a pariah, I guess that
> is up to him. I don?t see it as being any particular injustice that was
> foisted on him. He always was -- and still is -- free to tell the
> truth.
WHAT?? On his death bed, I am sure he will.
>
> THE COURTS: Your devotion to simplicity reaches a zenith in your
> concept of the role of the courts. Of course, we have two different
> courts that reached opposite conclusions in this case, and your
> explanation for that is that the criminal jurors were "morons." That
> certainly is simple all right.
>
> But, the Simpson case -- because it was televised -- gave us an unusual
> opportunity to glimpse at the workings of the process. In doing that we
> could see that witnesses said one thing, and attorneys told us to
> believe something else. Some -- like you and the jurors -- took the
> lazy way out, and believed the attorneys.
AGAIN MORON - I did no such thing. It is YOU who is taking the easy way out -
just make up some shit - anyone can do that.
If you really believe that
> the problem is with the "morons" on the criminal trial jury, why do you
> passively tolerate a justice system that puts morons on juries? I
> should think that you would be devoting your posts to this obviously
> corrupt system that has far more ramifications than whether Simpson is
> guilty or innocent. But no; that does not seem to be simple enough for
> you.
AH SO - many of my posts at Pathfinder were indeed about that. HERE - who
cares - the morons that worship the butcher don't - the good guys you despise
the butcher don't. I could talk until I was blue and it would not change
anything - morons are everywhere - lawyers will choose them when they have no
case.
>
> GOD ABHORS EVIL: At the end, you offer me your Pollyanna line
NO - Polly want a cracker line.
for the
> day. You say, "But in the end, I KNOW EVIL will never win -- that is
> the only truth -- God will not allow EVIL to triumph..." Boy, I don?t
> know what cave you?ve been living in, but my reading of history tells me
> that all of human history is an ebb and flow of good and evil (as I
> understand those terms, and God may have a different interpretation.)
> There were some really bad times in Europe during World War II; some
> would say "evil." For those many who died in those events, evil did
> triumph: there was never a better day for them.
I guess you don't believe in life after human death?
The seventy year sway
> of the Soviet "evil empire" was a lifetime for those who lived there,
> and so evil triumphed over them. Pol Phot killed 1/3 of the people in
> Cambodia, and during that time evil triumphed. The Europeans came to
> the New World in the Sixteenth Century and destroyed all of the
> indigenous civilizations there. If you were to ask the Incas, the
> Mayans, the Cherokees, etc., they would probably say that evil triumphed
> permanently for them. What the Romans did to the Christians for several
> centuries would be considered by many people to be "evil."
EVIL, my poor lost soul, does not win - these 'conquerors' you mention -
they did their thing and hurt many a folk, but in the end, they did not win.
My cave? Just a view of the world as it really is - humans cause hurt, God
punishes the hurters.
>
> With this little platitude, I?m afraid you have tripped and fallen on
> you face. Come back when you have learned how to think for yourself.
I have - your little theory is full of shit.
> You might have something interesting to say.
Polly want a cracker?
>
> Dick Wagner * Van Nuys, CA (3/02/99) NG_ 524
bony...@my-dejanews.com
dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
> ROCKETS:
>
> You have mixed into your usual scorn and shallow thinking an excursion
> into an interesting topic ("HEALTH") which I consider below. But first,
> I notice that you begin by saying, "Well, Dickie, let me put it in
> simple terms for ya." I have noticed your preoccupation with simplicity
> before, and think that this is a big part of your problem. I am not
> sure whether you are constrained to think in simple terms by your own
> intellectual limitations, or you just prefer to do things that way, but
> it is a mistake in the Simpson case. This is not a one-two-three
> issue.
>
> That fact is clear even on a superficial level. There were three
> witnesses that came and talked about a dog that barked in an unusual way
> (one said a "plaintiff wail") and said that this began at some time
> between 10:15 and 10:20. If one tries to explain to himself how this
> sound could be related to the crimes, one comes to the conclusion that
> the murders occurred at about 10:10. Then, if one reconstructs the
> probable activities of Ron Goldman (everything we know) he comes to the
> condo was 10:09. From two different source, one comes to the idea that
> the murders occurred at about 10:10.
>
> 10:37, and Shively?s (certain) sighting of him at 10:39.
Apparent and certain - wonder if you could PROVE that (oh sorry, there is that
nasty word again PROVE). HA HA HA HA
This then
> leads to the concept that Simpson fled the crime scene 25 minutes after
> the victims were murdered. If nothing else, this fact should cause a
> reasonable person to stop and wonder.
Actually, Dickie, taking Heidstra and Shively as truthful, does not make this
25 minute lapse unbelievable. Heidstra stated the Bronco went the 'wrong' way
- thus butcher boy could have been confused (after what he had just done
would not be suprising) or was attempting to find a place to get rid of
something or both. Thus he drove around for a period of time, then headed
back to his house, seen by Shively.
>
> The only barriers to the foregoing understanding are the spin that the
> attorneys put on the issue. Cochran interpreted what Heidstra said he
> heard as being the murders in progress, even though Heidstra did not
> himself give that interpretation. The defense attorneys brought
> witnesses Aaronson and Pilnak to recount their experiences and the
> attorneys CLAIMED that these refuted the barking dog witnesses. In
> fact, there is no contradiction, if one thinks about it some. But, you
> have chosen to believe the defense attorney?s spin, rather than the
> witnesses? own words, and that allows you to come to your confident
> conclusion. I guess it is an example of your penchant for simplicity.
> Let the attorneys digest the facts and regurgitate them for you, and
> thereby avoid the labor of thinking for yourself. As you wish.
I know that you think you are going to solve this and that you are 'smarter'
than these lawyers. OKAY - I won't burst your bubble. At least not today.
BTW, I read your Nicole feet story - you have a number of problems with this,
but don't let me be the one to tell you. HA HA HA
>
> HEALTH: You have injected into the discussion the topic of the health
> of those who disagree with you. This is interesting, I have not seen it
> done with any pretension of seriousness before. You tell me that you
> have been observing closely the indications of pro-Js and you discover
> that as a group they seem to suffer from ill health, and then you go on
> to hypothesize a connection between their health and their beliefs. I
> have not noticed the connection you describe, but you may be right; I
> have just not be looking for it. However, I did have the vague idea
> that there is a generational difference: younger people seem more
> confident in Simpson?s guilt than older people. And since there seems
> to be a correlation between age and ill health, that makes the link you
> talk about plausible to me.
>
> Now, since much of your post is rather personally directed to me (you
> address me as "Dickie" several times) I can comment on my own state of
> health to help you with your survey of this topic. I have been blessed
> with a healthy life, and until January of 1995 if anyone asked I would
> have said that I was in "excellent health." When I was in my forties,
> my weight began to get away from me, and I have struggled a few times to
> bring that back into acceptable limits, and when I was in my early
> fifties I found that I needed eyeglasses for the first time for
> comfortable reading. Otherwise, no problem. However, in ?95 I had a
> frightening experience that caused me to understand that I have the
> congestive heart dysfunction thing, and more recently I spent two fun
> filled days in the hospital with the first ulcer of my life (due to
> unfortunate prescriptions, not worry.)
>
> In your hypothesis, you consider that people of ill health are inclined
> to think Simpson is not guilty because they are bitter about life in
> general, and somehow their Simpson ideas are an expression of that. (I
> am not sure how that follows, but it seems to be your idea.) I will
> quickly tell you though that I am not aware of any bitterness. Life has
> been pretty good to me. And, it is only a matter of common observation
> that health problems accompany the otherwise good fortune of getting
> old. (Consider the alternative.) So, I am not bitter about my own
> reversals. Congestive thing, ulcer, whatever may come later... I?ll
> deal with them as they come up, and overcome all but the last of them.
> I guess that?s life for everybody.
> the knife that slit Nicole?s throat, I think that he feels a great
> indirect responsibility for her murder.
>
> You also speculate about an eventual reversal of his present state of
> being an outcast, and seem to think that I labor to see that result. I
> do not have an agenda about his predicament. I think it is the result
> of his not telling what he knows about this situation, and if his
> silence is so important to him as to endure being a pariah, I guess that
> is up to him. I don?t see it as being any particular injustice that was
> foisted on him. He always was -- and still is -- free to tell the
> truth.
>
> THE COURTS: Your devotion to simplicity reaches a zenith in your
> concept of the role of the courts. Of course, we have two different
> courts that reached opposite conclusions in this case, and your
> explanation for that is that the criminal jurors were "morons." That
> certainly is simple all right.
>
> But, the Simpson case -- because it was televised -- gave us an unusual
> opportunity to glimpse at the workings of the process. In doing that we
> could see that witnesses said one thing, and attorneys told us to
> believe something else. Some -- like you and the jurors -- took the
> lazy way out, and believed the attorneys. If you really believe that
> the problem is with the "morons" on the criminal trial jury, why do you
> passively tolerate a justice system that puts morons on juries? I
> should think that you would be devoting your posts to this obviously
> corrupt system that has far more ramifications than whether Simpson is
> guilty or innocent. But no; that does not seem to be simple enough for
> you.
>
> GOD ABHORS EVIL: At the end, you offer me your Pollyanna line for the
> day. You say, "But in the end, I KNOW EVIL will never win -- that is
> the only truth -- God will not allow EVIL to triumph..." Boy, I don?t
> know what cave you?ve been living in, but my reading of history tells me
> that all of human history is an ebb and flow of good and evil (as I
> understand those terms, and God may have a different interpretation.)
> There were some really bad times in Europe during World War II; some
> would say "evil." For those many who died in those events, evil did
> triumph: there was never a better day for them. The seventy year sway
> of the Soviet "evil empire" was a lifetime for those who lived there,
> and so evil triumphed over them. Pol Phot killed 1/3 of the people in
> Cambodia, and during that time evil triumphed. The Europeans came to
> the New World in the Sixteenth Century and destroyed all of the
> indigenous civilizations there. If you were to ask the Incas, the
> Mayans, the Cherokees, etc., they would probably say that evil triumphed
> permanently for them. What the Romans did to the Christians for several
> centuries would be considered by many people to be "evil."
>
> With this little platitude, I?m afraid you have tripped and fallen on
> you face. Come back when you have learned how to think for yourself.
> You might have something interesting to say.
>
> Dick Wagner * Van Nuys, CA (3/02/99) NG_ 524
bony...@my-dejanews.com
Okay BEAT ME WITH A WET NOODLE - I made a boo-boo. Taking Heidstra's words as
truth would not have allowed your idol to drive around for 25 minutes. What I
meant to say was that I believe Heidstra was there, did hear something, but
earlier (like 10:15 or so). This then would allow the 25 minute drive around.
If that is what butcher boy did - I have no reason to believe that - I was
just responding to your nonsense.
Robert H. Risch
>In article <36DC5B...@westworld.com>,
> dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
>> ROCKETS:
>>
>> But, the Simpson case -- because it was televised -- gave us an unusual
>> opportunity to glimpse at the workings of the process. In doing that we
>> could see that witnesses said one thing, and attorneys told us to
>> believe something else. Some -- like you and the jurors -- took the
>> lazy way out, and believed the attorneys. If you really believe that
>> the problem is with the "morons" on the criminal trial jury, why do you
>> passively tolerate a justice system that puts morons on juries? I
>> should think that you would be devoting your posts to this obviously
>> corrupt system that has far more ramifications than whether Simpson is
>> guilty or innocent. But no; that does not seem to be simple enough for
>> you.
>>
Congratulations, Wagner, to your seeing some of the deficiencies of the trial
system we have in the US. I think it a terrible that lawyer power is so strong
that the present system will stay in place with few changes. That being said
let me give you the reasons your theories are rejected by everyone else.
* You build up elaborate structures with rubber bands on top of a foundation of
very sandy time recollections of various people. One puff and they collapse.
* You imply that Simpson knows who the "real killers" who framed him are but
would risk everything in not telling anyone, even a murder conviction. He
would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just to get framed.
* You haven't come up with anything credible as to how Simpson got his hand
injuries. The back fence was full of fingerprint powder. He didn't get his
injuries going over.
* The "real killers" didn't leave any evidence of their presence at the crime
scene.
* The "problems" with the No-J time line are your illusion.
I can see why bonyparte and even most Pro-Js guffaw at your theories.
Robert R.
dick wagner
You say, "Taking Heidstra's words as truth would not have allowed your
idol to drive around for 25 minutes. What I meant to say was that I
believe Heidstra was there, did hear something, but earlier (like 10:15
or so). This then would allow the 25 minute drive around.
If that is what butcher boy did -- I have no reason to believe that -- I
was just responding to your nonsense."
And, not a very thoughtful reponse, I should say. You arbitrarily move
the witness's time of observation up from 10:35 to 10:15 for no other
reason than to support your preconception of the identity of the
murderer. No matter that 10:15 was the time Heidstra LEFT his apartment
to go on the walk, and he was still two blocks away from the crime scene
at that time. The only thing that matters for you is that it be in some
way that supports the result you are determined to have.
With this kind of "thinking" you can arrive at any conclusion you would
like to have, of course.
--dick wagner
dick wagner
You say, "…let me give you the reasons your theories are rejected by
everyone else." You then go on to enumerate. Before addressing your
specifics, let me correct your premise. Not all of my thinking is
rejected by all people. I have seen some small support of some of my
ideas here in the newsgroup, and much more in my e-mail. From this, I
know you are mistaken when you claim to speak for "everyone else."
However, I am interested in why you yourself do not believe my
conclusions. You say,
"* You build up elaborate structures with rubber bands on top of a
foundation of very sandy time recollections of various people. One puff
and they collapse."
Since you are not specific about what time recollections you consider
to be "very sandy," it is a little hard for me to answer. But, I know
that Fenjves time of the "plaintiff wail" is good to within about five
minutes, the time at which Storfer first heard the barking dog is good
to within about one minute, the time when Shively saw Simpson in the
Bronco is good to about two minutes, the time when Heidstra heard the
"hey, hey, hey" is good to within about six minutes. I think that you
have been overly influenced by defense attorneys that tried to spin a
concept that none of the witnesses were sure about anything. But, I
shouldn’t blame you for that; as I have said elsewhere, that Johnny
Cochran was a silver tongued devil.
"* You imply that Simpson knows who the "real killers" who framed him
are but would risk everything in not telling anyone, even a murder
conviction. He would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just to
get framed."
You use an interesting choice of words in saying Simpson "risked
everything" by keeping silent. He risked his freedom in the criminal
trial, and he risked (most of) his money in the civil trial. Is freedom
and most money "everything" to you? If so, I think you are bereft of
imagination; there are other things that some men (perhaps not you)
value more. Like life. Those who butchered Nicole and Ron, practically
in the middle of the street, and got away with it are a force to be
reckoned with.
When you say, "He would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just
to get framed," you are putting words in my mouth. Of course I think
that he had a compelling reason of his own to go to Bundy; it was the
arrangement of the killers that the result would be that he framed
himself. That was not why HE thought he was making the trip. Perhaps
you have never heard of the process of "manipulation," whereby a person
is caused to think that they are acting for one purpose, when really it
is somebody’s objective to cause them to do this for their own purpose.
Salesmen, attorneys, and politicians engage in manipulation all the
time. It continues to work for them because people (like you, I
suppose) do not know when they are being manipulated. As Barnum said,
"There’s one born every minute."
"* You haven’t come up with anything credible as to how Simpson got his
hand injuries. The back fence was full of fingerprint powder. He
didn’t get his injuries going over."
I stick by the idea that Simpson injured his finger going over Nicole’s
back gate. Your objection to this is not persuasive. The back gate
was covered with expanded metal lath. This is a network of thin metal
edges in a diamond pattern. An individual surface is perhaps 1/32" inch
wide, and separated from the next by about ¼". This is not a surface
from which meaningful fingerprints can be recovered, even if they were
left there, any more than one can recover fingerprints from a screen.
The top and sides of the gate are tubular steel, about an inch in
diameter. The surface is weathered and dirty, making the recovery of
fingerprints difficult at best. And, a person scrambling over the gate
would most naturally let his hand slip off the top rail rather than lift
his hand off. (In fact, it would be almost impossible to lift your hand
from the rail in this maneuver.) So, any palm print on the rail would
be smudged and unidentifiable. Fingerprint dust is not pixie dust; it
can not produce evidence where none was left. The location of the blood
stains on the back gate is consistent with an injury occurring there,
and can not be easily explained in any other way.
"* The ‘real killers’ didn’t leave any evidence of their presence at
the crime scene."
Wow; you sure claim to know a lot. There was evidence (fingerprints)
that was not tied to any particular individual, but you know that these
could not be left by a killer only because it was not left by Simpson.
Convenient logic, but flawed. Then there is the blue-black fibers.
These are claimed to be associated with a sweat suit owned by Simpson,
but the garment was not recovered, and so fibers from it could not
actually be compared with crime scene fibers. Only because you assume
Simpson is the killer have you accounted for these. It is just as
possible that the blue-black fibers came from another person who was the
real killer. If this is the case, then the real killers DID leave
evidence of their presence at the crime scene. There were unidentified
head hairs in the knit cap. Do you know for a fact that none of these
came from another person who was involved in the crime? There was a
Caucasian limb hair found associated with one of the gloves. Do you
know for a fact that this did not come from another person who was
involved in the crime? Just where do you get this idea that the real
killers didn’t leave any evidence of their presence at the crime scene?
You only believe this because you begin with the conclusion that Simpson
is guilty; that is not satisfactory logic where I come from.
"* The ‘problems’ with the No-J timeline are your illusion."
I am not sure that there is a "No-J timeline." If there is, perhaps
you could elucidate. From what I have seen, most No-Js are satisfied to
say, "He was there, he must have done it. Sometime. Somehow."
However, there is a timeline, and I have undertaken considerable effort
to identify what events happened at what times. I have based this on
declarations by witnesses in court. You may wave this away if you
wish. I have noticed that hardcore No-Js and hardcore Pro-Js have one
quality in common: their readiness to wave away inconvenient testimony.
The pro-Js then replace it with rumor and gossip; the no-Js just leave
it void.
_______________________
Thank you for being specific in your objections. I always worry when I
encounter the objections of a person with whom I have not previously
corresponded that he may have stumbled onto something I have overlooked,
and it will have a serious impact on my ideas. I had a scare like that
last August when the subject of Simpson’s keys surfaced. But, I see
that you are not in the league with that poster; like Rockets you just
want to blow smoke, and you do so from a position that is not too well
thought through.
But, thanks for trying as best as you were able.
--dick wagner
bony...@my-dejanews.com
> > dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
> >> ROCKETS:
> >>
>
> >> opportunity to glimpse at the workings of the process. In doing that we
> >> could see that witnesses said one thing, and attorneys told us to
> >> believe something else. Some -- like you and the jurors -- took the
> >> lazy way out, and believed the attorneys. If you really believe that
> >> the problem is with the "morons" on the criminal trial jury, why do you
> >> passively tolerate a justice system that puts morons on juries? I
> >> should think that you would be devoting your posts to this obviously
> >> corrupt system that has far more ramifications than whether Simpson is
> >> guilty or innocent. But no; that does not seem to be simple enough for
> >> you.
> >>
> system we have in the US. I think it a terrible that lawyer power is so
strong
> let me give you the reasons your theories are rejected by everyone else.
>
of
> very sandy time recollections of various people. One puff and they collapse.
>
> would risk everything in not telling anyone, even a murder conviction. He
> would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just to get framed.
>
> injuries. The back fence was full of fingerprint powder. He didn't get his
> injuries going over.
>
> scene.
>
>
> I can see why bonyparte and even most Pro-Js guffaw at your theories.
>
> Robert R.
Thanks Robert - it is nice to have sensible folks around. These wackos
are something else. I know that most if not all of them truly believe
they are going to solve this. Even Dickie's web page says something like
that. A little knowledge is dangerous. These morons think they know more
than lawyers, experts that have seen 1000's of crime scenes. A perfect
example is Dickie's latest about Nicole's feet. In it he makes the
conclusion that she was forced under the gate, while the defense team,
with all their allegations during the trial of multiple killers, never
once voiced this opinion. In this story of his, he talks about her curled
toes on one foot. This is almost certainly a reaction of the brain,
nervous system in the last seconds of life - sending out confusing
signals. With some of the bruises on her back, she could have been trying
to move (escape) sliding on the concrete, had put her feet under the gate
when butcher boy grabbed her hair and slit her throat. Dickie said it was
too dark to have done that - if one is close enough to someone else to
stab them, even at night, there would no problem doing this.
Oh well, such is life in ojlala land.
Robert H. Risch
>Thanks Robert - it is nice to have sensible folks around. These wackos
>are something else. I know that most if not all of them truly believe
>they are going to solve this. Even Dickie's web page says something like
>that. A little knowledge is dangerous. These morons think they know more
>than lawyers, experts that have seen 1000's of crime scenes. A perfect
>example is Dickie's latest about Nicole's feet. In it he makes the
>conclusion that she was forced under the gate, while the defense team,
>with all their allegations during the trial of multiple killers, never
>once voiced this opinion. In this story of his, he talks about her curled
>toes on one foot. This is almost certainly a reaction of the brain,
>nervous system in the last seconds of life - sending out confusing
>signals. With some of the bruises on her back, she could have been trying
>to move (escape) sliding on the concrete, had put her feet under the gate
>when butcher boy grabbed her hair and slit her throat. Dickie said it was
>too dark to have done that - if one is close enough to someone else to
>stab them, even at night, there would no problem doing this.
>
>Oh well, such is life in ojlala land.
>>
>
One thing to be said in favor of what these people do. They could be day
trading instead and losing all their money. As far as I can tell, most of the
cuckoos around here are fairly harmless to themselves and others.
Take care,
Robert R.
bony...@my-dejanews.com
> idol to drive around for 25 minutes. What I meant to say was that I
> believe Heidstra was there, did hear something, but earlier (like 10:15
> or so). This then would allow the 25 minute drive around.
> was just responding to your nonsense."
>
> the witness's time of observation up from 10:35 to 10:15 for no other
> reason than to support your preconception of the identity of the
> murderer. No matter that 10:15 was the time Heidstra LEFT his apartment
> to go on the walk, and he was still two blocks away from the crime scene
> at that time. The only thing that matters for you is that it be in some
> way that supports the result you are determined to have.
I had realized I misspoke (mistyped) and made a post for that. However, I
don't arbitrarily move the time - if you want to beleive Heidstra, go ahead.
I think he is lying about the times. He stated it was a 'ritual' to walk his
dog at 10:00pm - this one night of all nights he is exactly 15 minutes late.
>
> With this kind of "thinking" you can arrive at any conclusion you would
> like to have, of course.
Actually it is you you does this - your 'thinking' is totally off the wall -
I would love to see you send this crap to a butcher boy lawyer and hear what
they had to say. If you had the guts, you would.
>
> --dick wagner
bony...@my-dejanews.com
dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
> ROBERT RISCH:
>
> You say, "?let me give you the reasons your theories are rejected by
> everyone else." You then go on to enumerate. Before addressing your
> specifics, let me correct your premise. Not all of my thinking is
> rejected by all people. I have seen some small support of some of my
> ideas here in the newsgroup, and much more in my e-mail. From this, I
> know you are mistaken when you claim to speak for "everyone else."
> However, I am interested in why you yourself do not believe my
> conclusions. You say,
>
> "* You build up elaborate structures with rubber bands on top of a
> foundation of very sandy time recollections of various people. One puff
> and they collapse."
>
> Since you are not specific about what time recollections you consider
> to be "very sandy," it is a little hard for me to answer. But, I know
> that Fenjves time of the "plaintiff wail" is good to within about five
> minutes, the time at which Storfer first heard the barking dog is good
> to within about one minute, the time when Shively saw Simpson in the
> Bronco is good to about two minutes, the time when Heidstra heard the
> "hey, hey, hey" is good to within about six minutes. I think that you
> have been overly influenced by defense attorneys that tried to spin a
> concept that none of the witnesses were sure about anything. But, I
> Cochran was a silver tongued devil.
>
> "* You imply that Simpson knows who the "real killers" who framed him
> are but would risk everything in not telling anyone, even a murder
> conviction. He would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just to
> get framed."
>
> You use an interesting choice of words in saying Simpson "risked
> everything" by keeping silent. He risked his freedom in the criminal
> trial, and he risked (most of) his money in the civil trial. Is freedom
> and most money "everything" to you? If so, I think you are bereft of
> imagination; there are other things that some men (perhaps not you)
> value more. Like life. Those who butchered Nicole and Ron, practically
> in the middle of the street, and got away with it are a force to be
> reckoned with.
>
> When you say, "He would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just
> to get framed," you are putting words in my mouth. Of course I think
> that he had a compelling reason of his own to go to Bundy; it was the
> arrangement of the killers that the result would be that he framed
> himself. That was not why HE thought he was making the trip. Perhaps
> you have never heard of the process of "manipulation," whereby a person
> is caused to think that they are acting for one purpose, when really it
> Salesmen, attorneys, and politicians engage in manipulation all the
> time. It continues to work for them because people (like you, I
> suppose) do not know when they are being manipulated. As Barnum said,
>
> "* You haven?t come up with anything credible as to how Simpson got his
> hand injuries. The back fence was full of fingerprint powder. He
>
> I stick by the idea that Simpson injured his finger going over Nicole?s
> back gate. Your objection to this is not persuasive. The back gate
> was covered with expanded metal lath. This is a network of thin metal
> edges in a diamond pattern. An individual surface is perhaps 1/32" inch
> from which meaningful fingerprints can be recovered, even if they were
> left there, any more than one can recover fingerprints from a screen.
> The top and sides of the gate are tubular steel, about an inch in
> diameter. The surface is weathered and dirty, making the recovery of
> fingerprints difficult at best. And, a person scrambling over the gate
> would most naturally let his hand slip off the top rail rather than lift
> his hand off. (In fact, it would be almost impossible to lift your hand
> from the rail in this maneuver.) So, any palm print on the rail would
> be smudged and unidentifiable. Fingerprint dust is not pixie dust; it
> can not produce evidence where none was left. The location of the blood
> stains on the back gate is consistent with an injury occurring there,
> and can not be easily explained in any other way.
>
> the crime scene."
>
> Wow; you sure claim to know a lot. There was evidence (fingerprints)
> that was not tied to any particular individual, but you know that these
> could not be left by a killer only because it was not left by Simpson.
> Convenient logic, but flawed. Then there is the blue-black fibers.
> These are claimed to be associated with a sweat suit owned by Simpson,
> but the garment was not recovered, and so fibers from it could not
> actually be compared with crime scene fibers. Only because you assume
> Simpson is the killer have you accounted for these. It is just as
> possible that the blue-black fibers came from another person who was the
> real killer. If this is the case, then the real killers DID leave
> evidence of their presence at the crime scene. There were unidentified
> head hairs in the knit cap. Do you know for a fact that none of these
> came from another person who was involved in the crime? There was a
> Caucasian limb hair found associated with one of the gloves. Do you
> know for a fact that this did not come from another person who was
> involved in the crime? Just where do you get this idea that the real
> You only believe this because you begin with the conclusion that Simpson
> is guilty; that is not satisfactory logic where I come from.
>
>
> I am not sure that there is a "No-J timeline." If there is, perhaps
> you could elucidate. From what I have seen, most No-Js are satisfied to
> say, "He was there, he must have done it. Sometime. Somehow."
> However, there is a timeline, and I have undertaken considerable effort
> to identify what events happened at what times. I have based this on
> declarations by witnesses in court. You may wave this away if you
> wish. I have noticed that hardcore No-Js and hardcore Pro-Js have one
> quality in common: their readiness to wave away inconvenient testimony.
> The pro-Js then replace it with rumor and gossip; the no-Js just leave
> it void.
> _______________________
>
> Thank you for being specific in your objections. I always worry when I
> encounter the objections of a person with whom I have not previously
> corresponded that he may have stumbled onto something I have overlooked,
> and it will have a serious impact on my ideas. I had a scare like that
> that you are not in the league with that poster; like Rockets you just
> want to blow smoke, and you do so from a position that is not too well
> thought through.
>
> But, thanks for trying as best as you were able.
>
> --dick wagner
Hey dickie boy - PUT UP OR SHUT UP - it is now time as with all the other
wackos around here to PROVE what your wacked out fucked up sicko mind thinks.
COME ON - big boy, be a man - PROVE THIS. As I have asked everyone of you
morons in this board and Pathfinder, PUT UP OR SHUT UP - your goofy games are
just that. Your life is full of shit - come on PROVE everyone wrong. You can
do it! BE A MAN - not a wimp. COME ON BIG BOY - give this megabytes of shit
to one of the appeal lawyers. You are butcher boy's only hope. Don't let your
hero down. We will all be waiting. Let us know when you send it. Let us know
the response. Thanks ever so much.
bony...@my-dejanews.com
> everyone else." You then go on to enumerate. Before addressing your
> specifics, let me correct your premise. Not all of my thinking is
> rejected by all people. I have seen some small support of some of my
> ideas here in the newsgroup, and much more in my e-mail. From this, I
> know you are mistaken when you claim to speak for "everyone else."
> However, I am interested in why you yourself do not believe my
> conclusions. You say,
>
> "* You build up elaborate structures with rubber bands on top of a
> foundation of very sandy time recollections of various people. One puff
> and they collapse."
>
> Since you are not specific about what time recollections you consider
> to be "very sandy," it is a little hard for me to answer. But, I know
> that Fenjves time of the "plaintiff wail" is good to within about five
> minutes, the time at which Storfer first heard the barking dog is good
> to within about one minute, the time when Shively saw Simpson in the
> Bronco is good to about two minutes, the time when Heidstra heard the
> "hey, hey, hey" is good to within about six minutes. I think that you
> have been overly influenced by defense attorneys that tried to spin a
> concept that none of the witnesses were sure about anything. But, I
> Cochran was a silver tongued devil.
>
> "* You imply that Simpson knows who the "real killers" who framed him
> are but would risk everything in not telling anyone, even a murder
> conviction. He would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just to
> get framed."
>
> You use an interesting choice of words in saying Simpson "risked
> everything" by keeping silent. He risked his freedom in the criminal
> trial, and he risked (most of) his money in the civil trial. Is freedom
> and most money "everything" to you? If so, I think you are bereft of
> imagination; there are other things that some men (perhaps not you)
> value more. Like life. Those who butchered Nicole and Ron, practically
> in the middle of the street
Gee now they were murdered in the street!! Keep it up Dickie - soon you will
have them murdered in view of 10,000 witnesses.
, and got away with it are a force to be
> reckoned with.
>
> When you say, "He would run over to Bundy at an inconvenient time just
> to get framed," you are putting words in my mouth. Of course I think
> that he had a compelling reason of his own to go to Bundy; it was the
> arrangement of the killers that the result would be that he framed
> himself. That was not why HE thought he was making the trip. Perhaps
> you have never heard of the process of "manipulation," whereby a person
> is caused to think that they are acting for one purpose, when really it
> is somebody?s objective to cause them to do this for their own purpose.
> Salesmen, attorneys, and politicians engage in manipulation all the
> time. It continues to work for them because people (like you, I
> suppose) do not know when they are being manipulated. As Barnum said,
> "There?s one born every minute."
What minute were you born, dickie?
>
> "* You haven?t come up with anything credible as to how Simpson got his
> hand injuries. The back fence was full of fingerprint powder. He
> didn?t get his injuries going over."
>
> I stick by the idea that Simpson injured his finger going over Nicole?s
> back gate. Your objection to this is not persuasive. The back gate
> was covered with expanded metal lath. This is a network of thin metal
> edges in a diamond pattern. An individual surface is perhaps 1/32" inch
> wide, and separated from the next by about ź". This is not a surface
> from which meaningful fingerprints can be recovered, even if they were
> left there, any more than one can recover fingerprints from a screen.
> The top and sides of the gate are tubular steel, about an inch in
> diameter. The surface is weathered and dirty, making the recovery of
> fingerprints difficult at best. And, a person scrambling over the gate
> would most naturally let his hand slip off the top rail rather than lift
> his hand off. (In fact, it would be almost impossible to lift your hand
> from the rail in this maneuver.) So, any palm print on the rail would
> be smudged and unidentifiable. Fingerprint dust is not pixie dust; it
> can not produce evidence where none was left. The location of the blood
> stains on the back gate is consistent with an injury occurring there,
> and can not be easily explained in any other way.
Gee, dickie, your idol would not leave prints but in the next paragraph, you
say others did. Superhuman idol, I guess. And blood drops not explained in
other way - well, dickie, when you PROVE your shit, let me know, will ya?
>
> "* The ?real killers? didn?t leave any evidence of their presence at
> the crime scene."
>
> Wow; you sure claim to know a lot. There was evidence (fingerprints)
> that was not tied to any particular individual, but you know that these
> could not be left by a killer only because it was not left by Simpson.
> Convenient logic, but flawed. Then there is the blue-black fibers.
> These are claimed to be associated with a sweat suit owned by Simpson,
> but the garment was not recovered, and so fibers from it could not
> actually be compared with crime scene fibers. Only because you assume
> Simpson is the killer have you accounted for these. It is just as
> possible that the blue-black fibers came from another person who was the
> real killer. If this is the case, then the real killers DID leave
> evidence of their presence at the crime scene. There were unidentified
> head hairs in the knit cap. Do you know for a fact that none of these
> came from another person who was involved in the crime? There was a
> Caucasian limb hair found associated with one of the gloves. Do you
> know for a fact that this did not come from another person who was
> involved in the crime? Just where do you get this idea that the real
> killers didn?t leave any evidence of their presence at the crime scene?
> You only believe this because you begin with the conclusion that Simpson
> is guilty; that is not satisfactory logic where I come from.
Where do you come from? Alien is the only thing that comes to mind!
>
> "* The ?problems? with the No-J timeline are your illusion."
>
> I am not sure that there is a "No-J timeline." If there is, perhaps
> you could elucidate. From what I have seen, most No-Js are satisfied to
> say, "He was there, he must have done it. Sometime. Somehow."
> However, there is a timeline, and I have undertaken considerable effort
> to identify what events happened at what times
Megabytes - yet you have no PROOF - not one time you have come up with can be
verified to be truly accurate. HA HA HA
. I have based this on
> declarations by witnesses in court
Who have all stated that did not look at watch, did not have a watch
available, were guessing. MORON
. You may wave this away if you
> wish. I have noticed that hardcore No-Js and hardcore Pro-Js have one
> quality in common: their readiness to wave away inconvenient testimony.
> The pro-Js then replace it with rumor and gossip; the no-Js just leave
> it void.
I have noticed you write megabytes of shit.
> _______________________
>
> Thank you for being specific in your objections. I always worry when I
> encounter the objections of a person with whom I have not previously
> corresponded that he may have stumbled onto something I have overlooked,
> and it will have a serious impact on my ideas. I had a scare like that
> last August when the subject of Simpson?s keys surfaced. But, I see
> that you are not in the league with that poster; like Rockets you just
> want to blow smoke, and you do so from a position that is not too well
> thought through.
>
> But, thanks for trying as best as you were able.
>
> --dick wagner
And don't forget 2 1/2 gallons of blood. MORON
dick wagner
SIMPLE MINDEDNESS: I had said, "I am not sure whether you are
constrained to think in simple terms by your own intellectual
limitations, or you just prefer doing it that way." To this, you said,
"NO, Moron -- I will put my intellectual capabilities against anyone
here -- the reason I talk in simple terms is because the folks who post
here that support your idea are morons."
By the form of this reply you confirm the premise that you think only
in simple (and largely irrelevant) terms. But it is still not clear to
me whether this is because of limitation or choice. I am beginning to
incline toward limitation, though, since you explain so much by simply
declaring the opposition to be "morons," and by naked assertions.
When you say, "I will put up my intellectual capabilities against
anyone here," I wonder why you are keeping your intellectual prowess a
secret. Show us a little of it. So far all I've seen is calling people
names and jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You must have something
more in you bag of tricks than this if you think you are the equal of
any others. Show us some, please.
A SIMPLE CASE: I asserted that the Simpson case is not a simple
"one-two-three" issue, to which you say, "YES IT IS -- again PROVE
otherwise. I know you hate that word PROVE, just like all the other
followers. You, like all the other followers have made this complex,
just like the scheme team tried to do, since that was their only defense
-- to get people to look past the real facts and make up stories -- just
like your little story -- totally made up with no substance."
This is your usual procedure. You make your case not by logic, or
discussion, or evidence, but by naked assertion ("YES IT IS"), and then
you demand that others provide proof to the contrary. Does anyone take
you seriously? (I realize that others share the same conclusion as you,
but that is not because you have persuaded them so.) Your unsupported
declarations mean nothing to anyone.
PROOF: Then we come to your perpetual manta: proof. I think that you
have an odd concept (if any) of what "proof" is. Apparently you think
it is whatever Rockets says. That may be good enough to satisfy you,
but others require a bit more.
I think that a good example of what "proof" is can be found in a high
school class in geometry. Perhaps when you get old enough to take that
class it would be worth your while to do so. There you will see that
proof is both a process and a result. It begins with a set of facts
that are agreed to ("axioms,") and progresses by recognized rules of
forming conclusions until some new concept is discovered which is both
warranted and exclusive of all other possibilities. That conclusion is
then said to be "proved," and the process whereby it is produce is the
"proof." A "proof" is very definitely NOT simply a thing that a person
declares it to be.
Now, in the Simpson case we have very few "axioms," and begin instead
with agreed to indications ("evidence"). The problem begins immediately
because many people (the defense attorneys and their followers, like
you) do not agree on the validity of these indications -- like three
unrelated observers that heard the howling dog begin at 10:15 to 10:20.
The tedious labor then begins of clearing away this barrier to clear
understanding that the defense attorneys deliberately interposed. I
have done that in detailed analyses which I have posted here over the
months and which can also be reviewed on our site.. I have shown that
the crimes were committed at about 10:10 and that Simpson was fleeing at
about 10:35. This pair of facts forms the "timeline disconnect" While
my analysis is short of actual proof, it is far more persuasive than
your method of simply calling disbelievers "morons." A child of four
can do what you do, Rockets.
I have never claimed that I have "proved" anything, and I am not the
least disturbed by the fact. But I also see that you have not proved
anything, either, and you do not seem able to come to grips with that
fact. You begin by BELIEVING that Simpson is guilty, and then make
whatever adjustment is necessary in interpreting the evidence to support
that result. If you actually could prove that Simpson did these crimes,
I would welcome seeing it. What a relief to have the issue settled
conclusively one way or the other.
BELIEVING THE EVIDENCE. I had asserted that you have chosen to believe
the defense attorney's spin of universal doubt rather than believe the
witness's own words. To this you said, "Again WRONG Dick -- a just
plain stupid statement -- I don't believe anything the defense lawyers
said -- if you were not so lost in your delusional world, you would have
known that."
I see. Then you do believe that the plaintiff wail of the dog began
between 10:15 and 10:20 (three witnesses); you do believe that under
reasonable circumstances Goldman could have gotten to the condo as early
as 10:09, you do believe that Rosa Lopez saw the Bronco at about 10:10
at Rockingham, you do believe that Heidstra saw Simpson fleeing at
10:37, and you do believe that Shively nearly collided with Simpson two
minutes later at 10:39. You believe these things, because you tell me
that you believe the witnesses, not the defense attorney's spin on
events. Believing all of this, you then must also believe in the
timeline disconnect, and explain it "somehow."
I think we are making progress here. Talking for the first time about
actual evidence, and not merely "morons" (people who hold other opinions
than Rockets.)
YOUR PROOF: Then, the very best part. I challenged you to offer proof
that Simpson was the killer, and you responded with, "I DO [have
proof]. Unexplained cuts, unexplained whereabouts, lies from his own
wicked soul, his blood at the scene, his blood mixed with the victims,
etc. Why don't you send it to [the criminal defense attorneys] and see
what they think."
The first three of these are astonishing as offers of proof that
Simpson is a murderer. So, a person with "unexplained cuts" [more
accurately, "unbelievably explained cuts"] is guilty of murder? A
person with "unexplained whereabouts" is guilty of murder? A person who
lies is guilty of murder? You've got to be kidding me! Even when taken
in combination, a person who has an unbelievable explanation for cuts,
AND unexplained whereabouts, AND lies, is not thereby proved to be a
murderer. At best, he is entitled to the status of a "suspect."
Then you get to the more serious stuff: his blood at the crime scene
and victim's blood in his car and at his home. But, you know that I
already agree that this shows he was at Bundy that night at or after the
crimes were committed. These indications do not show more than that.
Please now, no more jokes, your proof (or even some feeble indication)
that Simpson held the knife that murdered those people. Until you come
up with that, alternative explanations for his presence and his lies are
not any more "stupid stories from morons" than is yours.
PATHFINDER: You say, "Many of my posts at Pathfinder were indeed about
[the absurdity of having morons on juries.]" I have never been to
Pathfinder, but I know that those who did visit there remember you as an
awesome presence. I can't think why, though. You simply engage in
sandbox epithets, conclusion jumping, and rants for proof -- a concept
you do not understand. How this frivolous babble could be considered a
threat by anyone is beyond me. Maybe your reputation was exaggerated,
and it was more of an annoyance than awe. Like the reaction one has
when a three year old has a tantrum in the check out line, and the
mother can not control him.
PRIME TIME: I urged you to grow up, and held out the hope that then
you might have something interesting to say. To this you tell me, "I
have -- your little theory is full of shit."
Sorry, Rockets, you still need work. Not yet ready for prime time.
--dick wagner
bony...@my-dejanews.com
NOT PROVED DIDDLY SQUAT. You can write terrabytes of shit, spout this
and that about what I have not proved (I never claimed to have proved
anything - the DA and plantiffs did that), you can huff and puff, you
can talk in circles, whatever. The bottom line for all the butcher
boy followers is SIMPLE - PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM or go suck an egg.
If that is too SIMPLE for you, then so be it. But until you do, Dick
Wagner, you have done no more than any of the other morons that post
here. If you want to be grouped with them, don't let me stand in your
way. You are well on the road there anyway, but keep it up - play
your goofy games, type until your fingers fall off, in the end,
you have accomplished DIDDLY SQUAT.
QUITE SIMPLE really!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA