Nicole's stomach contents
Prien
Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 01:28 PM EST
Message-id: <382470d7...@supernews.sirius.com>
responding to my posting about the prosecution's apparent failure to obtain the
phone records immediately noted in part:
"Ok, so then, perhaps the stomach contents were evaluated and
the vaginal tests were conducted."
Of course the tests were conducted and the stomach contents were evaluated.
The most amusing portions of Golden's cross-examination at the prelim is how he
hems and haws when asked about those tests. It is really something to read
about him trying to explain how he had asked Dr. L what he should do with
Goldman's stomach contents. (Actually, the real discussion must have been
about Nicole.s stomach contents because they saved Goldman's contents but not
hers. What is beyond amusing is why Golden would be taking up such an
obviously routine question with the Chief coroner when the autopsy protocol
obviously calls for saving the contents for subsequent analysis.)
Now why does anyone suppose that they saved Goldman's stomach contents but not
Nicole's? What could possibly have been found in her stomach that was so
important it had to be made to disappear without trace? It certainly could not
have been the pasta she ate. It could not have been drugs she took because
they would have shown up otherwise. Can anyone think of what it could be?
Hint. According to Lange's testimony, her bed was rumpled. The one true thing
Clark notes about the case is that no woman would have been inviting a man over
to entertain him in an unmade bed.
Ah, but what if the encounter had already occurred before the two were
murdered?
Alright. Another hint. Does anyone recall what Faye Resnick and the girls
referred to as their Brentwood hello? (Anyone who doesn't should consult Gerry
Spence's book.)
If anyone is still unable to grasp the evidence that must have been found in
Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace to
have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they take
a sex education class.
Marlalinde
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 06:20 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991106182048...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
Prien actually outdoes himself (with hightened stupidity)...
>Now why does anyone suppose that they saved Goldman's stomach contents but
>not
>Nicole's? What could possibly have been found in her stomach that was so
>important it had to be made to disappear without trace? It certainly could
>not
>have been the pasta she ate. It could not have been drugs she took because
>they would have shown up otherwise. Can anyone think of what it could be?
>
>Hint. According to Lange's testimony, her bed was rumpled. The one true
>thing
>Clark notes about the case is that no woman would have been inviting a man
>over
>to entertain him in an unmade bed.
>
>Ah, but what if the encounter had already occurred before the two were
>murdered?
>
>Alright. Another hint. Does anyone recall what Faye Resnick and the girls
>referred to as their Brentwood hello? (Anyone who doesn't should consult
>Gerry
>Spence's book.)
>
>If anyone is still unable to grasp the evidence that must have been found in
>Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace
>to
>have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they
>take
>a sex education class.
So let see asshole...according to your NEW and REVISED theory, Nicole gave Ron
a blow job in her bedroom..on her unmade bed...right so far???
While she was doing that, she also:
1. said goodbye to Sydney's friend/parents
2. lit candles
3. put music on
4. talked with Faye
5. talked with her murdering husband
6. talked with her mother
7. got the kids into bed
8. prepared a bath
Amazing, just amazing!! She must have been one hell of a contortionist..
So..let's see...Ron was so distracted, he forgot why he came over...and left
the condo and went all the way out onto the walkway with the envelope/glasses??
And of course, the prosecution KNEW that Nicole had a fondness for oral sex..so
they just decided not to risk it by having her stomach contents
checked...right???
Prien...you are such an asshole!! And by the way you made another very
significant ASS-umption...once AGAIN..............
You're assuming she swallowed...
Marla
"..one day OJ will kill me and he'll get away with it.." Nicole Brown Simpson
ThePuppetMaster
>If anyone is still unable to grasp the evidence that must have been found in
>Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace to
>have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they take
>a sex education class.
And you have proof of this or is this just ANOTHER sleazy attempt to
slander a dead woman?
Libraryboy
Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 01:28 PM EST
>Message-id: <382470d7...@supernews.sirius.com>
>
>responding to my posting about the prosecution's apparent failure to obtain the
>phone records immediately noted in part:
>
> "Ok, so then, perhaps the stomach contents were evaluated and
>the vaginal tests were conducted."
>
>Of course the tests were conducted and the stomach contents were evaluated.
>The most amusing portions of Golden's cross-examination at the prelim is how he
>hems and haws when asked about those tests. It is really something to read
>about him trying to explain how he had asked Dr. L what he should do with
>Goldman's stomach contents. (Actually, the real discussion must have been
>about Nicole.s stomach contents because they saved Goldman's contents but not
>hers. What is beyond amusing is why Golden would be taking up such an
>obviously routine question with the Chief coroner when the autopsy protocol
>obviously calls for saving the contents for subsequent analysis.)
>
>Nicole's? What could possibly have been found in her stomach that was so
>important it had to be made to disappear without trace? It certainly could not
>have been the pasta she ate. It could not have been drugs she took because
>they would have shown up otherwise. Can anyone think of what it could be?
>
>Hint. According to Lange's testimony, her bed was rumpled. The one true thing
>Clark notes about the case is that no woman would have been inviting a man over
>to entertain him in an unmade bed.
>
>Ah, but what if the encounter had already occurred before the two were
>murdered?
>
>Alright. Another hint. Does anyone recall what Faye Resnick and the girls
>referred to as their Brentwood hello? (Anyone who doesn't should consult Gerry
>Spence's book.)
>
>Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace to
>have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they take
>a sex education class.
Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt the case
against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow jobs?
Marlalinde
>From: tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 06:43 PM EST
>Message-id: <802efp$i...@polaris.umuc.edu>
Libraryboy writes...
>
>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt the
>case
>against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow
>jobs?
Prien is just 'spouting off' (no pun) again...he doesn't have the ability to
think anything through...remember the 'thumb bruise'????
dick wagner
Prien's characteristically foolish speculation this time seems to be
that the coroner threw out Nicole's stomach contents so that it would
not be discovered that they contained Golmans DNA in semen. (A hundred
points to Prien for imagination, at least.)
I thought it was rather amusing that big-shot Prien advises those less
sophisticated than he, "I suggest they take a sex education class."
Then, you give him a lesson he seems to need himself with, "You're
assuming she swallowed..."
According to the times on my screen, it only took 19 minutes for this
latest foolishness of Prien's to be shot down. Before long, I think he
will get strafed on the ground, before he even takes wing.
--dick wagner
John Griffin
>On 06 Nov 1999 23:20:48 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>>If anyone is still unable to grasp the evidence that must have been found in
>>Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace to
>>have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they take
>>a sex education class.
>And you have proof of this or is this just ANOTHER sleazy attempt to
>slander a dead woman?
You left out the most likely option: Prien is a cocksucker (and a
swallower), and he thinks everyone else is too because they want
to be just like him.
John Griffin
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 20:08:00 -0800, dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com>
>wrote:
>>MARLA:
>> Prien's characteristically foolish speculation this time seems to be
>>that the coroner threw out Nicole's stomach contents so that it would
>>not be discovered that they contained Golmans DNA in semen. (A hundred
>>points to Prien for imagination, at least.)
>> I thought it was rather amusing that big-shot Prien advises those less
>>sophisticated than he, "I suggest they take a sex education class."
>>Then, you give him a lesson he seems to need himself with, "You're
>>assuming she swallowed..."
That assumption would be perfectly natural for someone who does.
>> According to the times on my screen, it only took 19 minutes for this
>>latest foolishness of Prien's to be shot down. Before long, I think he
>>will get strafed on the ground, before he even takes wing.
>> --dick wagner
>Dick, in case you haven't already noticed, the cretin has gotten
>airborne once.
(Everyone knows you meant "hasn't.")
Prien's next theory: The end of The Real Killer's dick is missing
(thrown out by the coroner).
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>>If anyone is still unable to grasp the evidence that must have been found in
>>Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace to
>>have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they take
>>a sex education class.
>
>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt the case
>against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow jobs?
>
I think that law only applies to women that refuse to give them.
Marlalinde
>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 07:05 PM EST
>Message-id: <382ac245...@news.earthlink.net>
>
Rich announces:
>I think that law only applies to women that refuse to give them.
>
Oh alright!!!!!
ThePuppetMaster
>>Subject: Re: Nicole's stomach contents
>>From: ThePupp...@mail.com (ThePuppetMaster)
>>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 07:05 PM EST
>>Message-id: <382ac245...@news.earthlink.net>
>>
>
>Rich announces:
>
>>I think that law only applies to women that refuse to give them.
>>
>
>Oh alright!!!!!
As if you were EVER in danger.....kiss kiss hug hug. yes darlin, i
love you.
NKC
Like a vaginal swab may have shown: DNA, baby.
>
>
NKC
The degree of digestion of the contents would also help to approximate
the time of her death more closely. The less digested the contents,
the closer to having finished eating, hence the theory that it was 2
hours after eating that she was killed. However, if the contents were
more digested, she would have been killed later -- screwing up the
prosecution's time line.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marlalinde
>Message-id: <3825cffd...@news.earthlink.net>
Rich writes...
>As if you were EVER in danger.....kiss kiss hug hug. yes darlin, i
>love you.
;)
ThePuppetMaster
>>Subject: Re: Nicole's stomach contents
>>From: ThePupp...@mail.com (ThePuppetMaster)
>>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 08:04 PM EST
>>Message-id: <3825cffd...@news.earthlink.net>
>
>Rich writes...
>
>>As if you were EVER in danger.....kiss kiss hug hug. yes darlin, i
>>love you.
>
>;)
>Marla
God, I love it when you smile that seductive smile of yours (and you
know it).
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>MARLA:
>
> Prien's characteristically foolish speculation this time seems to be
>that the coroner threw out Nicole's stomach contents so that it would
>not be discovered that they contained Golmans DNA in semen. (A hundred
>points to Prien for imagination, at least.)
>
> I thought it was rather amusing that big-shot Prien advises those less
>sophisticated than he, "I suggest they take a sex education class."
>Then, you give him a lesson he seems to need himself with, "You're
>assuming she swallowed..."
>
Marlalinde
>Message-id: <3825ea57...@news.earthlink.net>
Rich states..
>God, I love it when you smile that seductive smile of yours (and you
>know it).
;););););););););););););););););)
Marla
Marlalinde
>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 11:08 PM EST
>Message-id: <3824FB...@westworld.com>
>
Dick writes...
>MARLA:
>
> Prien's characteristically foolish speculation this time seems to be
>that the coroner threw out Nicole's stomach contents so that it would
>not be discovered that they contained Golmans DNA in semen. (A hundred
>points to Prien for imagination, at least.)
He's never had a problem with imagination.. but then neither did my former
autistic students...
>I thought it was rather amusing that big-shot Prien advises those less
>sophisticated than he, "I suggest they take a sex education class."
>Then, you give him a lesson he seems to need himself with, "You're
>assuming she swallowed..."
Yeah..well...he does that alot....ASS-umes.
> According to the times on my screen, it only took 19 minutes for this
>latest foolishness of Prien's to be shot down. Before long, I think he
>will get strafed on the ground, before he even takes wing.
>
> --dick wagner
How true, my friend, how true...
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>ThePuppetMaster <ThePupp...@mail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 20:08:00 -0800, dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>MARLA:
>
>>> Prien's characteristically foolish speculation this time seems to be
>>>that the coroner threw out Nicole's stomach contents so that it would
>>>not be discovered that they contained Golmans DNA in semen. (A hundred
>>>points to Prien for imagination, at least.)
>
>>> I thought it was rather amusing that big-shot Prien advises those less
>>>sophisticated than he, "I suggest they take a sex education class."
>>>Then, you give him a lesson he seems to need himself with, "You're
>>>assuming she swallowed..."
>
>That assumption would be perfectly natural for someone who does.
>
>>> According to the times on my screen, it only took 19 minutes for this
>>>latest foolishness of Prien's to be shot down. Before long, I think he
>>>will get strafed on the ground, before he even takes wing.
>
>>> --dick wagner
>>Dick, in case you haven't already noticed, the cretin has gotten
>>airborne once.
>
>(Everyone knows you meant "hasn't.")
>
>Prien's next theory: The end of The Real Killer's dick is missing
>(thrown out by the coroner).
>
>
>
Yes, I did mean hasn't. Thanks John.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>ThePuppetMaster <ThePupp...@mail.com> wrote:
>>On 06 Nov 1999 23:20:48 GMT, pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
>
>>>If anyone is still unable to grasp the evidence that must have been found in
>>>Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace to
>>>have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they take
>>>a sex education class.
>
>>And you have proof of this or is this just ANOTHER sleazy attempt to
>>slander a dead woman?
>
>You left out the most likely option: Prien is a cocksucker (and a
>swallower), and he thinks everyone else is too because they want
>to be just like him.
>
Damn, that's number two you've gotten me on tonight. I'm really
slipping. I'll deduct 500 points from my score.
ThePuppetMaster
>>Subject: Re: Nicole's stomach contents
>>From: ThePupp...@mail.com (ThePuppetMaster)
>>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 09:56 PM EST
>>Message-id: <3825ea57...@news.earthlink.net>
>
>Rich states..
>
>>God, I love it when you smile that seductive smile of yours (and you
>>know it).
>
>;););););););););););););););););)
Woooooo Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Prien
>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 06:43 PM EST
>Message-id: <802efp$i...@polaris.umuc.edu>
>
>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt the
>case
>against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow
>jobs?
>
It's mind-boggling how little thought content this question exhibits.
What perverse notion could possily have been the foundation for the proposition
that giving blow jobs legalized murder or that is was the act itself that blew
the case apart.
The obvious and only import that finding semen in Nicole would have is that she
HAD A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER PRIOR TO HER DEATH. There is obviously nothing
inherently problematic about that act.
It is the time that it would have taken to commit the act, and that it must
obviously then have been committed with Goldman, that is at issue.
In that case, the glasses scenario as the explanation of an accidental
encounter self-destructs. The prosecution/plantiff murder time line
disintegrates. There is not the slightest possibility that Simpson would have
had the time to comit the murders if Nicole in fact had a sexual encounter
shortly before her death.
That's what the stomach contents would have revealed had that sexual encounter
been of the oral kind.
I return to the key fact. The medical exminer discards Nicole's but not
Goldman's stomach contents. Why? the California Government Code provisions
pertaining to inquests specifically require the coroner to examine and
determine the stomach contents. Why discard Nicole's UNLESS IT CONTAINED
SOMETHING THAT WAS A SIMPSON CASE KILLER. That's the key fact that has to be
explained.
Evidence of a sexual encounter occurring shortly before her death would have
been a Simpson case annihilator.
Now if someone has a real and credible explanation of why they dumped Nicole's
but not Ron's stomach contents (and attributing it to just another prosecution
fuck up won't cut it), I'll listen.
Until then, you can blabber all you want and it won't alter a thing. Nor will I
listen to it.
And Dick, do you really take seriously all the jabbering from the NoJ claque of
bozos that this posting generated?
Libraryboy
I'm guessing Simpson would have been really upset if he had seen or heard a
reprise of what he saw the night he peeked through the living room curtains.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
and since we know that Nicole was home before 9:00pm from Simpson
himself when he called for Sydney, then we know that Nicole had at
least an hour in which she could have given oral sex to any number of
male friends than might have dropped by. And if Preen is going to say
that a woman can't get a man off within an hour with a good blowjob
he's either only been on the giving end or he's a liar. So once again
preenie your little fantasy has been shot full of more holes than your
head. Sowwy
Sometimey
Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
who give blow jobs?
It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Libraryboy
ThePuppetMaster <The man of a 1000 identities which one am I ?> wrote:
>On 7 Nov 1999 01:56:40 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <19991107014118...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>>>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 06:43 PM EST
>>>>Message-id: <802efp$i...@polaris.umuc.edu>
>>>>
>>>responds to my posting by asking:
>>>
>>>>case
>>>>against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow
>>>>jobs?
>>>>
>>>
Prien needs to look into some of that sex education that he's been telling
everyone to get.
Libraryboy
Sometimey <some...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
>who give blow jobs?
>
>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
What if she did?
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>In article <uoda2s4hq1f9ctvpv...@4ax.com>,
>ThePuppetMaster <The man of a 1000 identities which one am I ?> wrote:
>>On 7 Nov 1999 01:56:40 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <19991107014118...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>>>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>>>>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 06:43 PM EST
>>>>>Message-id: <802efp$i...@polaris.umuc.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>responds to my posting by asking:
>>>>
>>>>>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt the
>>>>>case
>>>>>against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow
>>>>>jobs?
>>>>>
>>>>
Tom we have to realize that old preen has only been on the giving end
of those blowjobs. Now having had more a few blowjobs in my 51 years I
can tell you that a really bad blowjob is much less than stimulating,
so it's entirely possible that the men preen is blowing do take a long
time to get off, if they ever do. So I'm sure he's just making one
more mistake here, comparing his blowjobs to Nicoles.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>
>
>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
>who give blow jobs?
>
>It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
is there a law against it? is that a reason to murder two people? is
that why you're a fucking idiot?
MARG0349
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 06:20 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991106182048...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
>Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace
>to
>have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they
>take
>a sex education class.
>
And it's also the obvious reason 'why' they didn't use a 'rape-test kit' , a
good explanation for the candles, the luke warm bath water, and fits the
timeline. Which brings me to the question:
Garcetti knows that a man named Glen Rogers, (now a twice convicted serial
killer, believed to have murdered between 50-70 persons, mostly women) was
working in Nicole's neighborhood, and proved to have been in contact with
Nicole ONE HOUR before her death ---why did Garcetti go to Judge Reid,
(remember Judge Reid?) and have the files on Rogers sealed?
Rogers confessed he murdered Ron and Nicole. He confessed this to a patron in
a bar in S.Monica.
Rogers who orginally came from OHIO, is not just 'any' killer, he's a serial
killer, that worked as an INFORMANT for the cops for MANY years. He's been
suspected and accused of murder from coast to coast, until Fla. finally
convicted him of murder and he sat on death row.
In the meantime, California authorities, fought for extradition in another
murder, and was just recently tried and convicted for murder. The Ca.
authorities argued it was an insurance policy, that Rogers, if somehow managed
to get his Fla conviction set aside, would still face the death penality in
Cal.
Some of you that live in the LA area probably know of an dep. DA by the name
of D' Augistino who first fought with Garcetti to unseal the Rogers file
Garcetti had Judge Reid seal..Garcetti won, he certainly didn't want his case
against OJ to come into play and doubted. D'Augustino planned to appeal
Garcetti's actions to the board that oversees Garcetti's office, and we all
know "how" that proceedure works:
With a LAPD and LADA that doesn't have to answer to a higher authority, the
records remain sealed.
Now if I were Ron or Nicole's parents, I'd sure as hell leave no stone
unturned, if there was any possibility at all someone other than Simpson killed
my children!!
With Goldman in his new found 'gold mine' ("GlobalTrak") with Denise using the
NBF as his pitch 'man'/'woman', they certainly wouldn't make a profit, now
would they?
Since "GlobalTrac" is still soliciting backers, and apparently is not in
operation yet, from the looks of the site Goldman and Denise Brown are
"pitching"--it kind of makes one wonder just 'how far' and how deep does the
NBF recent inquisition, go? (that's a nice polite way of saying the Browns
appear to have raped the NBF for their own gains.)
Is that 'abuse'?, or criminal? BTW.
In either case, it brings us all back to the subject of Nicole and the missing
stomach contents.
I say they aren't 'missing'. To have something 'missing', you have to have no
knowledge of it's whereabouts, and Garcetti and Co. know very well 'where
abouts' they went!!
(save your breath Ron, you're in my 'kilfile'. I don'twaste my precious time
reading your posts.)
ThePuppetMaster
Gee that's too bad, I'm sure he too will have many chuckles over some
of your fantasies.
>Garcetti knows that a man named Glen Rogers, (now a twice convicted serial
>killer, believed to have murdered between 50-70 persons, mostly women) was
>working in Nicole's neighborhood, and proved to have been in contact with
>Nicole ONE HOUR before her death ---why did Garcetti go to Judge Reid,
>(remember Judge Reid?) and have the files on Rogers sealed?
Care to post some PROOF not hearsay, not beliefs, but PROOF that Glen
Rogers was with Nicole one hour before her death?
> Rogers confessed he murdered Ron and Nicole. He confessed this to a patron in
>a bar in S.Monica.
Same challenge here.
BTW, are you related to that other nut Kari?
NKC
wrote:
>In article <19991107014118...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>>Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 06:43 PM EST
>>>Message-id: <802efp$i...@polaris.umuc.edu>
>>>
>>responds to my posting by asking:
>>
>>>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt the
>>>case
>>>against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow
>>>jobs?
>>>
>>
I can't believe your narrow thinking on this subject. If there is
semen, there may be readable DNA, there may be ANOTHER SUSPECT.
NKC
wrote:
>In article <803pqh$290$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Sometimey <some...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
>>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
>>who give blow jobs?
>>
>>It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
>>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
>
>What if she did?
i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
confused
>i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
Yes, you are correct. But since she had put the kids to bed sometime
after 9:15, talked to mother around 9:37, was expecting the glasses
to be returned around 10:00, had drawn a bath, when was she with
this person?
confused
>OK, I'm not bashful. It was semen, from oral sex.
Care to name a report?
>Garcetti knows that a man named Glen Rogers,
http://members.tripod.com/ahrens/serial/serial.html#rogers
>(now a twice convicted serial killer, believed to have murdered between
>50-70 persons, mostly women) was working in Nicole's neighborhood,
>and proved to have been in contact with Nicole ONE HOUR before her death
Bullshit-
Nicole didn't fit the profile. Rogers wouldn't have left the kids
alive. One hour before her death, Nicole was on the phone with her
mother.
>---why did Garcetti go to Judge Reid, (remember Judge Reid?) and have
>the files on Rogers sealed?
"His first victim is believed to be a former housemate whose
corpse was found in January 1993 under a pile of furniture
in an abandoned house owned by the Rogers family.
<that would be in florida>
"His next known kill was a woman he met at a bar in Van Nuys,
California. On September, 1995, she was found raped and strangled
inside her burning pickup truck."
> Rogers confessed he murdered Ron and Nicole. He confessed this to a patron in
>a bar in S.Monica.
Gee since his first california kill was a year after nicole, why did
Garcetti have a file on him?
Libraryboy
Hmmm, let's balance the probabilities: jealous ex-husband whose blood
was found at the scene, the last guy she gave oral sex to. Jealous
ex-husband whose blood was found at the scene, the last guy she gave
oral sex to. Oh, it's a slam dunk for the defense, all right.
ThePuppetMaster
>This one is much more informative:
Only if you're a fucking moron that believes some idiots fantasies. I
said post proof, not some jerk with a web site that makes unsupported
claims.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>On 7 Nov 1999 18:17:39 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>wrote:
>lame lame lame. For you guys, it's always reduced to, "no matter what
>evidence or theory or challenge you come up with, OJ Simpson was a
>jealous ex-husband so therefore, he's a butcher."
> LibraryBoyyyy, I'm quite aure you wouldn't be here if you
>thought Simpson's guilt was a 'slam dunk'. Here's the deal: In
>homicides of the "domestic' variety, DNA derived from semen is very
>compelling. It is used to implicate, as well as to ELIMINATE
>suspects.
> If Nicole had sex with someone in the hours prior to her
>murder, clearly, that 'someone' should be investigated.
> Or is it that you think that nobody should be investigated
>because "OJ was Jealous"?
>
So other than some dumb fuck named preen, name one RELIABLE source
that claims there was semen in Nicoles stomach.
Kariana
She was found in a bathtub full of her own blood. He killed her in the
bathtub. Remember Riske's remarks when asked if there were toys in the bath
water in the bathtub? He said he was too busy looking for bodies. He also
made a statement that he was shocked to find the kids sleeping in their
beds. This means he believed they were dead now doesn't it?
MARG0349 <marg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991107215703...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Nicole's stomach contents
> >From: mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused)
> >Date: Sun, 07 November 1999 05:06 PM EST
> >Message-id: <1fUlOLJQBZ+OcK...@4ax.com>
> Thanks for taking the trouble anyway.
>
> This one is much more informative:
> It has all the stories about Rogers I sited, up to date. As for the
records
> Garcetti had sealed, it's in ref. to this story below and What I said
about the
> 'Dep DA, D'Augustino' is on file at the courthouse,in Judge Reid's court.
Make
> a phone call to D'Augustino, and ask.:
> < CROSS-COUNTRY KILLER:
> Glen Rogers
> © 1999 S. London
>
> The OJ Connection
>
> Rogers' child bride Debi, his attorney, and the two women who most
recently
> visited him in jail have all met untimely deaths, but Rogers was somewhere
else
> each time.
> {art-picture of newspaper article inserted here}
> He was, however, placed near the home of Nicole Brown Simpson within an
hour of
> her murder, and was briefly considered a suspect, as he had partied with
Nicole
> and her friend Faye Resnick.
>
> Three and a half months after he was acquitted of murder charges, the New
York
> Post reported that O.J. Simpson's lawyers planned to blame Glen Rogers,
but
> that Los Angeles police were not taking the claim seriously>
> marg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> marg
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>One of Glen Roger's victims in Florida was not found in a burned out truck.
>She was found in a bathtub full of her own blood. He killed her in the
>bathtub. Remember Riske's remarks when asked if there were toys in the bath
>water in the bathtub? He said he was too busy looking for bodies. He also
>made a statement that he was shocked to find the kids sleeping in their
>beds. This means he believed they were dead now doesn't it?
Does it? It seems more like he didn't expect to find anyone else
there. moron!
confused
>>Subject: Re: Nicole's stomach contents
>>From: mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused)
>>http://members.tripod.com/ahrens/serial/serial.html#rogers
> The site you posted is way outdated.
>Thanks for taking the trouble anyway.
>
>This one is much more informative:
>http:..www.sondralondon.com/rogers/index.html
The correct format would be-
http://www.sondralondon.com/rogers/index.html
Informative? It has nothing but rumors, only two of the murders have
dates when they occurred.
But it did have this-
Before his arrest in November of 1995, Glen Rogers had served time
in Ohio for forgery.
Any chance you know when he got out of prison in Ohio and how long
he was in for? Let's say he had been out 3 months, was in for a year
and took 3 months to get to trial. He would have been free, in may
1994. Looks like he likely has an alibi.
> It has all the stories about Rogers I sited, up to date. As for the records
>Garcetti had sealed, it's in ref. to this story below and What I said about the
>'Dep DA, D'Augustino' is on file at the courthouse,in Judge Reid's court.
Everything that was sealed was dated after nicole's murder. There is
nothing that says that Rogers was in California in June of 1994. And
there is a lot that suggests that he wasn't.
<snips of pro-J rumors>
MARG0349
Thanks for taking the trouble anyway.
This one is much more informative:
http:..www.sondralondon.com/rogers/index.html
It has all the stories about Rogers I sited, up to date. As for the records
Garcetti had sealed, it's in ref. to this story below and What I said about the
'Dep DA, D'Augustino' is on file at the courthouse,in Judge Reid's court. Make
NKC
Libraryboy
No, I'm just having a hard time imagining having murderous impulses
towards a woman who has just given me oral sex.
Walter Bennett
file. Need more info. Need ....
I love a mystery!
It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
known, but to question it.
-J. Bronowski
[The Ascent of Man]
Kariana
Walter Bennett <ste...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24366-38...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Walter Bennett
>Gee since his first california kill was a
>year after nicole, why did Garcetti have a
>file on him?
The lady in Van Nuys was his first known kill in California. The police
and DA may have attributed others to him that they could not in fact say
were his.
But this was a good question, confused.
confused
>Glen Rogers? Never heard of him. Never heard of Garcetti sealing his
>file. Need more info. Need ....
To get off your ass and start looking for yourself. There is a
wealth of information at you fingertips. In addition, they have
these things called "public librarys". Go to one, you will be
amazed!
Mike
wrote:
>In article <803pqh$290$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Sometimey <some...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
>>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
>>who give blow jobs?
>>
>>It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
>>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
>
>What if she did?
It was reported in Freed's book that Ron had lipstick on his cheek. If
a sexual encounter had taken place between them it would alter the
timeline wouldn't it.
I t doesn't prevent OJ being the killer though.
Mike
Robert Miller
Marlalinde wrote: .
> So let see asshole...according to your NEW and REVISED theory, Nicole gave Ron
> a blow job in her bedroom..on her unmade bed...right so far???
>
>
> You're assuming she swallowed...
>
> Marla
[Who said she gave Ron the blowjob?]
Robert Miller
shitcanned. Of course, it's been shitcanned for any of a dozen different
reasons before this. But suppose it was someone else's semen. After
all, there reports of Nicole standing outside of the house, hugging
someone at around ten. If she hugged our mystery man at ten, she
could have sucked him at 9:45, had some ice cream at 11. You talk
about timelines, did she have time to suck off someone besides
Goldman between the Mezzaluna and the time he shows up later?
How long does the DNA in semen hold up in stomach acid?
I am reminded of the scene in "Everything You've Ever Wanted To
Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask" where Woody Allen
is a little sperm cell and at the point of ejaculation someone in the
crowd of sperms shouts, "Oh No! It's a blow job!"
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On 7 Nov 1999 10:21:16 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <803pqh$290$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >Sometimey <some...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
> >>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
> >>who give blow jobs?
> >>
> >>It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
> >>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
> >
> >What if she did?
>
> i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
[And another addition to the timeline.]
Ron
<ThePupp...@mail.com> wrote:
<goofy Patty innuendo deleted>
>>
>So other than some dumb fuck named preen, name one RELIABLE source
>that claims there was semen in Nicoles stomach.
>
Holy shit! I guess my standard practice of totally ignoring any thread
started by one of cowardly little preen's idiotic fantasies backfired on me
big-time here. A maybe-there-was-jism-in-her-gut thread? Too fucking much!
Is he suggesting that stomach content DNA tests are a standard procedure
somewhere beside Simpsonlicker Fantasyland®? If so, where?
>
Say, have any of these geniuses explained how the cum remained intact on its
journey to her stomach so it could possibly be identified as cum even if it
was there? Was it like sitting in a glob on top of the rigatoni or
something? If so, are they sure it wasn't a light cream sauce?
>
Damn, I never had any idea that jism was so indestructible. I was under the
impression that stomach acid would play hell with the stuff.
Libraryboy
Which blow job would that be, Bob? Have you ever met a hypothesis
that you didn't mistake for a fact?
Duane
> Marlalinde wrote: .
>
> > So let see asshole...according to your NEW and REVISED theory, Nicole gave Ron
> > a blow job in her bedroom..on her unmade bed...right so far???
> >
> >
> > You're assuming she swallowed...
> >
> > Marla
>
> [Who said she gave Ron the blowjob?]
[Dunno. Walk us through it, oh great speculator...]
ThePuppetMaster
>On 7 Nov 1999 10:21:16 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <803pqh$290$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>Sometimey <some...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
>>>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
>>>who give blow jobs?
>>>
>>>It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
>>>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
>>
>>What if she did?
>
>It was reported in Freed's book that Ron had lipstick on his cheek. If
>a sexual encounter had taken place between them it would alter the
>timeline wouldn't it.
>I t doesn't prevent OJ being the killer though.
>
> Mike
Here is Ron Goldman's autopsy report, there is no mention of lipstick
on his body anywhere. This is another example of the bullshit
published in Freed's work of fiction.
Begin cite:
Ron Goldman's Autopsy Report
AUTOPSY REPORT 94-05135
I performed an autopsy on the body of GOLDMAN, RONALD at the
DEPARTMENT OF CORONER Los Angeles, California on June 14, 1994 @1030
HOURS
From the anatomic findings and pertinent history, I ascribe the death
to: MULTIPLE SHARP FORCE INJURIES Due To Or As a Consequence of
_____________________________________________________________________
Anatomical Summary:
1. Sharp force wound of neck, left side, with transection of left
internal jugular vein.
2. Multiple stab wounds of chest, abdomen, and left thigh: Penetrating
stab wounds of chest and abdomen with right hemothorax and
hemoperitoneum.
3. Multiple incised wounds of scalp, face, neck, chest and left hand
(defense wound).
4. Multiple abrasions upper extremities and hands (defense wounds).
NOTES AND PROCEDURES
1. The body is described in the Standard Anatomical Position.
Reference is to this position only.
2. Where necessary, injuries are numbered for reference. This is
arbitrary and does not correspond to any order in which they may have
been incurred. All the injuries are antemortem, unless otherwise
specified.
3. The term "anatomic" is used as a specification to indicate
correspondence with the description as set forth in the textbooks of
Gross Anatomy. It denotes freedom from significant, visible or morbid
alteration.
EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:
The body is that of a well developed, well nourished Caucasian male
stated to be 25 years old. The body weighs 171 pounds, measuring 69
inches from crown to sole. The hair on the scalp is brown and
straight. The irides appear hazel with the pupils fixed and dilated.
The sclerae and conjunctive are unremarkable, with no evidence of
petechial hemorrhages on either. Both upper and lower teeth are
natural, and there are no injuries of the gums, cheeks, or lips.
There is a picture-type tattoo on the lateral aspect of the left upper
arm. There are no deformities, old surgical scars or amputations.
Rigor mortis is fixed (see Form 1 of autopsy report).
The body appears to the Examiner as stated above. Identification is by
toe tag and the autopsy is not material to identification. The body is
not embalmed.
The head is normocephalic, and there is extensive evidence of external
traumatic injury, to be described below. Otherwise, the eyes, nose and
mouth are not remarkable. The neck shows sharp force injuries to be
described below. The front of the chest and abdomen likewise show
injuries to be described below. The genitalia are that of an adult
male, with the penis circumcised, and no evidence of injury.
Examination of the posterior surface of the trunk reveals no
antemortem traumatic injuries.
Refer to available photographs and diagrams and to the specific
documentation of the autopsy protocol.
CLOTHING:
The clothes were examined both before and after removal from the body.
The decedent was wearing a long-sleeved type of shirt/sweater; it was
extensively bloodstained.
On the front, lower right side, there was a 1 1/2 inch long slit-like
tear. Also on the lower right sleeve there was a 1 inch slit-like
tear. On the back there was a 1/2 inch slit-like tear on the right
lower side.
Decedent was wearing a pair of Levi jeans bloodstained. On the outside
of the left hip region there was a 1-1/2 inch long slit-like tear. The
decedent also was wearing 2 canvas type boots and 2 sweat socks.
EVIDENCE OF THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION:
None.
EVIDENCE OF INJURY:
SHARP FORCE INJURIES OF NECK:
1. Sharp force injury of neck, left side, transecting left internal
jugular vein. This sharp force injury is complex, and appears to be a
combination of a stabbing and cutting wound. It begins on the left
side of the neck, at the level of the midlarynx, over the left
sternocleidomastoid muscle; it is gaping, measuring 3 inches in length
with smooth edges. It tapers superiorly to 1 inch in length cut skin.
Dissection discloses that the wound path is through the skin, the
subcutaneous tissue, and the sternocleidomastoid muscle with
hemorrhage along the wound path and transection of the left internal
jugular vein, with dark red-purple hemorrhage in the adjacent
subcutaneous tissue and fascia. The direction of the pathway is upward
and slightly front to back for a distance of approximately 4 inches
where it exits, post-auricular, in a 2 inch in length gaping
stab/incised wound which has undulating or wavy borders, but not
serrated. Intersecting the wound at right angle superior inferior is a
2 inch in length interrupted superficial, linear incised wound
involving only the skin. Also, intervening between the 2 gaping
stab-incised wounds is a horizontally oriented 3-1/2 inch in length
interrupted superficial, linear incised wound of the skin only.
In addition, there is a 1/2 inch long, linear-triangular in size wound
of the inferior portion of the left earlobe.
The direction of the sharp force injury is upward (rostral), and
slightly front to back with no significant angulation or deviation.
The total length of the wound path is approximately 4 inches. However,
there is a 3/4 inch in length, linear, cutting or incised wound of the
top or superior aspect of the pinna of the left ear; a straight
metallic probe placed through the major sharp force injury shows that
the injury of the superior part of the ear can be aligned with the
straight metallic rod, suggesting that the 3 injuries are related; in
this instance the total length of the wound path is approximately 6
inches. Also, in the left postauricular region, transversely oriented,
extending from the auricular attachment laterally to the scalp is a
1-1/8 inch in length linear superficial incised skin wound.
Opinion: This sharp force injury of the neck is fatal, associated with
transection of the left internal jugular vein.
2. Sharp force wound of the right side of neck. This is a complex
injury, appearing to be a combination stabbing and cutting wound. The
initial wound is present on the right side of the neck, over the
sternocleidomastoid muscle, 3 inches directly below the right external
auditory canal. It is diagonally oriented, and after approximation of
the edges measures 5/8 inch in length; there is a pointed or tapered
end inferiorly and a split or forked end superiorly approximately 1/16
inch in maximal width. Subsequent autopsy shows that the wound path is
through the skin and subcutaneous tissue, without penetration of
injury of a major artery or vein; the direction is front to back and
upward for a total wound path length of 2 inches and the wound exits
on the right side of the back of the neck, posterior to the right
sternocleidomastoid muscle where a 2 inch long gaping incised/stab
wound is evident on the skin; both ends are tapered; superiorly there
is a 1 inch long superficial incised wounds extension on the skin to
the back of the head; inferiorly there is a 2 inch long incised
superficial skin extension, extending inferiorly towards the back of
the neck.
There is fresh hemorrhage and bruising along the wound path; the
direction, as stated, is upward and slightly front to back.
Opinion: This is a nonfatal sharp force injury, with no injury or
major artery or vein.
3. At the level of the superior border of the larynx there is a
transversely oriented, superficial incised wound of the neck,
extending from 3 inches to the left of the anterior midline; it is 3
inches in length and involves the skin only; a small amount of
cutaneous hemorrhage is evident.
Opinion: This is a nonfatal superficial incised wound.
4. Immediately inferior and adjacent to incised wound #3 is a
transversely oriented, superficial incised wound involving the skin
and subcutaneous tissue; there is a small amount of dermal hemorrhage.
Opinion: This is a nonfatal superficial incised wound.
SHARP FORCE INJURIES OF FACE:
1. There is a stab wound, involving the right earlobe; it is
vertically oriented, and after approximation of the edges measures 1
inch in length with forked or split ends superiorly and inferiorly
approximately 1/16 inch in total width both superior and inferior.
Subsequent dissection discloses that the wound path is from right to
left, in the horizontal plane for approximately 1-1/4 inches; there is
fresh hemorrhage along the wound path; the wound path terminates in
the left temporal bone and does not penetrate the cranial cavity.
Opinion: This is a nonfatal stab wound.
2. There is a group of 5 superficial incised or cutting wounds on the
right side of the face, involving the right cheek and the right side
of the jaw. They are varied in orientation both diagonal and
horizontal; the smallest is 1/4 inch in length; the largest 5/8 inch
in length. They are superficial, involving the skin only, associated
with a small amount of cutaneous hemorrhage.
3. On the back of the neck, right side, posterior to the ear and
posterior border of the right sternocleidomastoid muscle there is
vertically oriented superficial incised skin wound, measuring 3/4 inch
in length.
4. There are numerous superficial incised wounds or cuts, varied in
orientation, involving the skin of the right cheek, intersection and
mingled with the various superficial incised wounds described above.
The longest is a 3 inch long diagonally oriented superficial incised
wound extending from the right side of the forehead to the cheek;
various other superficial wound vary from 1/2 to 1 inch.
5. On the right side of the cheek, adjacent to the ramus of the
mandible, right, there is a 1-1/2 x 3/4 inch superficial nonpatterned
red-brown abrasion with irregular border, extending superiorly towards
the angle of the jaw where there are poorly defined and circumscribed
abrasions adjacent to the superficial cuts or abrasions described
above. It should be noted that the 5th superficial incised wound of
the right side of the mandible which measures 5/8 inch in length is
tapered on the posterior aspect and forked on the anterior aspect
where it has a width of 1/32 inch.
6. On the left ear, there is a superficial incised wound measuring 1/4
inch, adjacent to the posterior border of the pinna. Just below this
on the inferior pinna, extending to the earlobe, there is an
interrupted superficial linear abrasion measuring 1 inch in length.
SHARP FORCE INJURIES OF SCALP:
1. The scalp is shaved postmortem for visualization. On the right
posterior parietal region of the scalp there is a sharp force wound,
diagonally oriented, and after approximation of the edges it measures
5/8 inch in length with a perpendicularly oriented skin cut at the
midpoint.
Depth of penetration is approximately 1/4 to 3/8 inch into the scalp,
with associated deep scalp hemorrhage and a subgaleal hemorrhage
beneath the wound measuring 2 x 2 inches in transverse diameter. There
is no underlying fracture of the skull or penetration of the cranium.
Opinion: This is a sharp force wound that may represent either a
cutting wound of a superficial stab wound; nonfatal.
2. On the posterior parietal region, midline, to the left of the wound
described above there is a 1/4 inch superficial incised wound or skin
cut measuring 1/4 inch in length; both ends are pointed or tapered;
extension is 1/4 inch into the scalp with a small amount of deep scalp
hemorrhage but no subgaleal hemorrhage.
3. On the left posterior parietal region there is an injury that is an
abrasion, 1/4 x 1/8 inch in maximal diameter and an ovoid in
configuration; it is red-brown with a small amount of superficial skin
bruising.
Opinion: This is a skin abrasion-bruise, noncharacteristic.
DESCRIPTION OF MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS:
On the right side of the chest adjacent to the stab wound there are
multiple, irregular, brown abrasions consistent with ant bites.
1. Stab wound of right side of chest.
The stab wound is located on the right side of the chest, 22 inches
below the top of the head and 5 inches from the back of the body; it
is vertically oriented and after approximation of the edges it
measures 5/8 inch in length. Inferiorly there is a squared off or dull
end approximately 1/32 in length; superiorly the wound is tapered.
Subsequent autopsy shows that the pathway is through the skin, the
subcutaneous tissue, and through the right 7th rib at the
approximately midaxillary line where the rib is totally incised.
Thereafter, it enters the right pleural cavity which at the time of
autopsy contains approximately 100-200 ml of predominantly liquid
blood. The path is through the lateral base of the border of the right
lower lobe as the path is through the pleura and the immediately
subjacent pulmonary parenchyma which is hemorrhagic; the pleural
wounds are approximately 1/2-3/4 inch in length; thereafter the
pathway is from right to left and back to front and through the
pleural cavity where the wound path terminates on the anterior rib
cage where a 3/4 cutting wound is found on the posterior aspect of the
right 4th rib anteriorly at the approximate midclavicular line; there
is overlying bruising in the adjacent intercostal musculature.
Estimated length of the total wound path is 4 inches and as stated the
direction is right to left and back to front with no other angulation
measurable.
Opinion: This is a fatal wound associated with perforation of the
right lung and a hemothorax.
2. Stab wound of right side of chest.
This wound is located on the right side of the chest, 21 inches below
the top of the head and 2 inches from the back of the body. After
approximation of the edges it measures 1-1/2 inches in length and is
diagonally oriented; the posterior aspect is dull or flat, measuring
1/32 inch and the anterior aspect is pointed or tapered.
Subsequent autopsy shows that the wound is through the skin, the
subcutaneous tissue, and the intercostal musculature and it penetrates
into the pleural cavity through the 8th right intercostal space
without striking rib. Thereafter the pathway is similar to stab wound
#1 as it passes obliquely through the pleura and subjacent hemorrhagic
parenchyma at the base of the right lower lobe; 1/2 inch and 3/4 inch
pleural cuts are evident both posteriorly and anteriorly. No other
terminating point is evident.
There is fresh hemorrhage and bruising noted along the wound path as
well as the hemothorax described above.
The direction is right to left with no other angulation or deviation
determined because of absence of fixed reference points. Estimated
minimum total depth of penetration is 2-3 inches.
Opinion: This is a fatal stab wound associated with perforation of the
lung and hemothorax.
3. Stab wound of right flank.
This is a diagonally oriented wound, on the right flank, 29 inches
below the top of the head and 3-1/2 inches to the back of the body. It
measures 3/8 inch in length and involves the skin and subcutaneous
tissue without penetrating the chest wall or abdominal wall. No square
or dull edges are evident. Both ends are rounded or tapered.
Opinion: This is a superficial cutting wound, representing either a
superficial stab wound or an incised wound.
4. Stab wound of left thigh.
This is a transversely oriented stab wound on the lateral left thigh,
33 inches above the left heel and 4 inches from the back of the thigh.
After approximation of the edges it measures 2-1/8 inches in length
and posteriorly there is a dull or flat end 1/32 inch and anteriorly a
pointed or tapered end.
Subsequent autopsy shows that the wound path is through the skin, the
subcutaneous tissue, and the muscle without striking bone. There is
fresh hemorrhage along the wound path. The depth of penetration is 3
to 3-1/2 inches from left to right without angulation or deviation.
Opinion: This is a stab wound of the soft tissue and muscle of the
left thigh, nonfatal.
5. Stab wound of left side of abdomen.
This is a transversely oriented stab wound on the left side of the
abdomen, located 45 inches above the left heel. After approximation of
the edges it measures 3/4 inch in length with the anterior end pointed
or tapered and the posterior end forked or split.
Subsequent autopsy shows that the wound passes through the skin, the
subcutaneous tissue, and through the retroperitoneal tissue which is
hemorrhagic; the pathway is through the left ilio-psoas muscle
associated with fresh hemorrhage and bruising. The path is from left
to right and slightly back to front; the wound path terminates in the
abdominal aorta approximately 1-1/4 inches proximal to the
bifurcation. Two perforating 1/2 inch wounds are seen in the wall of
the aorta with surrounding para-aortic hemorrhage. In addition to the
retroperitoneal hemorrhage, including hemorrhage into the mesocolon,
approximately 100 ml of liquid blood is found free within the
peritoneal cavity.
In addition to the fresh bruising and hemorrhage along the wound path
the entire length of the wound path is approximately 5-1/2 inches.
The direction is left to right, and a slightly back to front direction
with no other angulation or deviation evident.
Opinion: This is a fatal stab wound associated with perforation of the
abdominal aorta with retroperitoneal and intra-abdominal hemorrhage.
6. Stab wound of the right upper chest, lateral border of right
clavicle.
This vertically oriented superficial stab wound or incised wound is
located on the lateral border of the right clavicle, is vertically
oriented, and measures 1/2 inch in length; involves the skin and
subcutaneous tissue; inferiorly the wound is split or forked and
superiorly it is tapered or pointed. It should be noted that all of
the split or forked ends of the previously mentioned stab wounds
overall measure approximately 1/16 to 1/8 inch in overall width. There
is a small amount of fresh cutaneous hemorrhage.
No direction can be evident except for front to back, inasmuch as it
is superficial.
Opinion: This is a nonfatal superficial stab wound or cutting wound.
SHARP FORCE INJURIES OF HANDS:
1. On the palmar surface of the right hand, at the base of the index
finger, there is a cutting or incised wound, 3/4 inch in length and
1/2 inch deep involving the skin and subcutaneous tissue with
hemorrhage in the margins. Both ends are rounded or tapered.
Opinion: This is compatible with a defense wound.
2. On the palmar surface of the right hand, just proximal to the web
of the thumb, there is a triangular or Y-shaped cutting wound
measuring 1/2 inch in length maximally and 1/4 inch deep with
hemorrhage at the margins.
Opinion: This is compatible with a defense wound.
3. On the palmar surface of the left hand at the web of the thumb,
there is a 3/4 inch in size or cutting wound involving the skin, and
subcutaneous tissue; it is approximately 1/4 inch deep with hemorrhage
at the margins. Both ends are tapered or pointed with smooth edges
similar to the 2 wounds described above.
Opinion: This is compatible with a defense wound.
OTHER INJURIES TO HANDS AND UPPER EXTREMITIES:
1. On the lateral aspect of the right distal forearm, adjacent to the
wrist, there is a 3/4 x 1/2 inch abrasion on the ulnar surface,
red-brown in color, nonpatterned.
2. On the lateral or outer aspect of the left forearm there are
multiple abrasions both linear and one that is approximately
triangular measuring 3/4 x 1/2 inch; they are all brown to red-brown
in color and antemortem; the longest linear abrasion is 3/4 inch in
length.
3. On the dorsal surface of the right hand there are fresh bruises
(red-purple in color) and fresh red-brown abrasions. On the proximal
knuckle of the right middle finger a 1 x 3/4 inch bruise with no
overlying abrasion. On the middle knuckle of the index finger a 1/2 x
1/2 inch bruise surrounding a 1/8 nondescript abrasion; just distal on
the middle phalanx of the middle finger a 1/8 nondescript abrasion. On
the proximal knuckle of the right index finer there is a 1/2 x 1/2
inch fresh bruise surrounding a linear diagonally oriented 1/2 inch
red-brown abrasion.
There is a 1/2 x 1/2 inch fresh bruise on the middle of the right ring
finger surrounding 2 punctate abrasions approximately 1/8 inch in
maximal diameter; on the middle knuckle of the right 5th finger there
is a 1/16 inch punctate nondescript abrasion.
4. On the dorsal side of the left hand there are multiple red-brown
abrasions irregular in configuration and border, involving the 3
knuckles of the left index finger; maximal dimension 1/4 x 3/8 inch,
all red-brown in color.
There is an irregularly configured abrasion on the proximal knuckle of
the left middle finger consisting of an apparent 3 linear 1/2 inch
abrasions converging at the center having a somewhat configuration of
the letter W. These are all superficial skin abrasions. On the dorsal
side of the left hand adjacent to the web of the thumb there is a
linear, 3/4 inch long skin abrasion terminating in a 1/8 inch
nondescript punctate abrasion near the base of the thumb.
There is a fresh bruise, 1-1/4 x 1-1/2 inch on the dorsal surface of
the left hand adjacent to the wrist surrounding a punctate abrasion.
5.. There are 2 fresh bruises on the ulnar surface of the left wrist,
nonabraded, measuring respectively 3/8 x 3/8 inch and 1/2 x 1/2 inch,
with the bruising involving the skin and dermis.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION:
The body is opened with the usual Y-shaped thoracoabdominal incision
revealing the abdominal adipose tissue to measure 1/2 to 3/4 inch in
thickness. The anterior abdominal wall has its normal muscular
components and no blunt force injuries are evident. Exposure of the
body cavities shows the contained organs in their usual anatomic
locations with their usual anatomic relationships. The serosal
surfaces are smooth, thin, and glistening and the free blood within
the peritoneal cavity due to the stab wound as previously described;
this also includes the left retroperitoneal hemorrhage, hemorrhage
into the left ilio-psoas muscle, and the mesocolon.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF INJURY:
Aside from the stab wounds of the chest and abdomen, there are no
other internal traumatic injuries involving the thoracic or abdominal
viscera.
SYSTEMIC AND ORGAN REVIEW
Autopsy findings, or lack of them, considered apart from those already
stated. The following observations pertain to findings other than the
injuries and changes that are described above.
MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM--SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE-SKIN:
Anatomic except as otherwise stated or implied.
HEAD--CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM:
The brain weighs 1,400 grams. The external indications of injury as
well as the deep scalp and subgaleal hemorrhage have been described
above. There is no hemorrhage into the temporal muscle or the orbits.
There are no tears of the dura mater and no recent epidural, subdural,
or subarachnoid hemorrhage. The dura is stripped revealing no
fractures of the bones of the calvarium or base of the skull.
The pituitary gland is normally situated in the sella turcica and is
not enlarged.
The cranial nerves are enumerated and they are intact, symmetrical and
anatomic in size, location and course.
The component vessels of the circle of Willis are identified and they
are anatomic in size, course and configuration. The blood vessels are
intact, free of aneurysm or other anomaly, are non-occluded, and show
no significant atherosclerosis.
Multiple coronal sections of the non-formalin-fixed, fresh brain
shows: The cerebral hemispheres, cerebellum, brain stem, pons and
medulla to show their normal anatomical structures. The cerebellar,
the pontine and the medullary surfaces present no lesions. The
cerebral cortex, the white matter, the ventricular system and basal
ganglia are anatomic. There is no evidence of hemorrhage, cysts or
neoplasm involving the brain substance.
The spinal chord is not dissected.
ORGANS OF SPECIAL SENSES:
Not dissected.
RESPIRATORY SYSTEM--THROAT STRUCTURES:
The oral cavity, viewed from below, is anatomic and no lesions are
seen. The mucosa is intact and there are no injuries to the lips,
teeth or gums.
There is no obstruction of the airway. The injury to the left internal
jugular vein has been previously described. The mucosa of the
epiglottis, glottis, piriform sinuses, trachea and major bronchi are
anatomic. No injuries are seen and there are no mucosal lesions.
The hyoid bone, the thyroid, and the cricoid cartilages are intact. No
hemorrhage is present in the tissues adjacent to the throat organs nor
is there hemorrhage into the substance of the anatomic appearing
thyroid gland. The parathyroid glands are not identified.
Lungs: The lungs weight: Right, 420 grams; left 320 grams. The
external appearance and that of the sectioned surface of the left lung
shows a pink external surface without evidence of injuries. There is
minimal congestion, otherwise not remarkable. No foreign substance,
infarction or neoplasm is encountered.
The right lung shows basilar atelectasis due to the hemothorax caused
by the stab wound to the right lower lobe described above. Otherwise
the external appearance of the sectioned surface shows no focal
lesion; there is no evidence of foreign material, infarction or
neoplasm.
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM:
The heart weighs 290 grams, and has a normal size and configuration.
The chambers, valves, and the myocardium are anatomic. There are no
focal endocardial, valvular or myocardial lesion and no congenital
anomalies.
Multiple transverse sections of the left and right coronary arteries
reveal them to be thin-walled and patent throughout with no
significant atherosclerosis. The aorta and its branches are anatomic;
the perforating stab wound injury of the distal abdominal aorta has
been previously described.
The portal and caval veins and the major branches are anatomic.
GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM:
The mucosa and wall of the esophagus are intact and gray-pink, without
lesions or injuries.
The gastric mucosa is intact and pink without injury. There are no
focal lesions, no residual medications, and no swallowed blood is
present. Approximately 200 ml of partially digested semisolid food is
found in the stomach with the presence of fragments of green leafy
vegetable material compatible with spinach.
The mucosa of the duodenum, jejunum, ileum, colon and rectum are
intact. The lumen is patent. There are no mucosal lesions or injuries
and no blood is present. The fecal content is usual in appearance.
The vermiform appendix is present.
HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM--PANCREAS:
The liver weighs 1,360 grams and is normal size and configuration. The
subcapsular and the cut surfaces of the liver are uniformly brown-red
in color, free of nodularity, and usual in appearance. The biliary
duct system, including the gallbladder, is free of anomaly and no
lesions are seen. The mucosa is intact and bile stained. The lumina
are patent and no calculi are present.
The pancreas is anatomic both externally and on cut surface.
HEMOLYMPHATIC SYSTEM--ADRENAL GLAND
The spleen weighs 210 grams and has an intact capsule. Cut surface
shows a normal coloration with a firm red-purple parenchyma and no
focal lesions.
The blood, the bone marrow and the usually-named aggregates of lymph
nodes do not appear to be significantly altered.
The thymus gland is not identified.
The adrenal glands are usual in size and location and the cut surface
presents no lesions or injuries. However, there is a small amount of
left periadrenal hemorrhage due to the retro-peritoneal hemorrhage
caused by the stab wound.
URINARY SYSTEM:
The kidneys weigh: Left, 150 grams; right, 140 grams. The kidneys are
anatomic in size, shape and location. The capsules are stripped to
show a smooth, pale brown surface. On section the cortex and medulla
are anatomic without lesions.
The calyces, the pelves, the ureters and urinary-bladder are unaltered
in appearance. The mucosa is gray-pink. No calculi are present, and no
blood is present.
The urinary bladder contains no measurable urine.
MALE GENITAL SYSTEM:
The testicles, the penis, the prostate gland are anatomic to
dissection.
HISTOLOGY:
Representatives portions of the various organs, including the larynx,
are preserved in 10% formaldehyde and placed in a single storage
container.
TOXICOLOGY:
A sample of right pleural blood as well as bile are submitted for
toxicologic analysis. Stomach contents are saved.
SEROLOGY:
A sample of right pleural blood is submitted in the EDTA tube.
RADIOLOGY:
None.
PHOTOGRAPHY:
In addition to the routine identification photographs; pertinent
photographs are taken of the external injuries.
WITNESSES:
Detectives Van Natter and Lange, LAPD, Robbery Homicide Division, were
present during the autopsy.
DIAGRAMS USED:
Form 42, 16, 20F, 20H, 21 and 24 were utilized during the performance
of the autopsy.
OPINION:
The decedent sustained multiple sharp force injuries, including
multiple stab wounds involving the chest and abdomen; multiple
incised-stab wounds of the neck; and multiple incised or cutting
wounds. Fatal wounds were identified involving the neck where there
was transection of the left internal jugular vein and stab wounds of
the chest and abdomen causing intrathoracic and intraabdominal
hemorrhage.
Of note the cutting wounds of the left and right hands, compatible
with defensive wounds. In addition there were a number of blunt force
injuries to the upper extremities and hands, likewise compatible with
defensive wounds. The remainder of the autopsy revealed a normal,
healthy adult male with no congenital anomalies. Routine toxicologic
studies were ordered.
/s/ IRWIN L. GOLDEN, M.D. DEPUTY MEDICAL EXAMINER
June 17, 1994 DATE
End of Cite:
ThePuppetMaster
Maybe preen can swallow a load from his boyfriend, go to the hospital
have then open him up and see if they can detect any cum in his tum.
NKC
wrote:
>In article <38263d5e...@supernews.sirius.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>On 7 Nov 1999 18:17:39 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <HPElOCCjVRvjHd...@4ax.com>,
>>>confused <mo...@mmw-gbg.net> wrote:
>>>>mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
>>>>
>>>>Yes, you are correct. But since she had put the kids to bed sometime
>>>>after 9:15, talked to mother around 9:37, was expecting the glasses
>>>>to be returned around 10:00, had drawn a bath, when was she with
>>>>this person?
>>>
>>>Hmmm, let's balance the probabilities: jealous ex-husband whose blood
>>>was found at the scene, the last guy she gave oral sex to. Jealous
>>>ex-husband whose blood was found at the scene, the last guy she gave
>>>oral sex to. Oh, it's a slam dunk for the defense, all right.
>>
>>lame lame lame. For you guys, it's always reduced to, "no matter what
>>evidence or theory or challenge you come up with, OJ Simpson was a
>>jealous ex-husband so therefore, he's a butcher."
>> LibraryBoyyyy, I'm quite aure you wouldn't be here if you
>>thought Simpson's guilt was a 'slam dunk'. Here's the deal: In
>>homicides of the "domestic' variety, DNA derived from semen is very
>>compelling. It is used to implicate, as well as to ELIMINATE
>>suspects.
>> If Nicole had sex with someone in the hours prior to her
>>murder, clearly, that 'someone' should be investigated.
>> Or is it that you think that nobody should be investigated
>>because "OJ was Jealous"?
>
>No, I'm just having a hard time imagining having murderous impulses
>towards a woman who has just given me oral sex.
And so this imagery is what makes you too goofy to seriously consider
these issues!? [I'm the school teacher rapping the yardstick on you
desk...] WAKE UP!! Tommy! Tommy! WAKE UP!!
Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean they
are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would talk to
these folks.
Not only those who had contact during the previous hours, but
the days before her murder.
And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
telephone records.
And with the female victim, crucial that we have the
rape/vaginal tests.
Libraryboy
Who was in contact with Nicole or Ron but not investigated?
> And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
>telephone records.
How do you know they didn't?
> And with the female victim, crucial that we have the
>rape/vaginal tests.
Show me the criminology textbook that says rape tests must be run
on the fully dressed victim of a double murder. I'll wait.
NKC
wrote:
>In article <3827a3d1...@supernews.sirius.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
<snips>
>> Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
>>hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean they
>>are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would talk to
>>these folks.
>> Not only those who had contact during the previous hours, but
>>the days before her murder.
>
>Who was in contact with Nicole or Ron but not investigated?
Whomever she spoke with on the phone, or had physical contact with.
>
>> And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
>>telephone records.
>How do you know they didn't?
For the 100 millionth time, I *don't* know...but they were not
introduced as evidence against Simpson, were they? It is standard to
collect the phone records of murder victims and suspects ESPECIALLY IN
A DOMESTIC/HOME INVASION CASE. That the prosecution relied on some
replica of a phone bill of someone that wasn't even a principle in the
incident suggests that
a) they didn't collect the records
b) they collected them but they were exculpatory
>> And with the female victim, crucial that we have the
>>rape/vaginal tests.
>
>Show me the criminology textbook that says rape tests must be run
>on the fully dressed victim of a double murder. I'll wait.
I hate to think of you sitting there, waiting. Trust me: vaginal,
rectal, and oral swabs would be obtained from female homicide victims
under these circumstances, clothed or not.
The purposes of identifying an individual who had immediate
sexual contact with the victim prior to her death is compelling, to
identify witnesses as well as to identify suspects.
Show me the textbook that says these tests should not be
conducted. I'd be pleased to see my assertion here disputed, but
don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
Thinking about the autopsies: The bench notes - Golden's taped or
written commentary - might have been very revealing.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Libraryboy
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 1999 08:21:18 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3827a3d1...@supernews.sirius.com>,
>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
><snips>
>>> Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
>>>hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean they
>>>are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would talk to
>>>these folks.
>>> Not only those who had contact during the previous hours, but
>>>the days before her murder.
>>
>>Who was in contact with Nicole or Ron but not investigated?
>
>Whomever she spoke with on the phone, or had physical contact with.
But you admit below that you don't even know if there was any such person.
>>> And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
>>>telephone records.
>
>>How do you know they didn't?
>
>For the 100 millionth time, I *don't* know...but they were not
>introduced as evidence against Simpson, were they? It is standard to
>collect the phone records of murder victims and suspects ESPECIALLY IN
>A DOMESTIC/HOME INVASION CASE. That the prosecution relied on some
>replica of a phone bill of someone that wasn't even a principle in the
>incident suggests that
> a) they didn't collect the records
> b) they collected them but they were exculpatory
And that the defense stipulated to them suggests far more strongly
that they were not.
>>> And with the female victim, crucial that we have the
>>>rape/vaginal tests.
>>
>>Show me the criminology textbook that says rape tests must be run
>>on the fully dressed victim of a double murder. I'll wait.
>
>I hate to think of you sitting there, waiting. Trust me
I don't think so.
Ron
(confused) wrote:
EARTH TO WALDO.
EARTH TO WALDO.
CALLING WALDO:
Fool, there is NOBODY left who'll play your stupid "you look stuff up for me
and I'll either ignore of misinterpret it" game. When are you finally
going to get a clue?
>
Please find a new act, or a new home.
Marlalinde
>Date: Mon, 08 November 1999 11:39 PM EST
>Message-id: <3827a3d1...@supernews.sirius.com>
Magpie rambles...
>Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
>hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean they
>are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would talk to
>these folks.
I can just see the investigation now:
"Yeah, this is Van Natter...we just got the results back on victim Brown's
stomach contents...yeah..that's right...semen... OK...dig up the phone records
and go down the list and interview every male name on the list to see if Nicole
gave them head on the night of the 13th..yeah..I said every male.....yes..even
her father...that's right.."
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!
>Not only those who had contact during the previous hours, but
>the days before her murder.
> And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
>telephone records.
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA SOME MORE!!!!!!!!!!
Marla
"..one day OJ will kill me and he'll get away with it.." Nicole Brown Simpson
Ron
marla...@aol.com (Marlalinde) wrote:
Holy shit! Now Patty has some imaginary unidentified cum just sitting there
undigested in Nicole's gut for days? Who the hell has Pat been blowing
lately, and why is he wasting that stuff on her? He could be making a
fortune selling that stuff to like protective vest manufacturers. It's
indestructible!
>
Geez, I bet Pat's gut is terribly distended from having all that jism piling
up in there. Did she happen to mention if it EVER gets digested, or is she
still packing the first load she ever swallowed?
Libraryboy
NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 1999 15:47:20 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>wrote:
>><snipped 99% of the exchange, because I am no sadist, and humiliating
>Thomas, does not make me feel particularly good>
>
>>>... Trust me
>>
>>I don't think so.
>
>be honest, now -- I'll give you several dozen points, seeing as though
Well, there's a hint in your explanation of why you snipped most of the
exchange. Don't worry about points; the exchange rate's not that great
for OZ and NKC points around here anyway.
confused
>On 9 Nov 1999 15:47:20 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <382878e7...@news.newsfeeds.com>,
>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
><snipped 99% of the exchange, because I am no sadist, and humiliating
>Thomas, does not make me feel particularly good>
>
>>>... Trust me
>>
>>I don't think so.
>
>Okay. If you can tell me why you don't trust me -- I mean, you must
>be honest, now
Why not trust you in this area, because you aren't honest in your
application of your beliefs-
>"Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
> hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean
> they are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would
> talk to these folks. Not only those who had contact during
> the previous hours, but the days before her murder."
They did, they found a suspect, you don't like who they found, so
they are wrong.
>For the 100 millionth time, I *don't* know...but they were not
>introduced as evidence against Simpson, were they?
Which means that they contained nothing harmful to simpson. Since
the defense didn't offer them, they must not have contained anything
helpful. Because Flee claimed that the telephone records would clear
simpson, the defense would have gone over the phone records very
carefully.
>It is standard to collect the phone records of murder victims
>and suspects ESPECIALLY IN A DOMESTIC/HOME INVASION CASE.
But you "*don't* know" they didn't, yet you claim that they didn't.
Yet in spite of Flee's statement, the open court admission of the
records, you continue to claim that they didn't retrieve them.
>And with the female victim, crucial that we have the
>rape/vaginal tests.
When you are governor, you can make it a requirement. It will only
add a few hundred on the cost of every investigation, which the
taxpayers will have to cover. Which will mean that fewer crimes
involving female victims will be investigation. Of those that they
will decide not to investigate, do you believe it will be rich white
women that they will chose to ignore?
>If your reply is honest,
<you mean a parrot of Ozthought>
>Oz may give you some points, too.
The price is too high.
ThePuppetMaster
wrote:
>In article <3827a3d1...@supernews.sirius.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>On 8 Nov 1999 09:24:39 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <38263d5e...@supernews.sirius.com>,
>>>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>>On 7 Nov 1999 18:17:39 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>> Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
>>hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean they
>>are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would talk to
>>these folks.
>> Not only those who had contact during the previous hours, but
>>the days before her murder.
>
>Who was in contact with Nicole or Ron but not investigated?
>
>> And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
>>telephone records.
>
>How do you know they didn't?
>
>> And with the female victim, crucial that we have the
>>rape/vaginal tests.
>
>Show me the criminology textbook that says rape tests must be run
>on the fully dressed victim of a double murder. I'll wait.
>
You're going to be waiting a LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG time.
confused
>So this is your example of my dishonesty?
Dishonest only when applying standards to simpson.
>I'm speechless.
>Anyway, let's tinker around with your wording. No bulldozer, just
>tinkering:
>
>"...they *had* a suspect..."
>
>do you not understand that "the people" , represented by the police
>and DA, are supposed to be out there seeking the truth? That means,
>they are supposed to be out there with an open, seeking mind, all
>individuals connected with the homicide may be "suspect" until
>eliminated.
So when they come to someone they are unable to eliminate, they
should drop them and start looking elsewhere?
> In OJS, they did not "find" a suspect, they identified the
>suspect/defendant just within minutes of knowing the identity of the
>victim, and surrendered the investigation of any alternative at that
>point.
And to this day have been unable to eliminate him as a suspect.
NKC
wrote:
>In article <382878e7...@news.newsfeeds.com>,
>NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
<snipped 99% of the exchange, because I am no sadist, and humiliating
Thomas, does not make me feel particularly good>
>>... Trust me
>
>I don't think so.
Okay. If you can tell me why you don't trust me -- I mean, you must
be honest, now -- I'll give you several dozen points, seeing as though
I have plenty left over after offering them to confused, who is unable
to claim them for himself on another subject. If your reply is
honest, Oz may give you some points, too.
I'll wait.
NKC
>mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>
>>On 9 Nov 1999 15:47:20 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>>wrote:
>Why not trust you in this area, because you aren't honest in your
>application of your beliefs-
>
>>"Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
>> hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean
>> they are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would
>> talk to these folks. Not only those who had contact during
>> the previous hours, but the days before her murder."
>
> They did, they found a suspect, you don't like who they found, so
>they are wrong.
So this is your example of my dishonesty?
I'm speechless.
Anyway, let's tinker around with your wording. No bulldozer, just
tinkering:
"...they *had* a suspect..."
do you not understand that "the people" , represented by the police
and DA, are supposed to be out there seeking the truth? That means,
they are supposed to be out there with an open, seeking mind, all
individuals connected with the homicide may be "suspect" until
eliminated.
In OJS, they did not "find" a suspect, they identified the
suspect/defendant just within minutes of knowing the identity of the
victim, and surrendered the investigation of any alternative at that
point.
Marlalinde
>Date: Mon, 08 November 1999 09:50 PM EST
>Message-id: <38278BDA...@slip.net>
Waldo bangs out..
> [Who said she gave Ron the blowjob?]
Waldo...damn!! I wish you'd WAKE UP and pay attention...
Try going back to the first post under this thread..and start
over...Prien..(the idiot machine) said it in his very common beat-around-the
bush (no pun) way.....the 'Brentwwod Hello'??? The unmade bed???
The untested stomach contents??...and a bunch of other drivle.....
(By the way Waldo, the 'Brentwood Hello' was not a handshake.)
Moron.
Marlalinde
>Date: Tue, 09 November 1999 07:14 PM EST
>Message-id: <grYoOJ1UdW7r3F...@4ax.com>
>
Ron writes...
>Holy shit! Now Patty has some imaginary unidentified cum just sitting there
>undigested in Nicole's gut for days? Who the hell has Pat been blowing
>lately, and why is he wasting that stuff on her? He could be making a
>fortune selling that stuff to like protective vest manufacturers. It's
>indestructible!
>>
>Geez, I bet Pat's gut is terribly distended from having all that jism piling
>up in there. Did she happen to mention if it EVER gets digested, or is she
>still packing the first load she ever swallowed?
Thanks Ron.....before breakfast again... SHIT!! How do you guys always manage
to gross me out pre-breakfast!!!
Robert Miller
Libraryboy wrote:
> In article <19991106182048...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
> Prien <pr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
> >Date: Sat, 06 November 1999 01:28 PM EST
> >Message-id: <382470d7...@supernews.sirius.com>
> >
> >responding to my posting about the prosecution's apparent failure to obtain the
> >phone records immediately noted in part:
> >
> > "Ok, so then, perhaps the stomach contents were evaluated and
> >the vaginal tests were conducted."
> >
> >Of course the tests were conducted and the stomach contents were evaluated.
> >The most amusing portions of Golden's cross-examination at the prelim is how he
> >hems and haws when asked about those tests. It is really something to read
> >about him trying to explain how he had asked Dr. L what he should do with
> >Goldman's stomach contents. (Actually, the real discussion must have been
> >about Nicole.s stomach contents because they saved Goldman's contents but not
> >hers. What is beyond amusing is why Golden would be taking up such an
> >obviously routine question with the Chief coroner when the autopsy protocol
> >obviously calls for saving the contents for subsequent analysis.)
> >
> >Now why does anyone suppose that they saved Goldman's stomach contents but not
> >Nicole's? What could possibly have been found in her stomach that was so
> >important it had to be made to disappear without trace? It certainly could not
> >have been the pasta she ate. It could not have been drugs she took because
> >they would have shown up otherwise. Can anyone think of what it could be?
> >
> >Hint. According to Lange's testimony, her bed was rumpled. The one true thing
> >Clark notes about the case is that no woman would have been inviting a man over
> >to entertain him in an unmade bed.
> >
> >Ah, but what if the encounter had already occurred before the two were
> >murdered?
> >
> >Alright. Another hint. Does anyone recall what Faye Resnick and the girls
> >referred to as their Brentwood hello? (Anyone who doesn't should consult Gerry
> >Spence's book.)
> >
> >If anyone is still unable to grasp the evidence that must have been found in
> >Nicole's stomach that the prosecution had to make disappear without a trace to
> >have the remotest chance at making a case against Simpson, I suggest they take
> >a sex education class.
>
> Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt the case
> against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women who give blow jobs?
[Hypothetically, if it were Simpson's semen, it might have further strengthened
the case. Of course, all the other invented bullshit would have to be rearranged
again. Lieboy, it's not that blowjobs are illegal, it's that they take time. They
require the presence of someone who will donate the sperm. According to
the prosecution's scenario, if there were semen in her stomach, it wasn't Ron's,
because he stumbled into the murder. Which would mean that someone else
was there. Now, maybe it was OJ, in which case it would certainly establish
that he had been there sometime that evening. You see, if they were looking
for evidence, it could go either way, to convict or acquit. But they didn't
want that evidence.]
Robert Miller
Marlalinde wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Nicole's stomach contents
> >From: Robert Miller mil...@slip.net
> >Date: Mon, 08 November 1999 09:50 PM EST
> >Message-id: <38278BDA...@slip.net>
>
> Waldo bangs out..
>
> > [Who said she gave Ron the blowjob?]
>
> Waldo...damn!! I wish you'd WAKE UP and pay attention...
>
> Try going back to the first post under this thread..and start
> over...Prien..(the idiot machine) said it in his very common beat-around-the
> bush (no pun) way.....the 'Brentwwod Hello'??? The unmade bed???
> The untested stomach contents??...and a bunch of other drivle.....
>
> (By the way Waldo, the 'Brentwood Hello' was not a handshake.)
>
> Moron Marla
>
[You see, boys, Marla came up with the hypothesis about
Nicole giving Ron a blowjob. My comment was an antidote
to the repetitive narrowing of anything that the No-Js seem
incapable of avoiding. If there were semen in her stomach
and it were Ron's, then it would "blow" the theory that Ron
just stumbled into a murder by Simpson. If there were semen
and it wasn't Ron's, well, we've got time line further expanded
to include another night visitor, and we have someone else
that the police didn't question. Don't shut the door on possibilities.]
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On 7 Nov 1999 10:21:16 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <803pqh$290$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >Sometimey <some...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
> >>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
> >>who give blow jobs?
> >>
> >>It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
> >>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
> >
> >What if she did?
>
> i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
[LieBoy doesn't understand that sexual encounters take time.
Hey, we're not talking about driving to Dana Pointe, or paying
the bill at the Mezzaluna, or flying up the stairs dripping in blood
and taking a shower. Having sex takes time.]
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>
> >i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
> Yes, you are correct. But since she had put the kids to bed sometime
> after 9:15, talked to mother around 9:37, was expecting the glasses
> to be returned around 10:00, had drawn a bath, when was she with
> this person?
[Well, if she didn't talk to her mom until about 11, and if the
witnesses
who claimed to have seen her outside of her place around ten with
another guy... But we get your game, con. Presume that it can't happen
here and it won't. Or at least you won't notice it, con.]
Robert Miller
NKC wrote:
> On 8 Nov 1999 09:24:39 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <38263d5e...@supernews.sirius.com>,
> >NKC <mag...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> >>On 7 Nov 1999 18:17:39 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <HPElOCCjVRvjHd...@4ax.com>,
> >>>confused <mo...@mmw-gbg.net> wrote:
> >>>>mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, you are correct. But since she had put the kids to bed sometime
> >>>>after 9:15, talked to mother around 9:37, was expecting the glasses
> >>>>to be returned around 10:00, had drawn a bath, when was she with
> >>>>this person?
> >>>
> >>>Hmmm, let's balance the probabilities: jealous ex-husband whose blood
> >>>was found at the scene, the last guy she gave oral sex to. Jealous
> >>>ex-husband whose blood was found at the scene, the last guy she gave
> >>>oral sex to. Oh, it's a slam dunk for the defense, all right.
> >>
> >>lame lame lame. For you guys, it's always reduced to, "no matter what
> >>evidence or theory or challenge you come up with, OJ Simpson was a
> >>jealous ex-husband so therefore, he's a butcher."
> >> LibraryBoyyyy, I'm quite aure you wouldn't be here if you
> >>thought Simpson's guilt was a 'slam dunk'. Here's the deal: In
> >>homicides of the "domestic' variety, DNA derived from semen is very
> >>compelling. It is used to implicate, as well as to ELIMINATE
> >>suspects.
> >> If Nicole had sex with someone in the hours prior to her
> >>murder, clearly, that 'someone' should be investigated.
> >> Or is it that you think that nobody should be investigated
> >>because "OJ was Jealous"?
> >
> >No, I'm just having a hard time imagining having murderous impulses
> >towards a woman who has just given me oral sex.
>
> And so this imagery is what makes you too goofy to seriously consider
> these issues!? [I'm the school teacher rapping the yardstick on you
> desk...] WAKE UP!! Tommy! Tommy! WAKE UP!!
> Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
> hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean they
> are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would talk to
> these folks.
> Not only those who had contact during the previous hours, but
> the days before her murder.
> And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
> telephone records.
> And with the female victim, crucial that we have the
> rape/vaginal tests.
>
[Either these guys are playing dumb or they're
plain dumb.]
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> So when they come to someone they are unable to eliminate, they
> should drop them and start looking elsewhere?
>
[You pathetic weasily bastard, who taught you to be such a liar?You know,
I bet you're a better dissembler in person, because
in writing your lies are there for us to review and dissect. If Mrs.
Brown told the police the next morning that she was talking
with her daughter the same time that OJ was being driven to
the airport, I think that they would have been able to eliminate
him.
[In reality, dick, they eliminated everyone but him. Hmm, stomach
contents? They eliminated that. Fingerprints on the envelope? The
lens. Let's eliminate that. Blood on the car keys. Let's eliminate that.
On and on. No blood on the socks? Let's add some.
[Really, con, was it your dad who taught you to be dishonest?
Is it a family tradition of yours, or did you just come by it
yourself?]
>
>
Robert Miller
Libraryboy wrote: And that the defense stipulated to them suggests far more
strongly
> that they were not.
[The defense said that OJ was innocent. Will you stipulate to that? They
said there was preservative in the blood on the socks and on the back
gate. Care to stipulate to that?
[In short, No-Js' arguments have gotten so pathetic that they have to
rely on the defense team to prop up their failing case. There are plenty
of instances that should suggest that there were times that the defense
team worked against the best interests of Simpson.
[So if you are looking for what the defense team did that "suggests" something
inculpatory, can I say that not putting Dr. Golden on the stand "suggests"
that Golden couldn't continue to lie on the stand well enough to withstand
a cross-examination. This "suggests" that Golden's findings were exculpatory.]
Robert Miller
Marlalinde wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Nicole's stomach contents
> >From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
> >Date: Mon, 08 November 1999 11:39 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3827a3d1...@supernews.sirius.com>
>
> Magpie rambles...
>
> >Any person who was in contact with the murder victim in the
> >hours before her murder MUST BE INVESTIGATED. That doesn't mean they
> >are guilty, it just means that any basic investigation would talk to
> >these folks.
>
> I can just see the investigation now:
>
> "Yeah, this is Van Natter...we just got the results back on victim Brown's
> stomach contents...yeah..that's right...semen... OK...dig up the phone records
> and go down the list and interview every male name on the list to see if Nicole
> gave them head on the night of the 13th..yeah..I said every male.....yes..even
> her father...that's right.."
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >Not only those who had contact during the previous hours, but
> >the days before her murder.
> > And that is why it is crucial to have obtained both victims'
> >telephone records.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA SOME MORE!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Marla
>
[Marla, it was the 12th. By the 13th she was dead. Oh, and Marla? Maybethere was
more than one semen donor.]
Robert Miller
Mike wrote:
> It was reported in Freed's book that Ron had lipstick on his cheek.
[Did this show up in any report?]
confused
> [You see, boys, Marla came up with the hypothesis about
>Nicole giving Ron a blowjob.
No, Prien did.
>My comment was an antidote to the repetitive narrowing of
>anything that the No-Js seem incapable of avoiding. If
>there were semen in her stomach
<snips>
And if there were blood other than Simpsons or the victims you would
be in the same place. But then "IF" covers a lot of ground but
proves nothing,
>Don't shut the door on possibilities.]
Don't ignore probabilities.
Libraryboy
Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>
>
>Libraryboy wrote: And that the defense stipulated to them suggests far more
>strongly
>
>> that they were not.
>
>[The defense said that OJ was innocent. Will you stipulate to that? They
>said there was preservative in the blood on the socks and on the back
>gate. Care to stipulate to that?
Nope. Clearly it is the fact that *both sides agreed* that is relevant here,
not to mention the fact that neither the criminal nor the civil defense
raised an issue, which, *if genuine*, would have totally exonerated Simpson.
Are you slow, or just dishonest?
confused
>confused wrote:
>
>> So when they come to someone they are unable to eliminate, they
>> should drop them and start looking elsewhere?
>>
>
>If Mrs. Brown told the police
"if" has any support.
>I think that they would have been able to eliminate him.
"If" it had happened, yes. It didn't. Now I ask you, who is
attempting to dissemble the truth?
>[In reality, dick, they eliminated everyone but him. Hmm, stomach
>contents? They eliminated that.
Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
>Fingerprints on the envelope?
Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
>The lens. Let's eliminate that.
Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
>Blood on the car keys. Let's eliminate that.
Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
>On and on. No blood on the socks? Let's add some.
Why not add the fingerprint in blood in the back gate.
>[Really, con, was it your dad who taught you to be dishonest?
Your view of reality isn't truth. It is a collection of low
probability possibilities that are all framed in "IF's". My refusal
to accept them doesn't make me dishonest. Your claim of my
dishonesty based on the fact I will not accept your fantasy is
dishonest.
>Is it a family tradition of yours, or did you just come by it
>yourself?]
I'm one of a kind. But then, aren't we all?
John Griffin
all accept some of the most desperate Simpson thrall absurdities as
rational possibilities:
>[Either these guys are playing dumb or they're
>plain dumb.]
Bob had nothing to add, but he couldn't resist
the urge to add homonyms.
John Griffin
> [ snipped the dumb part ]
> I still think there's a possibility that Shapiro - and his
>followers - did not even think about the prosecution/police/state
>coming up with bogus telephone 'records'. That would be very rare,
>and it takes a huge leap to investigate that possiblity -
You're usually not given to such understatements as that.
The huge, humongous, spectacular, stupendous, gigantic, dumb leap is one
necessary ingredient. A mind of similar extent but in the "small"
direction is the other. We waited five years for such a cretin to show up
here to amuse us. Don't discourage him.
John Griffin
>Marlalinde wrote:
>> Magpie rambles...
>> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!
>> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA SOME MORE!!!!!!!!!!
>> Marla
Neener neener neeeeeeeeeeeener marla made a tyyyyyyyyyypo....
"Maybe" is a critically important word to the Simpsonlickers.
For example, "Crazy Bob said maybe there was more than one semen
donor" is now part of their "evidence," all of which looks
the same.
NKC
wrote:
>
>
>NKC wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov 1999 10:21:16 -0500, tja...@polaris.umuc.edu (Libraryboy)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <803pqh$290$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >Sometimey <some...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Hypothetically speaking, how would semen in Nicole's stomach have hurt
>> >>the case against Simpson? Has it suddenly become legal to kill women
>> >>who give blow jobs?
>> >>
>> >>It would hurt the case against Simpson if the DNA did not belong to him
>> >>or Goldman. What if Nicole entertained a man before Ron arrived?
>> >
>> >What if she did?
>>
>> i i i i A N O T H E R S U S P E C T ! ! ! ! !
>
> [LieBoy doesn't understand that sexual encounters take time.
>Hey, we're not talking about driving to Dana Pointe, or paying
>the bill at the Mezzaluna, or flying up the stairs dripping in blood
>and taking a shower. Having sex takes time.]
>
......!!!...Anyway, evidence of a sexual encounter would [should] bump
up her time of death. But most importantly, the stomach contents would
indicate the degree of food digestion and hence help to establish the
time of death with more precision than the broad official parameters
-- 3 hours or so.
That is why we don't have the contents, I would speculate.
The stomach contents would have been exculpatory.
NKC
wrote:
>In article <38322D07...@slip.net>,
Clearly, there is room for the possibility that some attorneys on both
sides were "dishonest" for a variety of reasons. Perhaps, at the
time, the "dishonesty" was unconscious, for what may have appeared to
them to be benign reasons, such as getting through the tedium and
getting to the heart of the case, which to the defense was not reliant
on telephone records.
I still think there's a possibility that Shapiro - and his
followers - did not even think about the prosecution/police/state
coming up with bogus telephone 'records'. That would be very rare,
and it takes a huge leap to investigate that possiblity - much huger
than the basic investigations of just looking over the records. For
example, any defense attorney and/or investigator will look at a
record provided in discovery by the police/state. They don't think
"hmmm...probably phony record...hmmm...better get a subpoena and get
my own..." These kinds of records are accepted on *faith.*
Investigating the records further, or even considering they may be
fraudulent, is way out of the ordinary.
There's also the possiblity that Shapiro and others on the
defense were dishonest because they were part of a plan. [I have
difficulty with this in general, since the majority of the team have
maintained to this day that Simpson is innocent.]
But clearly, everyone knows - pro-js and no-j's alike - that
hanky panky went down in a significant way. This case is as dirty as
it gets. It compares in scale of hanky panky to the assassination of
MLK, Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
[What is the probability that the coroners accidentally
threw away Nicole's stomach contents? What are the
odds that the LAPD would "lose" a lens in their possession
at their lab? What's the morning line on not checking the
envelope for fingerprints?
Oh, and what did your daddy do in the war, confused?
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
> >confused wrote:
> >
> >> So when they come to someone they are unable to eliminate, they
> >> should drop them and start looking elsewhere?
> >>
> >
> <snip personal attack>
> >If Mrs. Brown told the police
> Did she? Was it reported to the officer in charge? Show that your
> "if" has any support.
>
[Juditha's report of her last contact with Nicole shows up in
Ratcliffe'sreport. Either Ratcliffe invented it from whole cloth, or she
was told it.
She was told by Lange, who was allegedly told by Mr. Brown. How
people can't tell time at the Brown household?]
> >I think that they would have been able to eliminate him.
> "If" it had happened, yes. It didn't. Now I ask you, who is
> attempting to dissemble the truth?
>
[You are, scumbag. You always are.]
> >[In reality, dick, they eliminated everyone but him. Hmm, stomach
> >contents? They eliminated that.
> Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
[They probably did the test, then got rid of the results andthe
evidence. They knew it did show his innocence.]
>
>
> >Fingerprints on the envelope?
> Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
>
[Clark said in the preliminary that she couldn't producethe actual
envelope because it was being tested. Yet
no test results showed up in court for the envelope,
except what Dr. Lee did for the defense later in the
trial. No prosecution test results. An envelope found
with smears between the two victims? What kind of
tests would have been done to it? Fingerprints? Well,
that might explain who was rummaging through it
with bloody hands, so that would be worth a try.
Blood-testing? If Simpson were alleged to be bleeding
at the crime scene, yeah, that might be a possibility.
So they either did those obvious tests and didn't
like the results, or they knew not to go there. Real
simple, con.]
> >The lens. Let's eliminate that.
> Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
>
[And your alternative theory? It just "disappeared"from the police labs?
Nothing suspicious there?]
> >Blood on the car keys. Let's eliminate that.
> Because they "knew" it would show innocence?
>
> >On and on. No blood on the socks? Let's add some.
> Why not add the fingerprint in blood in the back gate.
[Or just have Fuhrman say it was there. That would workfor detectives
like you, connie.]
>
>
> >[Really, con, was it your dad who taught you to be dishonest?
> Your view of reality isn't truth. It is a collection of low
> probability possibilities that are all framed in "IF's". My refusal
> to accept them doesn't make me dishonest. Your claim of my
> dishonesty based on the fact I will not accept your fantasy is
> dishonest.
>
> >Is it a family tradition of yours, or did you just come by it
> >yourself?]
>
> I'm one of a kind. But then, aren't we all?
[You may be one of a kind, but your stench is familiar.]
Robert Miller
Libraryboy wrote:
> In article <38322D07...@slip.net>,
> Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Libraryboy wrote: And that the defense stipulated to them suggests far more
> >strongly
> >
> >> that they were not.
> >
> >[The defense said that OJ was innocent. Will you stipulate to that? They
> >said there was preservative in the blood on the socks and on the back
> >gate. Care to stipulate to that?
>
> Nope. Clearly it is the fact that *both sides agreed* that is relevant here,
> not to mention the fact that neither the criminal nor the civil defense
> raised an issue, which, *if genuine*, would have totally exonerated Simpson.
> Are you slow, or just dishonest?
[Neither. I have said repeatedly that this was a show trial. It was
anorchestrated event. It was to jurisprudence as wrestling is to sports.
It was fixed. Both sides knew when to fall down, when to deliver the
flying jump kick. The object was to have Simpson acquitted but to have
the numbnuts watching on tv who can't separate their bigotry from
their rational functions to believe it.
[That the No-Js all seem to need the Dream Team in order to "prove"
Simpson's guilt is laughable but certainly within the context of my theory
of the case.]
Robert Miller
John Griffin wrote:
[The "maybe" is a critical word here, because in an honest investigation
there wouldn't have been a maybe. There would have been the stomach
contents and the test results.]
Duane
> [That the No-Js all seem to need the Dream Team in order to "prove"
> Simpson's guilt is laughable but certainly within the context of my theory
> of the case.]
Well at least [Boob] finally admits his bullshit is a theory. He's been
having tantrums about his fantasy being the truth for so long that I was
beginning to think he was beyond help. This shows progress and I
sure do hope he gets the counseling he needs.
Duane
Walter Bennett
>[What is the probability that the coroners
>accidentally threw away Nicole's stomach
>contents?
Zero, unknowingly. 50/50, sloppiness. 100%, on orders.
>What are the odds that the LAPD would
>"lose" a lens in their possession at their
>lab?
Zero, unknowingly. 50/50, sloppiness. 100%, on orders.
>What's the morning line on not checking
>the envelope for fingerprints?
Between one number and its neighbors on either side there are an
infinite number of possibilities. Pick one.
I love a mystery!
It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot,
irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is
known, but to question it.
-J. Bronowski
[The Ascent of Man]
Libraryboy
Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>
>
>Libraryboy wrote:
>
>> In article <38322D07...@slip.net>,
>> Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Libraryboy wrote: And that the defense stipulated to them suggests far more
>> >strongly
>> >
>> >> that they were not.
>> >
>> >[The defense said that OJ was innocent. Will you stipulate to that? They
>> >said there was preservative in the blood on the socks and on the back
>> >gate. Care to stipulate to that?
>>
>> Nope. Clearly it is the fact that *both sides agreed* that is relevant here,
>> not to mention the fact that neither the criminal nor the civil defense
>> raised an issue, which, *if genuine*, would have totally exonerated Simpson.
>> Are you slow, or just dishonest?
>
>[Neither. I have said repeatedly that this was a show trial. It was
>anorchestrated event. It was to jurisprudence as wrestling is to sports.
>It was fixed. Both sides knew when to fall down, when to deliver the
>flying jump kick. The object was to have Simpson acquitted but to have
>the numbnuts watching on tv who can't separate their bigotry from
>their rational functions to believe it.
>
>Simpson's guilt is laughable but certainly within the context of my theory
>of the case.]
Bob, pretty much *everything* within your theory of the case is laughable.
Have you noticed that you have yet to find a single other poster here who
will endorse your line of thought? I guess that means everyone except you
is nuts, right Bob? Tell us your secret for seeing the "truth" that no one
(and I mean *no one*) else can see.
Ron
(Libraryboy) wrote:
I think you're exaggerating with the *no one*.
[Reinhard Gehlen] can probably see it plain as day.
Robert Miller
Libraryboy wrote:
[I have a number of people who have supported my opinions and theories
on the case. I will admit that by the nature of my investigation, from the macro,
that it is by its nature a broad brushstroke. Prien's investigation from the micro
is extremely convincing. Eventually the two views meet. We look at all the
little falsehoods that the case against Simpson was, then we look at the
backgrounds of so many of the players in this case, and at a certain point
if you have any modicum of reasoning left in your head, then what seemed
incredible because obvious.]
Robert Miller
Duane wrote:
> Robert Miller wrote:
>
> > [That the No-Js all seem to need the Dream Team in order to "prove"
> > Simpson's guilt is laughable but certainly within the context of my theory
> > of the case.]
>
> Well at least [Boob] finally admits his bullshit is a theory. He's been
> having tantrums about his fantasy being the truth for so long that I was
> beginning to think he was beyond help. This shows progress and I
> sure do hope he gets the counseling he needs.
> Duane
[Duane, evolution is a theory. There's Einstein's Theory
of Relativity. I have no problem with not stating anything
absolutely. That's how scientific minds work. Otherwise,
you're operating from a faith-based conclusion.]
Duane
> Libraryboy wrote:
> In article <38340F8C...@slip.net>,
> > Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
> > >Libraryboy wrote:
> > >> In article <38322D07...@slip.net>,
> > >> Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
> > >> >Libraryboy wrote: And that the defense stipulated to them suggests far more
> > >> >strongly
> > >> >> that they were not.
> > >> >[The defense said that OJ was innocent. Will you stipulate to that? They
> > >> >said there was preservative in the blood on the socks and on the back
> > >> >gate. Care to stipulate to that?
> > >> Nope. Clearly it is the fact that *both sides agreed* that is relevant here,
> > >> not to mention the fact that neither the criminal nor the civil defense
> > >> raised an issue, which, *if genuine*, would have totally exonerated Simpson.
> > >> Are you slow, or just dishonest?
> > >[Neither. I have said repeatedly that this was a show trial. It was
> > >anorchestrated event. It was to jurisprudence as wrestling is to sports.
> > >It was fixed. Both sides knew when to fall down, when to deliver the
> > >flying jump kick. The object was to have Simpson acquitted but to have
> > >the numbnuts watching on tv who can't separate their bigotry from
> > >their rational functions to believe it.
> > >[That the No-Js all seem to need the Dream Team in order to "prove"
> > >Simpson's guilt is laughable but certainly within the context of my theory
> > >of the case.]
> > Bob, pretty much *everything* within your theory of the case is laughable.
> > Have you noticed that you have yet to find a single other poster here who
> > will endorse your line of thought? I guess that means everyone except you
> > is nuts, right Bob? Tell us your secret for seeing the "truth" that no one
> > (and I mean *no one*) else can see.
>
> [I have a number of people who have supported my opinions and theories
> on the case.
So there are a number of conspiracy nutballs. Ever heard of the Flat Earth
Society?Next question.
> I will admit that by the nature of my investigation, from the macro,
> that it is by its nature a broad brushstroke.
LOL!!
> Prien's investigation from the micro
> is extremely convincing.
..to lone nutters, yeah sure.
> Eventually the two views meet.
...in the twilight zone.
> We look at all the
> little falsehoods that the case against Simpson was,
the truths be damned...
> then we look at the
> backgrounds of so many of the players in this case,
Reinhardt Gehlen???
> and at a certain point
> if you have any modicum of reasoning left in your head,
you abandoned your long ago..
> then what seemed
> incredible because obvious.]
(I assume you meant 'becomes' instead of because...)
Yes [Boob], there are things that are quite obvious indeed.
Duane
PS [Walk us through] the Hoffa dissapearance, 'kay?