Identifying the envelope and glasses
Prien
prosecution's failure to disclose their findings, the NoJ's naturally hollered
that these were negligible matters since the prosecution had heir witnesses
identify and verify that evidence (namely the glasses and the envelope).
Really? Okay, folks, here is what actually happened and what that tells you
about the authenticity of the prosecution/plaintiff evidence in this case.
Remember it was Clark who insisted she be able to present the envelope to the
jury and have her witness identify it.
Having triumphed over the defense's attempts to stipulate that Karen Crawford
can identify the envelope, Clark can proceed to realize her wish and have
Crawford identify it (references are to trial transcripts of February 7, 1995 -
all emphasis added).
To fully appreciate Clark's triumph over the defense, it is necessary to back
up to the following exchange that almost immediately preceded the battle about
the stipulation. It is at this point that Clark first asks Crawford to
describe what she did with the glasses after finding them, and to identify the
envelope she put them into:
Q OKAY. AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THEM [the glasses]?
A I BROUGHT THEM BACK IN AND I SPOKE TO MRS. BROWN AND TOLD HER I HAD
FOUND THEM. I PUT THEM IN AN ENVELOPE.
Q WHAT KIND OF ENVELOPE DID YOU PUT THEM IN?
A I PUT IT IN A WHITE BUSINESS-SIZED ENVELOPE.
Q OKAY. DID YOU WRITE ANYTHING ON IT?
A YES. I WROTE "NICOLE SIMPSON PRESCRIPTION GLASSES."
Q DID YOU SEAL IT?
A YES.
Clark then proceeds as follows to reap the fruits of her victory over the
defense (NOTE: the following exchange comes about two transcript pages after
the above testimony about what Crawford had written on the envelope):
Q BY MS. CLARK: MISS CRAWFORD, SHOWING WHAT YOU HAS (sic) BEEN MARKED
AS PEOPLE'S 32, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE HANDWRITING ON THE FRONT OF THIS ENVELOPE?
A YEAH, THAT IS MY HANDWRITING.
Q IS THIS HANDWRITING THAT YOU PUT ON THIS ENVELOPE ON THE NIGHT OF
JUNE THE 12TH, 1994?
A YES.
Q AND IT SAYS, "PRESCRIPTION GLASSES, NICOLE SIMPSON WILL PICK UP
MONDAY"? (I kid you not folks!)
A YES.
Let's back this up to Crawford's previous testimony. During both of her
previous appearances (grand jury and preliminary hearing), and just a few
moments before at the trial, Crawford testified, and Clark had indicated by her
questions, that Crawford had written on the envelope, "Nicole Simpson," and
underneath that the words, "Prescription glasses". As the actual envelope is
finally presented for the first time at trial , however, the order of the words
is suddenly reversed, and the additional words "will pick up Monday" magically
appear when there had previously been no hint whatever what Juditha had
specifically wanted done with the glasses! (As an aside, just think about
this. If it specifically said on the envelope that Nicole would pick them up
Monday, why would Ron agree to make a rush delivery that very night, especially
when he had hot plans to go on the town.)
Now do you see why the police don't have a photograph of the envelope at the
crime scene showing the side with the writing on it?
If, as during her previous testimony, Crawford had written on the Mezzaluna
envelope, "Nicole Simpson," and underneath that "Prescription Glasses," and at
the trial she confirms that on the envelope then presented to her there appear
the words: "Prescription glasses. Nicole Simpson will pick up Monday," the
only possible inferences to be drawn from all this testimony is that the
envelope she identified from the pictures and by what she had allegedly written
on it as avowed during her previous appearances and the envelope she was
presented for identification at the trial cannot possibly be one and the same
or Crawford lied about what she had written on the envelope when she previously
testified about it.
But before concluding whether Crawford lied, it is necessary to recall that
when Clark had asked Crawford about this, Clark in her questioning had affirmed
(testified, actually) that Crawford had written on the envelope "Nicole
Simpson", and underneath that, "Prescription glasses," just as Crawford had
testified. Since the actual envelope was in the prosecution's possession, and
Clark had every opportunity to view it to determine what, in fact had been
written on it the night of the murder, and since Crawford had no legitimate
opportunity to revise the text after the envelope was seized as evidence by the
police, the amended version of what was written on that envelope by itself
demolishes its authenticity.
And that, folks, by itself destroys the case against Simpson by establishing
that a critical piece of evidence that allegedly accounts for the events of
that evening MUST BE A FORGERY. If this evidence is false, then NOTHING CAN BE
COUNTED ON TO BE AUTHENTIC.
Does anyone now still have a problem figuring out why the police and
prosecution thoughtfully neglected to share with the court, the jury and the
public what tests they conducted on the envelope and what physical evidence
they found onj it that would link it to the people who actually handled it?
But the identification of evidence becomes ever so much more interesting when
it comes to the glasses themselves.
Clark's only attempt to identify the glasses during the trial occurs during the
following exchange while she questions Crawford, who found the glasses:
Q NOW, LOOKING INSIDE THE ENVELOPE, CAN YOU SEE THE GLASSES THAT ARE
INSIDE?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE?
A YES.
Q HOW DO YOU RECOGNIZE THEM?
A WELL, THEY LOOK LIKE THE GLASSES I PICKED UP OFF THE STREET.
How is that for an unequivocal and definitive affirmation of identity?
Actually, it falls a bit short of that. In fact, since Clark actually asked
HOW Crawford could identify the glasses, by her answer, any pair of glasses
ever made would also "look like the glasses" she had picked up that night,
which is, in fact, all that Crawford thereby affirmed. And NoJ's imagine there
is a mountain of real evidence that tied Simpson to the crime, but the witness
who finds the key piece of evidence to establish that Goldman's trip was the
workings of a series of accidents and coincidences can't even definitely
identify the glasses she allegedly picked up that night. (NOTE: As Mazzola
later confirms, there are no lenses in the frames that are in the envelope, and
one of the lenses is actually missing. But these anomalies evidently escaped
Crawford's notice, although this might be one reason she said the glasses
merely looked like the ones she found. But then, who knows? She was never
asked by anybody about the lenses.)
The effort to identify the glasses turns surreal when Juditha gets a crack at
it during the civil trial during the following exchange initiated by John
Kelly, "their" lawyer:
"Q (By Mr. Kelly) I ask you to look at these. And do you recognize those, Ms.
Brown?
"A. I guess.
"Q. Those appear to be your glasses from that night?
"A. They possibly are. I don't remember anymore, I'm sure they are."
How can anyone doubt that Juditha has thereby positively and definitively
affirmed that the glasses she was shown were in fact glasses she had ever owned
and worn? She guesses she can recognize them? They possibly are the glasses
from that night? She can't remember anymore, but is sure they are? Who could
possibly be unable to identify a pair of glasses they had owned and worn? This
story is too absurd even beyond the outer reaches of the Twilight Zone.
Note particularly how cleverly Kelly phrased the question to elicit the
identification -- do the glasses appear to be the ones that belonged to her
from that night. Taken strictly as phrased, the question only focuses on
whether those glasses were hers from that night - not whether they were ever
hers on any other day or night, but only as of that night. As put, the
question actually asks only if the glasses then being shown to her were the
ones from that night which had been attributed as belonging to her. She could
truthfully give an affirmative answer without her ever having owned or
possessed those glasses before that night. No wonder she was groping for the
right answer if she had never before seen them.
Clark concluded her envelope identification adventure with the following
exchange that was evidently intended to reaffirm that the envelope at the
Mezzaluna and the one found at Bundy were one and the same:
Q AND THIS IS THE ENVELOPE THAT YOU PLACED BEHIND THE BAR?
A YES.
How could she possibly tell when she can't even get straight what she wrote on
it. And come to think of it, that could also be a truthful answer without that
envelope ever having found its way to Bundy. You see, there could be two
envelopes – the one she put behind the bar and the one they found at Bundy.
That's how it would also be easy to have two versions of what was written on
the envelope. And that certainly explains the apparent absence of fingerprints
on the Bundy envelope or the failure to even test for them or to announce the
results of any tests that were done.
And to imagine there are some who actually imagine the prosecution and the cops
mishandled this case.
The English language simply lacks the words Clark needs to repair the fracture
in the case that was produced by the divergent wording that Crawford testified
to having written on the envelope into which she claimed to have put the
glasses that no one could positively identify, and that she placed behind the
bar and gave to Goldman, but which came with not a single physical sign or clue
that would have tied the envelope to anyone.
And the NoJ's actually imagine they have a mountain of evidence against
Simpson?
The stuff they have doesn't even rise to the level of a putrefied dung heap.
Sharpscene
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: Fri, 13 August 1999 10:27 AM EDT
>Message-id: <19990813102709...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Just because there is some discrepencies about the writing on the envelope and
circumstances surrounding the envelope we cannot as you put it negate the
absolutely overwhelming circumstances against Simpson. The civilized trial
turned out right. Period.
Peace man, Rene
NKC
A feast for the eyes! Thank you, Prien.
I believe this Glasses/Envelope evidence is at the center of the
answers we pro-j's are looking for. [forget the no-j's, they just
don't have investigative minds, so they can't manage any 'alternative'
interpretation of evidence.] How could Crawford simply forget 50% of
the text that she wrote on the envelope? Why wasn't she prepared by
the prosecution, in interviews beforehand, as well as on the witness
stand?
Was Crawford checked out? Or was she, like the "Honest Alan
Park" and the "Goofy Kato Kaelin", just accepted as another innocent
witness? [maybe cuz her name wasn't Conchita Crawford.] Just
another innocent witness that happened to be at the center of the
prosecution's case against Simpson?
A long time ago, we had a pretty lively discussion about the
loss of the glasses themselves -- how they were lost outside, wherre
they were found, how Juditha read the menu without them, etc.
Also, how Juditha and Lou Brown arrived home to coincide with
the time they allegedly had a telephone conversation with Nicole. It
was simply impossible to arrive that distance in that time period if
they left at the testified time and they spoke on the phone with
Nicole at the testified time.
confused
>Who could possibly be unable to identify a pair of glasses they had
>owned and worn?
Perhaps the relative of a person that is unable to remember a type
of shoe that they had owned and worn.
>This
>story is too absurd even beyond the outer reaches of the Twilight Zone.
Not when it comes from BB.
>And that certainly explains the apparent absence of fingerprints
>on the Bundy envelope or the failure to even test for them or to announce the
>results of any tests that were done.
This nitpick is the dumbest support for a wacko theory that I have
every heard.
>And the NoJ's actually imagine they have a mountain of evidence against
>Simpson?
Trial is over. What we don't have is any explaination from simpson
that makes sense.
>The stuff they have doesn't even rise to the level of a putrefied dung heap.
And you are certaintly an expert on those.
John Griffin
>> [ reams of childish babble snipped ]
>A feast for the eyes! Thank you, Prien.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> [ synopsis of same childish babbling snipped ]
ojokay
Brilliant stuff as usual, Prien. I've also always
maintained that the so-called "mountain of evidence"
is but a molehill when each piece is broken down
and looked at within the context of plausible
possibilities. What you write above, as most of
what Bob Miller writes, will go way over no-J's
heads, or it will simply be ignored or lost
within that old familiar sea of newsgroup white
noise, which some call "fun." I hope you stick
around, but I've been around here too long to
think you will ever manage to break through the
religious, mythical way most no-j's think about
this case. The best and brightest can't even
admit that Mark Fuhrman told a simple lie and
that it was proved. What chance is there to
ever persuade them of anything more substantial?
I was wondering if you have the time and interest,
if you could say a few words about what I myself
feel is the single most exculpatory issue in this
case, as far as Simpson's innocence goes. I think
that is what I have termed the "missing evidence,"
that is, the weapon(s), shoes, and clothes. There
seems no reasonable way for me to resolve this. I
have written an article about this and will post
it if you are interested.
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
> >Who could possibly be unable to identify a pair of glasses they had
> >owned and worn?
>
> Perhaps the relative of a person that is unable to remember a type
> of shoe that they had owned and worn.
>
[Just because Denise lied about other things doesn't mean that shelied about the
shoes, too. But I agree with you that she did.]
Robert Miller
confused wrote:
> ojokay <ojo...@hiscomputer.com> wrote:
>
> >Brilliant stuff as usual, Prien. I've also always
> >maintained that the so-called "mountain of evidence"
> >is but a molehill when each piece is broken down
> >and looked at within the context of plausible
> >possibilities.
>
> Oh, so that is how you excuse it. Do you ever bother to check if
> those "plausible possibilities" are ever shown to be implausible in
> another context? If so, have you removed them as a "plausible
> possibilities"? Most likely not, since that would mean that you
> couldn't consider them which means that they couldn't be shown to be
> plausible, so then they couldn't be checked for consideration as
> implausible...
>
> >The best and brightest can't even
> >admit that Mark Fuhrman told a simple lie and
> >that it was proved.
>
> Since you are at the other end of the scale, it would explain why
> you cannot admit that simpson told a simple lie and it was proven.
>
> >What chance is there to
> >ever persuade them of anything more substantial?
>
> About the same a getting you to see the same.
>
> >I was wondering if you have the time and interest,
> >if you could say a few words about what I myself
> >feel is the single most exculpatory issue in this
> >case, as far as Simpson's innocence goes. I think
> >that is what I have termed the "missing evidence,"
> >that is, the weapon(s), shoes, and clothes.
>
> Yes, show how something that isn't there, cannot be examined,
> proves that simpson is innocence.
[In the name of the free flow of information, why don't you rat on
him too, scumbag?]
confused
>Brilliant stuff as usual, Prien. I've also always
>maintained that the so-called "mountain of evidence"
>is but a molehill when each piece is broken down
>and looked at within the context of plausible
>possibilities.
Oh, so that is how you excuse it. Do you ever bother to check if
those "plausible possibilities" are ever shown to be implausible in
another context? If so, have you removed them as a "plausible
possibilities"? Most likely not, since that would mean that you
couldn't consider them which means that they couldn't be shown to be
plausible, so then they couldn't be checked for consideration as
implausible...
>The best and brightest can't even
>admit that Mark Fuhrman told a simple lie and
>that it was proved.
Since you are at the other end of the scale, it would explain why
you cannot admit that simpson told a simple lie and it was proven.
>What chance is there to
>ever persuade them of anything more substantial?
About the same a getting you to see the same.
>I was wondering if you have the time and interest,
>if you could say a few words about what I myself
>feel is the single most exculpatory issue in this
>case, as far as Simpson's innocence goes. I think
>that is what I have termed the "missing evidence,"
>that is, the weapon(s), shoes, and clothes.
Yes, show how something that isn't there, cannot be examined,
confused
>confused wrote:
>> Yes, show how something that isn't there, cannot be examined,
>> proves that simpson is innocence.
>
>[In the name of the free flow of information, why don't you rat on
>him too, scumbag?]
About what?
ojokay
> ojokay <ojo...@hiscomputer.com> wrote:
>
> >Brilliant stuff as usual, Prien. I've also always
> >maintained that the so-called "mountain of evidence"
> >is but a molehill when each piece is broken down
> >and looked at within the context of plausible
> >possibilities.
>
> Oh, so that is how you excuse it. Do you ever bother to check if
> those "plausible possibilities" are ever shown to be implausible in
> another context? If so, have you removed them as a "plausible
> possibilities"? Most likely not, since that would mean that you
> couldn't consider them which means that they couldn't be shown to be
> plausible, so then they couldn't be checked for consideration as
> implausible...
The "guilt" plausible possibilities ARE possible. I
wouldn't argue with that. I've said that my "belief"
that Simpson is innocent is approximately 80-90%.
I admit this. I have no problem with admitting it.
You however, have equated your "belief" in my own
plausible possibilities as zero. Why would I or
anyone in their right mind "bother" to "check" the
possibilities that I can persuade you with mere
written words that your 100% certain beliefs may
be flawed? We would be talking about two entirely
different things.
I already KNOW the "context" of how most no-J's see
this case. What's incomprehensible still to me, is
why no-J's like yourself are even in here. You make
only a pretense of being interested in the case. Your
real interests, as recently revealed to me at least,
have nothing to do with the case. Wouldn't time be
better spent, confused, frequenting other groups
more along the lines of your true interests? Or
do you already, under different aliases? Quite
easy to do with Altopia, no?
> >The best and brightest can't even
> >admit that Mark Fuhrman told a simple lie and
> >that it was proved.
>
> Since you are at the other end of the scale, it would explain why
> you cannot admit that simpson told a simple lie and it was proven.
Name the lie. Show the proof. Can't. Never happened.
All you will do is throw at me the same old lame, no-J
mythological belief systems, and ask me to stipulate
that they are something else. Meanwhile, you will be
under the mistaken assumption that you are "debating"
facts and proof, when all you are really doing is
attempting moral/ethical self-justification.
> >What chance is there to
> >ever persuade them of anything more substantial?
>
> About the same a getting you to see the same.
You're probably right here. Hopefully, someday, the
matter will be resolved one day and we will all have
to find another newsgroup to hang in. I've been
looking at alt.consciousness and alt.tv.real-world
myself. Perhaps I'll combine the two and we'll
have a close approximation of what this group is.
> >I was wondering if you have the time and interest,
> >if you could say a few words about what I myself
> >feel is the single most exculpatory issue in this
> >case, as far as Simpson's innocence goes. I think
> >that is what I have termed the "missing evidence,"
> >that is, the weapon(s), shoes, and clothes.
>
> Yes, show how something that isn't there, cannot be examined,
> proves that simpson is innocence.
As long as you place the burden on proving innocence,
as the prosecution, plaintiffs, you, and most other
no-J's have from night one, you'll never understand
the deeper ramifications of this case, this group,
or even why you're still here, trying to preach your
religious beliefs to those who have left your "church"
a long time ago.
Even Petrocelli, that triumpher over justice can't
quite resolve the "missing evidence" problem. Of
course, you are not Petro, you are just one of the
already converted/saved, so no need to think anymore.
Better to challenge all the heathens like myself
with disingenuous questions about matters which you
are 100 percent certain of, eh?
ma
YES,THE "CIVIILSED PEOPLE" FREED THE "ALL-AMERICAN HERO" O.J.SIMPSON
THE "NO GOOD CRACKERS" IN SANTA MONICA FRAMED THE "HERO.
M.A.ON THE SIMPSON-WALKER-KATGIRL VICTORY TRAIN ...!
--
___________________________________________________________________
The above opinions are our own and not the Cranston Organisation
or any of it's subsidiaries. 1994-99 @ M.A.
"I never respected a man who could spell".
__ Mark Twain
John Griffin
>>confused wrote:
>>> Yes, show how something that isn't there, cannot be examined,
>>> proves that simpson is innocence.
>>[In the name of the free flow of information, why don't you rat on
>>him too, scumbag?]
>About what?
[TestyBob] seems to be on the verge of "going postal" lately.
It looks like [he] thought you said "You're a deserter, a foreign
agent, a bagpipes player, an ax murderer and a usurer."
This is because he might have made finally found someone to join
him in his flights of fancy, and he was furious when you pointed
out some of the guy's problems.
Robert Hickey
>
> [In the name of the free flow of information, why don't you rat on
> him too, scumbag?]
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL ATTACK!!! PERSONAL
ATTACK!!!
Kristin VanAllen
> confused wrote:
>
> > pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
> >
> > >Who could possibly be unable to identify a pair of glasses they had
>
> > >owned and worn?
How long had it been since she had seen them? What shape were they in
when she did finally see them?
Walter Bennett
>confused wrote:
>>And the NoJ's actually imagine they have
>>a mountain of evidence against Simpson?
>Trial is over. What we don't have is any
>explaination from simpson that makes
>sense.
And just how does he go about doing that. Explaining so that it makes
sense to you. As you so knowledgeably stated, "Trail is over."
confused, if he were to give a statement of his innocence to every major
media office in the country - print, television, and yellow journalistic
agencies - you would continue to make the same claim. If he were to
have an audience with the Pope, if the Pontiff were to asked him the
hard question and he declared his innocence, your deep rooted opinion of
Simpson's guilt would be unaffected.
However, after not believing a word that Simpson has said about anything
in 5 plus years, if he were to give a statement of his guilt to a school
reporter, you would swear that he would be telling the truth and declare
that Simpson is making perfect sense.
Does this tell you anything about yourself?
I love a mystery!
It is not necessarily true that averaging the averages of
brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence gives the average of the
combined brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence.
-Simpson's Paradox as understood by Walt Bennett
Terienne
ma <m...@cranston.com> wrote in message news:37B53CF4...@cranston.com...
No one says this better than you MA. Glad to see you are still here.
Kariana
PuppetMaster
Bennett) wrote:
>>>Prien wrote:
>
>>confused wrote:
>
>>>And the NoJ's actually imagine they have
>>>a mountain of evidence against Simpson?
>
>>Trial is over. What we don't have is any
>>explaination from simpson that makes
>>sense.
>
>And just how does he go about doing that. Explaining so that it makes
>sense to you. As you so knowledgeably stated, "Trail is over."
Actually Waldo what he said was "Trial is over, not Trail is over"
>
>confused, if he were to give a statement of his innocence to every major
>media office in the country - print, television, and yellow journalistic
>agencies - you would continue to make the same claim. If he were to
>have an audience with the Pope, if the Pontiff were to asked him the
>hard question and he declared his innocence, your deep rooted opinion of
>Simpson's guilt would be unaffected.
Not true, IF Simpson could give an account of the crime that "proved"
he was innocent, I'm sure everyone would listen, and most if not all
of us No-J's would have no problem admitting that we were wrong.
Unfortunately he's had the opportunity many times and he never does
anything except repeat the same old bullshit that has been his
trademark since day one. He offers no plausible explanation for his
blood at the murder scene, no explanation as to how his gloves came to
be where they were found, how his blood got onto one of them, or how
Nicoles blood came to be on his clothing and in his car. He has never
given a consistent account of his whereabouts that night, why he lied
about retrieving his message center messages, his phone calls to Paula
or where and how he cut himself. As to his credibility issues, they're
as bad as his story of that night. For a man that claimed he would
spend the rest of his life tracking down the real killers, unless he
expects to find "them" on a golf course or in Florida, he hasn't done
a damned thing to locate those fictitious characters.
>
>However, after not believing a word that Simpson has said about anything
>in 5 plus years, if he were to give a statement of his guilt to a school
>reporter, you would swear that he would be telling the truth and declare
>that Simpson is making perfect sense.
On this I will agree 100% since that account of what happened that
night would be from his first hand knowledge rather than his
imagination.
>
>Does this tell you anything about yourself?
Yes it does, it tells me that confused and myself and other no-j's
listened to the evidence against Simpson, listened to the lies Simpson
told, and putting the two together realize that an innocent man
doesn't need to lie continuously to exonerate himself, he let's the
truth speak for him. The truth has spoken in this case and it says
that OJ Simpson killed two people that night, and has yet to be man
enough to admit it.
Robert H. Risch
wrote:
>No one says this better than you MA. Glad to see you are still here.
>
> Kariana
>
>> YES,THE "CIVIILSED PEOPLE" FREED THE "ALL-AMERICAN HERO" O.J.SIMPSON
>> THE "NO GOOD CRACKERS" IN SANTA MONICA FRAMED THE "HERO.
>>
>> M.A.ON THE SIMPSON-WALKER-KATGIRL VICTORY TRAIN ...!
>> --
You are certainly right about that Kariana. MA is by far my favorite
PRO-J. He doesn't bother making up non existent evidence and distorting
the record like the other PRO-Js. He just belts out his gut reaction to
anything and everything discussed here. And he keeps me, and I'm sure
others, in stitches doing it. And those insults he directs towards the
victims in the Simpson case and the NO-Js like me? He doesn't mean a word.
Deep down I detect a heart of gold.
KEEP THAN TRAIN ROLLIN', MA!
RHR
Walter Bennett
>>NKC wrote:
>>A feast for the eyes! Thank you, Prien.
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>AHAHA!
>[ synopis of same childish babbling
>snipped ]
Once again, an attempt to muzzle Galileo Galilei an let the Copernican
theory revolve around us.
Thank you, Griff, for your excellent refutable post that proved Prien
wrong not only by arguing the evidence but also by showing him the false
premiss he constructed his post upon.
confused
>confused wrote:
>> Oh, so that is how you excuse it. Do you ever bother to check if
>> those "plausible possibilities" are ever shown to be implausible in
>> another context? If so, have you removed them as a "plausible
>> possibilities"? Most likely not, since that would mean that you
>> couldn't consider them which means that they couldn't be shown to be
>> plausible, so then they couldn't be checked for consideration as
>> implausible...
>The "guilt" plausible possibilities ARE possible.
That wasn't the question. The question was about "plausible
possibilities".
>I already KNOW the "context" of how most no-J's see
>this case.
You don't have a clue as to the "context" most no-J's see
this case.
>What's incomprehensible still to me, is why no-J's like
>yourself are even in here.
To prevent lies, rumors, and insinuation from becoming the heart of
the case.
>You make only a pretense of being interested in the case. Your
>real interests, as recently revealed to me at least, have nothing
>to do with the case.
Revealed by whom?
>Wouldn't time be better spent, confused, frequenting other groups
>more along the lines of your true interests?
And just what is my "true" interest?
>Or do you already, under different aliases? Quite
>easy to do with Altopia, no?
I haven't tried it so I wouldn't know.
>Name the lie. Show the proof. Can't. Never happened.
If you would bother to judge simpson by the measure you apply to
Fuhrman, you would have to say that simpson lied.
If you were to judge Fuhrman by the measure you apply to simpson you
would have to say fuhrman didn't lie.
Since you don't bother to compare apples to apples, there is no
reason to continue this.
ojokay
> ojokay <ojo...@hiscomputer.com> wrote:
>
> >Name the lie. Show the proof. Can't. Never happened.
>
> Spousal abuse. He pled to it. He was convicted of it. It was proven.
The question was whether Simpson "lied" when he said
he never struck, hit, or beat Nicole. It has never
been proved that he did lie about this, and you and
other no-J's can't prove it, otherwise you would.
All you can do is state your opinions/beliefs about
whether he lied or not. That's not proof of anything.
Simpson admitted to "abusing" Nicole. That doesn't mean
he admitted to striking, hitting, or beating her. No lie.
Pleading to the charge of spousal abuse did not mean
pleading to striking, hitting, or beating her. No lie.
Two drunk, hot-tempered married people having a violent
argument can cause just about ANY bruise on either. That
doesn't mean that Simpson took his hand or fist and
intentionally struck, hit, or beat her. No lie.
Cable Guise
Except that there has been testimony of another person observing him
striking her in public. Now THAT person may be lying, but at least that's
the word of another person besides Nicole and Mr. Simpson.
Terienne
that Nicole was a volatile high strung woman who demanded getting her way at
all times. No one deserves to be murdered. The only person angry that
night about the breakup was Nicole. Why else would she be so rude and
hurtful to Jason that night by denying Jason the right to see his Little
Sister after her recital while he worked at his restaurant? How cruel to
cancel the reservations at the last moment without regard to Jason's
feelings. Nicole was the one who was out to cause hurt and harm that night.
O.J. Simpson was just getting ready to catch the Redeye to Chicago. No time
for killing. No time for being lured either.
Anyone notice how Cary Staynor's method of killing Julie Sund by cutting her
throat exactly the same as Nicole's throat was cut? I wonder if he belongs
to White Supremacists organization and they teach to kill that way? How
many people know that Nicole was killed on the anniversary of the murder of
Medgar Evers, and his killer had been convicted the February before. If it
appeared Nicole was now involved with a young man who was Jewish, it
explains the killing of both people. Why was the inside of the Bundy home
not part of the crime scene? Why did Riske look in the bathtub checking for
a body? Why would Ron have come to the front gate when Nicole's friends
normally came through the Garage to the door into the house inside the
Garage? So many questions and no one in authority wants to answer them, and
the media doesn't care, why???
Kariana
Terry
ojokay <ojo...@hiscomputer.com> wrote in message
news:37B642...@hiscomputer.com...
confused
Marlalinde
>From: gopa...@erols.com (Cable Guise)
>Date: Sat, 14 August 1999 11:37 PM EDT
>Message-id: <gopakman-ya0240800...@news.erols.com>
>Subject: Re: Still no Simpson "lies"
>From: gopa...@erols.com (Cable Guise)
>Date: Sat, 14 August 1999 11:37 PM EDT
>Message-id: <gopakman-ya0240800...@news.erols.com>
Gopakman writes:
>Except that there has been testimony of another person observing him
>striking her in public. Now THAT person may be lying, but at least that's
>the word of another person besides Nicole and Mr. Simpson.
India Allen as well as Albert Aguilera.
Marla
"One day OJ will kill me. And he'll get away with it..."
Nicole Brown Simpson
confused
>The question was whether Simpson "lied" when he said
>he never struck, hit, or beat Nicole. It has never
>been proved that he did lie about this, and you and
>other no-J's can't prove it, otherwise you would.
We have, he pled to spousal abuse, was convicted of it. It was
proven in a court of law.
If simpson didn't assault nicole but still pled to it then he lied
to the court.
One lie or the other must be true. You are free to chose which one.
>Simpson admitted to "abusing" Nicole. That doesn't mean
>he admitted to striking, hitting, or beating her.
>No lie.
>Pleading to the charge of spousal abuse did not mean
>pleading to striking, hitting, or beating her.
It does to the court, so you are claiming that he lied to the court?
>No lie.
Yes lie.
>Two drunk, hot-tempered married people having a violent
>argument can cause just about ANY bruise on either. That
>doesn't mean that Simpson took his hand or fist and
>intentionally struck, hit, or beat her. No lie.
Then he lied to the court when he pled. Proven by you. Thank you for
your support.
Sometimes you are so easy.
ojokay
> ojokay <ojo...@hiscomputer.com> wrote:
>
> >confused wrote:
> >
> >> ojokay <ojo...@hiscomputer.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Name the lie. Show the proof. Can't. Never happened.
> >>
> >> Spousal abuse. He pled to it. He was convicted of it. It was proven.
> >
> >The question was whether Simpson "lied" when he said
> >he never struck, hit, or beat Nicole. It has never
> >been proved that he did lie about this, and you and
> >other no-J's can't prove it, otherwise you would.
>
> We have, he pled to spousal abuse, was convicted of it. It was
> proven in a court of law.
No lie though.
> If simpson didn't assault nicole but still pled to it then he lied
> to the court.
Give me a break.
> One lie or the other must be true. You are free to chose which one.
What lie?
> >Simpson admitted to "abusing" Nicole. That doesn't mean
> >he admitted to striking, hitting, or beating her.
>
> >No lie.
> >Pleading to the charge of spousal abuse did not mean
> >pleading to striking, hitting, or beating her.
>
> It does to the court, so you are claiming that he lied to the court?
Pleading no contest is not an admission of lying.
I would extend the same courtesy to Fuhrman.
> >No lie.
>
> Yes lie.
Believe what you like.
> >Two drunk, hot-tempered married people having a violent
> >argument can cause just about ANY bruise on either. That
> >doesn't mean that Simpson took his hand or fist and
> >intentionally struck, hit, or beat her. No lie.
>
> Then he lied to the court when he pled. Proven by you. Thank you for
> your support.
Everything's comfortable in confused's "world" again.
> Sometimes you are so easy.
Ego.
confused
>confused wrote:
>> If simpson didn't assault nicole but still pled to it then he lied
>> to the court.
>
>Give me a break.
You said-
"Name the lie. Show the proof. Can't. Never happened."
I have. You refuse to consider any possibility that a rational
person would consider a lie. So you are now trapped. There is no way
to excuse this.
>> It does to the court, so you are claiming that he lied to the court?
>
>Pleading no contest is not an admission of lying.
Pleading no contest is the same as stating "I do not deny the charge
that I assulted my spouse."
So either he assualted his spouse or he lied to the court when he
didn't deny that he assulted his spouse.
>I would extend the same courtesy to Fuhrman.
No you don't, you believe fuhrman lied. Fuhrman didn't deny that he
lied. Again you don't compare apples to apples.
>Believe what you like.
Deny what you wish.
>> Then he lied to the court when he pled. Proven by you. Thank you for
>> your support.
>Everything's comfortable in confused's "world" again.
And you must be seething.
>> Sometimes you are so easy.
>
>Ego.
Yeah yours sucks.
Robert Miller
Walter Bennett wrote:
[But maybe next time Griffin could incorporate his footnotes
into the main body of the text.]
Robert Miller
PuppetMaster wrote:
> >I love a mystery!
> >
> >It is not necessarily true that averaging the averages of
> >brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence gives the average of the
> >combined brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence.
> >
> >-Simpson's Paradox as understood by Walt Bennett
[Again, again, again. Simpson is guilty until proven innocent.
The No-Jers' chant: We don't care what the evidence says,
he did it.]
Robert Miller
Cable Guise wrote:
> In article <37B642...@hiscomputer.com>, this...@anytime.com wrote:
>
> > confused wrote:
> >
> > > ojokay <ojo...@hiscomputer.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Name the lie. Show the proof. Can't. Never happened.
> > >
> > > Spousal abuse. He pled to it. He was convicted of it. It was proven.
> >
> > The question was whether Simpson "lied" when he said
> > he never struck, hit, or beat Nicole. It has never
> > been proved that he did lie about this, and you and
> > other no-J's can't prove it, otherwise you would.
> > All you can do is state your opinions/beliefs about
> > whether he lied or not. That's not proof of anything.
> >
> > Simpson admitted to "abusing" Nicole. That doesn't mean
> > he admitted to striking, hitting, or beating her. No lie.
> > Pleading to the charge of spousal abuse did not mean
> > pleading to striking, hitting, or beating her. No lie.
> > Two drunk, hot-tempered married people having a violent
> > argument can cause just about ANY bruise on either. That
> > doesn't mean that Simpson took his hand or fist and
> > intentionally struck, hit, or beat her. No lie.
>
> Except that there has been testimony of another person observing him
> striking her in public. Now THAT person may be lying, but at least that's
> the word of another person besides Nicole and Mr. Simpson.
[Are we referring to the "beach incident" wherein the "witness" named
a date when Simpson was not in town?]
Marlalinde
>Date: Sun, 15 August 1999 02:35 AM EDT
>Message-id: <rrcntq...@corp.supernews.com>
Kariana writes:
>These people can't see the truth of the matter. They don't want to accept
>that Nicole was a volatile high strung woman who demanded getting her way at
>all times.
And how do you know this?
>No one deserves to be murdered. The only person angry that night about the
breakup was Nicole.
Wrong! BB had just threatened her with turning her into the IRS...told his best
friend, "I'm not done with that bitch, I'm going to get her but good!"; Nicole
on the other hand was moving on. She had just rented a place in Malibu,
discussed plans with her sister for vacations with their children, etc....
>Why else would she be so rude and
>hurtful to Jason that night by denying Jason the right to see his Little
>Sister after her recital while he worked at his restaurant? How cruel to
>cancel the reservations at the last moment without regard to Jason's feelings.
And how do you know she was trying to be hurtful to Jason? I had read she chose
to go somewhere closer and less expensive...
>O.J. Simpson was just getting ready to catch the Redeye to Chicago. No time
>for killing. No time for being lured either.
Sounds like a perfect alibi...
>Anyone notice how Cary Staynor's method of killing Julie Sund by cutting her
>throat exactly the same as Nicole's throat was cut?
Exactly? How do you know this? The other young girl he killed from Yosemite was
completely decapitated...What does this have to due with BB?
>I wonder if he belongs
>to White Supremacists organization and they teach to kill that way?
There you go!! BB was a member of a white supremacists organization!!
Bwahahahaha!
>How many people know that Nicole was killed on the anniversary of the murder
of
>Medgar Evers, and his killer had been convicted the February before.
So????
>If it appeared Nicole was now involved with a young man who was Jewish, it
>explains the killing of both people.
Oh paleeeeeaaaaaasssssseee!!!!! Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
>Why was the inside of the Bundy home
>not part of the crime scene?
..because no crime occurred inside?
> Why did Riske look in the bathtub checking for a body?
What???????????? He checked all the room of the house. That's part of his job!!
Looking for a body in the bathtub??? Where, pray tell, did you get that tidbit?
>Why would Ron have come to the front gate when Nicole's friends
>normally came through the Garage to the door into the house inside the Garage?
And how do you know this? What are you saying? He DID obviously use the front
gate and was murdered there...
>So many questions and no one in authority wants to answer them, and
>the media doesn't care, why???
Maybe you missed the two VERY LONG trials, but it seems to me not too many
stones were left unturned. What case do you know of that received the attention
this one did...and you say no one cared? TV ratings certainly showed
otherwise...
Sharpscene
>From: mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused)
>Date: Fri, 13 August 1999 06:07 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37b695b1...@207.14.113.10>
>
>pr...@aol.com (Prien) wrote:
>
>>Who could possibly be unable to identify a pair of glasses they had
>>owned and worn?
>
>of shoe that they had owned and worn.
>
>>story is too absurd even beyond the outer reaches of the Twilight Zone.
>
>
>>And that certainly explains the apparent absence of fingerprints
>>on the Bundy envelope or the failure to even test for them or to announce
>the
>>results of any tests that were done.
>
>every heard.
>
>>And the NoJ's actually imagine they have a mountain of evidence against
>>Simpson?
>
>Trial is over. What we don't have is any explaination from simpson
>that makes sense.
>
>
>And you are certaintly an expert on those.
Prien,
Bottom line BB was found to be liable for the deaths of NBS and RLG in the
"civilized" trial where there was a "mountain" of evidence and BB's own worst
"piece" of evidence:his very own testimony.
Did he REALLY think he could fool THESE people? The answer is yes. He is such a
narcisissist that he believed he would make a great witness. He had no choice
but to testify,but he was probably one of the worst witnesses in the history of
wrongful death cases on record.
Even though he was wrongfully aquitted in the "criminal circus of a trial". HE
WAS FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THERE DEATHS: END OF STORY!!
Peace,Rene
Robert Miller
John Griffin wrote:
> Robert Miller <mil...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> >Walter Bennett wrote:
>
> >> >John Griffin wrote:
>
> >> >>NKC wrote:
>
> >> >>A feast for the eyes! Thank you, Prien.
>
> >> >BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> >> >AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >> >AHAHA!
>
> >> >[ synopis of same childish babbling
> >> >snipped ]
>
> >> Once again, an attempt to muzzle Galileo Galilei an let the Copernican
> >> theory revolve around us.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>
> The little jerkoff to Galileo is like Spike Jones to Mozart.
>
> >> Thank you, Griff, for your excellent refutable post that proved Prien
> >> wrong not only by arguing the evidence but also by showing him the false
> >> premiss he constructed his post upon.
>
> While you're thanking me you should congratulate me (along with lots of
> others) for having annihilated his goofy babbling years ago.
>
> >> It is not necessarily true that averaging the averages of
> >> brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence gives the average of the
> >> combined brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence.
>
> >> -Simpson's Paradox as understood by Walt Bennett
>
> I'm glad you keep posting that. It's so fucking stupid that it
> serves as an excellent illustration of Simpson idolator intellect.
>
> >[But maybe next time Griffin could incorporate his footnotes
> >into the main body of the text.]
>
> Your fascination with endlessly repeating things is a disease, and I don't
> have it. It's fun to occasionally repeat past destructions of Simpson
> thrall bullshit, but it isn't necessary. I sometimes prefer to just laugh
> when a new cretin posts his version. Why waste the effort, knowing that
> just the laughs can elicit incredibly stupid (see "Galileo" and "Paradox"
> above) and hilariously lame (see NKC, Bennett, Miller above) remarks?
[You mean like putting that stupid quote about Simpson on the bottom
of all your posts for four years? But who cares. Your repeated message
is no more than "HE DID IT HE DID IT HE DID IT" which loses its
power when you have nothing else to say beyond that. That you can't
address the evidence is also repetitious, but not unexpected. I can only
believe that if you don't want to discuss the case and just hang around
the group, your life is emptier than mine.]
dick wagner
In the grand jury, John DeBello (Mezzaluna Manager) said that he got to
work at 6:45 on the evening of the 12th and Nicole’s party had already
arrived.
In the grand jury, Karan Crawford (acting Manager on Sunday night) said
she saw Nicole and her party of ten come into the restaurant "about
6:30." She saw Nicole’s party leave the restaurant "around 8:30 or
9:00. I’m not positive."
In the preliminary hearing, DeBello repeats that he got to work at 6:45
and Nicole’s party had already arrived. He also says the party left
"about 8:30, 8:45, that time frame."
In the criminal trial, Tia Gavin said she was the waitress who served
Nicole’s party. Of the arrival time she says, "I’d say they arrived at
6:45 or 6:50." Of the departure, she says the party left, "between 8:30
and 9:00. 8:45ish."
In the criminal trial Karen Crawford says the party arrived between
6:30 and 7:00 and left between 8:30 and 9:00. At 9:37 she received a
call concerning the glasses from a woman she recognized as Nicole’s
mother because of the German accent (and implicitly the substance of the
conversation.)
In her criminal trial stipulation, Juditha Brown says she called the
restaurant at 9:37 and talked to a person named Karen Crawford. (By the
time of her civil trial testimony, she had forgotten the name of the
woman to whom she talked.)
In the civil trial, Karen Crawford repeated her criminal trial
testimony.
In her civil trial testimony, Juditha Brown says of leaving the
restaurant, she did not take time to look for the glasses then. "And it
was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said,
well, let’s go; I’ll call." As soon as she got home, she called the
restaurant.
In the civil trial deposition, Denise Brown says that they left the
restaurant, "closer to 8:30 [than 9:00]" She says they got home a
little after 9:30.
So, I count five different people in nine different appearances who all
give a consistent story of what time the party arrived, left, got home,
and the phone call was made. (And, I doubt that my recitation is
exhaustive.) But, you come now, five years later, and 3,000 miles away,
to tell us that you have "figured it out," and they who actually lived
through this experience are all mistaken. Very interesting, Prien.
--dick wagner
Walter Bennett
>>ojokay wrote:
>>>confused wrote:
There was someone else in the house who was not allowed, like Simpson,
to speak out at the spousal abuse hearing. Not someone who heard it
from one of the parties, but someone who was there, someone who knows
what happened and has held her speech to this day. Why?
During the period that they lived together, did the Simpsons maintain
separate bedrooms? Simpson consistently states that he was attempting
to remove Nicole from his bedroom. Unless she had a separate bedroom,
where was she to go? And if she had a separate bedroom, why did she
make such an effort to keep returning to Simpson's even after he locked
her out?
Where they happy drunks at the party, or did they become angry with each
other after they arrived home.
I tried searching for news articles but came up empty.
I love a mystery!
Prien
>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>Date: Fri, 13 August 1999 03:36 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37b46e75...@supernews.sirius.com>
>
wrote, in part:>Also, how Juditha and Lou Brown arrived home to coincide with
>the time they allegedly had a telephone conversation with Nicole. It
>was simply impossible to arrive that distance in that time period if
>they left at the testified time and they spoke on the phone with
>Nicole at the testified time.
You're absolutely right on all counts. If anyone bothers to read the account
of the two lead detectives in the case, they note that they decided to notify
the Browns by phone about the murder of their their daughter rather than to do
it in person because they "live[d] at least 90 minutes from Brentwood."
As long time LA cops, and having personally made the trip themselves by car on
at leat two occasions, the two lead detectives should know how long the trip
would take.
Moreover, Juditha and Lou Brown (along with Denies) regualrly made the trip to
visit Nicole. And when Denise was asked during her deposition when they left
the home for the drive to Brentwood for the recital, she indicated they left
around 3P.M. to make a 5:00 p.m. start time, obviously leaving themseves two
hours to make the drive.
Now the recital (according to three prosecution witnesses) lasted until at
least 7 p.m. (since it started at 5:00 p.m., there was a 15 minute
intermission, according to Denise), and there were 34 acts on the program
(according to Brown attorney John Kelly during the Denise deposition), there is
no chance in this universe that the recital was over a second before 7:00 p.m.
as attested to by all the prosecution witnesses. Since this was also the end
of the school year, Sydney's perormance was the next to last number (I
believe), the time to change out of her costume, to say good bye to her
friends, have her picture with OJ taken by Fishman and have OJ present her the
flowers, have the Browns get their two cars loaded up and leave the area that
must have been congested, it is impossible to believe they arrived at the
Mezzaluna much earlier than 7:30 even though testimony has them get there
between 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. (which is clearly impossible and totally false.
Although some of the testimony of Mezzaluna witnesses have the Browns leaving
at 8:30, Clark and other Mezzaluna witnesses several times indicate they left
around 9:00 p.m. Of particular note is Crawford's testimony before the grand
jury (I believe, but could be preliminary hearing), indicating the call from
Juditha came "shortly" after they left, which would make sense if she meant
9:00 p.m. as Clark had indeed indicated when questining Crawford about the
call.
Even an 8:30 p.m. departure time makes it absurd for them to make a 90 minute
trip so they could arrive home by 9:37 --the NoJ's can do the math, but it
won't at up even beyond the Twilight Zone. Of course, any delay in the
departure time makes ever more ridiculously absurd an arrival time that enables
Juditha to make a 9:37 p.m. call.
The key is whether the 90 minute time to make the trip seems real. Well,
accroding to all accounts that mention it, the Browns lived about 74 miles from
the restaurant. If they travelled by the most direct route, they had to
negotiation at least 22 major expressway interchanges. I'd say 90 minutes is a
conservative estimate unless Dominque, the driver that night, was qualified to
drive in the Indy 500.
There you have it. It's impossible for the Browns to have driven from the
Mezzaluna to their home in time for Juditha to be making a 9:37 p.m. phone
call. If it's impossible for her to be making the call, that also establishes
beyond question that it's impossible for there to be an authentic record of her
having made such a call. If there is any record of a call being made at that
time by her from her home (they had no cell ppone in the car and they didn't
stop to make a call), that record is either a fabrication or some else made the
call (Nicole's younger sister Tanya is a possibility). Either possibility
destroys the the scenario that has been presented to account for the events of
that night as anything but a fabrication.
That also leaves only one other possible conclusion. If the scenario of the
glasses has been fabricated, it could only have been done to provide a false
account of the events to lay a false trail about the true motives behind the
murders. The tale then also had to have been contrived as part and parcel of
the murder plot.
There are no other possibilities, unless someone can establish with real
evidence that not only was it possible to make a 90 minute drive in 67 minutes,
but that the Browns in fact did so that night.
Go to it NoJ's. But don't bother unless you have real evidence.
Good luck. You'll need it. A hint about why. Both the prosecution and
plaintiffs stayed light years away from the issue of establishing the the times
for the Brown family movements that evening which involved an uninterrupted
sequence of timed events, starting when they left their home for the recital
until they reached home again that night, with not one second of slack time
between when one event ends and another one begins so that the time of an event
can be shifted to make it plausible. The problem of no slack time is that it's
impossible to shift the time of one event forward or backward to make it more
pluasible without shortetning the time available for another event of a known
duration.
I was not aware the group had that discussion, but based on the clear evidence
on this issue, there is simply no time for the events to have happened as
described.
That's why the tale of the glasses is, indeed, one of the crititical keys to
this case.
The fabrication of this tale is the certain proof that not a single piece of
eveidence against OJ in this case can possib ly be genuine.
John Griffin
>Walter Bennett wrote:
>> >John Griffin wrote:
>> >>NKC wrote:
>> >>A feast for the eyes! Thank you, Prien.
>> >BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>> >AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>> >AHAHA!
>> >[ synopis of same childish babbling
>> >snipped ]
>> Once again, an attempt to muzzle Galileo Galilei an let the Copernican
>> theory revolve around us.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
The little jerkoff to Galileo is like Spike Jones to Mozart.
>> Thank you, Griff, for your excellent refutable post that proved Prien
>> wrong not only by arguing the evidence but also by showing him the false
>> premiss he constructed his post upon.
While you're thanking me you should congratulate me (along with lots of
others) for having annihilated his goofy babbling years ago.
>> It is not necessarily true that averaging the averages of
>> brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence gives the average of the
>> combined brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence.
>> -Simpson's Paradox as understood by Walt Bennett
I'm glad you keep posting that. It's so fucking stupid that it
John Griffin
> [ yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap
> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap
> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap
> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap
> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap....]
>The fabrication of this tale is the certain proof that not a single piece of
>eveidence against OJ in this case can possib ly be genuine.
You're a funny little guy.
Robert H. Risch
>You're absolutely right on all counts. If anyone bothers to read the account
>of the two lead detectives in the case, they note that they decided to notify
>the Browns by phone about the murder of their their daughter rather than to do
>it in person because they "live[d] at least 90 minutes from Brentwood."
>
>
>As long time LA cops, and having personally made the trip themselves by car on
>at leat two occasions, the two lead detectives should know how long the trip
>would take.
Now see what you have done. We are going to be treated to a 10,000 word
report on how long it takes to go from the Mezzaluna to Laguna Beach on a
Sunday night starting at 8:30. It will be praised as a fine piece of
literature. Just you wait.
RHR
John Griffin
>PuppetMaster wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT), ste...@webtv.net (Walter
>> Bennett) wrote:
>> >>>Prien wrote:
>> >>confused wrote:
>> >>>And the NoJ's actually imagine they have
>> >>>a mountain of evidence against Simpson?
>> >>Trial is over. What we don't have is any
>> >>explaination from simpson that makes
>> >>sense.
>> >And just how does he go about doing that. Explaining so that it makes
>> >sense to you. As you so knowledgeably stated, "Trail is over."
>> Actually Waldo what he said was "Trial is over, not Trail is over"
For a hint as to the problem here, see Waldo's "sig" below.
>> >confused, if he were to give a statement of his innocence to every major
>> >media office in the country - print, television, and yellow journalistic
>> >agencies - you would continue to make the same claim.
That's for sure. The claim is absolutely true (no explanation that
makes sense), and Simpson isn't likely to come up with a consistent
pack of lies. He's paid the big bucks to have professional liars
try it with no success at all.
> If he were to
>> >have an audience with the Pope, if the Pontiff were to asked him the
>> >hard question and he declared his innocence, your deep rooted opinion of
>> >Simpson's guilt would be unaffected.
Duuuhhhhh....he already confessed to a couple of preachers, so
what the hell difference would lying to another one make?
>> Not true, IF Simpson could give an account of the crime that "proved"
>> he was innocent, I'm sure everyone would listen, and most if not all
>> of us No-J's would have no problem admitting that we were wrong.
You're right, of course, but that's a different matter. We would listen
to anyone who presented some reason to doubt that he did it, but more of
his lies are just more jokes, no matter who he tells them to.
>> Unfortunately he's had the opportunity many times and he never does
>> anything except repeat the same old bullshit that has been his
>> trademark since day one. He offers no plausible explanation for his
>> blood at the murder scene, no explanation as to how his gloves came to
>> be where they were found, how his blood got onto one of them, or how
>> Nicoles blood came to be on his clothing and in his car. He has never
>> given a consistent account of his whereabouts that night, why he lied
>> about retrieving his message center messages, his phone calls to Paula
>> or where and how he cut himself. As to his credibility issues, they're
>> as bad as his story of that night. For a man that claimed he would
>> spend the rest of his life tracking down the real killers, unless he
>> expects to find "them" on a golf course or in Florida, he hasn't done
>> a damned thing to locate those fictitious characters.
And furthermore...never mind - that covers it well enough.
>> >However, after not believing a word that Simpson has said about anything
>> >in 5 plus years, if he were to give a statement of his guilt to a school
>> >reporter, you would swear that he would be telling the truth and declare
>> >that Simpson is making perfect sense.
If he does that and it's perfectly sensible, we'll have to explain it to
the Simpson thralls. They don't exactly have an affinity for perfect
sense. When the murdering scumbag confesses, he'll fill in a detail or
two that only The Real Killer could know. The Simpsonlickers will insist
that the devil made him say that.
>> On this I will agree 100% since that account of what happened that
>> night would be from his first hand knowledge rather than his
>> imagination.
>> >Does this tell you anything about yourself?
>> Yes it does, it tells me that confused and myself and other no-j's
>> listened to the evidence against Simpson, listened to the lies Simpson
>> told, and putting the two together realize that an innocent man
>> doesn't need to lie continuously to exonerate himself, he let's the
>> truth speak for him. The truth has spoken in this case and it says
>> that OJ Simpson killed two people that night, and has yet to be man
>> enough to admit it.
>> >I love a mystery!
>> >It is not necessarily true that averaging the averages of
>> >brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence gives the average of the
>> >combined brown&goldmansnifferlickers' intelligence.
>> >-Simpson's Paradox as understood by Walt Bennett
It is necessarily true that the author of the above nonsensical
statement is a fucking idiot.
> [Again, again, again. Simpson is guilty until proven innocent.
>The No-Jers' chant: We don't care what the evidence says,
>he did it.]
Simpson was proven guilty, fool. That's what the evidence
says. Your problem is that it says it in a language that's
unknown in your fantasy world, where time runs sideways instead
of forward and everyone has O.J. Simpson DNA.
By the way, I was really hurt when you referred to someone else as a
fucking pathetic piece of shit but only called me a namecaller, asshole.
confused
>You're absolutely right on all counts. If anyone bothers to read the account
>of the two lead detectives in the case, they note that they decided to notify
>the Browns by phone about the murder of their their daughter rather than to do
>it in person because they "live[d] at least 90 minutes from Brentwood."
I used to live 90 minutes from LA. I can assure you that the Browns
don't live in Santa Barbara. Now if one travels the speed limit,
they could only make it Ventura. Now if traveling with traffic
knocks 30 minutes off this time, the browns could easily be home in
45 minutes.
From: 875 s bundy dr brentwood, ca
To: 900 w main street ventura, ca
Total Distance: 61.43 miles
Estimated Time: 1 hrs 26 minutes
From: 875 s bundy dr brentwood, ca
To: orange, ca
Total Distance: 48.21 miles
Estimated Time: 1 hrs 8 minutes
confused
>Now see what you have done. We are going to be treated to a 10,000 word
>report on how long it takes to go from the Mezzaluna to Laguna Beach
Laguna Beach? I could only find a reference to Orange county. Darn,
now I have to go and check again. Oh, Less than an hour.
Robert H. Risch
Actually it is Dana Point about 10 miles south of Laguna Beach.
RHR
John Griffin
>[You mean like putting that stupid quote about Simpson on the bottom
>of all your posts for four years? But who cares. Your repeated message
>is no more than "HE DID IT HE DID IT HE DID IT" which loses its
>power when you have nothing else to say beyond that. That you can't
>address the evidence is also repetitious, but not unexpected. I can only
>believe that if you don't want to discuss the case and just hang around
>the group, your life is emptier than mine.]
So, you don't like the official alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ...excellent!
Over the years, I (among others) have corrected you virtually every time
you've come up with a new fixation, and you've never done anything except
repeat your misconstructions and pretend you didn't see the corrections.
We all tried to help you, but until you admit you have the problem, it's
hopeless...and hilarious. You're one of the venerable Senior Cretins,
nothing more.
* -------------------The alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ--------------------- *
*Q1: Did that lying, wife-beating, illiterate scumbag Simpson do it? *
* A: Yes. *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
confused
>Your repeated message is no more than "HE DID IT HE DID IT
>HE DID IT" which loses its power when you have nothing
>else to say beyond that.
Aren't you the one that believes that a lie repeated becomes the
truth?
Prien
>dick wagner wag...@westworld.com
>Date: Mon, 16 August 1999 01:14 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37B79E...@westworld.com>
>
wrote in part:
> So, I count five different people in nine different appearances who all
>give a consistent story of what time the party arrived, left, got home,
>and the phone call was made.
You're right Dick, they all said that. But they also said a lot of other
things that contradict their various versions. Note, for example, the time the
lead detectives wrote in their book about when DeBello FIRST told them about
when the party arrived and left.
Your partial recitation of the evidence, however, proves how false and
impossible that testimony is. Three different witnesses who testified about
the time of the recital (that's Denise, Juditha, and Garvey), ALL TESTIFIED
that the recital ended at or after 7:00 p.m. That being the case and as I
already laid out, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the testimony of the recital
eyewitnesses and the Mezzaluna eyewitnesses to be true.
There are lots of other reasons to believe that it is the Mezzaluna witnesses
who incorrectly if not falsely testified about the time the Browns were there.
By the way, the clocks on both the register machine the restaurant used and its
credit card machine were off by a lot so that they are useless for the purpose
of pinning down when they were there. How interesting even those failures are.
Marlalinde
>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>Date: Sun, 15 August 1999 09:18 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990815211820...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
Prien mistates:
>Since this was also the end of the school year, Sydney's perormance was the
next to last number (I>believe),
First of all...what you're saying doesn't make sense...why does one statement
conclude the other? Her dance recital was through Eileen Blake's dance
studio...not a school-function...
>Well, accroding to all accounts that mention it, the Browns lived about 74
miles
>from the restaurant. If they travelled by the most direct route, they had to
>negotiation at least 22 major expressway interchanges...
Huh? "22 major expressway interchanges"? What in the hell are you talking
about??
The route to Dana Point from Brentwood is very direct and simple...405S to the
5..I've made it before in an hour and 10 minutes...
PuppetMaster
>>Subject: The impossible trip home
>>From: pr...@aol.com (Prien)
>>Date: Sun, 15 August 1999 09:18 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <19990815211820...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
>
>Prien mistates:
>
>>Since this was also the end of the school year, Sydney's perormance was the
>next to last number (I>believe),
>
>First of all...what you're saying doesn't make sense...why does one statement
>conclude the other? Her dance recital was through Eileen Blake's dance
>studio...not a school-function...
>
>>Well, accroding to all accounts that mention it, the Browns lived about 74
>miles
>>from the restaurant. If they travelled by the most direct route, they had to
>>negotiation at least 22 major expressway interchanges...
>
>Huh? "22 major expressway interchanges"? What in the hell are you talking
>about??
>
>The route to Dana Point from Brentwood is very direct and simple...405S to the
>5..I've made it before in an hour and 10 minutes...
Slow driver? (Hi sweetie, welcome home)
Marlalinde
>From: ThePupp...@mail.com (PuppetMaster)
>Date: Mon, 16 August 1999 11:44 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37bdda6f...@news.cnmnetwork.com>
Rich questions:
>Slow driver?
That's not what you were saying last night!!
Something to the effect of "slow down....."!!
LOL
>(Hi sweetie, welcome home)
Why thank you...I think I'd rather be back in Carmel...:(
PuppetMaster
>>Subject: Re: The impossible trip home
>>From: ThePupp...@mail.com (PuppetMaster)
>>Date: Mon, 16 August 1999 11:44 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <37bdda6f...@news.cnmnetwork.com>
>
>Rich questions:
>
>>Slow driver?
>
>That's not what you were saying last night!!
>Something to the effect of "slow down....."!!
>LOL
Oh quoting me out of context? I just didn't want to die trying to make
a flight home. These two hour escapades are ok, but trying to make the
flights back home are wearing me out.
>
>>(Hi sweetie, welcome home)
>
>Why thank you...I think I'd rather be back in Carmel...:(
Me too, let's do it again when we have 3 more hours to kill. LOL
Marlalinde
>Message-id: <37b8fdb2...@news.cnmnetwork.com>
Rich states:
>Oh quoting me out of context? I just didn't want to die trying to make
>a flight home.
The "slow down!!" comment you made wasn't in regard to my driving..... as I
recall...:)
PuppetMaster
>>Subject: Re: The impossible trip home
>>From: ThePupp...@mail.com (PuppetMaster)
>>Date: Tue, 17 August 1999 02:17 AM EDT
>>Message-id: <37b8fdb2...@news.cnmnetwork.com>
>
>Rich states:
>
>>Oh quoting me out of context? I just didn't want to die trying to make
>>a flight home.
>
>The "slow down!!" comment you made wasn't in regard to my driving..... as I
>recall...:)
>
OH! that time.
BL Parker
This could be the straw that will break the camel's back. Someone
doesn't want this thread to survive, I refuse to let it die.
cordially
b.l.p.
"Treat people as if they were what you think they ought to be, so they
can become what they should be".
Marlalinde
>Date: Tue, 24 August 1999 11:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <410-37C...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
BL Parker writes:
>"Keep hope alive"
>
>This could be the straw that will break the camel's back. Someone doesn't want
this thread to survive, I refuse to let it die.
And someone doesn't want to answer my post...??? Why is that Betty? I answered
your questions...why won't you answer mine? Still working on your response...
that's okay..take your time...
By the way...in case you're confused.. here's the gist of the post..remember?
>Subject: Re: <>Attention Marla<>
>From: BET...@webtv.net (BL Parker)
>Date: Mon, 23 August 1999 08:09 AM EDT
>Message-id: <22187-37...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
BLP writes:
>My analysis
>***********************************************
>Letter from Nicole to O.J.
>Dear O.J.
>I'd like to see you, to talk to you in person. But I know you can't do
>that
>***********************************************
>Why couldn't he see her in person? We
>have no knowledge of a restraining order/?
>***********************************************.
> I've been attending these meetings to help me turn negatives into
>positives -- to help me turn get rid of my anger . . . . I've learned to
>"let things go" (the most powerful, helpful thing I've ever learned).
>I've learned that all things that upset & bother me are just a mirror of
>what's going on in me. I always knew that what was going on with us was
>about me -- I just wasn't sure why it was about me
>***********************************************This qualifies as "Tales
>from the crypt" very clear concise self evaluation. If you're a NO'j you
>can't accept this, it doesn't fit the theory.
>************************************************
>#################################
>-- So I just blamed you. I'm the one who was controlling.
>#################################
>Just the facts mam.
>**********************************************
>
>I wanted you to be faithful and be a perfect father. I was not accepting
>to who you are. Because I didn't like myself anymore.
>
>**********************************************
>The wish of every woman in the world,
>he fact remains that far too many women share their man at one point in
>time. Especially if he had an illicit relationship
>with them in another marriage.
>************************************************
> I'm not sure exactly what went on with me these last few years. I know
>New Year's Eve started it. I sank into a depression that I couldn't
>control. I also agree with you now -- that I went through some sort of
>mid life crisis -- "that 30's thing," you called it, my own self esteem
> . . etc. I know it was a combination of all of these things. But
>mostly, due to all of these things, I know I gave up. I gave up treating
>you like I loved you. We started taking each other for granted -- and I
>didn't know how to put it all back together.
>***********************************************
>Too bad we can't be privy to an explanation from Nicole, from my ability
>to rationalize its plain and simple. This letter was after the 1/93
>New Years bash.
>***********************************************
>
> I never stopped loving you -- I stopped liking myself and lost total
>confidence in any relationship with you. I really needed this time in
>my life -- It's allowed me to get to know and like myself (again). It's
>given me a chance to go from a non-person, (the past 3 years) to a whole
>person.
>***********************************************
>Doesn't sound like a woman getting control of her life, sounds like a
>woman fearful of losing what she knew was a good thing.
>***********************************************
>There's so much I want to say to you. It's very hard to express myself
>in this letter. I wish we could be taking a walk around the block like
>we used to. It would be so much easier to speak to you face to face. I
>want to put our family back together! I want our kids to grow up with
>their parents. I thought I'd be happy raising Sydney & Justin by myself
>-- since we didn't see too much of you anyway.
>***********************************************
>How the Simpson haters were able to translate this into a stalking
>obsessive maniac I'll never know.
>
>Just like with the rest of this impossible fabrication, there people
>allowed their stereotypical predispositions to mold
>their opinions. Trash the facts and truth of the matter, inject whatever
>fits in your mind set, assisted by Clark, Darden and last but not least
>Fuhrman.
>***********************************************
>
>
> But, now, I [missing text].
>I want to be with you! I want to love you and cherish you, and make you
>smile. I want to wake up with you in the mornings and hold you at night.
>I want to hug and kiss you everyday. I want us to be the way we used to
>be. There was no couple like us. I don't know what I went through . .
>***********************************************
>Strong words if you ask me, especially after spending at least 16 years
>together. The best mirror into the soul of another human being is
>through his/her written words.
>**********************************************
>=A0=A0I didn't believe you loved me anymore -- and I couldn't handle it.
>But for the past month I've been looking at our wedding tape and our
>family movies
>**********************************************
>I do not need a psychologist to tell me that this is inconsistent with a
>miserably brutalized woman. Most women are "romantics" at heart, trust
>me NBS was just that.
>**********************************************
>
>
>-- and I can see that we truly loved each other. A love I've never seen
>in any of our friends. Please look at the 2 tapes I'm sending over with
>this letter. Watch them along & with your phone turned off -- they're
>really fun to watch. O.J., I want to come home -- I want us all to be
>together again -- We can move wherever you want -- we can stay here -- I
>just never want to leave your side again. I've almost come home 20
>times since I left -- but I was never totally sure about us until now. I
>know I love you and know I'm in love with you and know I want to
>[missing text] and be with you forever. Please watch the tapes -- I know
>you have major anger against me -- but you owe it to your kids and to
>us. I had that same anger. . .
>***********************************************
>What major anger? Angry because she kept playing with his emotions, yet
>able to distance himself from her and start anew. Come on peeps, yous
>can't be that stupid.
>***********************************************
>
> I'd never let this happen to us again. Without this year, without this
>growth, I don't think we'd have had a chance together -- We let it die.
>And through death . . . something new always grows. I agree with what
>you said 6 or 8 months ago. The next time around will be the best. I
>totally feel that now. We want to come home -- we'd be there tomorrow if
>you'd let us. I'm not embarrassed about anything -- I don't give a hoot
>what anybody thinks.
>***********************************************
>Sounds like the pressure is being applied by outside forces, surely
>couldn't have been Denise, she was asking for loans. Faye had her own
>miserable existance.
>***********************************************
> I only know I love you and our kids would be the happiest kids in the
>world.
>**********************************************
>CAN YOU SAY L-E-V-E-R-A-G-E? The
>kids were the glue that kept them togather.
>**********************************************
>If you're totally happy with your life now -- I'll understand --
>especially if you're truly in love and know that's going to work
>**********************************************
>Where will you be happier? with your new lady or with me and the kids?
>***********************************************
>
> Then, I can't mess with that. If I don't hear from you soon -- then
>I'll assume that's the case and I'll never bother you or ask you to have
>[missing text] way to find out -- I had to ask. O.J. You'll be my one
>and only "true love."
>**********************************************
>Does this sound like she had found a better relationship? not.
>***********************************************
> I'm sorry for the pain I've caused you and I'm sorry we let it die.
>Please let us be a family again, and let me love you -- better than I
>ever have before. I'll love you forever and always . . .
>Me.
>***********************************************
>This letter should have been admissable evidence, due to the lack of
>specificity date etc. I realize that there were problems with that. When
>I link this to trial testimony that was adjusted to paint a different
>picture and the other inconsistant revelations, I am still comfortable
>with my
>original position.
>
>Simpson haters have rewritten every aspect of this case to fit their
>timeline,motive and re-creation of the facts. I admire those (Non black
>Pro's) who have stood up for truth and "those
>never changing FACTS". Its been repeatedly said that I and others
>believe in OJ because he is black, you haven't taken the time to know
>us. Blacks do not operate that way. By and large we're too
>fearful that "God will get us for that"
>
>BLP
>
>[Drawing of smiling face.]
>cordially
>b.l.p.
>You state.."if you're like the No'J's, you'll tell me what's between the
>lines".. If you'd like me to respond to Nicole's letter, I can do
>that...I feel the way you *frame* your direction...there's nothing I can
>say that you would receive with an open mind..
>*********************************************
>]Try me, if you agree to open your mind, I assure you that I will give
>it my best shot.
>************************************************
>Marla
>"One day OJ will kill me. And he'll get away with it..." Nicole Brown
>Simpson
>
>>cordially
>b.l.p.
>"Treat people as if they were what you think they ought to be, so they
>can become what they should be".
I'm not going to respond to each section of the letter and your response to
it...overall I think I can give you my opinion of Nicole's letter "rather
briefly".
I feel Nicole was missing the *fantasy* of what the relationship *could have
been*.. and not what the relationship had been in *reality*...
She was willing to put the *reality* behind her and believe if *they* wanted a
healthy marriage bad enough...it would work!!
How many of us have done this?? If we just want it bad enough we can *will* it
to happen...fantasy..not reality...
Nicole was very much caught up in the complexity of a mutually obsessive
realtionship...it was a very passionate, intense relationship! She was
responsible for her part of the anger, tantrums, manipulations....attempts to
control..overall button-pushing...I'm not saying she was an angel...by any
means..
I believe the letter was written around the time they got back together for the
'attempted reconciliation' (I have dates if you want/need them). Nicole
desperately wanted to put everything behind her and make it work...she admits
alot of the blame..(this is also typical behavior of a person with low
self-esteem and one who has been battered..)
She was as obsessed with OJ as he was with her...
You mention your doubt of his *stalking* ...this behavior occured during those
times when Nicole was in other relationships...
You state:
>This qualifies as "Tales from the crypt" very clear concise self evaluation.
If you're a NO'j you can't accept this, it doesn't fit the theory.
That's not fair...or true...it definately FITS the theory of two people in an
obsessive relationship who could not live without each other...but tried!!!
You also state:
>Too bad we can't be privy to an explanation from Nicole, from my ability
>to rationalize its plain and simple. This letter was after the 1/93 New Years
bash.
Or New Year's *bashing*...
You state:
>The best mirror into the soul of another human being is through his/her
written words.
I agree with you!! If you truly believe that..you need to read her other
letters..along with Simpson's to her..
then read *the IRS letter* ...., etc..
I have them all..if you don't...
>I do not need a psychologist to tell me that this is inconsistent with a
>miserably brutalized woman. Most women are "romantics" at heart, trust
>me NBS was just that.
Not true..it's typical behavior of one who's been battered with a very low self
esteem!!
YES!! Nicole WAS a romantic!! She had hopes of the *ideal family*...like in her
own German upbringing...
>Come on peeps, yous can't be that stupid.
Peeps?? Stupid?? I thought you were going to keep an *open mind*..Betty, is
it??
>This letter should have been admissable evidence, due to the lack of
>specificity date etc.
It was admitted and used by the defense..I believe..
>Simpson haters have rewritten every aspect of this case to fit their
>timeline,motive and re-creation of the facts.
Really? Are you saying I have done this?
>I admire those (Non black Pro's) who have stood up for truth and "those never
changing FACTS".
And THAT'S not a racist statement...?????
That would be like me saying, " I admire *those* black-no-j's who have stood up
for truth and *those never changing facts*...
(who could put their color aside...)
>Its been repeatedly said that I and others
>believe in OJ because he is black, you haven't taken the time to know
>us.
Who is *you*??? And who is *us*..me and the race? You can't say that about
me!!! You don't know me!! Now YOU are being stereotypical and predjudiced...BIG
TIME!!
>Blacks do not operate that way. By and large we're too fearful that "God will
get us for that".
And how in your right mind can you think that God will not *get* Simpson for
butchering two good people....white or black....*people*, who no matter WHAT
they did..did NOT deserve to have their lives taken by HIM!!!
Marla
Kariana
unless major speed records were broken, and Juditha ran into the house with
one purpose in mind, the call to the Mezzeluna by any person in the Brown
car could not have been made before 9:50 at the earliest. The phone records
had to have been altered. Especially when you have DeBello testifying in
Grand Jury and Preliminary hearing that he saw glasses being picked up at
approximately 9:15 P.M. before the 9:37 phone call that could not have taken
place.
BL Parker <BET...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:410-37C...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> "Keep hope alive"
>
> This could be the straw that will break the camel's back. Someone
> doesn't want this thread to survive, I refuse to let it die.
>
>
PuppetMaster
wrote:
If this isn't an example of the typical brain dead thinking of a
Pro-J. THE PHONE RECORDS HAD TO HAVE BEEN ALTERED. Are you out of your
fucking mind? (don't answer, we already know you are) So now the deep
dark conspiracy has reached down to Ma Bell altering phone records.
Kari, go check yourself back in.
Kristin VanAllen
> On another group we did a Mezzeluna to Dana Point mile and time search
> and
> unless major speed records were broken, and Juditha ran into the house
> with
> one purpose in mind, the call to the Mezzeluna by any person in the
> Brown
> car could not have been made before 9:50 at the earliest. The phone
> records
> had to have been altered.
The conspiracy widens to include phone company personal who can change
the database records..........
> Especially when you have DeBello testifying in
> Grand Jury and Preliminary hearing that he saw glasses being picked up
> at
> approximately 9:15 P.M. before the 9:37 phone call that could not have
> taken
> place.
> BL Parker <BET...@webtv.net> wrote in message
I am amazed how you consider time estimates to be set in stone.....
Walter Bennett
and time.
http://www.mapquest.com/cgi-bin/mqtrip?link=/TripQuest-Main&uid=u1m90tn371k1s...
Ruthann Ruthanathemata
>"Keep hope alive"
>This could be the straw that will break the camel's back. Someone
>doesn't want this thread to survive, I refuse to let it die.
Good for you! I share your amazement that young Mr. Preen can blow a
bubble dozens as times as big as the second place person has done, with
the same tiny amount of whatever substance there is. I honestly think he
did it with no substance at all! Let's see those meanies try that some
day! Sure, it's just the same old bubble, stretched to giant proportions,
but I can't wait to see how much more air he can blow into this.
>cordially
>b.l.p.
>"Treat people as if they were what you think they ought to be, so they
>can become what they should be".
You seem like a really intellectual guy, so I sure wouldn't want to
question your words of wisdom, but what if people are already what they
think they ought to be, and they believe they should be just what they
are, and they don't have any reason to be what you decide they should
be? I mean, it seems that you should respect them instead of trying to
morph their little feet into your shoes. Maybe that was something some
guy said to a King or something like that, where everyone should be
whatever keeps the king from having their heads rolled.
Kariana
just couldn't stop laughing that you'd be o transparent.
Hahahahhahhahhah Hard to stop laughing Griffie.
Kariana
MARG0349
Message-id: <37B79E...@westworld.com>
PRIEN:
In the grand jury, John DeBello (Mezzaluna Manager) said that he got to
work at 6:45 on the evening of the 12th and Nicole’s party had already
arrived.
In the grand jury, Karan Crawford (acting Manager on Sunday night) said
she saw Nicole and her party of ten come into the restaurant "about
6:30." She saw Nicole’s party leave the restaurant "around 8:30 or
9:00. I’m not positive."
In the preliminary hearing, DeBello repeats that he got to work at 6:45
and Nicole’s party had already arrived. He also says the party left
"about 8:30, 8:45, that time frame."
In the criminal trial, Tia Gavin said she was the waitress who served
Nicole’s party. Of the arrival time she says, "I’d say they arrived at
6:45 or 6:50." Of the departure, she says the party left, "between 8:30
and 9:00. 8:45ish."
In the criminal trial Karen Crawford says the party arrived between
6:30 and 7:00 and left between 8:30 and 9:00. At 9:37 she received a
call concerning the glasses from a woman she recognized as Nicole’s
mother because of the German accent (and implicitly the substance of the
conversation.)
In her criminal trial stipulation, Juditha Brown says she called the
restaurant at 9:37 and talked to a person named Karen Crawford. (By the
time of her civil trial testimony, she had forgotten the name of the
woman to whom she talked.)
In the civil trial, Karen Crawford repeated her criminal trial
testimony.
In her civil trial testimony, Juditha Brown says of leaving the
restaurant, she did not take time to look for the glasses then. "And it
was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said,
well, let’s go; I’ll call." As soon as she got home, she called the
restaurant.
In the civil trial deposition, Denise Brown says that they left the
restaurant, "closer to 8:30 [than 9:00]" She says they got home a
little after 9:30.
So, I count five different people in nine different appearances who all
give a consistent story of what time the party arrived, left, got home,
and the phone call was made. (And, I doubt that my recitation is
exhaustive.) But, you come now, five years later, and 3,000 miles away,
to tell us that you have "figured it out," and they who actually lived
through this experience are all mistaken. Very interesting, Prien.
--dick wagner
The Mezz cash register slip gave a precise time, the waitress id's it...but how
long it took to actually leave the restraunt is another thing. How many of you
have just left a restraunt after a family event, rushed out, got in your cars
and drove like hell the distance specified, and in the length of time spec. as
applied in this discussion.
Great posting PRIEN-and Wagner!!
Marlalinde
>Date: Fri, 27 August 1999 11:09 AM EDT
>Message-id: <19990827110908...@ng-ff1.aol.com>
Marg0349 (Margo?) writes:
>PRIEN:
>
> In the grand jury, John DeBello (Mezzaluna Manager) said that he got to
>work at 6:45 on the evening of the 12th and Nicoles party had already
>arrived.
>
> In the grand jury, Karan Crawford (acting Manager on Sunday night) said
>she saw Nicole and her party of ten come into the restaurant "about
>6:30." She saw Nicoles party leave the restaurant "around 8:30 or
>9:00. Im not positive."
>
> In the preliminary hearing, DeBello repeats that he got to work at 6:45
>and Nicoles party had already arrived. He also says the party left
>"about 8:30, 8:45, that time frame."
>
> In the criminal trial, Tia Gavin said she was the waitress who served
>Nicoles party. Of the arrival time she says, "Id say they arrived at
>6:45 or 6:50." Of the departure, she says the party left, "between 8:30
>and 9:00. 8:45ish."
>
> In the criminal trial Karen Crawford says the party arrived between
>6:30 and 7:00 and left between 8:30 and 9:00. At 9:37 she received a
>call concerning the glasses from a woman she recognized as Nicoles
>mother because of the German accent (and implicitly the substance of the
>conversation.)
>
> In her criminal trial stipulation, Juditha Brown says she called the
>restaurant at 9:37 and talked to a person named Karen Crawford. (By the
>time of her civil trial testimony, she had forgotten the name of the
>woman to whom she talked.)
>
> In the civil trial, Karen Crawford repeated her criminal trial
>testimony.
>
> In her civil trial testimony, Juditha Brown says of leaving the
>restaurant, she did not take time to look for the glasses then. "And it
>was 8:30 by that time and the children had to go to bed, so we said,
>well, lets go; Ill call." As soon as she got home, she called the
>restaurant.
>
> In the civil trial deposition, Denise Brown says that they left the
>restaurant, "closer to 8:30 [than 9:00]" She says they got home a
>little after 9:30.
>
> So, I count five different people in nine different appearances who all
>give a consistent story of what time the party arrived, left, got home,
>and the phone call was made. (And, I doubt that my recitation is
>exhaustive.) But, you come now, five years later, and 3,000 miles away,
>to tell us that you have "figured it out," and they who actually lived
>through this experience are all mistaken. Very interesting, Prien.
>
> --dick wagner
>
>The Mezz cash register slip gave a precise time, the waitress id's it...but
>how
>long it took to actually leave the restraunt is another thing. How many of
>you
>have just left a restraunt after a family event, rushed out, got in your cars
>and drove like hell the distance specified, and in the length of time spec.
>as
>applied in this discussion.
>Great posting PRIEN-and Wagner!!
Yet, none of it matters (how long it took to say goodbye, if they went to the
bathroom, if they waited for Nicole and the kids to eat the icecream..if they
played a game of chess on the sidewalk...) because they made it home in time
for Juditha to call the Mezzaluna @ 9:37.
The end.
John Griffin
> How many of you
>have just left a restraunt after a family event, rushed out, got in your cars
>and drove like hell the distance specified, and in the length of time spec. as
>applied in this discussion.
Somewhere around 250 million. Why do you ask?
* -------------------The alt.fan.oj-simpson FAQ--------------------- *
*Q1: Did that lying, wife-beating, illiterate scumbag Simpson do it? *
* A: Yes. *
*Q2: What steps were taken to keep this FAQ so short? *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
MARG0349
>Date: Sun, 15 August 1999 09:18 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990815211820...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
>
>>From: mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>Date: Fri, 13 August 1999 03:36 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <37b46e75...@supernews.sirius.com>
>>
>
>wrote, in part:>Also, how Juditha and Lou Brown arrived home to coincide with
>>the time they allegedly had a telephone conversation with Nicole. It
>>was simply impossible to arrive that distance in that time period if
>>they left at the testified time and they spoke on the phone with
>>Nicole at the testified time.
>You're absolutely right on all counts. If anyone bothers to read the account
>of the two lead detectives in the case, they note that they decided to notify
>the Browns by phone about the murder of their their daughter rather than to
>do
>it in person because they "live[d] at least 90 minutes from Brentwood."
>
>
>on
>at leat two occasions, the two lead detectives should know how long the trip
>would take.
>
>to
>visit Nicole. And when Denise was asked during her deposition when they left
>the home for the drive to Brentwood for the recital, she indicated they left
>around 3P.M. to make a 5:00 p.m. start time, obviously leaving themseves two
>hours to make the drive.
>
>Now the recital (according to three prosecution witnesses) lasted until at
>least 7 p.m. (since it started at 5:00 p.m., there was a 15 minute
>intermission, according to Denise), and there were 34 acts on the program
>(according to Brown attorney John Kelly during the Denise deposition), there
>is
>no chance in this universe that the recital was over a second before 7:00
>p.m.
>as attested to by all the prosecution witnesses. Since this was also the end
>of the school year, Sydney's perormance was the next to last number (I
>friends, have her picture with OJ taken by Fishman and have OJ present her
>the
>flowers, have the Browns get their two cars loaded up and leave the area that
>must have been congested, it is impossible to believe they arrived at the
>Mezzaluna much earlier than 7:30 even though testimony has them get there
>between 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. (which is clearly impossible and totally false.
>
>Although some of the testimony of Mezzaluna witnesses have the Browns leaving
>at 8:30, Clark and other Mezzaluna witnesses several times indicate they
>left
>around 9:00 p.m. Of particular note is Crawford's testimony before the grand
>jury (I believe, but could be preliminary hearing), indicating the call from
>Juditha came "shortly" after they left, which would make sense if she meant
>9:00 p.m. as Clark had indeed indicated when questining Crawford about the
>call.
>
>Even an 8:30 p.m. departure time makes it absurd for them to make a 90 minute
>trip so they could arrive home by 9:37 --the NoJ's can do the math, but it
>won't at up even beyond the Twilight Zone. Of course, any delay in the
>departure time makes ever more ridiculously absurd an arrival time that
>enables
>Juditha to make a 9:37 p.m. call.
>
>The key is whether the 90 minute time to make the trip seems real. Well,
>accroding to all accounts that mention it, the Browns lived about 74 miles
>from
>the restaurant. If they travelled by the most direct route, they had to
>a
>conservative estimate unless Dominque, the driver that night, was qualified
>to
>drive in the Indy 500.
>
>There you have it. It's impossible for the Browns to have driven from the
>Mezzaluna to their home in time for Juditha to be making a 9:37 p.m. phone
>call. If it's impossible for her to be making the call, that also
>establishes
>beyond question that it's impossible for there to be an authentic record of
>her
>having made such a call. If there is any record of a call being made at that
>time by her from her home (they had no cell ppone in the car and they didn't
>stop to make a call), that record is either a fabrication or some else made
>the
>call (Nicole's younger sister Tanya is a possibility). Either possibility
>destroys the the scenario that has been presented to account for the events
>of
>that night as anything but a fabrication.
>
>That also leaves only one other possible conclusion. If the scenario of the
>glasses has been fabricated, it could only have been done to provide a false
>account of the events to lay a false trail about the true motives behind the
>murders. The tale then also had to have been contrived as part and parcel of
>the murder plot.
>
>There are no other possibilities, unless someone can establish with real
>evidence that not only was it possible to make a 90 minute drive in 67
>minutes,
>but that the Browns in fact did so that night.
>
>Go to it NoJ's. But don't bother unless you have real evidence.
>
>Good luck. You'll need it. A hint about why. Both the prosecution and
>plaintiffs stayed light years away from the issue of establishing the the
>times
>for the Brown family movements that evening which involved an uninterrupted
>sequence of timed events, starting when they left their home for the recital
>until they reached home again that night, with not one second of slack time
>between when one event ends and another one begins so that the time of an
>event
>can be shifted to make it plausible. The problem of no slack time is that
>it's
>impossible to shift the time of one event forward or backward to make it more
>pluasible without shortetning the time available for another event of a known
>duration.
>
>I was not aware the group had that discussion, but based on the clear
>evidence
>on this issue, there is simply no time for the events to have happened as
>described.
>
>That's why the tale of the glasses is, indeed, one of the crititical keys to
>this case.
>
>The fabrication of this tale is the certain proof that not a single piece of
>eveidence against OJ in this case can possib ly be genuine.
>
I do agree with the writer that when you watch a trial, you must pay close
attention to the lawyers' word choice. They are clearly masters of vocab.
(esented for identification at the trial cannot possibly be one and the same
or Crawford lied about what she had written on the envelope when she
previously
testified about it.)
This type of omission would not rise to perjury. She gave the jist of her
writing as best she could remember.
I do agree that Mrs Browns test as to whether these were the right glasses was
ridiculous. Why he bothered to ask her to authenticate the glasses is beyond
me, if he knew this was all she would say.
Now, for the envelope. It doesn't really matter whether there were one or two
envelopes. The one pictured had a bloody partial imprint of a shoe on it. H
Lee either examined the envelope proper or close up pics and determined that
the imprint was not a BMagli sole.
The placement to the body, the bloody imprint all are consistent with that
envelope being part of the fight with RG.
What items are not consistent with the fight or the killing of NBS are the
glove and cap. They are centrally located, not in a radius of either body, and
protected by leaves.
Further, there were only 3 eyedropper sized drops of blood on the glove at the
V on the inside of the wrist which at the end of pros case had not be i.d. or
tested. (My guess is the pros couldn't test the glove because it would have
yeilded RG blood, not Simpsons.)
The cap had only one visible swipe of blood. Much more would be expected if
grabbed off by the victims bloody hands and it fell naturally in the radius of
RG body. Should have been stepped on at least.