Black people are getting smarter!

cawacko said:
Whatever people believe it was pretty hard not to look at the evidence as it was in our face everyday.

I'm just asking how you think things went down with your comment that he was at the house before and/or after the murders.
Click to expand...

The "evidence" didn't pan out: no solid ID of him at the scene of the crime, "lost" DNA material, a lead detective with a history of evidence tampering and bigotry who was contradicted by other officers at the scene. I could go on, but closed minds don't think beyond a certain point. I say he was at the scene after the murder based on phone calls between he and Nicole prior to the murder.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The "evidence" didn't pan out: no solid ID of him at the scene of the crime, "lost" DNA material, a lead detective with a history of evidence tampering and bigotry who was contradicted by other officers at the scene. I could go on, but closed minds don't think beyond a certain point. I say he was at the scene after the murder based on phone calls between he and Nicole prior to the murder.
Click to expand...

The DA and the defense agree basically when the murders took place. So you think he witnessed them then went home and flew to Chicago? So that's why Kato heard that knock and Alan Park saw him walk across the lawn?
 
cawacko said:
The DA and the defense agree basically when the murders took place. So you think he witnessed them then went home and flew to Chicago? So that's why Kato heard that knock and Alan Park saw him walk across the lawn?
Click to expand...

When was she killed? When did he "leave" to get on that plane? Can anyone corroborate precisely were he was in between?

Man, you can dance this step until doomsday, but the FACT is that neither the prosecution nor you or anyone else can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Simpson went to the house and killed those people. Been there, tried that, FAILED. I don't like Simpson, but that doesn't make him a killer.
 
Taichiliberal said:
When was she killed? When did he "leave" to get on that plane? Can anyone corroborate precisely were he was in between?

Man, you can dance this step until doomsday, but the FACT is that neither the prosecution nor you or anyone else can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Simpson went to the house and killed those people. Been there, tried that, FAILED. I don't like Simpson, but that doesn't make him a killer.
Click to expand...

Dude, I love OJ. He's wrongly in jail for doing nothing other than getting his stuff back. You're making this conversation too personal.

For as passionate as you are about it you have your facts wrong on the most basic premise of the case. You keep saying he was at Nicole's home the night of the murders. Unless he committed the murders he wasn't there.

And yes they have a 15 minute window when they know the killings took place. Alan Park gave exact testimony about when he arrived at OJ's, when he first got a call from OJ and when they went to the airport. This is all basic information.
 
cawacko said:
Dude, I love OJ. He's wrongly in jail for doing nothing other than getting his stuff back. You're making this conversation too personal.

For as passionate as you are about it you have your facts wrong on the most basic premise of the case. You keep saying he was at Nicole's home the night of the murders. Unless he committed the murders he wasn't there.

And yes they have a 15 minute window when they know the killings took place. Alan Park gave exact testimony about when he arrived at OJ's, when he first got a call from OJ and when they went to the airport. This is all basic information.
Click to expand...

No, I keep saying that AFTER his phone conversations with her, he went to the house only to arrive AFTER the murder...which would account for any RECENT DNA smears, etc. As for Alan Park;

During the preliminary hearing, Park did not recall seeing the Bronco but also said that he wasn't looking for it, leaving open the possibility that he might have missed it as he drove by. But today, under prosecutor Marcia Clark's questioning, Park was more certain that he had specifically looked at the spot where the Bronco was later found and did not see it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e69-b137-9794bfda0604/?utm_term=.d36bc3c5e74d

That's all basic too.

I only take it personal when people buy into the popular notion or a preconceived notion. I do not like OJ....he's a creep who jumped on and married a kid barely out of high school when he was a grown ass man in his 30's! Then he mentally (and physically?) abused her. Then when the dope gets acquitted of murder, he uses a gun to get back some merchandise! Idiot!

But he DID NOT kill his ex-wife.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, I keep saying that AFTER his phone conversations with her, he went to the house only to arrive AFTER the murder...which would account for any RECENT DNA smears, etc. As for Alan Park;

During the preliminary hearing, Park did not recall seeing the Bronco but also said that he wasn't looking for it, leaving open the possibility that he might have missed it as he drove by. But today, under prosecutor Marcia Clark's questioning, Park was more certain that he had specifically looked at the spot where the Bronco was later found and did not see it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e69-b137-9794bfda0604/?utm_term=.d36bc3c5e74d

That's all basic too.

I only take it personal when people buy into the popular notion or a preconceived notion. I do not like OJ....he's a creep who jumped on and married a kid barely out of high school when he was a grown ass man in his 30's! Then he mentally (and physically?) abused her. Then when the dope gets acquitted of murder, he uses a gun to get back some merchandise! Idiot!

But he DID NOT kill his ex-wife.
Click to expand...

But then, you also BELIEVE that Zimmerman MURDERED Trayvon and got away with it. :palm:
 
Right said:
TouchyLiberal isn't getting any smarter lol!
Click to expand...

the history of your posts is all one needs to determine that nothing say is of worth. I don't know how you got off IA, but you're going back on again. Continue to follow me around like a bitch in heat, chump.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, I keep saying that AFTER his phone conversations with her, he went to the house only to arrive AFTER the murder...which would account for any RECENT DNA smears, etc. As for Alan Park;

During the preliminary hearing, Park did not recall seeing the Bronco but also said that he wasn't looking for it, leaving open the possibility that he might have missed it as he drove by. But today, under prosecutor Marcia Clark's questioning, Park was more certain that he had specifically looked at the spot where the Bronco was later found and did not see it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e69-b137-9794bfda0604/?utm_term=.d36bc3c5e74d

That's all basic too.

I only take it personal when people buy into the popular notion or a preconceived notion. I do not like OJ....he's a creep who jumped on and married a kid barely out of high school when he was a grown ass man in his 30's! Then he mentally (and physically?) abused her. Then when the dope gets acquitted of murder, he uses a gun to get back some merchandise! Idiot!

But he DID NOT kill his ex-wife.
Click to expand...

I'm still dumbfounded about where you are getting that he was at the murder scene the night of the murders. Where did you hear, read or see that?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But then, you also BELIEVE that Zimmerman MURDERED Trayvon and got away with it. :palm:
Click to expand...

No stupid, Zimmerman testified that he did shoot Martin...his bogus "self defense" excuse and the absurd "stand your ground" laws is the point of contention considering that HE PURSUED MARTIN DESPITE BEING TOLD THAT THE POLICE WERE ON THE WAY AND HIS CONTINUED PURSUIT WAS NOT NECESSARY.

Martin was being chased by a stranger...he chose to stand HIS ground and was KILLED. That's manslaughter to anyone outside of that area and without connections to the local legal system.

The prosecution in the OJ trial could NOT prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Deal with it, or in your case say something useless in response.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Re-read what I linked, will ya please?
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the testimony and the trial. It was my senior year at USC when this occurred. The courthouse was just a couple of miles from where I was living. I've read books on the trial and I've seen all the documentaries including the award winning ESPN 30 for 30.

There is nothing in your article or any article that said he was at the murder scene the night of the murders.
 
cawacko said:
I'm familiar with the testimony and the trial. It was my senior year at USC when this occurred. The courthouse was just a couple of miles from where I was living. I've read books on the trial and I've seen all the documentaries including the award winning ESPN 30 for 30.

There is nothing in your article or any article that said he was at the murder scene the night of the murders.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's nothing YOU have proposed that counters all the evidence which gives Simpson the opportunity to be there AFTER the murders occurred. There was a window of time to do just that, but NOT kill her. Remember the retired world's foremost ME who's an authority on blood spatter patterns stated that 2 assailants had to have been present during the murders.

Look, you believe yourself to be an amateur expert on the subject, so your mind is closed to certain avenues of thought. So unless you've got something new to add, I'd say we're done here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, there's nothing YOU have proposed that counters all the evidence which gives Simpson the opportunity to be there AFTER the murders occurred. There was a window of time to do just that, but NOT kill her. Remember the retired world's foremost ME who's an authority on blood spatter patterns stated that 2 assailants had to have been present during the murders.

Look, you believe yourself to be an amateur expert on the subject, so your mind is closed to certain avenues of thought. So unless you've got something new to add, I'd say we're done here.
Click to expand...

You're free to stop the communication but you've shown zero evidence of him being at the scene. Who besides you has claimed he was at the scene? I don't fancy myself an expert but having followed and read on the trial I'm pretty well versed on it. Other than those who claimed he committed the murder no one I've seen has claimed he was at the scene.

I'm just trying to understand how you came up with that information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top