Ex-manager Says OJ Confessed

A memorabilia dealer who profited from O.J. Simpson for many years is the latest former crony to write a tell-all book, this one alleging a groggy Simpson, high on marijuana, confessed to killing his ex-wife ...

[atl boy]

Wow and you call that news? Everybody knows he did it, he received a pass from his people. Hope they sleep well at night allowing a murderer to walk the streets. But because we are a cuntry governed by laws he gets to be a free man, that is until he is sent to prision for the agg assualt charges in las vegas. Well it might take a while but justice will be served.

[Amazed]

Duh! Everybody knew he did it. He just did it in a state where murder is no crime as long as the investigating detective is a racist.

Good ol' California, the land of fruits and nuts.

[scott]

atl boy wrote:

Wow and you call that news? Everybody knows he did it, he received a pass from his people. Hope they sleep well at night allowing a murderer to walk the streets. But because we are a cuntry governed by laws he gets to be a free man, that is until he is sent to prision for the agg assualt charges in las vegas. Well it might take a while but justice will be served.

First who are his people. And the make up of the jury had no black faces. And only two male faces. And they voted on the first pass 11 aquittal 1 undecided. After a short discussion. They polled a second time and went 12 aquittal. What do you know that they who attended the trial missed. How do you explain the defensive wounds on goldmans hands. How do you explain his broken hands usually occuring when you punch someone very hard. How do you explain OJ not being a person who was punched at all. How do you explain a 25 yr old 5th degree black belt. Being beaten by a 50yr old with bad knees. Their was evidence that this black belt fought someone very hard. But OJ had no combat wounds. A trained martial artist beaten by a man with a short knife whom he fought. How do you explain the preservatives in the blood evidence on his property. And the catching of an officer admitting to planting evidence. A common practice of the LAPD. How do you explain to be able to kill a woman severing her head, fighting ,besting and killing a 5th degree black belt in karate getting home. Cleaning up and entering a limo. All in 40 minutes. Leaving no blood evidence on your clothing or in your car or in your home or showers. The jury members said during the 6th or 7th day of the prosecutions case they knew then. Before cochran even started his case they had the wrong person. When the jury makes a mistake and convicts the wrong person you say well our system is a little flawed. But when it works like it should you say guilty people walk. Which is it.

[The Real Salaam]

scott wrote:

<quoted text>First who are his people. And the make up of the jury had no black faces. And only two male faces. And they voted on the first pass 11 aquittal 1 undecided. After a short discussion. They polled a second time and went 12 aquittal. What do you know that they who attended the trial missed. How do you explain the defensive wounds on goldmans hands. How do you explain his broken hands usually occuring when you punch someone very hard. How do you explain OJ not being a person who was punched at all. How do you explain a 25 yr old 5th degree black belt. Being beaten by a 50yr old with bad knees. Their was evidence that this black belt fought someone very hard. But OJ had no combat wounds. A trained martial artist beaten by a man with a short knife whom he fought. How do you explain the preservatives in the blood evidence on his property. And the catching of an officer admitting to planting evidence. A common practice of the LAPD. How do you explain to be able to kill a woman severing her head, fighting ,besting and killing a 5th degree black belt in karate getting home. Cleaning up and entering a limo. All in 40 minutes. Leaving no blood evidence on your clothing or in your car or in your home or showers. The jury members said during the 6th or 7th day of the prosecutions case they knew then. Before cochran even started his case they had the wrong person. When the jury makes a mistake and convicts the wrong person you say well our system is a little flawed. But when it works like it should you say guilty people walk. Which is it.

Way to put him/her in their place !
I bet they can say nothing to dispute those facts.

These people are so damn racist it isn't even funny. They circumvented their own legal system by finding him liable in the civil case even though he was proven innocent. That's how much they wanted to believe he did it - so much to the point, they won't even leave him the hell alone now...

What a shame - the modern day lynch mob still hard at work.

I'm sure you and I will be called racists for respecting OJ's innocence though.

[scott]

I personally don't know who killed those people. I do know based on the evidence presented by the police and the prosecutors office any honest juror would have had to aquit. The real criminals in this case along wih the killers is the authorities who presented such a bad case. Tainted evidence,poor police worl and a prosecution team worthy of kindergarden law school. Why would you present evidence of this huge fight the victim was in. And then have a defendant who hasn't been in a fight. Why would you propose a theory that a man being able with bad knees to jump down from an eight foot fence and best a black belt who fought. And kill him with a short knife. All silently enough for the homeowner not hear you. And then sever the homeowners head and get home and clean up in less than 20 minutes. To head dressed and packed to the airport. Why if his guilt was so apparent couldn't and this was a slam dunk case were people 13yrs removed who aren't in california can pronounce guilt. Why couldn't the authorities present a better case. Why did they have to tamper with evidence and get caught. And why did they have to come up with a ridicules time line.

[scott]

Oj very well could be guilty. But it was not done like the case presented by the authorities. One he couldn't have been alone. Two, it couldn't have been done in an 40 minutes or less. Why didn' the police do their jobs right. They were so used to manufacturing cases on people and them sticking. This once when adequate defense was presented they got caught. They later were caught with so much manuactured evidence and bad cases. 11,000 people were let out of prison from LA co alone. Literally training day at it's worst. Only true. They only dare to be this way because they know that most people like most of you guys support them with impunity. They believe they are carrying out your wills. And they're right they are.

[Barry]

Why don't the feds pick up the case?

[scott]

Barry wrote:

Why don't the feds pick up the case?

The reason why is they know the case has no merit. And any hope of convicting the real killers went out the window long ago even if OJ was one of them. The police wanted to set OJ up so bad they destroyed any real case that might have gone against him. They tampered with and contaminated evidence so badly any hope of identifying forensically the real killers even if one was OJ is forever lost. And the jury quickly saw thru it an said they sat through 100 days of testimony knowing they were gonna aquit him on the first poll.

[retired]

Scott, look at the jury again. There were only 2 white faces--2 women. The remaining were black. I saw the fore"woman" interviewed after the trial, and she definitely was not white.

[scott]

retired wrote:

Scott, look at the jury again. There were only 2 white faces--2 women. The remaining were black. I saw the fore"woman" interviewed after the trial, and she definitely was not white.

Your right i stand corrected it was 10 female not 10 white. It was 9 blacks all female two white all male and one hispanic. female. Two college degrees. 9 high school diplomas and one non graduate. The jury pool was 40% white 30 % black 15% asian and 15% hispanic.

[scott]

And five said they knew people who had negative experiences with the police. Believing that police officers often set up suspects and lie and manufacture false cases. They were right. The police do lie and manufacture evidence all the time. Look at the johnson case in our city.

[Regulaguy]

": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
That is the definition of a bigot.
Sounds to me like it might just fit here.

[Bottom line]

Check the facts. The jury consisted of 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Caucasian, half Native American, and 1 Caucasian female.

Not necessarily blaming the jury for the wrong verdict. The Prosecutor's Office did a terrible job presenting the facts. All of us who were not in the jury pool had the benefit of seeing the whole story. The jurors were sequestored, unable to watch TV or read the papers.

No matter who you want to blame for the miscarriage of judgement, any rational, sentient being understands that O.J. is as guilty as sin. No surprise he admitted it while stoned.

[Barry]

Anyone who thinks OJ is innocent is too stupid to function.

[scott]

Bottom line wrote:

Check the facts. The jury consisted of 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Caucasian, half Native American, and 1 Caucasian female.
Not necessarily blaming the jury for the wrong verdict. The Prosecutor's Office did a terrible job presenting the facts. All of us who were not in the jury pool had the benefit of seeing the whole story. The jurors were sequestored, unable to watch TV or read the papers.
No matter who you want to blame for the miscarriage of judgement, any rational, sentient being understands that O.J. is as guilty as sin. No surprise he admitted it while stoned.

Don't know anyones ethnic background.. I just googled the jury. Second why does that really make a differenc. Isn't it supposed to be a jury of your peers. The defendant being black. Why shouldn't he have a black jury. And since he lived in LA and most people living in LA are black anyway. How would it be if a white person accused of killing two blacks could only have a black jury. Everyone would say this is improper. Especially if most people in his city were white.

[scott]

Bottom line wrote:

Check the facts. The jury consisted of 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Caucasian, half Native American, and 1 Caucasian female.
Not necessarily blaming the jury for the wrong verdict. The Prosecutor's Office did a terrible job presenting the facts. All of us who were not in the jury pool had the benefit of seeing the whole story. The jurors were sequestored, unable to watch TV or read the papers.
No matter who you want to blame for the miscarriage of judgement, any rational, sentient being understands that O.J. is as guilty as sin. No surprise he admitted it while stoned.

And if this supposed confession occured during a get high session. Then why is any testimony one way or another considered factual.

[scott]

Barry wrote:

Anyone who thinks OJ is innocent is too stupid to function.

And nobody says the believe one way or another. But i the jury and half the rest of the world did not buy the prosecutions case. It had too many holes in it. And the police were caught red handed tampering with evidence. Only white america wants to convict despite the evidence. If you want a clean conviction. Present a clean case.

[squeeebox]

What Scott, is OJ your boyfriend? The guys a freakin thug and needs to be in jail. He had something to do with those deaths and he continually harrassess people with force. If nothing else, set an example with his dumb arse!

[squeeebox]

why can't I say t h u g? You censorship people are p ussies!

[Bottom line]

scott wrote:

<quoted text>Don't know anyones ethnic background.. I just googled the jury. Second why does that really make a differenc. Isn't it supposed to be a jury of your peers. The defendant being black. Why shouldn't he have a black jury. And since he lived in LA and most people living in LA are black anyway. How would it be if a white person accused of killing two blacks could only have a black jury. Everyone would say this is improper. Especially if most people in his city were white.

I was addressing your erroneous declaration that there were only two black faces on the jury.

Why is the jury composition important? You tell me. You're the one that brought it up.

You also seemed to play fast and loose with facts about Ronald Goldman. I can't find any reference to him being a black belt in martial arts. He was athletic, and a tennis coach, but nothing about the "facts" upon which you insist.

(Too bad he wasn't a black belt in something. Perhaps both he and Nicole would be alive today, and O.J. would be sitting in jail where he belongs.)