I’ve posted a number of times over at the forum discussion thread that you started yesterday. So far no rejoinder from you. Is the forum “elsewhere” enough for you or have you decided not to risk your belief system?

What is most disturbing to me is how some blacks, and the whites who count on a lopsidedly liberal black vote, have so many nasty things to say about conservative blacks. The wonderful liberals you say deserve the support of every black voter are the same ones who sustained segregation, and who now shove blacks into dangerous ghettos and failing schools. Affirmative action might get you a job driving the garbage truck, but education gets you the job of CEO of the garbage collection company.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Actually, he rules based on the American Constitution. The SC is not the legislature. If you want to change the law go there. You want to modify the constitution, start there. Stop expecting the SC to let you skip past all that. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not only was he alive at his nomination, he was alive for his swearing in, and for his first year or so on the bench.

So far as my research shows, he never criticized Thomas publicly or privately.

I look forward to your retraction.

For Watson, regarding Simpson’s alibi and the original statements by the Browns regarding the last time Nicole was known to be alive, here is verbatim from Coroner’s Investigator Ratcliffe’s report, signed 6.13.94:

“The decedent 94-05136 was last known to be alive at about 2300 hrs. speaking to her mother on the telephone. Her mother had left her eyeglasses at a restaurant that evening and the decedent reportedly advised her mother that she should ask if an employee could bring them to her residence.”

Please note the problems beyond the fact that Simpson was loading his luggage into the limo at his home across L.A. at the time that Nicole and Mrs. Brown were talking. If Mrs. Brown were talking to Nicole at 11 p.m. about contacting the Mezzaluna for her glasses, then there is no reason for Goldman to be there. Goldman allegedly left the Mezzaluna around ten. You notice how the timeline begins to collapse.

That’s why it was necessary for the Browns to make such a drastic change in their timeline. Otherwise, there was no case against OJ. Think of all the problems and all the timeline shifts done after the fact. Remember the clock doing the credit card billing at the Mezzaluna that wasn’t yet set to daylight savings time in the middle of June? LOL.

I do not care to debate this here, so I started a thread in the forum. As far as I know,and I will stand corrected if OW says different, the forum is available for ongoing discussions on many subjects.

Take your argument elsewhere.

–

When the Browns were contacted by Claudine Ratcliffe of the coroner’s office the morning after the murders, Ratcliffe asked them when the last time was that they’d spoken with their daughter. They both said after 11p.m., after they got back home from the Mezzaluna. Several weeks later Mr. Brown made an amended statement that it was actually more like nine-thirty. How did both parents misestimate what time they got home from the Mezzaluna the morning after it happened, but then remember two weeks later? It certainly reopened a window of opportunity to allow Simpson to be prosecuted.

At 11 p.m. June 12 OJ was loading luggage into the limo on his way to the airport. If Nicole was still alive then he couldn’t have done it.

Simpson had an alibi until the Browns changed their story to accommodate the prosecution.

Actually, a number of witnesses adjusted their “timelines” from their initial statements, and these adjustments all helped to fit the timeline to move the time of the murders earlier.

I looked at your text, and I read the autopsy testimony from the trial. I was unable to find any correspondence between your post and the testimony.

Please start a thread in the Forum, and I will be happy to discuss the case there.

When a body is retrieved from the ocean, one of the things that a coroner must check for is whether the victim had aspirated, or inhaled water into his lungs. If not, or if there is fresh water in the lungs of the victim, that is proof that the victim did not die by drowning in the ocean. There was a scene in the movie “Chinatown” with just this kind of problem of evidence for those of you interested interested in fictional corruption in Los Angeles.

This line of investigation is a fundamental one for a coroner, and the theory behind it not only shows that the prosecution’s theory of the case against O.J. Simpson was wrong, but also strongly suggests that there was something other than justice being pursued in those courts in Southern California a decade ago.

The prosecution claimed that Nicole Simpson’s ex-husband, football star and actor O.J. Simpson, attacked and killed her by cutting her throat on the steps of her condomium on the night of June 12, 1994. As he was doing this, or soon after or immediately prior to her death, he was surprised by a waiter from the Mezzaluna Restaurant, Ron Goldman, whom Simpson killed by stabbing him in the back fatally.

The prosecution’s theory fails in the deaths of both victims.

Nicole Simpson suffered a throat cut so deep that it nicked a bone in the spinal column. All major arteries and veins to and from the head were severed. She was almost completely “bled out” (most of the blood in her system was out of her) when she was found by police. Even her epiglottis, the flap of skin that covers the windpipe when someone swallows, had been cut. It was a devastating wound that could have killed her. But it wasn’t cause of her death.

There was no aspiration of blood into her lungs. Simply, she was not breathing when her throat was cut. Even if she were unconscious when her throat was cut, she would still be breathing. More telling, there was no blood found in her mouth or sinuses. If she had been alive when her throat was cut, blood would have spurted out of her neck under great pressure, some of it going into her mouth and sinuses. The wound to the epiglottis alone should have produced blood in the mouth. She had already “bled out” when her throat was cut.

The ghastly throat wound was delivered to Nicole Simpson after she had stopped breathing and bleeding.

The wound that bled out Nicole Simpson was a puncture of the right common carotid artery on the side of her neck. It wasn’t as dramatic as the throat wound, and as a wound it doesn’t provide an easy logic to the crime, but because it was the only other potentially fatal wound that would have caused so much loss of blood, it is the only wound that could have killed her.

Ron Goldman’s cause of death has similar problems. The wound that was supposed to have killed him was the stab in his back that cut his abdominal aorta, which carries blood from the heart to the lower torso and extremities. If that had been the death wound, Goldman’s pleural (chest) cavity would have filled up with much of the blood in his system until he weakened and the heart stopped pumping. About a half cup of blood or the amount that drained from his heart, was found in his chest cavity. In short, that wound, like Nicole Simpson’s throat wound, had been delivered after his death.

Goldman’s body was found in a sitting position, slumped against a tree stump. Someone would have had to have lifted up the dead Goldman in order to deliver the back wound, and then place him against the tree stump.

Goldman, like Nicole, also had a wound on the side of the neck that punctured his carotid artery.

Neither of the victims’ wounds on the sides of their necks, the only wounds which could have killed them, would have produced death immediately. The victims could have continued to struggle, could have moved, could have vocalized shouts of help, with the fatal wound at the side of their necks.

Even if both victims had immediately gone into shock, it would have taken time for them to bleed to death, somewhere from five to ten minutes. This would require the killer to wait around the crime scene of his double homicide for precious minutes until both victims had bled to death, and then deliver ghastly but meaningless wounds to the dead bodies.

The autopsies do not make sense in the context of the crime scene, and they do not fit the prosecution’s theory of the case or any imagined theory of a double homicide. Killers in the middle of Los Angeles do not stand around a crime scene for ten minutes waiting for people to bleed to death in order to inflict meaningless wounds. They don’t lift up a dead body to stab it in the back. Certainly not if they have to catch a limo to the airport.

This had to have been evident to the coroner when the bodies were first examined.

Dr. Irwin Golden, the coroner who examined the two victims, was nervous when he testified at a pre-trial hearing. By the time of the trial the prosecution replaced him with another doctor in the coroner’s office.

The wounds not only make the prosecution’s theory of the case impossible, it also raises questions about how the victims actually died, how the crime scene evidence may have been tampered with and why the prosecution did not pursue a case based on the autopsy results and what really happened on June 12, 1994.

–

Great, Watson, how did Simpson kill both victims? What wounds killed them? Why did he wait until they were dead and bled out, probably another ten minutes, until he gave the two corpses additional wounds? How did all the blood above Goldman’s back wound get out of his body before he was stabbed there?

We agree that there were evidentiary problems.

++

Southern Quaker wrote: I’m not sure that the presumed guilt of Simpson had as much to do with black stereotypes as it did with his well-docmumented history of domestic abuse.

–

I cannot with certainty say that Simpson never abused his ex-wife, but reading Detective Edwards’ testimony reveals a rather curious thing. According to Edwards, both Nicole and OJ separately and independently told him that police had come to the house eight (8) times before and didn’t do anything. Since both had come home from a New Years party and both were agitated (and probably intoxicated), it’s surprising that both Nicole and OJ remembered the exact number of times that police had come over for domestic abuse incidents and had not reported them. People who are upset tend to exaggerate. People who beat up their spouses neither remember nor volunteer the exact number of times police come to investigate spousal abuse. Edwards’ testimony sounds a little phony to me.

Another bit of curiousness in Edwards’ testimony is that after Nicole allegedly told him that OJ had a gun collection and was going to shoot her Edwards allowed Simpson to reenter his house. Now that’s a bad cop.

Farrell, his commander at the time, admitted under cross that when he asked at a police standup if anyone else had been called for a domestic dispute, only one cop came forward–any guesses? I’ll give you a hint. He perjured himself at the Simpson trial.

Repack Rider, you would recall that, right?

++

Oliver wrote: Not that I want to wade into these waters much, but OJ Simpson’s blood was all over the place and to this day he can’t consistently explain where he got that cut on his hand or why he mysteriously went to Chicago all of a sudden. OJ killed those two people.
–
Oliver, you didn’t hear Barry Scheck’s summary. He explained it. Which blood? The blood on the swabs that were wet 24 hours later when they were packed to send to the lab? Or the blood on his socks that wasn’t on the socks the day they were recovered? Well, that was the victims’ blood, but the quarter-sized stain on the sock which leaked over to the inside of the other side of the sock didn’t appear until the socks had been examined three times. There was the blood in the Bronco, which people (including a cop) testified wasn’t there in the days after the Bronco was impounded but was collected a month and a half after the crime.

++

But all of you have read the link now, so you guys can explain how come Goldman didn’t bleed internally after he was stabbed in the back and his artery was cut, and you can all explain why Nicole wasn’t breathing or bleeding when her throat was cut. I’m waiting for anyone’s explanation.

Funny, coming from someone whose ilk called and calls people who question their lack of foreign policy skills “terrorists” or “terrorist appeasers”.

Don’t agree with the level of funding for SCHIP? It’s because you WANT children to get sick and die or at the very least, don’t care.

Evidence seems to suggest that this may be true.

You don’t live that far from me. I’m in Marin County.

If you wish to start a discussion of the OJ Simpson trial, start it in O-Dub’s forum area.

I am as expert as a layman can be on the case, listened to every day of the trial and had at one time collected all the transcripts on floppy disks (back in the day).

OJ did it.

I mean, is copy and paste all you people can do? Can’t you think on your own?

In addition, Thomas does not believe that students possess any right to free speech in public schools, a view he expressed in his concurrence in Morse v. Frederick.

I wonder what Wikipedia idiot wrote this because I continue to be amazed by the sheer stupidity of those that claim a justice ‘believes’ something based on how they ruled on a case. Thomas never said, “I don’t believe students possess any right to free speech in public schools.” In his concurrence he wrote that the US Constitution does not afford students the right to free speech in public schools. To those with a CLUE, that is a BIG difference.

Jay:
….First of all, Thomas IS villified because he is a black conservative….

Thomas is vilified for some of his appalling decisions . It’s as if the man never heard of the American Constitution.

…He has advocated the reversal of Roe v. Wade, joining the dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and writing the concurrence in Gonzales v. Carhart…Thomas consistently supports a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and supports limits on the power of federal government in favor of states’ rights….Thomas takes a narrow view of the substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution on the use of capital punishment; he was among the dissenters in both Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, which held that the Constitution prohibited the application of the death penalty to certain classes of persons….. In addition, Thomas does not believe that students possess any right to free speech in public schools, a view he expressed in his concurrence in Morse v. Frederick. In that case, he argued that the precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines should be overruled….Thomas has a favorable view toward the power of the executive branch. He was the only justice that agreed all arguments of the Bush administration in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. He also dissented in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case involving Guantanamo detainees…..

It’s one thing to be conservative, it’s quite another to be an authoritarian tool.