jack
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 15:59:15 GMT -6
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 13:17:45 GMT -6
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 12:47:05 GMT -6
I think OJ did it. When I saw the prosecution team (Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden) I knew the case was rigged to fail. Both of those clowns were either buffoons or very good actors portraying buffoons. Judge Ito was the cherry on the cake. Here is a youtube video where some guy claims OJ's son killed Brown and Goldman. I am not presenting this as evidence that OJ did not do it, since I think he did do it. It is just someone else's claim - probably to sell a book. But I am open to other views if later on there is real evidence that proves OJ is innocent. It reminds me of all the claims of people who know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Darden and Clark are most definitely buffoons but so what. They were buffoons before the OJ trial and after the OJ Trial. The fact is there is no evidence that Simpson slasher murdered those two people. In fact I say the trial and all the massive media was the means used to cover up for the real killers of the Manson/Hollywood variety. If you recall Simpson was acquitted in less that 4 hours. The jurors who were not subjected to the media barrage said "the prosecutions mountain of evidence turned out to be a mountain of nothing". Smart woman and the best description of the Simpson case. . |
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 12:42:27 GMT -6
Stories. Stories. Stories. You do know OJ spent millions upon millions upon millions on his defense. Right? That kind of money pays for a lot of stories. Funny thing is, it didn't pay for one, single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE. Funny, you know? Not funny, like, the Italian Army. Funny, like, "nobody" knew Jimmy Saville and Bill Cosby were serial rapists. A lot of money got spread around by those guys and their handlers, too. All the Michael Jackson victims got paid off. Nobody disputes that. I'm not denying there are a million stories being told. I'm only asking for one, single, solitary shred of evidence that backs just one of them up. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, don't you think it's suspicious that the police don't have one single, solitary shred of evidence that my client is innocent?" Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. And yes, LAPD and the DA's office, et al, shot THEMSELVES in the foot 10,000 times. I know. I watched them do it, day after day after day after day. Funny, that. If they were out to "frame" OJ, then why did THEY spend a million man-hours undermining their own frame? I'll admit, if I were on the jury, I might not have voted "guilty," just on the principle of "You gotta be a whole lot less sloppy than this, people." But that doesn't mean I've seen one single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE that ANYONE else committed, or even helped commit, these two murders. On the OTHER hand, claiming that a fingerprint found at the Tate house proves Tex Watson murdered Leno LaBianca...See the difference? Not just "you," Jack. Everyone? See the difference? Because that's what THIS whole, entire shebang is about. It's not about retelling the same old ghost stories. It's about looking for EVIDENCE that ANY of them are true. We have some, in some cases. But not JFK, and not OJ. I'll be the first person to publicize said evidence, IF it's ever found. There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Oswald "didn't" shoot JFK. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that he DID shoot JFK is all "fake." There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Darlie Routier did not murder her own children. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that she DID kill her kids is all "fake." Great, great, GREAT stories. But stories that don't lead us to EVIDENCE are completely and entirely useless to me, this website, and The Stones Unturned Podcast. Except to use as examples of how NOT to "reinvestigate" a case. Hearsay, no matter WHO says it, is not evidence of anything. It might be a LEAD to evidence, but it's not evidence. And not one of these stories about JFK or OJ has ever led to any actual evidence. And unlike the Manson blah, blah, blah, I don't see much reason to waste a lot of time looking for it, for the simple procedural reason that THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OSWALD AND OJ AND ROUTIER ARE GUILTY. But Manson, Berkowitz, Steve Crawford, these guys have been convicted, etc, on what turns out to be NO (or almost no) evidence. THOSE are the cases that ARE turning up the REAL evidence. And even more specifically, the authorities DID have all this "undiscovered" evidence, all along. And then lied about it. And even more importantly, I--the one with his legal neck stuck out--can PROVE they had it all along, AND lied about it. PS I hate to burst your bubble, but OJ's OWN LAWYER Neufeld claimed, in the actual trial, "that Mazzola had mishandled that evidence by questioning her about her statement that she did not see anything wrong with the glasses at the time that she collected the bloody envelope from the crime scene. In fact, he said, the glasses were missing at least one lens at the time, and Neufeld suggested that Mazzola had overlooked that obvious fact." So, OJ's own lawyer claimed the lens was "missing" BEFORE LPAD removed the glasses from the scene, let alone were back "at the facility." I guess he lied about that? Because, according to the DEFENSE, someone at the scene had to "know" that that "bloody lens" would "exonerate" OJ, and swiped it. That person never turned it over to OJ's lawyer, or anyone else, for love, or money. That's too bad, because THAT might be "evidence." Of SOMETHING. By all means, try again. That's what this whole shebang is all about. It's not a story. Witness testimony revealed that unauthorized personnel were allowed into the Simpson Bronco on more than one occasion. Now that can be perjury but it was stated under oath at trial. As far as the missing glasses lens there is an official LAPD picture of it that clearly shows a fingerprint smear; and according to Barry Sheck (in court) the defense didnt find out about blood smeared lens until February 1995 and by then it was gone so they couldn't examine it. By the way Sheck and Nufeld gave a great interview to Charlie Rose in 1996. Charlie still as bamboozled as the rest of those brainwashed by the media just cannot get past his irrational belief that Simpson was the killer. I saw the LAPD picture of fingerprint smeared lens; so they did take it from the crime scene and booked it as evidence. I could find it again in one of these Barry Sheck (sp?) witness examinations youtube videos. The LAPD never denied losing the evidence(bloody fingerprint/lens) so whatever you are talking about doesnt connect with the known facts. |
|
|
|
Post by sierra on Dec 1, 2020 12:08:06 GMT -6
I think OJ did it.
When I saw the prosecution team (Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden) I knew the case was rigged to fail. Both of those clowns were either buffoons or very good actors portraying buffoons. Judge Ito was the cherry on the cake.
Here is a youtube video where some guy claims OJ's son killed Brown and Goldman.
I am not presenting this as evidence that OJ did not do it, since I think he did do it. It is just someone else's claim - probably to sell a book. But I am open to other views if later on there is real evidence that proves OJ is innocent. It reminds me of all the claims of people who know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 1, 2020 10:39:47 GMT -6
When I lived there in the 80s, Los Feliz was supposedly home to several of the reputed "Vampires of Hollywood." I did know people who told me, "NEVER go to a party in that neighborhood." The same people who told me--this was way back in the mid-80s, mind you--"STAY AWAY from those two Weinstein brothers."
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 1, 2020 10:32:03 GMT -6
"Tom you say Sharon was a honey pot for her father over in Europe." Nooooooo, I don't. I say, I have a hunch--nothing more--that THAT's the reason she was dating aaaaall those Middle Eastern princes who were taking her in her skimpy disco outifts to all those sinful nightclubs were alcohol--forbidden by the Koran--was served. As photographed in living color by that Middle Eastern MI5 asset and official Sharon Tate photographer, Sharokh Hatami. Photographs that could and would have been held over the heads of those rich Arab boys and their fathers back home in Talibanistan. And the fact that Sharon's father's JOB was digging up exactly that kind of leverage to use on those rich princes and their fathers is just a coincidence. As is the coincidence that, in real life, as opposed to claims they made after her death, Sharon's parents, including her own beauty queen mother, ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED AND STAGE-MOTHERED Sharon's beauty queen career. I mean, just because it was Colonel Paul Tate's JOB in military intelligence to pimp out his own daughter to collect dirt on powerful Arab princes doesn't prove that's how all those princes MET Colonel Tate's lovely and charming sex symbol "actress" daughter. It's just a hunch.
That's all. Just a hunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 1, 2020 10:14:59 GMT -6
Stories. Stories. Stories. You do know OJ spent millions upon millions upon millions on his defense. Right? That kind of money pays for a lot of stories. Funny thing is, it didn't pay for one, single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE. Funny, you know? Not funny, like, the Italian Army. Funny, like, "nobody" knew Jimmy Saville and Bill Cosby were serial rapists. A lot of money got spread around by those guys and their handlers, too. All the Michael Jackson victims got paid off. Nobody disputes that.
I'm not denying there are a million stories being told. I'm only asking for one, single, solitary shred of evidence that backs just one of them up. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, don't you think it's suspicious that the police don't have one single, solitary shred of evidence that my client is innocent?" Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah.
And yes, LAPD and the DA's office, et al, shot THEMSELVES in the foot 10,000 times. I know. I watched them do it, day after day after day after day. Funny, that. If they were out to "frame" OJ, then why did THEY spend a million man-hours undermining their own frame? I'll admit, if I were on the jury, I might not have voted "guilty," just on the principle of "You gotta be a whole lot less sloppy than this, people." But that doesn't mean I've seen one single, solitary shred of EVIDENCE that ANYONE else committed, or even helped commit, these two murders.
On the OTHER hand, claiming that a fingerprint found at the Tate house proves Tex Watson murdered Leno LaBianca...See the difference? Not just "you," Jack. Everyone? See the difference? Because that's what THIS whole, entire shebang is about. It's not about retelling the same old ghost stories. It's about looking for EVIDENCE that ANY of them are true. We have some, in some cases. But not JFK, and not OJ. I'll be the first person to publicize said evidence, IF it's ever found.
There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Oswald "didn't" shoot JFK. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that he DID shoot JFK is all "fake." There is a truckload of imaginary "evidence" that "proves" Darlie Routier did not murder her own children. And all this imaginary evidence somehow proves--well it WOULD prove, IF anyone could actually SEE it--the real evidence that she DID kill her kids is all "fake."
Great, great, GREAT stories. But stories that don't lead us to EVIDENCE are completely and entirely useless to me, this website, and The Stones Unturned Podcast. Except to use as examples of how NOT to "reinvestigate" a case. Hearsay, no matter WHO says it, is not evidence of anything. It might be a LEAD to evidence, but it's not evidence. And not one of these stories about JFK or OJ has ever led to any actual evidence. And unlike the Manson blah, blah, blah, I don't see much reason to waste a lot of time looking for it, for the simple procedural reason that THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OSWALD AND OJ AND ROUTIER ARE GUILTY. But Manson, Berkowitz, Steve Crawford, these guys have been convicted, etc, on what turns out to be NO (or almost no) evidence. THOSE are the cases that ARE turning up the REAL evidence. And even more specifically, the authorities DID have all this "undiscovered" evidence, all along. And then lied about it. And even more importantly, I--the one with his legal neck stuck out--can PROVE they had it all along, AND lied about it.
PS I hate to burst your bubble, but OJ's OWN LAWYER Neufeld claimed, in the actual trial, "that Mazzola had mishandled that evidence by questioning her about her statement that she did not see anything wrong with the glasses at the time that she collected the bloody envelope from the crime scene. In fact, he said, the glasses were missing at least one lens at the time, and Neufeld suggested that Mazzola had overlooked that obvious fact." So, OJ's own lawyer claimed the lens was "missing" BEFORE LPAD removed the glasses from the scene, let alone were back "at the facility." I guess he lied about that? Because, according to the DEFENSE, someone at the scene had to "know" that that "bloody lens" would "exonerate" OJ, and swiped it. That person never turned it over to OJ's lawyer, or anyone else, for love, or money. That's too bad, because THAT might be "evidence." Of SOMETHING.
By all means, try again. That's what this whole shebang is all about.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 8:09:07 GMT -6
Furthermore: This was interesting. The testimony in court was the impound lot allowed people to go into the Bronco repeatedly without ever signing in.
The security of LAPD storage and labs was also brought under scrutiny when it was discovered that some pieces of evidence had been accessed and altered by unauthorized personnel. Simpson’s Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized personnel while in the impound yard; Nicole Simpson’s mother’s glasses had a lens go missing while it was in the LAPD facility.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by jack on Dec 1, 2020 8:05:07 GMT -6
Why can't I make people understand what I'm trying to do? Shapiro making CLAIMS about "evidence" that LAPD "suppressed," like "two murder weapons," that are NOT supported by ACTUAL documents or photos, etc from the files of LA county authorities, are what I'm trying to get people to stop clinging to. How the fuck is he any different from Rothstein claiming he's seen aaaaaaaalllllllll these secret files" that no one else can see? Why can't you see the difference between this kind of unsubstantiated horseshit, and our ability to compare the "case" presented to the jury in the Hinman murder, and how it is contradicted by the prosecution's OWN FILES? "Somebody in LAPD told me..." Why can't some people get it through their thick skulls that that is NOT evidence of ANYTHING? There is a REASON why hearsay like that is not admissible as EVIDENCE. THIS is the reason. "I saw all this evidence. I can't show it to you. I have a million excuses for not showing it to you. But, if you don't believe me, you're a sheeple." Blah, blah, blah. Yeah. Everybody and their dog tries to cash in with this unsubstantiated horseshit. That doesn't make ANY of it "evidence." Understand? I don't care if I hurt your feelings. I care about whether or not you have evidence of something. You, and everybody else. That is not what Shapiro said in this 2005 Fox interview. What he said was the prosecution was wedded to single knife single killer scenario. Then he added it was their (defense) contention that there was more than one weapon (a "possibility" confirmed by Dr. Golden in the pre trial hearing) and more than one killer. During the trial Golden was replaced by his boss as the states witness,making Golden's boss a hearsay witness as he never conducted the autopsies. See I have no idea why the defense allowed him to take the stand and testify. By the way there was a blood smeared eye glass lens from Judytha Brown's glasses that could have led to clarity or proof as to who's bloody print was on the lens but the property room at LAPD lost the evidence. So when you discuss evidence and proof you should know this story. It was always my thinking that there had to be two killers once I learned that Simpson didnt hire someone to shoot his ex wife but it was actually claimed he came and killed her and a 26 year old male in hand to hand combat. By the way Shapiro can express his opinion anytime he wants as the case is 25 years past and he's not in court . And for further clarity the defense never claimed the prosecution was suppressing evidence. They always claimed the prosecution failed to meet their obligation beyond a reasonable doubt and I agree. |
|
hope
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by hope on Nov 30, 2020 21:58:00 GMT -6
I second that. We know all about Iran Contra & the Maricopa County sheriff's department, but what does that have to do with Keddie? What's more likely, they were involved in such activities & every member of every department of law enforcement was corrupt? Or they were a small town police department in over their heads dealing with a bunch of contradictory statements from family & friends and fingers pointing to suspects in every direction? If PSCO of the 80's were corrupt then what's the excuse for every PCSO department afterwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnreno on Nov 30, 2020 17:50:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Nov 30, 2020 17:10:47 GMT -6
Omega,
What you have stated sounds about right. My intuition tells me not to believe much of what Markham says. You never know where a piece of info will lead.
Charlie ran dope. There are many things you aren't going to find proof of in this case. But you add up many things and one is lead to certain conclusions.
An example of what I am saying. Tom you say Sharon was a honey pot for her father over in Europe. Where is any of that proof? I'm not trying to get into a pissing match.
One can collect facts and try and make deductions.
M.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 30, 2020 12:40:51 GMT -6
It's also possible that "people" are/were referring to Jay's SECRETARY, who was constantly being kidnapped, robbed, etc. It should also be noted that all of these "people" are just assuming "drug deal gone wrong." Based on other assumptions about the victims. The police assumed it. There just isn't one single solitary shred of evidence for it. Beyond what we know about TEX trying to rip off drug dealers.
I'll say it again--there is only ONE person we know who profited from the Tate house massacre--Jim Markham. We also know that Rosemary LaBianca's kids inherited a nice chunk of change after the LaBianca house massacre. There is zero evidence that the LaBiancas were doing ANY drug deals, of ANY kind, but an encyclopedia of instances where they were ripping off the mafia for a LOT of money.
Who profited from the death of Gary Hinman? Nobody we know of. Bobby B claimed some motorcycle gang wanted some money back on a batch of mescaline, but Bobby's claim that Gary had a "drug lab in the basement" is flat contradicted by the evidence. So the rest of his story is probably bullshit, too. Who profited from the death of Shorty Shea? Besides, maybe, his widow? Who profited from the death of Zero? Nobody.
At least three people who DEFINITELY knew Charles Manson ended up dead, with no apparent benefit to anybody (except, Bill Vance is arrested in possession of Shea's personal belongings.) And those people can also be said to have known Bill Vance, who, unlike Charlie, was definitely present for at least ONE of those violent deaths. Seven people who have never been proven to "know" Manson in any capacity ended up dead, to the eye-popping profit of people they DID know. (Yes, the seven victims can proven to know people who knew people who knew Manson, but that's not the same thing.)
See what I mean? And for 50 years, it's been "Tate/LaBianca murders...Tate/LaBianca murders...Tate/LaBianca murders..." Never "Hinman/Sebring/Frykowski/Parent/Folger/Tate/Labiancas/Shea/Haught murders." The two famous "Manson" murders are the ones that no one can find any evidence of a motive, let alone a connection between the victims and Manson.
And I'll say it again--there has never been ANY evidence of ANY kind that Charles Manson EVER dealt drugs his entire life. Period.
|
|
Omega
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by Omega on Nov 30, 2020 11:53:38 GMT -6
I think Sperl was referring to Markham, but he mistakenly thinks Markham confirmed the rumors, that were swirling around for years, that Jay was Hollywood's "Candyman". Markham was doing some consulting for Tarantino's film "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" and was doing interviews around the time of its release in the summer of 2019. From "The Hollywood Reporter" article/interview with Markham is the following: "Though Markham is reluctant to denigrate the memory of Sebring, who was his mentor and after whom he named his son, he claims that the late hairdresser knew Manson and suggests that the murders were the result of a drug deal gone bad — an account that aligns with a once-popular explanation that fell out of favor as the Helter Skelter narrative became dominant. Back in 1969, Sebring was nicknamed The Candyman and was said to have used his salon to peddle drugs to the stars.
"I don't want to get into the drugs, but I never bought into the race war theory. I believe Manson had gone up to the house" — Polanski was away shooting a movie — "and Manson wanted to sell cocaine and marijuana," he says. "He showed Jay and Wojciech the product. They were going to buy some of it, but the two of them beat him up at the gate. The next night, Manson sent the Family up [to kill them]." Markham adds, "I've lived with that for 50 years. I still believe that."
Markham didn't use "The Candyman" reference in the article. "THR" added it. He was actually alluding to Jay being a buyer than a seller.
|
|
