|
Post by Admin Horan on Oct 29, 2020 8:23:29 GMT -6
From Jack Johnson: Here's a link to a "how to use strategy" in backgammon by Gabby Horowitz and Bruce Roman. Now Marcia's first husband (Gabby) was said to be an Israeli Intelligence Officer and a backgammon "cheat. He would teach old school Hollywood stars like Lucille Ball how to play backgammon. When Marcia divorced him to marry high ranking Scientologist it was Bruce Roman that married Marcia Horowitz and Gordon Clark. Later Bruce Roman would shoot Gabby Horowitz in the head with the same caliber hand gun used by Son of Sam killer (s). www.bkgm.com/books/HorowitzRoman-DynamicCubeStrategy.html Here are some more connections to the Simpson case and Scientology/ Charles Manson 1. Marcia Clark lead prosecutor was Scientology 2. Accused OJ Simpson had been a log time member of Scientology 3. Talking head Greta Van Sustren (and her lawyer husband) were both exceedingly high ranking elders of the Church of Scientology. Now Manson connections 1. Lead talking head cheerleading the narrative that Simpson was guilty (in very dubious circumstantial case) Vince Bugliousi was the lead prosecutor in the Manson case. 2. Ira Reiner another former Los Angeles DA was a Leslie Van Houtons defense attorney and he was described by the New York Times on March 23, 1970 as being a "FRIEND OF CHARLES MANSON". Reiner was also a media pundit selling the Simpson is guilty narrative. As LA District Attorney Reiner would shut down the Mc Martin Pre school case, the satanic, child rapist case involving hundreds of children victims. Reiner would also exert his influence in the Hillside Strangler case in the early 1980'. 3. LAPD homicide detective Phil Van Atter(sp?) who carried Simpson's blood in a vile to the Rockingham estate had arrested Sharon Tates (Manson victim) husband Roman Polansky in 1977 and later the two men became friends. 4. Charles Groden who's little watched talk show on MSNBC never got ratings until his promotion of the Simpson case and his hatred of OJ Simpson. Little know but Groden portrayed the role of a doctor in the 1968 Robert Evans/ Roman Polansky satanic thriller Rosemary's baby. 5. Charles Manson was first introduced to the Church of Scientology in the 1950's. 6. Paula Barbieri who was Simpson's girlfriend at the time of the murders of Nicole and Ron was also dating Cotton Club Murder case standout Robert Evans. Evans was linked to the satanic killing of Roy Radin but his crack lawyer Robert Shapiro kept him from being indicted in the case as a co conspirator.
The OJ Simpson case is not what it appears to be. There are so many connection of the players that either prosecuted Simpson or were part of the nightly brainwashing around the case (media) to Scientology and Charles Manson it isn't even funny.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Nov 9, 2020 9:01:19 GMT -6
Look at this March 23, 1970 UPI news report. It states clearly that then private lawyer Ira Reiner (he will become District Attorney for Los Angeles) is a friend of Charles Manson.
Monday, March 23rd, 1970 1 LOS ANGELES, Mar. 23 – As the Sharon Tate murder case moved slowly toward trial last week, the prosecution gained a new star witness and Charles Manson gained a new lawyer — who has never tried a case.
Manson, the leader of a nomadic band of young people accused of killing Miss Tate and six others, fired his court-appointed attorney and hired Ronald Hughes, a bearded man of 35 who passed the bar only last June.
The district attorney’s office, meanwhile, was moving to counteract Manson’s maneuvers to unhinge the case they have been constructing against him and four of his “family” members.
A fifth follower accused in the killings, Charles Watson, is still fighting extradition from Texas and probably will be tried separately. Manson and the four followers—Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel—are scheduled for trial on April 20.
As pieced together from several sources who wish to remain anonymous, here are the recent developments in the celebrated murder case.
The family members were indicted by a grand jury last fall mainly on testimony given by Miss Atkins, who also published a first-person article describing the grisly murders.
Shortly thereafter, Manson began exerting what is apparently a tremendous hold over his followers. His strategy was to gather all the family members under a common defense so none of them would testify against each other.
First, Miss Van Houten dismissed her court-appointed lawyer and selected Ira Reiner, a friend of Manson’s. Then Miss Krenwinkel suddenly stopped fighting extradition from Alabama and agreed to return to Los Angeles to face trial.
“It was incredible,” said a person close to the case. “Manson got Krenwinkel back with one phone call.”
Last month, Miss Atkins met with Manson. Within days she fired her attorney, Richard Caballero, and announced that she would repudiate her grand-jury testimony and refuse to take the stand at the trial.
Manson acted as his own attorney for several months until the court declared him incompetent to do so and appointed Charles Hollopeter to represent him. But Manson fired Hollopeter last week when the lawyer suggested that his client take a psychiatric examination; at that point Manson appointed Hughes, an old friend.
The district attorney’s office was reportedly very concerned about these developments. They have some physical evidence, such as fingerprints and a gun believed to be the murder weapon. But they would have a much better case, particularly against Manson, if they had first-hand testimony.
According to Miss Atkins’ public statements, Manson instructed his followers to kill the occupants of the house rented by Miss Tate, but never appeared on the scene
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Nov 9, 2020 9:13:04 GMT -6
In Y2003 there was a case against LAPD officer Kelly Chrisman who allegedly tapped into LAPD computer and sold private information on Hollywood stars. His girlfriend at the time Cyndy Garvey sued him. Cyndy had been married to LA Dodger star first baseman Steve Garvey. Cyndy Garvey once said "the biggest cocaine dealers in Hollywood during the 1980's was OJ Simpson, Steve Garvey and Bruce Jenner. In this case Chrisman the officer charged is being defended by that knot head attorney Chris Darden.
Paparazzi-shy celebs have one more reason to worry they're being watched.
A Los Angeles police officer allegedly used department computers to look up confidential info on high-profile residents like Jennifer Aniston, Meg Ryan, Drew Barrymore and Halle Berry, reports the Los Angeles Times.
The cop claims he was just following orders, but a lawsuit recently settled by the city of Angels for $400,000 suggests that the man in blue was tapping into the personal info to sell celebrity tidbits to the tabloids.
Now, city officials are taking stock of their potential legal responsibility, and the LAPD is investigating if Officer Kelly Chrisman's computer searches were conducted for profit.
Chrisman allegedly pulled up law-enforcement records on hundreds of people from 1994 to 2000, including Courteney Cox Arquette, Sean Penn, O.J. Simpson, Kobe Bryant, Larry King, Pamela Anderson, Lara Flynn Boyle, Farrah Fawcett and Cindy Crawford.
Chrisman admits he pulled the files from the police database, sometimes from his patrol-car computer and other times from a desktop terminal at his Westside station, but he says the research was all part of a project assigned to him by department brass to track and maintain a map of celebrity residences in L.A.'s tony Westside. However, the LAPD denies the project existed and has filed misconduct charges against Chrisman, which could get the officer kicked off the force.
Chrisman, 34, has denied any allegations of misconduct.
Citing the ongoing investigation, an LAPD spokesperson said the department would "not comment at this time."
The peeping-for-pay accusations were exposed in a lawsuit filed by the officer's former girlfriend Cyndy Truhan, ex-wife of former Dodgers ball player Steve Garvey. Truhan accused Chrisman of tapping into LAPD computers to get the secret skinny on her and others and then selling the info to the tabs for a handsome profit.
While LAPD investigators failed to find a sufficient motive for the star-struck searches, according to officials quoted in the L.A. Times, unauthorized computer access goes against department regulations and doesn't require a motive. Meanwhile, city council members took the matter seriously enough to pay the $387,500 lawsuit, without admitting wrongdoing on the part of Chrisman or the LAPD, and ordered an inquiry into the city's liability for the allegedly illicit computer use.
In the meantime, Police Chief William J. Bratton has placed Chrisman on home duty (aka paid leave), while LAPD officials canceled his system password and blocked his access to confidential records after the investigation began.
However, Chrisman's attorney Christopher Darden, infamous co-prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, denies his client made any money off selling department secrets. "There's really nothing in those records to sell to tabloids," Darden told the L.A. Times. "He didn't do it. That's that."
The info Chrisman had access to that might make a gossip rag drool includes addresses of the rich and famous, criminal records, birth dates, driving records, vehicle registrations, Social Security numbers, restraining orders and the occasional unlisted phone number.
Given that we'd all like to get a peek at Halle Berry's driving record or to place Jennifer Aniston's digits on our speed dial, the data from the U.S. Department of Justice is regulated by federal and state laws as accessible by LAPD only for duty-related reasons. An online warning reminds users that a violation can result in criminal prosecution.
The LAPD learned of Chrisman's curious computer habits after Truhan alerted them in 2000 that her former boyfriend had used his position on the force to stalk her by tracking her new number and address. In the suit, Truhan also claimed that while the two were dating, Chrisman physically threatened her if she ever told anyone that he was moonlighting as a gossip maven for the National Enquirer.
According to sources quoted by the L.A. Times, Chrisman's phone records, pulled by the LAPD, show several calls placed to senior Enquirer reporter Cindy Solomon, who refused to comment on their relationship.
Calls to the National Enquirer were not returned.
Based on their findings, LAPD investigators tried to prosecute Chrisman in April 2001, but the district attorney's office declined to file charges, because the one-year statute of limitations had expired. Instead, Truhan's accusations sparked an internal-affairs investigation.
Chrisman's main defence to the disciplinary board is that he was acting on 1995 orders from department brass to create a computerized map pinpointing the VIPs living in the area he patroled, including celebs, CEOs, sports figures and other important people. Among those on Chrisman's cartography list: Sharon Stone, Dylan McDermott, Kim Delaney, Mickey Rourke, Dionne Warwick and Berry Gordy.
But an investigation found no evidence of the mapping project Chrisman claimed to be working on, and LAPD officials denied the tracking assignment.
"I don't understand why you were running these people," Captain James Rubert, head of the disciplinary board, was quoted as saying in the hearing transcripts. "You were in the police car? And you are running people that...aren't a threat to the community, aren't victims of crime, aren't asking for your assistance--going about their daily work like everybody else."
"I wanted to know who lived in my area," replied Chrisman, according to the transcripts. "If there is a potential problem, I could keep a list myself?and I did."
Currently under internal investigation for domestic violence against Truhan and misuse of LAPD computers, Chrisman's next hearing is slated for April 15.
|
|
|
Post by james1983 on Nov 9, 2020 9:47:05 GMT -6
Bill Mentzer was involved with all those people back in the 1980s
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Nov 10, 2020 5:21:53 GMT -6
It's amazing we cant get a answer to all these connections. One of the OJ Simpson key talking heads Greta Van Sustren (sp?) her husband also a lawyer by trade worked with JFK suspect Gordon Novell in the Waco case during the 1990's. In the early 1980's Novell worked with porno king Larry Flynt who employed Bill Mentzer and he killed Roy Radin in what became known as Cotton Club Murders. Bob Shapiro represented Producer Robert Evans to keep Evans from being prosecuted with the other conspirators. Robert Evans dated Simpson gal pal Paula Barbieri (sp?).
Simpson case was not about race, celebrity or any of the other nonsense. The Bundy killings in 1994 were done by the same Hollyweird interests involved in the Manson murders in 1969 and they had to cover it up. They also used it for mass brainwashing of the population. OJ became guilty in the minds of millions without a scintilla of evidence pointing to him as the killer.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 13, 2020 9:39:34 GMT -6
I'm confused. You're not saying OJ was INNOCENT, are you?
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Nov 28, 2020 5:50:17 GMT -6
I'm confused. You're not saying OJ was INNOCENT, are you? Yes he is innocent. If you think about just the murder weapon you would realize there was no way to keep that hidden from LAPD. According to the prosecution they claim to know where OJ was at the time of the slasher killings and then they know from the limo driver where OJ was at 10:54 pm. OJ was at his home Rockingham bringing his suit cases to the limo. So time of the murders minus 10:54 pm = the amount of time in minutes that Simpson had to kill, return home, clean up (and he did a really good job of this) hide the murder weapon (24 years later the murder weapon has not been found) and get into the limo for LAX. The prosecution claimed 10:30 pm as the time of the murder. The defense then paraded multiple witnesses including neighbors all claiming how quiet it was on Bundy and the Nichol home. So now the prosecutors pushed back the commencing of the killings to 10:35 pm (whatever it takes), so now they leave 19 minutes in total for OJ to do all they claimed he did. Now if you go back to the grand jury the defense interviewed a Dr. Golden who did the autopsy and they asked him if more than one knife could have been used in the killings and he responded "yes more than one knife could have been used". (As a side note I would vote to acquit before the trial). Now when the actual trial started Dr. Golden was replaced by his supervisor in what I would call (I am no lawyer) "hearsay" testimony because this doctor didnt perform the autopsies, his underling did. Anyway the cops have gloves, knit hat, bloody shoe prints but damn they dont have the murder weapon. How is that possible. To my mind they never claimed the victims were killed by gloves and/or a knit stocking hat. In my view had they introduced a murder weapon, OJ's team would have proven another knife was also used in the murder and "poof" they have a real problem. Now the prosecutions real problem was just to cover up. They dont really care about pinning the rap on Simpson they just want to kill the clock and obfuscate the facts of the crime. This 1994 double homicide was another Tate/ Labianca Hollyweird satanist killing and it's that fact that has effectively covered up all these years. That idiot Gil Garchette (sp?) was on the Rich Eisen podcast in 2018 promoting his book. Eisen brought up the big question that I always thought was critical, he asked Gil "Why dont you have the murder weapon" to which Gil snapped "We didn't need the murder weapon we have a murder trail from Bundy to Rockingham". So that's the reason for the blood vile the constant and unsuccessful attempt to prove Simpson owned the Ice-a-toner gloves etc. and the shoe print. This case was always handled by making people "assume" the answer as the prosecution provided a series of building blocks-- "we have bloody gloves with Simpson's blood, we have a bllod trail from here to there " so now you people figure out where this is going. But of you think it thru Professor if Simpson was the killer he would have had no time to get rid of the murder weapon. He has no time and no place to hide it where the cops wouldnt find it. And it's still floating around in "murder land" after 24 years in space. Professor here is that rat attorney Robert Shapiro speaking to Fox TV to hype up the TV show (where he is portrayed by another god darn Scientologist John Travolta) and at approximately the 1:55 minute mark he states what I had always thought had to be true. More than one murder weapon and more than one killer. Precisely the reason LAPD, Marsha and company conveniently have no murder weapon despite their assertion that they knew exactly where Simpson was from 10:35 pm to 10:54 pm. If that's true then the whole of the LAPD could have zeroed in on the murder weapon. I have also always believed that forcing Simpson to try on the gloves (something they could have done long prior to the trial) was "entrapment" although I am not a lawyer. But lets say youre placed in a line up for a rape and the rapist left behind a green jacket. Now the cops order you to wear the green jacket in the line up and the victim identifies you as her rapist. Don't you think even an idiot attorney could get the case tossed out juts based on this "entrapment"? Yet Simpson's high price legal team allowed him to try on the so called killers gloves. It hints to the overall fakery of this case on both sides. Even today Simpson allows outlets like TMZ to stage video's where it appears they came upon Simpson by accident when in fact Simpson and TMZ planned the interview. The founder of TMZ the little lawyer Harvey Levin was a pal of Shapiro and Shapiro leaked trial strategy to Levin and against his own client OJ Simpson. Go to 1:45 minute mark. This is likely the only truthful thing Shapiro has ever said about the Simpson case.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 28, 2020 10:02:03 GMT -6
Oh, please. The first, most important, and most obvious difference between OJ and say, Bobby Beausoleil is, in the "case" against Bobby B, the prosecution submitted NO evidence of any kind, except that Bobby was arrested sleeping in Hinman's car, and the fact they could prove he had been in Gary's house recently. But all that proves is, Bobby knew Gary, which everybody already knew. Beyond that, they presented "witnesses" whose testimony against Bobby is flat contradicted by the actual evidence.
In the OJ case, there is a mountain of evidence. Actual evidence. His blood found at the scene, corroborated by a fresh cut on his finger (the exact same kind of cut totally missing from the hands of Atkins, Watson, and Krenwinkel.) The victims' blood on HIS clothing, in HIS car, etc. His bloody shoeprints found at the scene. Damning testimony by several witnesses (the witness who say him driving away from the scene right after the murders was disqualified on a technicality.) And a WELL-documented, perfectly ordinary, everyday motive. The only "mystery" is, why it didn't happen sooner.
I know, I knoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwww, ALL the evidence against OJ (and Oswald) was completely and entirely "manufactured" by the LAPD and Marcia Clark blah, blah, blah. But even if such a thing were "true," that's COMPLETELY different from the "cases" we're focusing on.
Yeah, OJ's lawyers have told a lot of horseshit stories about how "innocent" their client is. That's not the same thing as convicting people like Bobby B and Berkowitz on no evidence of any kind. "Don't you think it's kind of fishy that ALL the evidence points DIRECTLY at my client?" No. I don't. But it's the only "defense" they could put up. Even after spending umpteen million dollars.
This website and podcast are NOT, not, not, not, NOT, about Bigfoot, UFOs, "microchips in vaccines," Lizard Alien People, the Bermuda Triangles, or just any and every kooky conspiracy theory. It's about reexaming REAL murder cases by looking at the REAL evidence, police reports, autopsy reports, etc. I have enough nuts to deal with as it is.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by jack on Nov 28, 2020 10:25:51 GMT -6
Oh, please. The first, most important, and most obvious difference between OJ and say, Bobby Beausoleil is, in the "case" against Bobby B, the prosecution submitted NO evidence of any kind, except that Bobby was arrested sleeping in Hinman's car, and the fact they could prove he had been in Gary's house recently. But all that proves is, Bobby knew Gary, which everybody already knew. Beyond that, they presented "witnesses" whose testimony against Bobby is flat contradicted by the actual evidence. In the OJ case, there is a mountain of evidence. Actual evidence. His blood found at the scene, corroborated by a fresh cut on his finger (the exact same kind of cut totally missing from the hands of Atkins, Watson, and Krenwinkel.) The victims' blood on HIS clothing, in HIS car, etc. His bloody shoeprints found at the scene. Damning testimony by several witnesses (the witness who say him driving away from the scene right after the murders was disqualified on a technicality.) And a WELL-documented, perfectly ordinary, everyday motive. The only "mystery" is, why it didn't happen sooner. I know, I knoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwww, ALL the evidence against OJ (and Oswald) was completely and entirely "manufactured" by the LAPD and Marcia Clark blah, blah, blah. But even if such a thing were "true," that's COMPLETELY different from the "cases" we're focusing on. Yeah, OJ's lawyers have told a lot of horseshit stories about how "innocent" their client is. That's not the same thing as convicting people like Bobby B and Berkowitz on no evidence of any kind. "Don't you think it's kind of fishy that ALL the evidence points DIRECTLY at my client?" No. I don't. But it's the only "defense" they could put up. Even after spending umpteen million dollars. This website and podcast are NOT, not, not, not, NOT, about Bigfoot, UFOs, "microchips in vaccines," Lizard Alien People, the Bermuda Triangles, or just any and every kooky conspiracy theory. It's about reexaming REAL murder cases by looking at the REAL evidence, police reports, autopsy reports, etc. I have enough nuts to deal with as it is. You asked me if I thought Simpson was innocent (I guess you have to ignore the acquittal by jury to even ask such a stupid question). Sorry I riled you up Professor but I thought you wanted an answer to your question. And everything you state as fact in the Simpson case was debunked right before your eyes during the long and boring trial.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 10:05:14 GMT -6
For the love of Mae Brussell. Where on earth do people get the idea that the prosecution tried to FRAME OJ? ?? They did EVERYTHING they could, and things they couldn't, to get him off. No one, NO ONE, sabotaged the trial in favor of OJ like Marcia Clark and half the LAPD forensics "experts." There was no "conspiracy" to "convict" OJ. There was a blatant conspiracy to get him off. And the ooooooooooooooooooooonly way to do that was sabotage their own case. And it was one of the most airtight cases I've ever seen. Every. Single. Fucking. Day, Marcia Clark would waltz into the courtroom an hour, sometimes TWO hours late, with some bullshit excuse about a sick kid, or whatever. The jury would be sitting there, the whole court would be sitting there, FUMING. Then, she'd show up just to ask for a continuance. Or some other delay. And "Judge" Ito would say, "Well, today's Thursday, and Monday's a holiday, so let's just adjourn until Tuesday." But the jury didn't get a 4-day weekend. They were locked up in that hotel for nine months with NOTHING to do. Nothing. They HATED her, hated Darden, and hated Ito with a blind, bloody passion. And that was NO accident. And then expert witness after expert witness got on the stand and shot themselves in the foot. They should have been FIRED for the "testimony" they gave. Not to mention the softballs they pitched to Cochrane day after day after day. If they were part of some massive conspiracy to "frame" (snicker) OJ, then why didn't ONE SINGLE SOLITARY ONE OF THEM do a half-competent job of it? Frame. Hilarious. The most expensive jury consultant in the country told Marcia Clark, "For the love of God and your own children, you do NOT want ANY black women on that jury if you can possibly help it." Clark told, "Thanks, but I know what I'm doing." So, she literally went across the street and went to work for OJ's lawyers. There was one black woman on the jury who make it clear she was never, ever going to vote "guilty." Marcia Clark never challenged for cause. And day after day, she would sit there in the jury box, watching the paint dry, or counting ceiling tiles. She never once looked at any of the physical evidence being presented. Not once. And Marcia Clark WANTED her on that jury. "Debunked." You mean "sandbagged." By the "prosecution's" own "experts." I wouldn't let Christopher Darden prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald. OJ Simpson was THE goose who laid ALL the golden eggs in those days. Dick Ebersol, the most powerful man in TV at that time, personally defended OJ to the last drop of orange juice. "Framed." You tickle me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 29, 2020 21:22:24 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.
|
|
|
Post by Omega on Nov 30, 2020 5:20:05 GMT -6
Sometimes, it reminds of........
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 30, 2020 9:23:56 GMT -6
Another point I'm trying to make is, I don't care (to a certain extent) whether OJ was "framed" or not. That's a completely different situation from, say, the "trial" of Bobby Beausoleil, where the PROSECUTION'S OWN FILES contradict the "case" the prosecution presented to the public, and the jury. The case against OJ presented to the public and the jury is NOT contradicted by the prosecution's own files. The crime scene techs say they found a sock on OJ's bedroom floor. There is a polaroid--not digital photograph, a polaroid--of that sock in situ. There are photos of tiny droplets of blood on that sock. A DNA lab says those blood drops match Nicole and Ron. Drops of blood sampled at the scene match OJ's DNA. There is a photo of a cut on OJ's finger a day or two after the murders, consistent with the kinds of accidental wounds stabbers give themselves (and are suspiciously lacking in the Manson Family.) And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
And that's what the prosecution showed the "jury." Just because OJ's high-priced celebrity lawyer told a "reporter" that he supposedly saw or heard about all this OTHER "evidence" that was NOT in the files, or that he was told, blah, blah, blah, does NOT prove, in any way, shape, or form, that such evidence ever existed. It is not different at all from Jim Rothstein's bullshit claims. And remember--OJ had NO OTHER DEFENSE. "I was framed!" The weakest excuse for a defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the prosecution spent nine months showing the jury--and remember, this was LIVE television, not a "secret" trial--a MOUNTAIN of proof. "It was aaaaalllllllll faked!" is a claim that has never been supported by one, single, solitary shred of evidence. Just belief.
I can--and have--SHOW you that the LAPD and DA office files, the witness statements, the autopsy reports, etc, CONTRADICT Bugliosi's case against the Manson Family. I can SHOW you the newspaper articles where Susan Atkins got her information--including WRONG information, like the window screen being "cut," or the victims being "hanged" from the ceiling. I can SHOW you the statement by Garretson, "verified" by polygraph, if that means jack shit, that "Patty Montgomery" visited 10050 Cielo Drive on multiple occasions in the recent past. I can SHOW you LAPD files that PROVE "Patty Montgomery" was a KNOWN alias of Patricia Krenwinkle. I can, thereby, PROVE that finding her fingerprints--NOT bloody fingerprints--in that house does NOT "prove" she was one of the MURDERERS. And that Bugliosi lies about all this at the trial. And to the press.
Is it hypothetically possible OJ was "framed?" Sure. It's hypothetically possible the Easter Bunny did it. But that is NOT the same thing as SHOWING me EVIDENCE that it happened. And hearsay, let alone hearsay from a 10,000 percent biased source, is NOT evidence. It might be a lead TO evidence. But after 25 years, I have yet to see one, single, solitary scrap of that "evidence." Just people busting a gut to believe something just because they want it to be true.
"But those files are ALL faked!" might be true. It's not, but even if it is, it's NOT the same thing as being able to PROVE that the "cases" against Bobby B and Charles Manson and David Berkowitz are PROVEN extensively false by the ACTUAL evidence in the actual files.
And I have to keep repeating over and over and over, I am NOT saying the Manson Family are "innocent." All I'm saying is, there is NO evidence they're guilty. And there IS evidence the prosecution LIED to the public, and to the jury.
I know people end up making huge emotional investments in their favorite conspiracy theories. I don't care. I care about nothing but EVIDENCE.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
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.
|
|
jack
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
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.
|
|