“Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.”
The explanation above comes from the comparative website Diffen.
The difference between the two, Subjective vs. Objective information, though generally assumed to be close, are as wide apart as the Atlantic Ocean that separates Europe from North America. The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example for explaining the bait and switch tactic that occurs involving subjective vs. objective information used to flim flam the public. Unbeknownst to many is that much of Simpson’s case as promulgated publicly is subjective information based upon fraudulent evidence. By the time the audience receives it from the news pundits, as well as what the news reporters received from so called official sources, subsequent examination has rendered much of it as being fraudulent information at the source. Furthermore, there has been a major break down in professional journalists doing their due diligence to determine its veracity.
Let us consider the infamous tale about the shoes that OJ Simpson was said to be wearing when he’s alleged to have killed his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Images of Simpson supposedly wearing the infamous Bruno Magli shoes began to show up just in time for the civil trial in 1997, after the photo negatives of them returned from a European destination allegedly noted for photo manipulation. However, I’ve momentarily digressed, since the story of the Bruno Magli shoes begins three years prior in 1994, when an FBI agent by the name of William Bodziak became involved in the Simpson murder investigation.
The shoe prints were claimed by the FBI agent, Bodziak, on the witness stand in 1995, to be made by an Italian manufactured shoe, called Bruno Magli from a metric size 46, which he claimed transferred to being a size 12 shoe in the US. By the time Bodziak appeared on the witness stand the minds of the public had already been massaged by the theory laid out by Vanity Fair author, Dominick Dunne, in an article he wrote. So, at this point, the public appeared ready to believe without question everything Bodziak would tell them about “shoe size”.
It appears to have dawned on Dunne, one evening upon attending an Opera based on the Shakespearean tragedy Othello, that O.J. Simpson had become the 20th century embodiment of the mythical 16th century Moorish Commander of the Mediterranean. Thus, by the time of the appearance of the FBI’s agent Bodziak the subliminal seeds of race had already been planted in the contemporary public’s mind. They already were being indoctrinated by the prosecution that the celebrity O.J. Simpson was the victim of his own jealous infatuation for his ex-wife. According to the prosecution’s theory he became fanatically enraged, stalked and killed her, the same as the celebrated General, Othello, did to his young Caucasian wife in Shakespear’s tragedy. The subliminal seeds of race, planted in the minds of the public, have always had good use albeit off times diabolical.
As said, Bodziak quickly arrived at the conclusion that the shoe prints were made by the Bruno Magli brand. However, the question needs to be explored beyond what was said, of how Bodziak knew specifically what shoes made those prints at the murder site on Bundy Drive?
He claims that he knew because the shoe prints were made by a unique pattern found on the shoe sole that was attached to the bottom of the shoe, which was made by another Italian company called SILGA. This unusual pattern came from SILGA’s U2887 size 46/size 12 rubber mold. As you may have seen in one of the past week’s cable programs on the Simpson case during this fall season, called OJ Speaks: The Hidden Tapes, a prominent theme that emerged were the expensive Bruno Magli shoes discovered by Bodziak’s 1994 investigation.
This becomes one of the subliminal definitive nails in the coffin, to show Simpson as the murderer, as they allege. The show’s principal lawyers, with Daniel Petrocelli in the lead, discuss Simpson wearing those shoes in the photos presented in his 1997 civil trial and has OJ walking on the playing field. The photos were allegedly placed in some unknown news letter to which no one we know has subscribed, or even knew existed. So now we are obligated to assume, without any further examination, that people are telling the truth that this is Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes because it is shown in a news letter publication allegedly from years prior. Unfortunately, it too comes under suspicion in light of some other evidence that the public has been mentally programmed to gloss over.
The Bruno Magli shoes have perennially been a prominent theme over the years. Since they were allegedly only one pair of a limited number, something like 299 pair imported by the North American distributor out of New Jersey. What Bodziak claimed connected those shoes to OJ Simpson was the similar size of some Reebok tennis shoes he was given by the police detectives Lange and Vannatter, in 1994. However, Bodziak found no shoes belonging to Simpson of the Bruno Magli brand. You would think, given the media exposure of the so called “trial of the century”, covered on TV and tabloids day and night for over a year, that Bodziak would put out a call to see who might have photos of Simpson in those famously named shoes. Instead he chose to gamble pompously that he did accurately know what brand it was that made those shoe prints at the murder site.
Fast forward to 1999, the FBI agent would get into the book selling business himself by republishing a revised edition of a 1981 college text book, Footwear Impression Evidence. In it he would state that the manufacturer of the shoe soles, SILGA, sold the same shoe soles it sold to Bruno Magli, to another company called LORD, who provided them to 20 shoe brand companies that it owned outside of Italy. The LORD logo on the bottom of shoes soles is found on several continents beyond Europe and North America. We must remember that the initial encounter of Bodziak with the identify of these shoe soles came from the data bank of the National Police Department of Japan, which is, if memory serves me, a part of the Asian continent.
The other problem that can be seen in the FBI agent’s hands above is the SILGA shoe sole has a raised heel that protects the mid area of the shoe in front of the heel from touching the ground. The manufacturer leaves an empty hole for the shoe company’s identity plug to be placed in that hole. Thus, due to the raised heel there was no way that the FBI agent, William Bodziak, could distinguish the Bruno Magli shoe brand from the other 20 shoe brands provided these same U2887 SILGA shoe soles.
Hence, in order for FBI Special Agent Bodziak to definitively make such a determination, required him taking on a gamble in which the odds of him making the correct determination was 20-to-1 against. It is our contention that no professional is going to place the esteem and integrity of their employer, the FBI, on the line based upon a bet where the odds are 20-to-1 that you could lose.
The FBI generally does not have a reputation for bringing flimsy indictments, and usually doesn’t show up in force without having a cinch bet that they have the correct evidence on the person they have targeted. However, by allowing Bodziak to appear in their name as an FBI agent in 1995 during the Simpson criminal trial, they in essence are obligated to stand behind whatever damage that may result, and that includes any misrepresentations associated with those mystery photos that just happen to show up in 1997 during the civil trial, to bolster Bodziak’s 20-to-1 toss of the dice. I suppose someone has got to win a lottery sometime, so I guess their response is that Bodziak just happened to be a lucky man; however, other investigators from OMIG are not in a hurry to buy Bodziak’s confident dice hand.
Without bothering to measure O.J.’s foot, Bodziak was comfortable making his case publicly in 1995 of putting Simpson’s foot in those alleged Bruno Magli shoes. When questioned by the prosecuting attorney as to why he had not simply measured the accurate dimensions of Simpson’s foot, Bodziak testified that he felt that such an accurate measurement would not reflect the actual choice of the size shoe a person chooses to wear. Thus, Bodziak appeared to be comfortably satisfied with comparing a tennis shoe that he claimed was “represented” to him by the LAPD detectives as being from O.J. Simpson’s closet, although his further request to verify Simpson’s shoe size by seeking a search warrant to go to his house and examine other shoes in his shoe closet was denied.
These two things have come back to haunt the credibility of Mr. Bodziak, as well as the integrity of the FBI. Independent Investigators from the OMIG group were examining the police photos of the crime scene over a decade ago and found bloody shoe prints that fit inside the side walk tiles at the Bundy murder site, within another six weeks they found the lead detective, Tom Lange, on the witness stand answering judge Ito’s questions about the side walk tile dimensions. Ito may well have seen the same thing, when Lange testified that the side walk tiles were eleven and a half inches square. A shoe fitting inside the tile of 11 and 1/2 inches would be potentially and average size man’s foot, but would generally not be a shoe that would fit a man the size of OJ Simpson. To reaffirm their preliminary findings the OMIG investigators would send off to the Italian manufacturer in the hope of securing a copy of those alleged size 12 shoe soles from SILGA. Ultimately, SILGA complied and satisfied OMIG’s request sending the U2887 shoe soles after OMIG paid the tariff fee in 2002.
Size, by the way, is an example of a subjective assumption which when presented in the manner that Bodziak did in open court opens people up for a flim flam, one not only the public bought into, but the press as well. People assume because they know their size, they know the exact dimensions of their feet, yet when questioned most do not. Size by itself is not a definitive or objective measure of the accuracy of a person’s foot, because within the same size designation, actual dimensions may very around the world where the English shoe measurement system is used. Thus, a size 12 in the UK is not necessarily a size 12 in the US, and thus the actual dimensional measurements are not the same. That has proven to be the case with the alleged Bruno Magli size 12 shoes with the U2887 SILGA sole attached.
As you can see in the above tracing in green of OJ Simpson’s foot, he provided to fulfill OMIG investigators’ requests, it is placed on top of the red lined tracing of the size 12 SILGA sole. The green foot of Simpson sits uncomfortably outside the red outlined perimeter of the shoe sole in several locations. With padding Simpsons toes would probably extend well beyond the tips of the shoes, besides being outside the perimeter on its sides. Thus, our conclusion is that the FBI agent Bodziak has made a major mistake in his failure to accurately measure OJ Simpson’s actual foot. I doubt that anyone would pay $200 for such an uncomfortable fit.
Certainly, as far as I’m concerned, not only would I not pay $200 dollars for a pair of uncomfortable shoes where my toes wanted to bust through the toes and arch of the shoe, there’s another reason I wouldn’t buy them. The Bruno Magli Lorenzo model was a suede shoe, and I would not purchase a suede shoe, especially an expensive suede shoe to wear out in the rain. The alleged date that you see Simpson sauntering along with a leisurely gait across the end zone at the NFL Buffalo Bills Rich stadium in Buffalo, New York was during week 4 of the NFL season, September 26, 1993. That is the date that the Bills and Miami Dolphins played their first rivalry game of the season. The questionable Harry Scull photos challenged sharply by Robert Groden, the 29 year journeyman photo expert in the Simpson 1996 civil trial, appear to show OJ walking in a pair of Lorenzo model Bruno Maglis on a bright sun shiny day. Even the people in the stands behind him appear to be casually enjoying a calm afternoon.
However, listen below to the first 40 seconds of the youtube clip and the introduction to the upcoming game by the late sportscaster, Dick Engberg. It appears that the day was a blustery one with 50- 60 MPH wind gusts and continuous rain for the past 24 hours. You see rain and wind in the stadium and a plethora of umbrellas and people wearing rain gear for their protection from the elements on that wind driven rainy Sunday afternoon, September 26, 1993.
I feel certain that if Simpson was aware of the weather forecast for the following day of the game he also probably heard his mother’s voice in his ear admonishing him not to be a fool and wear those suede shoes out in the rain especially with them being expensive suede shoes. Any African American mother that has had the luxury to purchase a pair of suede shoes knows that primary rule and will brow beat their child to remember it as well. So, it lends credibility to Simpson’s prior allegation that he “would not own a pair of those ugly ass shoes” certainly not to wear out in the rain on that day.
Whether he chose to own a pair of those expensive casual shoes or not, I’m quite confident that he would value them to the extent that he would not wear them out in the rain to ruin them. The FBI agent Bodziak who places Simpson in those shoes originally also has another major problem that should have told him to stand down rather than place the FBI’s reputation in jeopardy. While intending to determine further verification agent Bodziak was denied access to Simpson’s shoe closet, he should have said that the denial was unacceptable for an FBI agent to be prevented from conducting a thorough investigation. Furthermore, he should have noted, you are now forcing me to place the FBI’s credibility as a neutral arbiter on the line by granting the LAPD the privilege of presumption in regard to their own veracity. Shortly into the year 2000, the LAPD would come under scathing attack with the revelations of one of their own. A police officer from the anti-gang, Crash Unit, named Raphael Perez was trying to save his own hide, after stealing 8 pounds of cocaine from the property department, from going to prison. In fact, the movie training day would have the lead character played by Denzel Washington in the year 2001 built around the disgraced dope dealing cop Perez.
The only difference is that Perez pointed the finger at several officers involved in this level of corruption and the willingness of higher command officers to turn a blind eye. He told of the thousands of innocent men that corrupt members of the LAPD had planted evidence on to secure convictions in what would be dubbed “The Rampart Scandal”. In the case of Raphael Perez and his Rampart Crash Unit, Perez claimed they planted evidence on innocent victims to keep the federal money coming to the department that funded the unit.
Seems like we heard similar allegations in 1995 involving Officer Mark Fuhrman in the testimony of someone telling us how Fuhrman told them he engaged in such conduct of planting evidence to reinforce an arrest, particularly when it involved an interracial couple; something that Fuhrman is noted as detesting. The revelations of Perez, however, would ultimately result in the U.S. Justice Department taking over supervision of the LAPD and Los Angeles County’s Justice apparatus. However, this would be five years after Bodziak accepted the shoe evidence from LAPD officers given to him. Not only was Bodziak uncertain and concealing the fact that he could not know that the shoes that made the prints at the Bundy murder site were Bruno Magli, he could not even be certain of the chain of custody of the Reebok tennis shoes he was given for comparison by members of the LAPD.
He used the term, that they were “represented” to him as being Simpson’s shoes and though much of the public, and press missed the significance of his remark, that statement was not a glowing sense of confidence of what Bodziak actually knew for sure as it related to Simpson. Under cross examination the lead detective, Tom Lange, who allegedly received a pair of Reeboks from Simpson on the afternoon of June 13, 1994 did not turn the shoes into the police property department, as required, to be held as evidence upon its immediate acquisition.
Instead Det. Lange testified that he took the shoes home to his residence 50 miles outside of the city of Los Angeles to the now infamous Simi Valley, while bypassing several police precincts where he admittedly could have turned them in. He did not turn them in, in accordance with the rules of his own police department training manual, he simply ignored it by stating that “sometimes one is unable to follow the rules of the training manual”. However, this was a high profile trial, the very reason junior detectives like Mark Fuhrman were told to stand down and wait for the senior detectives arrival from LAPD’s downtown S.I.D. division. Fuhrman, by the way, crucifies both Detectives Lange and Vannatter, as incompetent investigators as well as other LAPD departments in his book, in what appears to be a deflection from his own malfeasance.
The truth is the lead Detective, Tom Lange, would never turn the Reebok tennis shoes in, in fact, he would testify that he turned them over the following day on June 14, 1994 to a police department employee, a criminalist named Greg Matheson. A criminalist is simply an employee of the police department and not a sworn officer of the court, and therefore not bound by oath, as a police officer would be. in February 1995, Lange could not testify on the witness stand as to an accurate date when the alleged Simpson Reebok tennis shoes were turned in to the LAPD property unit, and what exhibit number had been assigned to them. These tennis shoes became the basis of comparison in 1994 to the Bruno Magli shoes that the FBI agent Bodziak could not testify that Simpson had in 1995. These questionable photos of Simpson wearing the alleged Bruno Maglis would not show up until three years later, after the murders, and whose negatives had traveled half way around the world to a nation noted for photo manipulation, prior to arriving in 1997 for Simpson’s civil trial.
However, by now, Bodziak had attached the credibility of the FBI to this madness and the FBI has appeared to have remained silent about it, though Bodziak mysteriously retired from the FBI a short time after his civil trial testimony.
People wanting to believe in the honesty of these law enforcement agencies attempt to diminish the credibility of the largely self taught photo expert, Robert Groden, brought in as a photo expert on Simpson’s behalf. Why the defense in the civil trial only produced one has raised other questions; however, Groden was the only photographer among several trained professionals to attain a perfect test score to be considered on the Congressional Committee investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In light of the above irregularities and the long shot gamble of Bodziak predicting these to be Bruno Magli shoes, I would say the revelations of fraudulent photos of OJ Simpson wearing said shoes, is more believable than one may think. Unfortunately, if the FBI decided to bet on the luck of Bodziak’s dice toss, then they may be obligated to live with the results that may once again tarnish a reputation that they have struggled since the death of J.Edgar Hoover, the alleged rabid racist, to fortify and rebuild. Those of us who have lived through it, cannot forget the insidious era of Hoover’s COINTELPRO days. However, with the realities facing them regarding an accurate measurement by agent Bodziak of these shoe soles and failure to provide an accurate measurement of Simpson’s feet, the FBI may have revisited that era in terms of deeply tarnishing their image and credibility.
Get the truth in the books below regarding the OJ Simpson case
Watch the hard hitting documentary revealing the corruption in the conspiracy surrounding the Simpson case SERPENTS RISING: The OJ Simpson Conspiracy available at Amazon’s on-line videos on demand.
8 thoughts on “OJ Simpson: When Objectivity vs. Subjectivity…One is real, the other is fake…..”
“”Do you know the name Shawn Chapman? If you are as familiar with the case as your previous comments suggest, then you should know that she was one of Cochrans legal assistants. When the news of the murder, and when it became clear that the PD was looking into speaking with OJ, she hoped that he’d done it. Why? “OJ had all but abandoned the black community. OJ left his black wife and black children, and left behind is blackness. He forgot where he came from.”- Shawn Chapman. “Black women in general despised OJ…not Nicole.”-Shawn Chapman. “”
I know very well who Shawn chapman is. She was not a legal assistant she is a defense lawyer who resides in L.A. and was a member of the Cochran law firm. Her remarks are morally and professionally repugnant since they have nothing objectively to do with the evidence of innocence or guilt of her client, OJ Simpson. They are remarks only intended to inflame the racial animus of white folk and should not have been injected into the arena of public discourse, if she in fact did say these things. They do not advance your theories of Simpson’s guilt whatsoever, and simply become another false tactic that whites engage in when attempting to sanctify some erroneous subjective opinion they have, i.e., “Oprah said it’s so, so why would you deny rather than accept it”. That is the most mentally retarded standard of validation that anyone could utilize. It is objectively meaningless and one of the most offensive and demeaning tactics of verbal engagement that one can imagine. Yet, white folk engage in doing it, just like you, all of the time. It’s like me saying “Donald Trump said thus and so, so you whites should accept his observation as accurate because he believes what I believe and he’s much more important than you or I”. You do it to validate a subjective point that you are asserting. It is juvenile b.s. so do not waste my time with such irrelevant non-sense, albeit untrue, that have nothing to do objectively with whether OJ committed murder or not.
“”Nearly every employee at Cochrans law firm was black. I’m sure that you know the story of Tawana Bradley right? Well, did you also know that when Al Sharpton was found liable in the defamation lawsuit filed by one of the men who were set up to take the fall for this heinous “crime”, Cochran paid Al Sharptons portion of the suit. “”
Once again, this is irrelevant information that has nothing to do with what amounted to a racially inflammatory mock trial held within the state of California, and deserves no more space than this.
His role in the OJ trial was very clear. He was the “black” voice. Are you seriously implying that there were no racial undertones muddying up the waters before and during trial? OJ had very capable lawyers prior to Cochran coming on board.
“”His role in the OJ trial was very clear. He was the “black” voice. Are you seriously implying that there were no racial undertones muddying up the waters before and during trial? OJ had very capable lawyers prior to Cochran coming on board. “”
I absolutely concur with your opinion that there were racial undertones before and during this trial, and the defense’s Johnnie Cochran and his chief of staff, Carl Douglas, had been warned about this by Stephen Singular who had been given crucial information by an anonymous LAPD insider of the number of times Mark Fuhrman had gone to OJ’s Rockingham home the early morning of 06/13/94, and how and what he used to handle one of the bloody gloves from the murder site that he carried to plant on OJ’s Rockingham estate. He told Singular what items used to transport the glove would be found there on August 01. 1994. Singular got an audience, along with his accompanying legal advisers on Aug. 08, 1994. Though the defense team pretended like they wanted to dismiss Singular’s allegations when they checked with the police property department they found these items to have been collected as evidence. Singular warned them about the type of myopic and disastrous impact that it would have on the racial climate of America, if they focused upon Fuhrman’s racist background, and not on the evidence found with the planted glove, as well as the planted glove that the insider told Singular that contained the unknown, (at that time) blood preservative, EDTA, and what collected blood swatches should be tested for it, numbers 47 and 48. Ultimately they were, but not by a lackadaisical defense team but by one of the prosecutors sending them on to the FBI Laboratory in order to prove Singular a charlatan. Unfortunately, the results proved what the anonymous LAPD insider had claimed. The blood on the allegedly unknown finger print on the back gate was covered with OJ’s blood containing EDTA and the sock contained EDTA. This is the red heron indicating the initial corruption and malfeasance of the LAPD and LADA’s office in promulgating this case against Simpson.
“”I think that Shapiro was in for the fame, F. Lee Bailey was friends with Shapiro but loved getting his hands dirty. Kardashian was OJs best friend. I think that he was there more for moral support than anything. The point is, they all served a purpose. Baileys examination of Furhman was one of the most interesting and memorable moments of the trial. “”
Yes they did a;; serve a purpose, nor am I arguing they did not, but in the case of Kardashian, later evidence attained by the LAPD and LADA and suppressed, indicates that he had a connection to Bill Wasz the thug he hired to track the whereabouts of Nicole. According to Wasz, Kardashian offered him a contract to kill Nicole, to keep her from recklessly exposing his and Simpson’s illicit drug dealings to law enforcement. Nicole was socializing with people with protected criminal files as confidential informants, (snitches cooperating with law enforcement) including Ronald Goldman, Faye Resnick and Glen Rogers. Also, allegedly Keith Zomslovich, may have been a CI as well, the Mezzaluna manager from Aspen, Colorado with a criminal drug history who she had been intimately involved with. Nicole’s bombastic nature and talkativeness may have been her downfall.
“”There were hardships in the dream team. Allot of strong egos. OJ had the best attorneys money can buy. “”
OJ had only the best media attorneys, that charged him a high price, and that’s all. However, there was only one who had the credentials in California indicating that he was qualified to be considered as one of the best, and that was Johnnie Cochran. F. Lee Bailey’s brilliance behind alcohol usage one could see was waning. Shapiro, though capable, was not a criminal defense lawyer, and when he did engage in that line, he was known as a deal maker that sought the best plea for his client. Johnnie Cochran is the only one who had won both the top awards in the state of California for both criminal and civil litigation. He won the Gielser Award, named after the phenomenal California criminal lawyer Jerry Gielser who in the early 20th century was the lawyer to the stars. He defended a number of celebrity motion picture stars in the 1920, 30s, 40s, and 50s. The studios had a saying when one of their assets got in trouble “Get Giesler!” Johnnie Cochran also won the highest annual award given to the most successful civil lawyer, for the several multimillion dollar damage awards he litigated and won for clients against city of Los Angeles for police brutality. However, I do not believe that Cochran maneuvered to join the Simpson defense team as the last to come aboard, because it would be his most notable case, or anything relative to the African American community. We believe that Cochran got on the defense team because of the corruption that he knew existed that he would use later as a hammer of potential embarrassment hanging over the heads of LA County officials and its Justice System. In essence, he would secretly use the malfeasance as leverage to attain the release of a falsely convicted client he represented 25 years earlier that had been imprisoned for 27 years, due to a fraudulent federal operation orchestrated in the 1960s by J. Edgar Hoover entitled COINTELPRO. This program had made him look like a fool in the eyes of his client who told him so and got his client framed and convicted and sentenced to life without parole; his client, the longest political prisoner in the world at the time, Elmer Gerard “Geronimo” Pratt.
“”The prosecution consisted of a smart and headstrong, but overzealous Marcia Clark and a freshman at the DAs office with little trial experience…Darden. The greatest defense strategy is to push for a speedy trial and not give the prosecution time to prepare. By the time trial commenced, the prosecution was blindsided. “”
Marcia Clark even by the standards of her own peers was simply a mediocre attorney, and certainly was so, intentionally as far as this case was concerned that she appeared to be assigned by Garcetti only because she had been unethically contacted by Det. Vannatter early the morning that the bodies were discovered as opposed to contacting the D.A.’s office emergency hotline if a Deputy D.A., for an unusual or difficult situation, were needed at a crime site. Instead of calling that number, Vannatter called Marcia Clark at home to inform her of this potentially high profile case, which was the reason he and Lange had been assigned the case and removing it from the control of the West Side Division detective, of Mark Fuhrman, Brad Roberts, and Ron Phillips. It is believed that Marcia Clark sought integral involvement because she knew that such a case, somewhat like the Manson case, would be her meal ticket to get out of a job which was becoming frustrating to her, and caused her to jump between departments and back again. With the ultimate $4 million dollar book deal it appeared that her dream had come true, and she was out permanently from the office politics after that.
As a military veteran, and a paralegal student I am passionate about the law. My personal opinion about any defendants guilt or innocence really is irrelevant, your opinion really is too.
Unfortunately, neither of the two credentials you’ve cited above give you any cogent qualifications relative to the law, other than being a wayward talking head, walking around wearing a monkey suit with a title, paralegal. When you say that your opinion about an defendant’s guilt or innocence is really irrelevant, you let me know that you are not as passionate about the law as you claim to be. That remark is utterly ridiculous, and you should get out of having any connection whether as a paralegal, investigator, or lawyer if you truly believe that, and your conclusions I wholeheartedly reject as applying to me in regard to my opinion. Since my opinion is reflected in the due diligence of the work that I have eagerly engaged in relative to this case, as well as with others, as an independent investigator working with the Ocean Medical Investigative Group out of Los Angeles, CA. Whenever there is an issue of malfeasance, a suppression or intentional concealment of evidence that could impact the outcome of guilt of innocence, even beyond a trial of a person’s character and integrity, you should be involved and their innocence of guilt should be relevant to you. After all, any allowed distortion of the rules of evidence as took place in this so called “trial of the century” concerns all of us. You may sacrifice your duty and obligation which in my opinion, is even more significant than a lawyers, since they have no official position in regard to the structure of our common law court system. You on the other hand have not only a right but arguably an obligatory duty to protect the pillars of the infrastructure for which a common law court exists, and that is to protect the domain of the “triers or fact” and/or “the triers of law”. No lawyers, no police officers, or no judges can tell you to stand down when you are aware that evidence indicates that they are undermining the principles of our system of justice. If you assume your present attitude then you will be one of the myopically retarded individuals, lacking any cogent knowledge who are calling for its change. The only change that is necessary in the case of the Simpson matter is exposing the willful conduct on the part of sworn officers of the court that allowed them to manipulate the law by concealing evidence that they knew would have exonerated Simpson, and would have obviated the need of a trial. The latter is something that they were not willing or could afford to do, since several were there for personal motives, political, and pecuniary gain.
“”A jury of his peers found him not guilty of double murder. A jury of his peers also found that he was responsible for the deaths. “”
Anecdotal, “A jury of his peers”. Both were manipulated juries and structured in a manner to do two things, first, to falsely instigate racial animus, relative to the criminal jury, and second, to ameliorate and mitigate white hostility with the civil jury., in a feeble attempt to allow white folk a sense that justice had been served. There is no way that a jury of 9 African Americans, as well as more in the jury pool, should have been impaneled as an accurate representative reflection of the per centage of African Americans which resided in LA proper, where the jury pool was selected. Instead of 75% make up, which is what 9 out of 12 jurors represents, it should have been less than 20% or between 2-3 jurors, which is the make up demographically of the population which is 17% African Americans in the Los Angeles population. The demographic structure of the jury also by gender, male vs. female, showed the inexplicable incompetence of Marcia Clark, who you describe as a “smart” attorney. A blind person could see that the construction of the jury in accordance with Voir Dire was incorrect, and the professional jury consultants who offered their services for free have said so time and time again. She inexplicably allowed the deck to be stacked, and to allow her to holler wolf racially, by playing the race card when it went downhill, but it only heightens our suspicion that the prosecutions failure was intended all along. Not to convict Simpson but to stir up racial animus to regain a balanced control or moral high ground, if you will concede, after the Rodney King debacle, that caused extreme racial animus in the opposite sector. Lose the case, and blame it on the jury, so we can engender hostility of racial animus within the white community to serve our clandestine purposes is all that occurred here.
His shenanigans in Vegas have no legal connection to the murder trial…the murder trial was a separate entity. But, I think that it speaks volumes about his character.
Citing what happened in Las Vegas simply exemplifies the residual impact of your own sense of inherent racism that you choose to deny, since you have no knowledge of the machinations of malfeasance that appear to have occurred in Las Vegas among sworn officers of the court to ultimately result in Simpson’s, along with defendant C.J. Stewart’s conviction in Nevada. The outrageous length of Simpson’s sentence of 33 years in Las Vegas only implies that the constabulary and judiciary there was occluded by what occurred 14 years earlier in California, and were simply determined that “we’ll show you how to get Simpson and give him what he deserved”.
“”As for your text about white folks, you can’t call me out on using stereotypes and then turn around and do the same thing. Not all white folks have a shrine dedicated to their sports hero. Not all white folks collect memorabilia. I don’t know where you live, but where I live just as many black ppl wear jerseys, fitted caps, sneakers, etc as whites. And when I was a kid my dad had a black friend wh o named his son Cleveland. Their last name was Brown. He was named that after the team. I know that it’s just like the cartoon…but it’s true. “”
Well, now you want to make a cogent and valid point about my own sense of subjective thinking, and you are right, though if I had to wager on it, I still feel that the whole field of collectibles and valued autographs rests on the shoulders of white folk, and that athletes and celebrities would starve to death, if they depended upon blacks, like me, to buy them. I wear baseball caps too, but all of that other stuff that enriches athlete coffers I don’t do, that I see a plethora of whites engaged in. However, as I pointed out, black folks do some outrageous things too, since my grandkids clean up, buy and sell used name brand tennis shoes to others, blacks and non-blacks, for significant prices over $100. But your point is well taken, whether you meant it or not, that subjectivity should not be the basis of making any decision regarding OJ Simpson’s guilt or innocence, simply objectivity.
“”At the end of the day, the world isn’t colorblind..even in the court room. There were very different reactions to the verdict depending on which color skin you are in. “”
Much of this false, fraudulent, mock trial was media manipulated and driven, by corrupt court officers who knew what the predictable outcome of false information promulgated publicly via the electronic media would be by feeding it to lackadaisical journalists who would do no due diligence relative to questionable evidence. Now the stain of our revelations hang like a pall over all of this malfeasance while they scurry behind closed doors to prevent our providing you access to it. Nevertheless, we shall continue to do our best to enlighten you to what you truly do not know objectively regarding this Simpson case.
“”You don’t know for sure that he didn’t do it. I can’t say for certain that he’s guilty. Eventually it will be between OJ and someone greater than you and I.””
I don’t know that it will require anyone greater than you or I, if you and I along with others continue to maintain pressure on these people who have utilized the color of authority to suppress and conceal evidence and crucial information that would change a normal person’s opinion of this case, that Simpson is guilty. That’s assuming that they are those who are not so far gone into the depths of their intransigent mind, stoked by racial animus, that this black man is guilty of killing these two white people that they have no interest in seeing anything else. This unfortunately is the dangerous public lynching mentality that existed for so long in this country, and due to this malfeasance, reared its ugly head again. I can tell you once again, given the circumstantial evidence that we have accumulated going on 20 years now, that replaces that objective evidence removed from the Exhibit department case file for Simpson 94-097211, on April 24, 1998, by secretive court order granted by Judge John H. Reid to the lead prosecutor, William Hodgman’s ex parte motion. He received an order for the permanent removal of all evidence in the OJ Simpson case file, some of which indicates that O.J. Simpson is not guilty of committing those murders and they knew it all along and buried the records from public examination. Hodgman thought that he’d escape scot free however, the personnel within the Superior Court Exhibit Department provided OMOIG’s investigators with a letter confirming that he arranged to truck over 1,009 exhibit out of the department while upsetting the personnel by refusing to sign his name on the receipt manifest acknowledging his acquisition. We shall continue to call for the return of the alleged exculpatory evidence that we believe they knew would have exonerated Simpson. This is evidence that circumvented the jury’s examination and entered by lawyer stipulation, namely the Juditha Brown phone records, that we believe place OJ Simpson in the back seat of a chauffeur driven limousine at 11PM while his ex-wife, Nicole, was still alive talking on the phone to her mother.
The latest Simpson effort from The Brothers Johnson has Johnnie Cochran joining in on the conspiracy against OJ, which makes zero sense.
Of course it makes no sense to people stuck in there sense of anger and hatred intentionally perpetuated by those promoting a false narrative to generate such anger. However, it makes sense when one has to revisit Cochran’s remarks during a 352 argument, arguing the probative versus the prejudicial merits of exposing the jury to the murder photos. In his argument on 07/06/95, Cochran states that there was no need to show the jury those murder photographs because they were so horrendous that they would only inflame and prejudice the jury. After-all, he argued, “we didn’t and we’re not going to show the jury other evidence in this case, we did not show them the telephone records”. The only records that were not shown to the jury that were entered by stipulation were the phone records of the Simpson in-laws, “The Juditha Brown Phone Records”. You must ask yourself how could phone records prejudice a jury, since Cochran used them in a comparative manner in his argument. The only way they could have prejudiced the jury is if they did not reflect what lawyers agreed to in their stipulation which was the third change of the last phone call from 11PM, to 10:17 PM. to 09:37 PM. Thus, we felt then as we do now, if Johnnie Cochran threatened at some point to expose the truth of those records, that Simpson’s wife was alive at 11PM when he entered a limo to LAX, the credibility of the Los Angeles County justice system would have been immediately destroyed. The credibility of white America and its justice system in general would have been further damaged internationally, since the trial was promulgated globally. Thus, Cochran forcing a judge to recuse all of the judges in LA County from rehearing the Geronimo Pratt appeal in his 25th year of being falsely accused,convicted and imprisoned, was a reasonable price for them to pay to maintain their fraudulent dignity and warped credibility. It just indicated further to us that the Simpson trial was not the most important trial for Johnnie Cochran despite what people like you tend to believe.
Eh, “people like me” lol. You don’t know squat about me.
From your diction and use of the word “we” I gather you are one of the Johnsons, or allied with OMIG.
So, do you have any other evidence (aside from our statement that Goldman’s file was “six inches thick”) that he was a snitch? You do realize, that law is also used to get rid of nuisances (as considered by the courts–disgusting, but that’s they way they treat “the People”).
I’ll give the Brothers Johnson this–they nicely reminded us of Johnnie Cochran’s reasons for fighting the good fight against the LAPD. But you must really think he was horrible trash,. to us someone he supposedly KNEW was innocent in order to get off another man he KNEW was innocent. And a black man to boot.
By the way, how does your theory jibe with a bloody Akita running around before 11pm. Does blood fly, like Rockne Harmon asked about DNA? Does it fly through time? Did everybody, including people like Louis Karpf, suddenly set their watches wrong that night, or get paid off by the LAPD?
What’s to know? You have the same myopic mindset that has bought into the hearsay evidence like the rest of the herd, so one doesn’t need to know squat about you, since you give yourself away based upon your general remarks.
And yes, I’m an OMIG operative, well versed and immersed in the company line, just like people like yourself on the opposite side are submerged in all of the b.s. within the false narrative that you folk comfortably regurgitate.
Nobody from OMIG that I’m aware said Goldman was a SNITCH
No one from OMIG said that Goldman was a SNITCH, they said that he has a 6 inch criminal file that is protected from public examination as entitled of most public records by the California Public Records Act, except for those exempted by the California Government Code Sec. 6254 (F). That statute refers to criminal records of confidential informants being excluded from public examination. Some how you have fixed your mind to assume that someone from OMIG called Goldman a SNITCH, however, I do believe that it is easy to infer that if his record is protected by a law that protects criminal information of SNITCHES and his record is protected from access then one could assume that Ron Goldman very well could be a SNITCH. I certainly do not believe that such was said in the documentary SERPENTS RISING at http://www.serpentsrising.com. However, if his thick file was simply full of petty or gross misdemeanors, there certainly would not be a legitimate excuse for denying public access to Goldman’s criminal record, would you not agree?
As far as Johnnie Cochran was concerned OMIG investigators, some of them, have concluded after the fact that he was a pretty shrewd fellow, that went along with a case that was fixed from jump street, and only meant to be used as a show trial for the purpose of attaining pecuniary benefits. Cochran was simply a mile higher than the rest of us regarding his counter-intelligence quotient, certainly beyond the myopic unilateral perspectives that you appear to offer. It probably came from licking the wounds of a quarter century past, when his naivety exposed him to the government’s trickery and chicanery during the anything goes days of J.Edgar Hoover’s COINTERLPRO actions. The subtext to both of Cochran’s books is Geronimo Pratt’s phony conviction. Thus it is easy for one to conclude that Cochran had a hard on for the LA justice system, and the means for retribution were at his fingertips if he could worm his way into Simpson’s mind to allow him to be on his defense team. If that was the scenario I’m certain Cochran had little concern for Simpson, they didn’t travel in the same circles. His only use was as leverage to free Pratt and get him the awarded damages of $4 million dollars the same year of his release, 1997. Cochran would go along with this mock trial as long as the other side played according to the script and stacked the deck to assure Simpson’s acquittal in the end, as well as take the death penalty off the table, if their judicial skit went awry. As far as Simpson being used to swing the pendulum from the depths of black racial animus into the hot zone of white racial animus to regain the perception of the moral high ground after the acquittal of the police involved in the Rodney King beating that disgraced LA and America before the world, Cochran could play along for a more personally important reason.
Louis Karpf was not the one who initially spotted the bloody pawed Akita, it was Stephen Schwab, and he initially stated that he saw the Akita at 11:15 PM, but then turned the time of the sighting back to 10:45 PM. It does begin to raise one’s antennae when we see the same thing happening over and over, and never accruing to the benefit of OJ Simpson. First Schwab, then Louis Brown changing the time he said his wife last spoke to Nicole, he stated on 06/13/94 she was on the phone at 11PM, then drove back into town to the coroner’s office to tell the coroner’s investigator he might have made a mistake it was more like between 9:30 and 10 PM. Then you have Juditha Brown stating that she talked to Nicole at 11PM on 06/16/94 but failing to correct the stipulation of 02/07/95 of that call being at 09:37 PM. Then you have Robert Shapiro stating that he would like to offer a stipulation of that last phone call to be 10:17 PM in Judge Powell’s chambers, then hammering the medical examiner about his knowledge of an 11PM phone call both on 07/08/94, then offering to stipulate to 09:37 PM on a posterboard the prosecution presented on 02/07/95. Then you have the weekend manager Karen Crawford stating that none of the time pieces worked accurately in the Mezzaluna Restaurant to benefit their customers, which would not help OJ. Then you have Tia Gavin who waited on the Brown party of ten stating that she did not believe that the time clock was accurate either, that it had not been adjusted to reflect daylight savings time. Thus, if not then as we suspect Ron Goldman’s punch out time was not 09:33 PM but more likely than not given the time to travel between Brentwood and Dana Point, Orange County 10:33 PM, as she told investigators and Robert Shapiro during a deposition. She too would change her story to allege that even though the manager John DeBello didn’t bother to make sure his customer purchase time clock on the cash register was working properly, he did take time to adjust a difficult time clock, which was totally unnecessary since the employees shifts never varied in terms of hours. Even Fuhrman needlessly once again lied about something simple that could be checked when he first said that he took the picture of himself pointing at the glove at the murder site a hour and a half after sunrise around 7:15 AM, but the police photographer, Rohkar noted under cross examination that he took the picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove in complete darkness about an hour and a half before sunrise around 4:15 AM; sunrise was at 5:41 AM on 06/13/94. So the short answer for you is yes, we do believe that certain people were open to engaging in malfeasance regarding time if pressured by the cops to implicate a Negro in a capital offense. Some white folk, history has shown, are easily cajoled into agreeing to do such things if told the black man did it. Many of them go home an sleep well after doing so. Take for instance the popular jazz singer Harry Connick, Jr’s father, the Parrish Attorney for Orleans Parrish in New Orleans, Harry Connick, Sr. It that he had no reservation about framing innocent blacks that he knew did not commit the crime in which they were charged. That’s not new in America, it happens by white folk in power misusing their authority to engage in malfeasance for pecuniary gain all the time.
“No one”? LOL, possibly ALL of them (except you it seems):
From “Pursuit of Exhibit 35” by TH Johnson, page 110:
“We believe that the intent of Section 6254(f), after extensive examination, is certainly to protect inforamtion of *confidential informants* [emphasis included] who have been cooperating with law enforcement agencies in California. Given the size of Goldman’s criminal file and the less-than-straightforward attempt of courthouse employees to prevent an examination of it, my firm opinion is that Goldman’s file was protected under Section 6254(f) because Goldman, more likely than not, was cooperating as a confidential inforomant or in common terminology Goldman was probably a ‘snitch’.”
My own suspicioun (and I agree with you, it is outrageous this sort of info should be kept from the public) is that this was used as a “nuisance-abatement” measure, because the nature of the trial would bring unending grief to the system and its bureacrats and judges and so forth.
As I think I said it would be nice to have REAL CONFIRMATION of OMIG’s designation of Goldman being a *snitch*. After so many years, this should have been established one way or the other you’d think (or forever will remain, at best, merely a guess).
If you are sorry that more information has not been provided to clear the uncertainty up, then why not press the officials of the Los Angeles County Superior Court to release all criminal information to clear up this matter. Certainly, no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it is being used as a “nuissance abatement” lol! when the law, 6254(f) clearly states it purpose for being cited. Right now, it appears that Goldman was a SNITCH, if you want to help perpetuate the tabloid assertion of him being a “clean cut, all-American boy, Good Samaritan” then it is incumbent upon people like you to prove it. The only way to dispel the rumor of why the law was used is to force them to open the case file as they would do on you and any other person arrested in America, certainly as they have done on OJ Simpson. Why should Goldman or his family or his family’s sordid connections be treated any differently? Truth will set you and them free…. OMIG does not presume or allow the privilege of presumption relative to people and evidence associated with the Simpson case. However, once again, your allegations of what the author stated in PURSUIT OF EXHIBIT 35 falls short of condemnation for targeting Ron Goldman all out as a SNITCH. However, we can apply the old adage, “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s fair for us to assume that Goldman was a SNITCHING duck”.