Since you want to be quoted, see above.
I’m sorry, but your assertion that Goldman received ‘the Colombian necktie’ is simply NOT FACTUAL.
Would you like to see the actual autopsy report? Here is a link.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas47.htm
That should work, but if it doesn’t, it’s called ‘Google’.
The Colombian necktie is basically a mythical execution in which the throat is cut and the tongue pulled backwards down the throat and through the slit in the throat.
The fact that this is not anatomically possible has been addressed elsewhere before, but as you can see from the coroner’s own mouth, no such thing was done.
It’s pretty slow reading if you’re not familiar with the terminology, but you can find someone who IS to assure you that nothing like what you are claiming is being described.
Does it matter to you AT ALL that what you are claiming is simply not true? Is it THAT important to you to simply ‘be right’ and have ‘the last word’...? That’s just odd behavior, frankly.
You DID imply earlier that Nicole’s drug use and supposed drug debt was the reason some imaginary drug dealer killed her, though you’ve since said you never did.
Since you insist, I suppose I’ll ‘quote’it for you, even though it is all there with a simple click of the back button.
Mr. Cochran’s theory about it being a drug-related killing wasn’t about NICOLE’S drug use, so it’s completely baffling as to why you would imply otherwise. Are you privy to information that OJ’s defense wasn’t? You should probably contact OJ so he can use it to hunt down the real killers, as he swore to.
Meanwhile, since the defense’s claim was that Faye Resnick’s drug use led to a killing of mistaken identity and not Nicole, you ought to be ashamed to spout off about Brown-Simpson’s drug use, debt, etc as a motive. You ought to be ashamed to repeat lies about what happened to Goldman, as if what DID happen wasn’t unfair enough, when two minutes of simple, easy research could assure you that you’re arguing from a position of truth.
I’m sorry, but again, we shall simply have to disagree about what ‘all over’ entails in reference to the amount of blood found at a crime scene.
To you, apparently, anything less than a five gallon bucket of human blood tossed onto every available surface doesn’t count.
My assertion is that if blood consistent with suspect’s is found in more than one location at the same property (let alone other properties), then there you are.
It’s odd that you are crying ‘Oh, that’s just semantics’ to explain your own statements but are unwilling to apply the ‘excuse’ of ‘semantics’ to anyone else’s statements. Unfair in my opinion, but hey. Semantics.
A list of where the blood consistent with his and the hairs consistent with his were found at the scene is also readily available I’m sure, but if you need to be reminded, so as to be clear that it was, in fact, in more than one location, let me know.
I heartily enjoy having an actual, intellectually honest back-and-forth with people who do NOT have to agree for it to be meaningful, but both parties must be arguing their positions from a point of reality. Is that even questionable???
If we’re arguing about whether heaven is really there, that’s one thing. If we’re arguing about whether Australia is really there when it demonstratably is, that’s nonsensical.
The facts, aka, Ron Goldman’s autopsy report, indicate that he was NOT killed conforming to an anatomically impossible urban legend.
Johnnie Cochran did not claim in court that Nicole was killed by drug lords over her debt related to her drug use. He implicated a different person entirely.
It is irresponsible and cruel of you to claim these things. Especially when the information to the contrary is not a state secret.
Feel free to post whatever ‘evidence’ of OJ’s actual innocence you like.
For about the fifth time, I didn’t say all this to ‘prove’ his guilt. I have said, several times, that he may very well be innocent.
But you have gone to great lengths to equate being found ‘not guilty’ with being ‘innocent’, as in ‘didn’t do it’and no competent law enforcement officer, lawyer, or court officer walking the streets of the nation would tell you that you are correct.
All you need to do is a)stop claiming the defense was arguing things they provably weren’t, b) stop claiming that things were done to the victims that provably weren’t, and c) stop equating a verdict of ‘not guilty’ with the state of ‘innocence’ or having been ‘exonerated’.
What you or I or anyone thinks of OJ’s culpability beyond that is of no true relevance, and is not what is at dispute here,since everyone is entitled to their opinion of what happened.
I’m not sure what’s so difficult about that. The man is out of prison, it’s perfectly acceptable to me that he is; whether I think he ‘did it’ or not doesn’t enter into it. I don’t begrudge him his liberty.
So I fail to see why you are so determined to ‘prove’ to everyone here that he didn’t do it, especially if your evidence is things that didn’t actually happen.
I am interested to see how he conducts himself and what becomes of him.
