so did OJ kill Nicole

What's truly ironic is that his whole argument is against the court's own verdict of innocence while he claims to have evidence and facts that contradict a very court of law's verdict. He is clearly still upset about how the public could not sway a jury, claims everyone else is wearing tin foil and is operating entirely off of theories and public group think.

He even claims the court must have been corrupt but the media isn't? He's screaming all over the place and has a problem with me not submitting to his paranoia.

I wasn't even involved in any debate. He sort of started on me. He also started with the name calling and shouting, or bold font to indicate shouting. I replied. I'm not even going to try to figure out why he's so angry with anyone who believes OJ is innocent. I couldn't care less if people carry a grudge about it all.

I would NOT want him to PM me.

He has anger issues.

The glove didn't fit. That should have been the end of it. The courts agreed.

Oh definitely. I have no faith in any man-made institutions and media is like the bottom of the barrel of a barrel full of corruption. They will hype and conjure things so high that nobody's boots can handle.

There were plenty of private court sessions that the media wasn't allowed in on, and that's where the prosecution lost all credibility. There were aspects not known to the public. The public were the circus sideshow anyway.

That's kinda how I was handling that other user. The more I mocked him the angrier he got. When he opens his mouth, the people see Pennywise.

And a court of law also found him guilty! Turned out the verdict (and presenting of evidence) from the civil trial did not draw the criticism, controversy, or reprehensive scrutiny of the criminal trial; from both the public and the legal community!

So since he was found guilty in that court of law, no I am not operating under suspicion, idiot. That verdict in the civil trial came from a better presentation of the evidence. Ever heard of mistrials only to be resolved by another trial? Often the difference is a better presentation of evidence!... Idiot!


[/quote]HEY STUPID CRAZY TROLL: Grabbing someone from behind to slit their throat and stab them is the way it's usually done when you surprise your victim. You are clearly too insane to even reason with.

[/quote]


Too stupid and presumptuous to look at the autopsy report evidence?!? Not surprised at all. They didn't just get their throats cut. They had defensive wounds in their hands! That means that they were putting their hands up to try and defend themselves from being stabbed! How or why could they possibly do that if they were surprised from behind? In addition Ron Goldman was stabbed in the front of his thigh. That's not a wound that would've come from an attack from behind.

In addition, lets look at your ludicrous theory:
-- 2 mobsters surprised them from behind in the house simultaneously without either Ron or Nichole hearing something so that at least one of them was able to turn and confront the would-be assassins!
-- Both the mobsters weapon of choice is a knife!... (because that's so much more efficient and more guarantees success than a gun with a silencer).🙄 We are talking mob hit men here!
-- After killing them from behind in surprise the mobsters then dragged their bodies out of the kitchen (an area shielded from public exposure) to the outside front porch area!... risking public exposure and being identified!... because?!?.....

Yeah..... you see how stupid you sound!?! (No. Obviously you don't see how stupid you sound because you already would've seen it half a dozen posts ago. Not to mention you should've seen how poorly thought through your theory is. But everyone else progressively sees how extremely stupid you are).



[/quote]And while you rattle on with angry outbursts and crazy flailing posts that hinge on hysterical, you have avoided the facts all the way, including the one I just brought up.[/quote]

First of all, my statements may reflect emphasis, pointedness, and excitement. (And occasionally laughter). They don't reflect anger. Are any of them in all caps? No.

Secondly, your facts fell flat on their face because they were isolated facts that didn't address all the relevant facts and evidence! I just proved that.



[/quote]And LOL at your hysterical "prove the media is corrupt" seriously, you think they are upright, truthful folks? LMAO!
[/quote]

Talk about a desperate generalization in an attempt to prove your point! 😂 Bernie Madoff was corrupt, does that mean he was responsible for the Mexican drug cartel or for 9/11?

You suck at this.....

First of all that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It just opens the door to conjecture theories, which is what everything you claim is based on.

And if it does prove anything it suggests that the prosecution failed at proving the correct verdict: OJ Simpson was guilty.
😂

Okay. Fair enough. The tone of the thread does stink. I'm dropping out of this thread after this post...

He doesn't get it and never will. He was so determined to shout insults at me for no other reason than I just can't find one shred of logic in his arguments. They're literally all based on public opinion and the sketchy evidence presented that even the judge had to throw out. Also I was mocking him, not really frustrated, just wondering why he's so unglued.

The lame and lazy name calling of "tin foil" is also just as retarded. It implies that I am following someone else's theory or narrative. He can't read, he can't debate, he can only put something out there and if you disagree you get it with all fists flying! Notice how I never told anyone to believe anything just what I know for my own personal experiences with remote distance viewing, which is real. But I get attacked for not believing them.

For all his abuse, he sure thinks OJ is a murderer! Go figure.