Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence : Fred Goldman
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I found Fred Goldman to be annoying.
Wow, never thought I'd see that in a post, but I have to agree I can understand the grief and the absolute helplessness this poor gentleman feels, yet somehow I felt he played it to the max for the press I know people will hate me for saying this, the guy lost his son, but if his son died at the hands of someone besides OJ, I doubt the cameras would be there and neither would the tearful expressions of hatred and diatribes against the killer
In this program, I actually cringed when they said they were going to talk to him, but he seemed over all the earlier behavior.
And I have wondered if my child was killed, how would I act ? Without it happening, I would preferably stay out of the spotlights of the press and grieve privately, but who knows, I might carry on as Fred did
southbound
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
You know what, I would give anything for somebody to care as much about me as Fred Goldman cares about his son.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I see your points, but I think Fred Goldman handled himself fairly well during the trial, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. To have your son murdered and then the perpetrator is acquitted? I'd lose my mind.
Of course he is a little more composed after twenty years, that is to be expected. I still think he did a lot better than I could have. My own children are now around the age Ron Goldman was when he was killed, and I have a lot of empathy for Fred.
Of course he is a little more composed after twenty years, that is to be expected. I still think he did a lot better than I could have. My own children are now around the age Ron Goldman was when he was killed, and I have a lot of empathy for Fred.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
Maybe it was the oversized glasses, the 1890 mustache I actually felt bad about posting that earlier and will accept any bad comments that are posted
southbound
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
That was cool of you to say, that you felt bad, and hope you receive no bad comments! :)
Wait! Wait! Where are you going? I was gonna make Espresso!
Wait! Wait! Where are you going? I was gonna make Espresso!
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
To have your son murdered and then the perpetrator is acquitted? I'd lose my mind.
And just to clarify on that,,, He was like that from day one, long before an acquittal Still, how would one act under the same circumstances ??? Maybe even worse
southbound
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
It would be helpful to remember that we have Fred Goldman to thank for O. J. presently being behind bars for armed robbery. So that's something.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
we have Fred Goldman to thank for O. J. presently being behind bars for armed robbery.
Maybe in a roundabout way Fred managed to confiscate all of OJ's wealth, or at least a good chunk through the civil case, still far short of what was decided in court So maybe OJ's actions trying to get his collectables from the dealers was triggered by Fred's lawsuit
Otherwise Fred had nothing to do at all in the Nevada armed robbery caseIt had nothing to do with him
Still, thanks Fred, for being courageous enough to go after this man and sticking to your guns.
Ron Goldman RIP
southbound
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
It's my understanding that O. J. went to that hotel room specifically to get that sports memorabilia to keep it from going to Fred Goldman.
So of course Fred didn't put the gun in O. J.'s hand and force him to commit armed robbery, but he was a big part of why it happened.
So of course Fred didn't put the gun in O. J.'s hand and force him to commit armed robbery, but he was a big part of why it happened.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I am sure it also didn't, and doesn't, help that Ron was almost always an afterthought. Nicole Bown Simpson and "her friend."
Ron was in the wrong place at the wrong time, whatever his relationship was w/Nicole, and got butchered by a psychopath.
My late father had a theory that if Fred and Ron were estranged at the time of the murders, it would have increased the sense of loss. There is nothing more expensive than regret.
Ron was in the wrong place at the wrong time, whatever his relationship was w/Nicole, and got butchered by a psychopath.
My late father had a theory that if Fred and Ron were estranged at the time of the murders, it would have increased the sense of loss. There is nothing more expensive than regret.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
A lot of people have been aggravated (for lack of a better word) with Fred Goldman's actions and words since the murders. I feel bad for him and his family but he just seemed to take it to a different level. I remember last year when American Crime Story : The OJ Simpson Story (whatever it was calledwith Cuba Gooding, Jr.) the message board for that show was full of people saying basically the same thing the OP and others said ; I remember one poster saying it was hard to feel sympathy for him at the time and his actions ostracized many people.
Not saying people didn't have sympathy for him and his family, basically he didn't make it easy. Like OP states, that was the most calm I've probably seen him in an interview.
BTW I thought the actor the played him on the Fox mini-series did a great job. I also remember some posters who were too young at the time of the murders to have any memories asking "did he really act like that?"
As far as this show I am greatly disappointed. It's basically a joke IMHO. Someone compared it to The Case of : Jon Benet but I wouldn't even put them in the same sentence. Whether you agree with their conclusions or not they assembled respected professionals and IMHO def. proved it was plausible. This is just one guy with a theory and the rest more or less trying to make every square peg fit in a round hole, no matter how hard.
This reminded me of "Hunting Hitler" and "The Curse of Oak Island" shows that grasp at straws and make huge leaps based on not credible witnesses and extreme conjecture. Factsno where to be found.
Not saying people didn't have sympathy for him and his family, basically he didn't make it easy. Like OP states, that was the most calm I've probably seen him in an interview.
BTW I thought the actor the played him on the Fox mini-series did a great job. I also remember some posters who were too young at the time of the murders to have any memories asking "did he really act like that?"
As far as this show I am greatly disappointed. It's basically a joke IMHO. Someone compared it to The Case of : Jon Benet but I wouldn't even put them in the same sentence. Whether you agree with their conclusions or not they assembled respected professionals and IMHO def. proved it was plausible. This is just one guy with a theory and the rest more or less trying to make every square peg fit in a round hole, no matter how hard.
This reminded me of "Hunting Hitler" and "The Curse of Oak Island" shows that grasp at straws and make huge leaps based on not credible witnesses and extreme conjecture. Factsno where to be found.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I've always felt the most compassion and empathy for Fred Goldman. Just imagine, your wonderful, beautiful and smart and cool son was brutally taken from you. I'd go completely nuts.
But you're right, after 22 years he was much more calm, however I am sure he hurts just as much as he did that horrible night. I've never seen a dad love his son so much. I hope he finds some peace.
Wait! Wait! Where are you going? I was gonna make Espresso!
But you're right, after 22 years he was much more calm, however I am sure he hurts just as much as he did that horrible night. I've never seen a dad love his son so much. I hope he finds some peace.
Wait! Wait! Where are you going? I was gonna make Espresso!
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
@rmontro-
Yes. Mr. Goldman was angry, and he was obnoxious, and he was filled with ragebut it's hard to be critical of that.
Whether or not OJ did it, his son is dead. It's pretty darn unlikely that anything the son did caused the murders, as Ron Goldman's presence at NBS's condo was due to her forgetting her sunglasses at the restaurant.
So I'm okay with the way he has behaved. I cannot imagine his anger and sense of loss.
But in the big scheme of things, his comments/interviews/etc had nothing to do with the case and the verdict.
Yes. Mr. Goldman was angry, and he was obnoxious, and he was filled with ragebut it's hard to be critical of that.
Whether or not OJ did it, his son is dead. It's pretty darn unlikely that anything the son did caused the murders, as Ron Goldman's presence at NBS's condo was due to her forgetting her sunglasses at the restaurant.
So I'm okay with the way he has behaved. I cannot imagine his anger and sense of loss.
But in the big scheme of things, his comments/interviews/etc had nothing to do with the case and the verdict.
Re: Fred Goldman
Not to nitpick, but the glasses were Nicole's mother's. I've always wondered, not that she should, if Nicole's mother ever blamed herself for Ron's death because she forgot her glasses at Mezzaluna.
__________________________________________
"In your opinion?"
"Um, yes your honor, in my opinion."
__________________________________________
"In your opinion?"
"Um, yes your honor, in my opinion."
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
@SteverB
Sorry, that was my erroryou are correct about the glasses.
And you are probably correct about Nicole's Mother blaming herself for Ron's death..and I agree she should not. I've always thought that there was a little more to the Nicole/Ron relationship than just a waiter dropping off a forgotten item, so perhaps he would have stopped by anyway. But that's just conjecture.
Not to nitpick, but the glasses were Nicole's mother's. I've always wondered, not that she should, if Nicole's mother ever blamed herself for Ron's death because she forgot her glasses at Mezzaluna.
Sorry, that was my erroryou are correct about the glasses.
And you are probably correct about Nicole's Mother blaming herself for Ron's death..and I agree she should not. I've always thought that there was a little more to the Nicole/Ron relationship than just a waiter dropping off a forgotten item, so perhaps he would have stopped by anyway. But that's just conjecture.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
@rmontro-
Yes. Mr. Goldman was angry, and he was obnoxious, and he was filled with ragebut it's hard to be critical of that.
Whether or not OJ did it, his son is dead.
I totally agree with you. Like I said, intellectually and logically, I've always understood his anger. And I DO feel bad for him, I DO feel bad for his loss, I can't imagine the pain of having your son so brutally murdered like that, I can't even begin to imagine it. Which is why I have always felt guilty that despite all that, I found him annoying.
Partly I suppose the choice of the Rollie Fingers moustache enters into it. But it's also partly this:
There was another recent OJ documentary on ESPN last year, and Fred Goldman was on there, talking about how he was going to hound OJ for the rest of his life, trying to take whatever he could as part of the civil judgement. And I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND that, I really do. But at the same time, I wonder if he might get more peace of mind if he would just let it go. Would Ron really want him to live out the rest of his life consumed with bitterness, hate, and revenge?
I can see why he wouldn't be able to let it go, or might not want to, it makes perfect sense. But from a mental health standpoint, maybe he'd be better off.
It was nice to see him talk so calmly for once, because I feel like now I finally don't find him annoying anymore. He seems like less of a cartoon character now, and more like a real person, if any of that makes sense. And I totally own that the problem is mine, not his. I write this as a sort of carthasis and confession of my own feelings.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
Your point is well taken, but remember, Fred Goldman is responsible for O. J. being in prison for armed robbery. I believe that O. J. was given a 19-year sentence, which is better than nothing.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I can relate to what you're saying, rmontro, and thanks for being willing to post it. I've seen people get pretty foul in their response to such comments, though to my perception always when they didn't bother trying to understand where the
OP was coming from in the first place.
My own discomfited response to Fred Goldman has always been embarrassment. I can't imagine the depth of his grief, and don't criticise him for it, but my internal response to his repeated outcries was always, "But what is it you want?" He's no doubt right about there being some thoughtless disregard for Ron and the Goldmans in the media and even at the trial, in context of the fact that the other victim was a celebrity, and he had every right to make some effort to balance the ledger in the public mind, but there was no answer anyone could make to such a public cri de coeur. He became a non-stop harangue.
Plus, I found many of his accusations tiresome and (old-fashioned concept) unseemly; nothing seemed over the line for him to say. I personally can't handle that over-amped indignation a lot of people go into when they want everyone to know how wronged they feel. We already know the Goldmans were very wronged indeed. I tried to read "If I Did It", but it was the edition the Goldmans "annotated", and I found Fred's constant wailing and spitting even more intolerable than Simpson's delusions. I finally found a pre-Goldman copy, and yes it was crap, but I was curious, not looking for something to believe.
Anyway. I don't wish him any ill, so it was certainly good to see a more mellow Fred. I hope he's finding life easier now, though I do wonder how he might fare if Simpson gets released this year, as it seems he's likely to.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
OP was coming from in the first place.
My own discomfited response to Fred Goldman has always been embarrassment. I can't imagine the depth of his grief, and don't criticise him for it, but my internal response to his repeated outcries was always, "But what is it you want?" He's no doubt right about there being some thoughtless disregard for Ron and the Goldmans in the media and even at the trial, in context of the fact that the other victim was a celebrity, and he had every right to make some effort to balance the ledger in the public mind, but there was no answer anyone could make to such a public cri de coeur. He became a non-stop harangue.
Plus, I found many of his accusations tiresome and (old-fashioned concept) unseemly; nothing seemed over the line for him to say. I personally can't handle that over-amped indignation a lot of people go into when they want everyone to know how wronged they feel. We already know the Goldmans were very wronged indeed. I tried to read "If I Did It", but it was the edition the Goldmans "annotated", and I found Fred's constant wailing and spitting even more intolerable than Simpson's delusions. I finally found a pre-Goldman copy, and yes it was crap, but I was curious, not looking for something to believe.
Anyway. I don't wish him any ill, so it was certainly good to see a more mellow Fred. I hope he's finding life easier now, though I do wonder how he might fare if Simpson gets released this year, as it seems he's likely to.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I tried to read "If I Did It", but it was the edition the Goldmans "annotated", and I found Fred's constant wailing and spitting even more intolerable than Simpson's delusions. I finally found a pre-Goldman copy, and yes it was crap, but I was curious, not looking for something to believe.
Thanks, I appreciate the understanding.
I didn't realize that the Goldmans annotated an edition of the book. I had heard they were able to get the rights to it or whatever it was. I almost read that book when it came out, but when it came down to it I decided I couldn't stomach it. Plus I heard there was only one chapter on the murders, so I figured it couldn't be that informative anyway.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
Definitely more sensation than substance. It seems the publisher assigned a fairly pragmatic ghostwriter to try to keep the thing from being overwhelmed by Simpson's ego, but even so the only thing I got from it was a lasting puzzlement over what the hell Simpson was trying to do in writing it. It almost seems more boast than expiation.
The Goldmans were given the copyright of the book as part of the award of Simpson's property after the civil suit. The book had been withdrawn from publication, so they added comments and an extensive foreword and had it republished, both to try to raise some of the damages that Simpson was never going to pay, and to put their own view of him in front of the public. The Goldmans are also the ones who had the idea of dropping the "If" to a very tiny font size, so the cover looks like it says "I Did It". Unfortunately, the tone of their comments throughout the book are imo Fred Goldman at his most shrill and histrionic.
I also found a second-hand copy of Bill Dear's book, but after seeing this documentary I'm not going to bother to read it.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
The Goldmans were given the copyright of the book as part of the award of Simpson's property after the civil suit. The book had been withdrawn from publication, so they added comments and an extensive foreword and had it republished, both to try to raise some of the damages that Simpson was never going to pay, and to put their own view of him in front of the public. The Goldmans are also the ones who had the idea of dropping the "If" to a very tiny font size, so the cover looks like it says "I Did It". Unfortunately, the tone of their comments throughout the book are imo Fred Goldman at his most shrill and histrionic.
I also found a second-hand copy of Bill Dear's book, but after seeing this documentary I'm not going to bother to read it.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
the only thing I got from it was a lasting puzzlement over what the hell Simpson was trying to do in writing it. It almost seems more boast than expiation
Even that is somewhat revealing though. Makes it sound like Simpson may be a sociopath of some sort. Maybe letting Simpson's ego have fuller reign over the book would have been more interesting in its way.
Unfortunately, the tone of their comments throughout the book are imo Fred Goldman at his most shrill and histrionic.
Profit aside, it's hard to see what they were going to accomplish. Most people think OJ committed the murders anyway, and even if they didn't, opinions are pretty solidly formed by this point.
I also found a second-hand copy of Bill Dear's book, but after seeing this documentary I'm not going to bother to read it.
Once you know the ending, which in this case is very anti-climactic, it kind of spoils the point.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
Profit aside, it's hard to see what they were going to accomplish.
But that's what I've always felt about Goldman's public spits, and why I said my response has always been, "But what is it you want?" I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Simpson's guilt has become an "everybody knows" to the degree that people feel entitled to attack anyone who questions it similar to the "mountains of evidence" that everyone is just supposed to accept without it ever being detailed these things always make me want to ask questions even more. Goldman was always sure in his mind that Simpson was the killer, and he's completely entitled to believe it, but I baulk at his demands that everyone else feel the same way. A vendetta, even when there's some truth behind it, is still a vendetta.
Once you know the ending, which in this case is very anti-climactic, it kind of spoils the point.
Oh, I already knew how it would end. The BBC did a far better documentary a few years ago that touched on, and dismissed, Dear's theory (that also featured Lange, being just as hostile and condescending), but that was comparatively brief. I just would have imagined in six hours he'd be able to produce some more substantive evidence than a time-card with misinterpreted dates.
The idea that there were two killers is one thing; but the idea that Simpson would knowingly involve his son is just gobsmacking. I can't even imagine how that would work.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
The idea that there were two killers is one thing; but the idea that Simpson would knowingly involve his son is just gobsmacking. I can't even imagine how that would work.
Well, sounds like the guy might be a sociopath, but I don't think Jason had any involvement.
I've also never thought that OJ intended to go over there and murder her, I think things just got out of hand, maybe he struck her and she ended up getting knocked out on the steps, Ron Goldman showed up, things escalated, he had the knife on him. But I don't really know anything, so who can say?
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I've also never thought that OJ intended to go over there and murder her, I think things just got out of hand, maybe he struck her and she ended up getting knocked out on the steps, Ron Goldman showed up, things escalated, he had the knife on him. But I don't really know anything, so who can say?
What happened and why will always be a subject the killer will be the only one to know
If OJ never intended to kill her (and I believe that also), then why the knife and gloves and stocking cap ??? He may have been in ninja wannabe mode Sneaking around and being a peeping tom, while disguised and armed, maybe that seemed cool to him, play acting as it were And then things went terribly, horribly wrong
Lots and lots of speculation
southbound
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
If OJ never intended to kill her (and I believe that also), then why the knife and gloves and stocking cap ???
It was commonly known that OJ was stalking her and used to spy on her while he was hiding out in the bushes. I think the gloves and stocking cap were part of the stalking disguise, but I could be wrong.
As for the knife, maybe he carried one for protection. I know guys who do this. Funny I've never heard anyone ask if OJ routinely carried a knife. But he had been given knife training as part of that Navy Seal movie he was working on, so maybe carrying it was a fairly new thing he was doing.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
As for the knife, maybe he carried one for protection. I know guys who do this. Funny I've never heard anyone ask if OJ routinely carried a knife.
As far as the knife goes, another theory is that he went there in 'ninja-mode', with the gloves and stocking cap, and was discovered lurking around by Nicole, who then proceeded to confront OJ with a knife she kept handy for such an episode OJ is caught red handed and by surprise, he may have disarmed Nicole, grabbed the knife, and put her in a rage and he started stabbing out of instinct and then Ron shows up and he gets it too Maybe Ron discovered OJ lurking around, knife was presented by Nicole and same ending with Nicole and Ron dead
I believe it wasn't the first time he had stalked her, I think it was determined in the trial that he did And I think it was going on a lotIMO
southbound
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
As far as the knife goes, another theory is that he went there in 'ninja-mode', with the gloves and stocking cap, and was discovered lurking around by Nicole, who then proceeded to confront OJ with a knife she kept handy for such an episode OJ is caught red handed and by surprise, he may have disarmed Nicole, grabbed the knife, and put her in a rage and he started stabbing
Yes, good point, I've hear that idea too. Nicole trying to protect herself with the knife, but it went horribly wrong. It's possible.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
No criticism of you, rmontro, but I'm wary of words like sociopath. They're used far too easily as an all-purpose pejorative for unacceptable behaviour, and as such they generally hide more detail than they expose much like the way Americans (mostly) use the word "evil".
But putting my soapbox aside
That one's always puzzled me. What was his intention when he made such a rushed visit to Nicole's apartment, knowing he had a limo and a flight booked that night? If he took items like the knife and knit cap with him, does that mean the killing was pre-planned? Did he have the flight booked to make it seem less likely he was involved? If so, why didn't he think to cover his tracks (literally!) in other ways?
It's all very well for cranky advocates like Tom Lange to say, "Who knows? And why does it matter?", but they should know, it really does matter. They don't have a motive or intent, and while I'm not suggesting Simpson was innocent, I also don't think it's sufficient to say, "He beat her up, so he must have killed her" as the why of it. I'm not minimising domestic violence; the extreme majority of cases, though, do not progress to murder, and when they do, a knife is far more often a woman's weapon, so it's not the given they make it out to be.
I was hoping this show might address these sorts of questions, since nothing I've seen so far has ever given them logical consideration. I didn't realise it was going to be about one person's pet theory, with two pretend investigators having conversations that were more set-up than analysis.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
But putting my soapbox aside
I've also never thought that OJ intended to go over there and murder her, I think things just got out of hand, maybe he struck her and she ended up getting knocked out on the steps, Ron Goldman showed up, things escalated, he had the knife on him. But I don't really know anything, so who can say?
That one's always puzzled me. What was his intention when he made such a rushed visit to Nicole's apartment, knowing he had a limo and a flight booked that night? If he took items like the knife and knit cap with him, does that mean the killing was pre-planned? Did he have the flight booked to make it seem less likely he was involved? If so, why didn't he think to cover his tracks (literally!) in other ways?
It's all very well for cranky advocates like Tom Lange to say, "Who knows? And why does it matter?", but they should know, it really does matter. They don't have a motive or intent, and while I'm not suggesting Simpson was innocent, I also don't think it's sufficient to say, "He beat her up, so he must have killed her" as the why of it. I'm not minimising domestic violence; the extreme majority of cases, though, do not progress to murder, and when they do, a knife is far more often a woman's weapon, so it's not the given they make it out to be.
I was hoping this show might address these sorts of questions, since nothing I've seen so far has ever given them logical consideration. I didn't realise it was going to be about one person's pet theory, with two pretend investigators having conversations that were more set-up than analysis.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
I agree the word sociopath is used far too frequently and tossed around much to easily. However I've read and watched a lot about OJ Simpson over the years, and I have come to think he is a sociopath. (I don't believe in evil, although I'm American, so )
That's puzzled me as well. It seems obvious to me he was on an escalating boil, that reached breaking point early that evening, and boiled over that night. But if it was on out of control rage, how to explain the cap, gloves, and knife, which point to premeditation? His flight to Chicago, as I understand it, was made days in advance, so it seems to me it was more a matter of thinking it gave him an alibi in the moment, than planned that far in advance.
I have a similar problem with what he had with him when he took off with AC. The passport might be explained as something he regularly carried with him (maybe), and the $8k wouldn't last him long, especially given the lifestyle he was used to. Did he make plans for someone to wire him real money when he got to wherever it was he was planning to head to? The beard makes the least sense, as everyone who knew him said he ate up the attention he got as a celebrity, and loved being recognized. No one mentioned his wearing a disguise before this, that I'm aware of.
I haven't seen this show, and already knowing all I need to about William Dear, which has only been reaffirmed by what I've read here, so I'm not interested in watching it. So what, exactly, was Tom Lange responding to when he said "Who knows? And why does it matter?"
I don't think anyone's saying that. There was plenty of physical, as well as circumstantial, evidence that Simpson killed Nicole and Ron.
Do you have any source for this? I'd be very surprised if more women than men chose a knife rather than, say, a gun to kill someone. A knife requires more physical strength and close quarters. If I had to fight a man for some reason, and had a choice, I'd take a gun! A knife is too dangerous and I'd be at too much of a disadvantage.
I think they had both motive and intent.
I knew it'd be about one (unreliable) person's pet theory, knowing what I know about Dear, but didn't and still don't know about the two pretend investigators and a set-up analysis.
That one's always puzzled me. What was his intention when he made such a rushed visit to Nicole's apartment, knowing he had a limo and a flight booked that night? If he took items like the knife and knit cap with him, does that mean the killing was pre-planned? Did he have the flight booked to make it seem less likely he was involved? If so, why didn't he think to cover his tracks (literally!) in other ways?
That's puzzled me as well. It seems obvious to me he was on an escalating boil, that reached breaking point early that evening, and boiled over that night. But if it was on out of control rage, how to explain the cap, gloves, and knife, which point to premeditation? His flight to Chicago, as I understand it, was made days in advance, so it seems to me it was more a matter of thinking it gave him an alibi in the moment, than planned that far in advance.
I have a similar problem with what he had with him when he took off with AC. The passport might be explained as something he regularly carried with him (maybe), and the $8k wouldn't last him long, especially given the lifestyle he was used to. Did he make plans for someone to wire him real money when he got to wherever it was he was planning to head to? The beard makes the least sense, as everyone who knew him said he ate up the attention he got as a celebrity, and loved being recognized. No one mentioned his wearing a disguise before this, that I'm aware of.
It's all very well for cranky advocates like Tom Lange to say, "Who knows? And why does it matter?", but they should know, it really does matter.
I haven't seen this show, and already knowing all I need to about William Dear, which has only been reaffirmed by what I've read here, so I'm not interested in watching it. So what, exactly, was Tom Lange responding to when he said "Who knows? And why does it matter?"
while I'm not suggesting Simpson was innocent, I also don't think it's sufficient to say, "He beat her up, so he must have killed her" as the why of it.
I don't think anyone's saying that. There was plenty of physical, as well as circumstantial, evidence that Simpson killed Nicole and Ron.
and when they do, a knife is far more often a woman's weapon
Do you have any source for this? I'd be very surprised if more women than men chose a knife rather than, say, a gun to kill someone. A knife requires more physical strength and close quarters. If I had to fight a man for some reason, and had a choice, I'd take a gun! A knife is too dangerous and I'd be at too much of a disadvantage.
I think they had both motive and intent.
I didn't realise it was going to be about one person's pet theory, with two pretend investigators having conversations that were more set-up than analysis.
I knew it'd be about one (unreliable) person's pet theory, knowing what I know about Dear, but didn't and still don't know about the two pretend investigators and a set-up analysis.
Re: Fred Goldman
I also found a second-hand copy of Bill Dear's book, but after seeing this documentary I'm not going to bother to read it.
I read it and you're making a very good choice not to bother with it.
__________________________________________
"In your opinion?"
"Um, yes your honor, in my opinion."
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
Agreed. Goldman was and still is annoying, but if my son was murdered then I would be pretty pissed off as well.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
Maybe because I am older and am a parent, Fred Goldman has never bothered me. I thought he handled himself with a fair amount of dignity.
There certainly is no handbook on what to do when your child is murdered by a celebrity.
Fred Goldman did better than I could have. I would have been curled up in the fetal position.
There certainly is no handbook on what to do when your child is murdered by a celebrity.
Fred Goldman did better than I could have. I would have been curled up in the fetal position.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
Thank you for posting this because I have always felt the same wayannoyed by him but ashamed of myself for being annoyed by himand it's nice to know I'm not alone.
Re: Fred Goldman
Reply |
He suffered the loss of a child I. The most horrible war imaginable.
However, when he loses credibility is when he acts like his son was doing a "good deed" by returning Nicole's mothers glasses. As if.
Nicole was setting the scene to sleep with Ron. Sexy dress, no panties. Music playing. Candles lit all over with a bubble bath waiting. Please! It's so obvious. Faye resnicks book is at least honest about it. Ron Goldman was driving the Ferrari OJ bought Nicole around Brentwood. They were MORE than friends!!
However, when he loses credibility is when he acts like his son was doing a "good deed" by returning Nicole's mothers glasses. As if.
Nicole was setting the scene to sleep with Ron. Sexy dress, no panties. Music playing. Candles lit all over with a bubble bath waiting. Please! It's so obvious. Faye resnicks book is at least honest about it. Ron Goldman was driving the Ferrari OJ bought Nicole around Brentwood. They were MORE than friends!!
Fred Goldman
It was nice to see him here, sitting and talking calmly but persuasively about the murders. I think it was a much more effective presentation of how much he had lost than what we had seen before.