Originally posted by Bashar Teg
And there's the completion of the time waster troll loop.I already stated my case and you copped out
You didn't prove racial motivation on the McMichaels. You even said this before in the other thread that it makes English look like he had racial motivations for his selective calls.
This doesn't show racial motivation on the McMichaels part.
surt: you have no evidence of racial bias *pretend-victory lap*
pvs: mcmichaels obviously singled out the black guy among the white trespassers
surt: *makes empty claim about mcmichaels having previous knowledge of arbery in particular*
pvs: that claim is baseless unless you have evidence to back it up
surt: you have no evidence of racial bias *pretend-victory lap*
rinse and repeat
Originally posted by Surtur
You have no evidence they singled out the black guys. You never presented any evidence English made them aware of white trespassers too.You lost. Get over it.
there were other black guys? new evidence? let's see it
as far as the public information goes, there was only one black trespassers and several white trespassers, you lying time waster troll
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
there were other black guys? new evidence? let's see itas far as the public information goes, there was only one black trespassers and several white trespassers, you lying time waster troll
Do you have evidence English made them aware of non-black trespassers yes or no? Present it.
Originally posted by Surtur
Do you have evidence English made them aware of non-black trespassers yes or no? Present it.
no evidence is needed, since that is an irrelevant red herring. mcmichaels acted on what he witnessed, as he was actively monitoring the property. the evidence is self-apparent in that he never bothered to attempt apprehension on any of the white trespassers and chased down arbery, you time waster troll
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no evidence is needed, since that is an irrelevant red herring. mcmichaels acted on what he witnessed, as he was actively monitoring the property. the evidence is self-apparent in that he never bothered to attempt apprehension on any of the white trespassers and chased down arbery, you time waster troll
Okay so you have no evidence the McMichaels went after black people but chose not to go after white people. All you have is that English seemed more bothered by the black guy on his property than he did white people.
That doesn't prove racial motivation for the shooters.
So you have no evidence he witnessed white trespassers and did nothing.
Jesus this is getting old. Come back with more evidence if you get it. As of now there is no evidence of racial motivation.
Deal with it. Now celebrate a pretend win, call me a time waster troll, have your cheer leader come in and agree. I'll allow it all 🙂
I'm not going to requote myself again. It's a fact that he was actively monitoring the property. if you want assert that he happened to go take a shit just before every white trespasser arrived, then have fun with that buffoonery. the evidence was already stated and you ignored it like a cowardly time waster troll
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, but English is the one who selectively informed McMichael and you know it. You try to point out valid arguments people will bring up in advance as if it negates them.
About that...
He said he didn't notify them.
So...his phone records would clearly indicate he did if he lied. He was 2 hours away when Arbery broke into his house to try and rob him.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for taking the time to outline one of the prosecutor's arguments from the court case.What I didn't understand about the DNA angle is: where did OJ's blood come from? Where was he injured? They talked about injury on his left third knuckle (I really wish I could see that photo). One expert witness said the injuries looked like finger nails. So OJ's DNA should have been under Goldman's or Nicole's finger nails, right? I didn't read about that in the case, though. I didn't read about that coming from the prosecutor's in one of their arguments.
OJ was caught very soon after the murder and a wound that could leave that much blood would have been very terrible. Should have been quite obvious.
Over 80 drops of blood from a nail scratch? That's tough to believe. Which is also part of why the argument didn't gain much traction with the jury. But OJ's defense against all his blood at the crime scene was that it was put there. WTF? Where did they get OJ's blood to do that?
I didn't forget but haven't had the time. I'm going out of town for awhile so I think this link will maybe help. Its unfortunate but imo, he killed both Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Originally posted by Stringer
I didn't forget but haven't had the time. I'm going out of town for awhile so I think this link will maybe help. Its unfortunate but imo, he killed both Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Thanks for this.
...DNA test results matching the blood found inside the vehicle with that of the celebrity defendant and the two victims."The DNA evidence here is so overwhelming that all they {the defense} can talk about is conspiracy. That is really all the defense is left with,
The article talks about OJ's blood being consistent with the story that OJ cut himself during the murder. That makes more sense than the nails into his skin argument. OJ claimed it was a glass at a hotel but found nothing on the glass. That claim was fail when they looked.
Also, the defense made the same argument about the police conspiracy to frame OJ to get out of these DNA allegations and the Jury bought it.
Enjoy your trip. 👆
I heard somewhere that OJ's son's friend was the first copper on the scene, can't remember where I heard it, but I listened to a Michael Moore podcast about 8 or so years ago where he discussed the case so it may have been that. I suppose the implication is that he was involved in mishandling of evidence or something to that effect.
The killings happened a couple of years after the L.A. riots and a friend of mine has long held the belief that the system was unwilling to send down a prominent black figure at that time. That's a bit cynical even for me TBH. Did he genuinely have that big of a status in the States?
He was a shit Nordberg, the original guy was much better.
Originally posted by samhainYes, he was massive there Sam, think George Best or Gazza.
I heard somewhere that OJ's son's friend was the first copper on the scene, can't remember where I heard it, but I listened to a Michael Moore podcast about 8 or so years ago where he discussed the case so it may have been that. I suppose the implication is that he was involved in mishandling of evidence or something to that effect.The killings happened a couple of years after the L.A. riots and a friend of mine has long held the belief that the system was unwilling to send down a prominent black figure at that time. That's a bit cynical even for me TBH. Did he genuinely have that big of a status in the States?
He was a shit Nordberg, the original guy was much better.
Originally posted by samhain
I heard somewhere that OJ's son's friend was the first copper on the scene, can't remember where I heard it, but I listened to a Michael Moore podcast about 8 or so years ago where he discussed the case so it may have been that. I suppose the implication is that he was involved in mishandling of evidence or something to that effect.The killings happened a couple of years after the L.A. riots and a friend of mine has long held the belief that the system was unwilling to send down a prominent black figure at that time. That's a bit cynical even for me TBH. Did he genuinely have that big of a status in the States?
He was a shit Nordberg, the original guy was much better.
Never thought about the L.A. riot connection.
That was probably on their minds, but doubt they'd sweep evidence under the rug out of that fear. The danger of rioting is kind of overstated anyways, worst that usually happens is some property damage and a lot o angry voices, hardly a blood bath.