🚀 go-pugleaf

NO, he did it.

"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cffa2b0.0109230547.28fe07df@posting.google.com...
> Recently, there was yet another talk show on CNN on this subject.
> Bailey was there claiming that police framed Simpson, while his
> opponent Sliwa (means in Russian "prune") was asking a pretty valid
> question: police in the past bent backward in all cases when they were
> called due to domestic violence; so if in the past they were on
> Simpson's side, why would they change and decide to frame him?  Bailey
> did not really know how to answer this question.  So, where is the
> truth here?
>
> There is no doubt, that police framed Simpson, but they did not frame
> him to have him convicted, they framed him to have him acquitted.  The
> evidence against him was so overwhelming that there was only one way
> to save him: to frame him, and to do it in the most evident and stupid
> way.  This is what police does each time they want to have someone
> acquitted.  Remember the case Mattick, who were caught with several
> tons of hashish?  The only way to save them was to frame them, and
> this is exactly what SQ did, and a corrupt judge got well paid for
> dismissing the charges.  Then the taxpayer had to pay $35 million for
> the Poitras Commission, which never tried to discover the truth.
>
> In the Simpson's case, his lawyers immediately hired a retired
> policeman as a "consultant".  The real role of the consultant was to
> bribe the policemen involved in the case, so that they would "frame"
> Simpson.  These policemen would be reluctant to take money from the
> lawyers, but they would have no problem taking money from their old
> friend, and they did.  Remember film, where policeman took the vial
> with Simpson's blood and instead of sending it to the lab, went to the
> scene of crime, creating impression that he could have dispersed part
> of the blood there.  All this was filmed in zoom.  Do you believe that
> the policeman was so stupid, that he did not understand the
> impropriety of bringing the specimen with the suspect's blood to the
> scene of crime?  If he wanted to really frame Simpson, he would
> certainly not allow this to be filmed, especially in zoom.
>
> If you think, that the prosecution wanted to convict Simpson, think
> again.  They did everything to loose the case.  They quarreled with
> the defence for every little thing, but this was just a spectacle for
> public consumption.  Here are the major steps the made to have Simpson
> acquitted.  First, they assigned LA to be the place of trial, while
> strictly speaking, it had to be done in Brentwood, where the crime
> took place.  They did it, because in LA majority of jurors would be
> black, while in Brentwood the jurors would be white.
>
> Second, it was the prosecution, who initiated the test, which showed
> that the glove did not fit.  They knew that the glove was planted and
> that it would not fit.  How stupid one should be to manage to lose one
> glove at the scene of crime and then to lose the second one in his
> backyard?  Simpson somehow managed to destroy all his clothes, but
> "forgot" a bloody sock in his bedroom.  Would you believe that?
> Especially, with the blood stain passing through, as if the sock was
> stained when there was no foot inside it.
>
> Third, remember the closing argument by Darden.  I have never heard
> anything more stupid than this.  Instead of discussing the evidence,
> he resorted to rhetoric.  He said that he asked his secretary to go
> out and to buy the US Constitution, and his secretary brought him the
> Constitution, and he opened it and read there that Simpson's victims
> had the right to be alive, etc.
>
> In my case, police also has tampered with evidence.  If you are
> interested in details, they are available on my web site.  The reason
> for tampering was, that government did not want me in jail, they
> wanted me in a mental institution.  They wanted the verdict of
> insanity so desperately, that during the trial, on June 1, 1993, Dr.
> Antippa, who was at that time a Professor in the Department of
> Physics, Universite du Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, has met with me and
> told me that he had a meeting with the prosecution and transmitted to
> me their offer: $230,000, paid by Concordia University.  He explained
> to me that this amount was computed as $200,000, which was offered to
> me in 1992 as shut-up money, plus interest.  As he told me, all I had
> to do, was to "sit back and let the lawyer do his job", which I
> understood as letting lawyer plead insanity.  I did not accept the
> offer.
>
> It is interesting that government can always find someone, who you
> might trust, as a provocateur.  Dr. Antippa was at that time in a
> situation somewhat similar to mine: he was fighting in court another
> false scientist, named Leblank.  It is also interesting that
> government usually does not feel any gratitude to the people, who it
> uses as provocateurs: Dr. Antippa lost his case in court, though the
> truth was on his side.
>
> Fabrikant