Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Pat Valentino on the OJ case
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    The little tidbit that Valentino let out about the forensic evidence in the OJ trial was fascinating. Does anyone know the full show with him going into detail in the OJ case? I didn't pay much attention to the story at the time, figuring it was just a cover...although Sherman Skolnick wrote that OJ was innocent, so I probably should have known...
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    You'll find the interviews pertaining to the OJ case on the following show segment numbers:
    From 2006:  276b, 299b & 299c, 301a & 301b(start 301a about 35 minutes in)
    From 2007:  309a

    After learning a little about the Jowers trial in Memphis which ran at the same time, I kinda think the OJ case was a diversion to keep the media from focusing there. Pat makes a pretty good case doesn't he?
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    Certainly very interesting. Thanks for the help!
  • robert1robert1
    Posts: 116

    ??? Forum members?  What is black
    and white and looks good on an at-
    torney?  a pit bull
  • TorontotoolTorontotool
    Posts: 47
    OJ was guilty as sin and I can't believe that this has even come up.

    OH MY GOD!!!!

    Valentino has pulled a "Bugliosi" out of his nether-regions in trying to re-write history.  Shameful, Pat, really shameful.

    Nicole Brown Simpson did indeed have blood under her fingernails.  It was her own!!!!

    I wasn't privvy to the Las Vegas trial, but I did watch the original trial - every single day of it, in fact.

    Even OJ's kids believe that he was guilty!  Not to mention various and sundry witnesses - such as Kato Kalin, AC Cowlings, and Rosey Grier. They may not have said so on the official record, of course - DUH!

    Wake up, people.  Use your common sense.  Apply it to the murder.

    What a joke!




  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    OJ was guilty as sin and I can't believe that this has even come up.



    Maybe, maybe not.

    "I'm the key witness in the biggest case of the century. And, if I go down, they lose the case. The glove is everything. Without the glove -- bye, bye."  - Mark Fuhrman

    image

    Detective Mark Fuhrman testified to being the first officer to observe a spot of blood on the defendant's Bronco automobile, as well as the glove allegedly found behind defendant's Rockingham residence, although these observations occurred after he had been removed as a Detective in charge of this investigation. Cross examination focused on the possibility that detective Fuhrman had moved or planted any evidence in this case, which he flatly denied.
    --------------------------------

    "People there don't want niggers in their town. People there don't want Mexicans in their town. They don't want anybody but good people in their town, and anyway you can do to get them out of there that's fine with them. We have no niggers where I grew up."

    "Westwood is gone, the niggers have discovered it. When they start moving into Redondo and Torrance. Torrance is considered the last white middle class society."

    "We stopped the choke because a bunch of Niggers have a bunch of these organizations in the south end, and because all Niggers are choked out and killed -- twelve in ten years. Really is extraordinary, isn't it?"

    "Now, it's funny because guys in Internal Affairs go, `Mark, you can do just about anything. Get in a bar fight. We'd love to investigate just some `good 'ol boy' beating up a nigger in a bar.'"

    "We still should be shooting people in the back. It's just that you've got to hire people who are capable of doing it. And capable of figuring out who the bad guys are."

    "He doesn't know how to be a policeman. (whispers) `I can't lie' . . . Oh, you make me fucking sick to my guts. You know, you do what you have to do to put these fucking assholes in jail. If you don't, you fucking get out of the fucking game." - Mark Fuhrman  http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/fuhrman.html

    Where was Mark Fuhrman on the Night of June 12, 1994?
    Fuhrman may very well have been the leader of a white-supremacist group within the Los Angeles Police Department and he apparently boasted of having a relationship (possibly sexual) with Nicole Brown Simpson. Ominously, he apparently lied on the witness stand during questioning by Marcia Clark. (Fuhrman claimed that he was at a police protective league barbecue in La Quinta, California. This event took place the previous evening!)  http://spitfirelist.com/f039.html
    http://www.blackopforum.info/index.php/topic,17.0.html

    O.J. Case Detective: No JFK Conspiracy
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1613929n

    image
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    I am with PurpleHaze. If the key prosecution witness is Furman, then we have to re-evaluate everything...thanks for posting that stuff, I had no idea there was so much documented filth in regard to this guy...
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    I am with PurpleHaze. If the key prosecution witness is Furman, then we have to re-evaluate everything...thanks for posting that stuff, I had no idea there was so much documented filth in regard to this guy...



    Fuhrman didn't exactly help the prosecution's case.  ;) My wife and I were down in L.A. for some reason a few weeks after the trial ended, and we decided to drive past the Bundy murder scene. There were a lot of people there, gawking, so we stopped and gawked, too. The house was sealed off with police tape, barricades and chain link fence. As I've heard people remark about Dealey Plaza, the small area of the crime scene was surprising. The gate where Nicole lay was only about 15 feet off the sidewalk, and the enclosure that Goldman got trapped in was tiny. All the homes in the neighborhood are packed tightly together, but nobody noticed a bloody double killing that was taking place practically under their noses. Strange.
  • TorontotoolTorontotool
    Posts: 47
    The quotes of Fuhrman using the "n" word come from a book manuscript he was working on with another author.  He was transcribing fiction to her.

    For you people to cherry-pick that and try to present it here as being factual is as bad as anything McAdams, Bugliosi, or Posner have ever done.

    I'm not here to defend Fuhrman as the greatest human being who ever lived.  I don't know him and I don't care about him.

    But NOT EVERYTHING IN HUMAN HISTORY is a conspiracy. Sorry to break that little reality to you!
  • TorontotoolTorontotool
    Posts: 47
    When a woman -- Nicole Brown Simpson, in this case -- stuffs a safe-box filled with photos that depict how she was continually bruised, beaten, and threatened by OJ and then tells everyone close to her that if she ever turns up dead that OJ was responsible...that says plenty.

    Unless, of course, she knew that she would end up being murdered by drug runners and decided it would be better to implicate her husband instead so that the drug runners would be protected from suspicion.

    He told her he would kill her and that he would get away with it because he was "OJ Simpson - charismatic former athlete and television personality" - and that's exactly what he did.

    A cop, and friend of OJ's, who testified at the trial -- who also happened to be African American -- mouthed the words "tell the truth" in OJ's direction when he realized how OJ's depiction of events stated to his attorneys was all lies and completely at odds with what really was said between the two men in private.

    The footprints at the scene were in his size.  He had a badly gashed finger.  He climbed a backyard fence in a clumsy attempt re-enter his house unseen.  He tried to leave the country driving a vehicle which contained disguises and a lot of cash.  His truck was parked askew. There was blood found on the outside of the truck door before a sample had even been obtained from him.

    At the time of the murders, OJ had just acted in a pilot for a television series.  In it, he played the role of a mercenery experienced in deadly hand-to-hand combat. As part of his training, he had been receiving extensive instruction on how to efficiently dispatch of a person using a hunting knife.

    All indications of an innocent man.

    The way the defense approached that case was not one iota different than how the Warren Commission handled the JFK case - and how the cover-up continues to proceed to this day, for that matter. Maligning of witnesses, cherry-picking of evidence, introduction of red herrings, and misdirection was rampant throughout

    If anything, OJ received incredibly favourable treatment from the LAPD. They had given him the benefit of the doubt from the outset.  It is precisely that reverence which I believe allowed OJ to walk in that the very same things they did to try and protect him was used against them by a slimy and deceptive defense team.

    Combine that with a heavily baised jury that possessed a combined IQ of room temperature and you end up with a "Not Guilty" verdict.


  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Torontotool wrote:

    Combine that with a heavily baised jury that possessed a combined IQ of room temperature and you end up with a "Not Guilty" verdict.

    It should've been an all white Republican jury (Ph.D's required) who religiously attend the policeman's ball every year. There ya go.  ;)

    I think we're all familiar with the state's case - it was drummed into our heads quite well. I see no point in arguing the verdict now, so many years later, but there are other theories and facts that the TellyVision never mentioned. I personally felt that there was reasonable doubt. So, shoot me.
    ---------

    During cross examination of Detective Fuhrman on March 15, 1995, the following testimony was elicited: (R.T. 18898-99)

    Q. By Mr. Bailey: Do you use the word "nigger" in describing people.
    Ms. Clark: Same Objection.
    The Court: Presently?
    Mr. Bailey: Yes.
    The Court: Overruled.
    The Witness: No, sir.
    Q. By Mr. Bailey: Have you ever used that word in the past ten years?
    A: Not that I recall, no.
    Q: You mean if you called someone a nigger you have forgotten it?
    A: I'm not sure I can answer that question the way you phrased it, sir.
    Q: You have a difficulty understanding the question?
    A: Yes.
    Q: I will rephrase it. I want you to assume that perhaps at some time since 1985 or 1985, you addressed a member of the African American race as a nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part?
    A: No, it is not possible.
    Q: Are you therefore saying that you have not use that word in the past ten years, Detective Fuhrman?
    A: Yes, that is what I'm saying.
    Q: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person as a nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past ten years, Detective Fuhrman?
    A: That's what I'm saying, sir.


    ( ...describing taking a suspect "to the baseball diamond.")
    "We basically get impatient with him being so fucking stupid. Which I thought he was. So I just handcuffed him and went the scenic route to the station. We searched him again and found the gun. Went over to the baseball diamond and talked to him. When I left, Dana goes, `No blood Mark.' `No problem, not even any marks, Dana.' Just body shots. Did you ever try to find a bruise on a Nigger. It is pretty tough, huh? (Tape No. 10, p.25.)

    The "Fuhrman Tapes" contain forty examples of the use of the term "nigger" to refer to black persons in a racially disparaging context. These references were not casual slips of the tongue, but a consistent pattern that recurs throughout the transcripts. In only one case - item no 12 - was Fuhrman assuming the role of a fictional character when the word "nigger" was used.

    The "Fuhrman Tapes" contain eighteen examples of Detective Fuhrman admitting participation in police misconduct, or offering approving comments with respect to misconduct. This misconduct includes illegal use of deadly force, beating suspects to extract confessions, planting evidence, framing innocent persons, and lying or covering up misconduct by others.
    http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/fuhrman.html

    When Robert Heidstra said he saw a light-colored sports utility vehicle heading south, Chris Darden said it was a white Bronco. The media repeated, white Bronco. They ignored the direction. When an FBI shoeprint expert identified the shoes worn by the killer as Bruno Maglis, the type of shoe O.J. wore to his daughter’s recital was close enough for Detectives Vannatter and Lange to decide that he had worn the Brunos, too.
    Not exactly a match, but close enough.

    20 QUESTIONS
    http://www.smartfellowspress.com/Iago/Iago-pdf/iago35.pdf
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    Thanks for the links, I am checking them out.

    Pretty tough to find that many white Republican PhDs...you'd have to go to the Cato Institute or the Brookings Institute...
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    Pretty tough to find that many white Republican PhDs...you'd have to go to the Cato Institute or the Brookings Institute...



    Ha! Or... maybe PNAC?
  • TorontotoolTorontotool
    Posts: 47
    Purple Haze wrote:

    "I think we're all familiar with the state's case - it was drummed into our heads quite well. I see no point in arguing the verdict now, so many years later, but there are other theories and facts that the TellyVision never mentioned. I personally felt that there was reasonable doubt. So, shoot me"

    Have you got a gun?

    You say there's no point in arguing the verdict but then you go on for an entire page in an effort to nail Furhman to the cross.  I said before that Fuhrman was an idiot.  Lots of cops are.  That doesn't translate into OJ not being guilty.  Unless, of course, it was Fuhrman who gashed his finger, Fuhrman who climbed a backyard fence, Fuhrman who had the right-sized shoes, etc.

    What's the matter...have you run out of negative things to post aboout Obama?  Don't stop now - this way we'll have evidence of your mental instability once you finally snap and start shooting at strangers with a rifle.

  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    A bit over the top, no? Surely we can review and debate the evidence and let the chips fall.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    My ISP is doing it's (at least) annual screw-up, so I've only been able to get online sporadically for the past couple of weeks. I haven't been able to pick a day where I can sit around and wait for the jerks, and I'm sure the problem isn't indoors, anyway - it's probably their connection up on the pole. There are several posts I've meant to reply to, but...

    Didn't your mom used to date O.J., Torontotool? Or is that just another silly internet rumor?  :D

    This thing's been online for something like 10 straight hours - wow! Had an afterthought:
    Torontofool wrote: What's the matter...have you run out of negative things to post about Obama?  Don't stop now - this way we'll have evidence of your mental instability once you finally snap and start shooting at strangers with a rifle.

    I could go on posting "negative things" about Obama forever, because he's just an extension of Bush. I've got an idea - why don't you post something positive about your fearless leader? Show us exactly why he's such a great guy. Ought to be be pretty easy, right?

    Shooting at strangers with a rifle? Nah, if I wanted to do that I'd have joined the U.S. army.
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
      I'm inclined to agree with Purplehaze.
      While Obama and George Dumbfuck are polar opposites in terms of personality, they're two sides of a single coin.
      There is a two party system for a reason in America. This is so that the people who choose the candidates (Not you or I) can also fund them and control their policy.
      Bush set about beginning a no-end war... Obama continues this war
      Bush sent planes into NYC buildings to affect domestic policy.... Obama continues this domestic policy, changing it very little in it's substance and, in some cases, strengthening it
      Bush set about bankrupting the US economy by giving trillions to corporations.... Obama exacerbates this policy by giving even greater trillions to these corporations
      Nothing changes. Bush and Obama were hand picked. They will do whatever their owners tell them to do or they will be Kennedyed. It's a simple as that
      As most in this forum are aware, America has been used by the banks to corrupt Third World countries and steal their resources ever since WWII. Since the demise of the USSR, there is really only one power left in the world... America.
      Most Americans feel that America is untouchable but don't be fooled. The banks are in control and America presents the biggest single threat to their existance.
      I've come to the conclusion (and I could be wrong) that What Bush and Obama are doing is the same as what America has done to the small Third World countries, namely making it unable to defend itself and giving itself over to the corporations and banks.
      More and more private armies like Aegis and Blackwater are taking over the jobs formerly done by American military service people.... They no longer need America's military so they spread it thinly over the world to make it too, innefectual. Even the economy has tanked and is heading south more and more rapidly.... all by design.
      There are so many signs that this is happening and nobody seems to be able to stop it.
      Such is the "New-World-Order"
      I wish I had an answer except to call for a revolution but I don't. Nonetheless, i'm not fooled by whomever sits in the President's chair. You can bet we didn't vote for that person and they do not have our best interest at heart. They serve an unseen master far above them, the people who really control the world.
  • Mr. Valentino:

    In the interest of honest, accurate research and fact-gathering, kindly let us know if OJ is paying you off in 10's, 20's, or 50's.

    We'll need that information at your insanity hearing.

    Thanks Pat!
  • Mr. Valentino:

    For you - it's "Mr." Torontotool!

    Have you ever heard of the names Posner, Mack, McAdams, and Bulgiosi?

    Well, I ask you, Mr. Valentino, which came first...the chicken or the egg?

    What the above-mentioned names represent to the JFK case, Pat Valentino represents to the OJ case.

    Oh, and we're still waiting for you to tell us if OJ is paying you off in 10's, 20's, or 50's.

    Thanks Pat!
  • His father left his mother for his stepmom when he was young. They are now divorced.

    Now a disturbed 24-year old with 3 suicide attempts on record, he works at a local restaurant. Like many chefs, he carries his knives with him. He also has been known to carry a knife similar to the type he was introduced to in the military. It is specifically meant to kill. It has a double edge, and a "T" between the handle and blade to prevent the hand from slipping or riding up onto the blade as it is used to stab.

    He is on probation for assault with a deadly weapon (a knife).

    His 8-year old half sister is having a dance recital that afternoon.

    He wants to cook dinner for them at his restaurant after the recital, and is looking forward to it. The party will include his 2 half-sisters, his stepmom, her family,  and some friends. His stepmom won't allow this, and says that the party will have dinner at a restaurant where a friend of hers' works as a waiter.

    3 weeks prior to this, he had checked himself in to the psychiatric ward at Cedar Sinai Hospital. He told the doctors that he had stopped taking his medication, Deprakote, and felt that he was "about to rage".

    His stepmom and that same waiter are stabbed to death that night.

    His father hires a lawyer for him the next day (he does not hire one for himself at this time). This is why he is not questioned until 3 years later, in a deposition for a civil trial. His father is tried for, and acquitted of, the 2 murders.

    The investigator is William C. Dear (theoverlookedsuspect.com). There is also a 2 hour documentary with much documentation.
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    There is another crime in this case and that's the total media blackout of the Jowers trial in Memphis. While the OJ show was going on, the government was found guilty on all counts in the Martin Luther King assassination. Was this the real purpose of the media frenzy at OJ's?
  • The best 2 movies ever made (IMO) were Godfather 1 and 2. The worst movie ever made was Godfather 3. Horrendous, garish, characters that were more like caricatures, and the fall from the original was so precipitous.  *  One of the best books ever written on what was otherwise a blatant case of domestic murder was "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi legitimately slams everyone involved, BUT ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THROUGH with proof in most points. Example, when "proving" that not only should the case have been tried in Santa Monica with the utmost honesty in saying that a downtown (black) jury may have held prejudice, and the case DID NOT HAVE TO BE HELD DOWNTOWN as maintained by Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clarke, Bugliosi backs it up by first contacting the court coordinator and verifying that it could indeed, have remained within it's geographic court jurisdiction (Santa Monica) and THEN GETS GARCETTI TO ADMIT HE WAS MISTAKEN. All the way down the line point by point with all of the evidence.  *  The worst book ever written about a murder was "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. When I read he wrote this (and then read it), and maintained the LNA illusion I was, as the Aussies say, GOBSMACKED.  I believe I now understand his turn against honesty, and I will never think about him the same way. It does however, lend itself a positive contribution to the JFK research community. IF THIS WAS THE BEST THE WARREN COMMISSION ADVOCATES have, then it only bolsters a case for conspiracy that didn't need any. I implore "Op" people to read up on OJ before lumping it in with legitimate conspiracies. A huge thanks to Jim DiEugenio for his Bugliosi reviews.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    One of the best books ever written on what was otherwise a blatant case of domestic murder was "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi legitimately slams everyone involved, BUT ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THROUGH with proof in most points. Example, when "proving" that not only should the case have been tried in Santa Monica with the utmost honesty in saying that a downtown (black) jury may have held prejudice, and the case DID NOT HAVE TO BE HELD DOWNTOWN as maintained by Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clarke, Bugliosi backs it up by first contacting the court coordinator and verifying that it could indeed, have remained within it's geographic court jurisdiction (Santa Monica) and THEN GETS GARCETTI TO ADMIT HE WAS MISTAKEN. All the way down the line point by point with all of the evidence.

    The worst book ever written about a murder was "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi.



    If only OJ had been tried by a fair and impartial all-white jury in Santa Monica...  ;)

    Funny how we like authors when they agree with us, and don't like them when they don't.

    Where was Mark Fuhrman on the Night of June 12, 1994?
    http://emory.kfjc.org/archive/ftr/000_099/f-039.mp3
  • barbhbarbh
    Posts: 25
    Example, when "proving" that not only should the case have been tried in Santa Monica with the utmost honesty in saying that a downtown (black) jury may have held prejudice


    There's a case going on right now in Southern California of a BART policeman who shot and killed an unarmed black man after pulling him out of the train he was coming home on early New Years Day, 2010. This is known as the Oscar Grant case, and the defendant is a BART policeman named Johannes Meserle. It took place here in Oakland. As it happened the cars were full of young people with phone cameras.  Before the police confiscated all their phones and cameras, a lady managed to get the execution on film. You can look at it on youtube.  In a lot of opinions, that's the only reason the policeman is on trial now.  The evidence was just too blatant.  The court trial was moved from Oakland, where the crime occurred, to Southern California because there are so many people here tired of their young people executed by police, and they've had a few small uprisings. On the jury, there are no black people. Why is it a "given" that only black people are prejudiced?
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 444
    author said:


    author said:


    One of the best books ever written on what was otherwise a blatant case of domestic murder was "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi legitimately slams everyone involved, BUT ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THROUGH with proof in most points. Example, when "proving" that not only should the case have been tried in Santa Monica with the utmost honesty in saying that a downtown (black) jury may have held prejudice, and the case DID NOT HAVE TO BE HELD DOWNTOWN as maintained by Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clarke, Bugliosi backs it up by first contacting the court coordinator and verifying that it could indeed, have remained within it's geographic court jurisdiction (Santa Monica) and THEN GETS GARCETTI TO ADMIT HE WAS MISTAKEN. All the way down the line point by point with all of the evidence.

    The worst book ever written about a murder was "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi.



    If only OJ had been tried by a fair and impartial all-white jury in Santa Monica...  ;)

    Funny how we like authors when they agree with us, and don't like them when they don't.

    Where was Mark Fuhrman on the Night of June 12, 1994?
    http://emory.kfjc.org/archive/ftr/000_099/f-039.mp3

    Here's some more interesting stuff surrounding this case...
    image
    rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - 4 Chemical compounds used by the CIA as Cancer Agents
    said:

    Evidence points to Bob Marley's particular Cancer vector being copper wire inserted within a pair of brand new boots, delivered personally by Carl Colby, son of the infamous CIA Director William Colby. Marley then unaware, ended up in the hands of Dr. Josef Issels, a Nazi former doctor at Auschwitz and contemporary of Dr. Josef Mengele, where he was carefully managed to ensure his "natural" death.



    I'd be very interested in hearing about Carl Colby in this regard.  I met him years ago, worked for him for a few days, in fact, and he was possibly the CREEPIEST man I've ever met in my life. 

    It's kind of awful to think he's probably still out there doing .... whatever.

    As it was, he was actually directing a corporate film for Martin Marietta outside of Denver.  Which was something of a military base when you'd approach and enter it.  I mean, I grew up on military bases, and this was quite similar to a military base including big banners reading "Peace Through Strength" hung across the way.    We were doing some sort of what we call "industrial films" which are corporate films that nobody ever sees except people within the corporation, or other businesses and if I remember correctly it had something to do with "Star Wars".  This was probably in 1987 or 88 or so. 

    Man that guy was creepy.

    on edit:  Man, I just did a google search on the bastard.  Check this out:

    Nicole Simpson lived next door to Carl Colby (former CIA director Bill Colbys son). Colby's wife and kids have been subjected to mind-control. Colby's wife testified in O.J. Simpson's trial, but was addressed as "Miss Boe" rather than by her name.



    Is this true?  Hell if I know.  The source seems dubious:  http://www.whale.to/b/simpson.html

    Then there's this:

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/colby.html

    Where a Carl Colby testified in the Simpson trial, and is obviously a neighbor.  The same one?  I dunno.

    Ugh, the guy is still making films:

    http://www.carlcolbyfilms.com/current.html

    But check out what he's trying to get made now:    a film about his Dad and the CIA.

    William E. Colby was a career CIA Officer and was Director of the CIA from 1973 to 1976. His career was legendary: beginning as an OSS Jedburgh officer parachuting behind enemy lines into Nazi occupied Europe in WWII; “quietly” influencing elections in ‘50’s Communist leaning Italy during the height of the Cold War; serving as the CIA Station Chief in Saigon in the 60’s; then as the architect of the controversial Phoenix Program at the height of the Vietnam War.
    image
    Amid the scandalous revelations of the CIA’s “Family Jewels” to televised House and Senate Hearings in the early 1970’s, Colby preached “reform” as CIA Director in order to “save the agency”; yet by opening up to Congressional oversight, these Hearings effectively ruined Bill Colby in the eyes of the intelligence community. He drowned in an apparent boating accident in ‘96. His front-page New York Times obituary labeled him “the Professional’s Professional”.

    This is the story of the CIA – intelligence gathering and covert action – with Bill Colby as our starting point. His son, Emmy award-winning documentary filmmaker Carl Colby, will explore who his father was, interviewing people inexorably connected to his life: high ranking political, military and intelligence officials, active and retired; historians, journalists, and policy experts; his family and friends; who are all participating because they knew Carl’s father personally or professionally and because his legacy impacted their lives – and US policies - then and now.

    They will talk about Colby’s life, what they knew of him and the ways they possibly did not - or could not - know him. They will tell us about his legacy as a pioneer in counterinsurgency and paramilitary operations – whether they feel these actions were successful - from a tactical and a “values” perspective - and what consequences these actions have upon a “civilized” society.

    As the different aspects of Colby’s life are uncovered, we will also become witness to Carl’s personal journey - what does it mean to have a father who was a master of covert activities, who lived in the murky gray zone between truth and lies, and who became one of the most powerful and controversial figures of the post-WWII era?

    Beyond this personal story, the film will ask the question of what the CIA’s role in this country is and should be and where we as a society draw the line on what we are willing to ask, and order, our current intelligence officers and covert operatives to do in the name of our national security in an increasingly dangerous world – and who is responsible for the consequences.

    The film will examine whether the CIA’s effectiveness has been compromised by focusing on secret paramilitary actions - with much less emphasis on intelligence gathering - or if this has caused US intelligence to continue to make the same old mistakes. If this is true, do these proactive covert programs and practices of the CIA still remain in our best national interest?

    And do they remain true to our values as Americans who desire to abide by the Constitution? And is there a workable balance? This film will ask these tough questions - and ask them of those who are in a position to best understand and answer them.



    Weird.

    More Mark Fuhrman:

    rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Mark Fuhrman's (OJ trial) JFK book. 'Bobby' diversion?

    rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - The Saga Of OJ Concludes
  • Please make sure you read the quotes at the end.
    First I want you to know where I'm coming from. I listen to Pat Valentino on Black Op and wholly admire his style and musings on JFK. I obviously completely disagree with him on OJ.
    I was a cop for 10 years, never in my life have I seen a case with more evidence against a suspect then the OJ case, except perhaps the JFK case, with the suspect in that case being unknown conspirators whose origins are probably CIA or similar.
    The motives of the government against JFK are so many that it actually detracts from getting a cohesive and unified argument, but that's not our fault!
    There are NO discernible motives against framing OJ, if you read anything about the case most of the LAPD officers fawned over him. It would have taken several cops, detectives and criminalists, most of whom barely knew each other, to pull off a conspiracy against OJ. EVERYTHING about OJ's demeanor and attitude, Bronco chase, disguise, cash, suicide note bespoke of GUILT! There was a ton of blood evidence, including OJ's, right there in the pathway at Nicoles which was secured by several patrol cops before Furhman and gang ever got there.
    Bugliosi is a puzzle indeed. And I do invoke my right to say that his previous books have been top notch (the ones that I've read), and "Reclaiming History" is a sick farce. Some of the best and most knowledgable guests on Black Op radio, including Jim Di Eugenio and Walt Brown, express these exact same sentiments. Do you have any comments against Jim or Walt?
    Let me end with these quotes:"Almost all of my own clients have been guilty"  "In representing criminal defendants -especially guilty ones-it is often necessary to take offensive against the government: to put the government on trial for its misconduct. In law, as in sports, the best defense is often a good offense".  "Once I decide to take on a case I have only one agenda, I want to win. I will try, by every fair and legal means, to get my client off-without regard to the consequences"  Alan M. Dershowitz  "The Best Defense"
    If you guys actually care about the OJ case I suggest you read "Outrage". And please give me the title of a book you feel adequately expresses OJ's innocence and I promise you I will read it.

  • NutzyNutzy
    Posts: 17
    I agree Joe. I think Valentino has a lot to say and virtually no one else is going there. I think, at the very least, we need to sort through it all.
  • Where is the link to the O.J. documentary that I have heard about?
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 444
    author said:


    Where is the link to the O.J. documentary that I have heard about?


    This must be what Len was referring to...

    OJ Simpson Guilty But Not Of Murder_1.avi

    from this thread.

    http://www.blackopforum.info/general-show-discussion/valentino-dead-wrong-about-o-j-725/
  • esoresor
    Posts: 3
    Anyone read Blood Oath by Stephen Worth? Or Legacy of Deception by Stephen Singular? 

    Here are a few excerpts from each book

    http://spitfirelist.com/audio/audio-001-099/
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 444
    image
    Former CIA Director's Death Raises Questions, Divides Family
    author said:


    author said:


    author said:


    One of the best books ever written on what was otherwise a blatant case of domestic murder was "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi legitimately slams everyone involved, BUT ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THROUGH with proof in most points. Example, when "proving" that not only should the case have been tried in Santa Monica with the utmost honesty in saying that a downtown (black) jury may have held prejudice, and the case DID NOT HAVE TO BE HELD DOWNTOWN as maintained by Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clarke, Bugliosi backs it up by first contacting the court coordinator and verifying that it could indeed, have remained within it's geographic court jurisdiction (Santa Monica) and THEN GETS GARCETTI TO ADMIT HE WAS MISTAKEN. All the way down the line point by point with all of the evidence.

    The worst book ever written about a murder was "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi.



    If only OJ had been tried by a fair and impartial all-white jury in Santa Monica...  ;)

    Funny how we like authors when they agree with us, and don't like them when they don't.

    Where was Mark Fuhrman on the Night of June 12, 1994?
    http://emory.kfjc.org/archive/ftr/000_099/f-039.mp3

    Here's some more interesting stuff surrounding this case...
    image
    rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - 4 Chemical compounds used by the CIA as Cancer Agents
    said:

    Evidence points to Bob Marley's particular Cancer vector being copper wire inserted within a pair of brand new boots, delivered personally by Carl Colby, son of the infamous CIA Director William Colby. Marley then unaware, ended up in the hands of Dr. Josef Issels, a Nazi former doctor at Auschwitz and contemporary of Dr. Josef Mengele, where he was carefully managed to ensure his "natural" death.



    I'd be very interested in hearing about Carl Colby in this regard.  I met him years ago, worked for him for a few days, in fact, and he was possibly the CREEPIEST man I've ever met in my life. 

    It's kind of awful to think he's probably still out there doing .... whatever.

    As it was, he was actually directing a corporate film for Martin Marietta outside of Denver.  Which was something of a military base when you'd approach and enter it.  I mean, I grew up on military bases, and this was quite similar to a military base including big banners reading "Peace Through Strength" hung across the way.    We were doing some sort of what we call "industrial films" which are corporate films that nobody ever sees except people within the corporation, or other businesses and if I remember correctly it had something to do with "Star Wars".  This was probably in 1987 or 88 or so. 

    Man that guy was creepy.

    on edit:  Man, I just did a google search on the bastard.  Check this out:

    Nicole Simpson lived next door to Carl Colby (former CIA director Bill Colbys son). Colby's wife and kids have been subjected to mind-control. Colby's wife testified in O.J. Simpson's trial, but was addressed as "Miss Boe" rather than by her name.



    Is this true?  Hell if I know.  The source seems dubious:  http://www.whale.to/b/simpson.html

    Then there's this:

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/colby.html

    Where a Carl Colby testified in the Simpson trial, and is obviously a neighbor.  The same one?  I dunno.

    Ugh, the guy is still making films:

    http://www.carlcolbyfilms.com/current.html

    But check out what he's trying to get made now:    a film about his Dad and the CIA.

    William E. Colby was a career CIA Officer and was Director of the CIA from 1973 to 1976. His career was legendary: beginning as an OSS Jedburgh officer parachuting behind enemy lines into Nazi occupied Europe in WWII; “quietly” influencing elections in ‘50’s Communist leaning Italy during the height of the Cold War; serving as the CIA Station Chief in Saigon in the 60’s; then as the architect of the controversial Phoenix Program at the height of the Vietnam War.
    image
    Amid the scandalous revelations of the CIA’s “Family Jewels” to televised House and Senate Hearings in the early 1970’s, Colby preached “reform” as CIA Director in order to “save the agency”; yet by opening up to Congressional oversight, these Hearings effectively ruined Bill Colby in the eyes of the intelligence community. He drowned in an apparent boating accident in ‘96. His front-page New York Times obituary labeled him “the Professional’s Professional”.

    This is the story of the CIA – intelligence gathering and covert action – with Bill Colby as our starting point. His son, Emmy award-winning documentary filmmaker Carl Colby, will explore who his father was, interviewing people inexorably connected to his life: high ranking political, military and intelligence officials, active and retired; historians, journalists, and policy experts; his family and friends; who are all participating because they knew Carl’s father personally or professionally and because his legacy impacted their lives – and US policies - then and now.

    They will talk about Colby’s life, what they knew of him and the ways they possibly did not - or could not - know him. They will tell us about his legacy as a pioneer in counterinsurgency and paramilitary operations – whether they feel these actions were successful - from a tactical and a “values” perspective - and what consequences these actions have upon a “civilized” society.

    As the different aspects of Colby’s life are uncovered, we will also become witness to Carl’s personal journey - what does it mean to have a father who was a master of covert activities, who lived in the murky gray zone between truth and lies, and who became one of the most powerful and controversial figures of the post-WWII era?

    Beyond this personal story, the film will ask the question of what the CIA’s role in this country is and should be and where we as a society draw the line on what we are willing to ask, and order, our current intelligence officers and covert operatives to do in the name of our national security in an increasingly dangerous world – and who is responsible for the consequences.

    The film will examine whether the CIA’s effectiveness has been compromised by focusing on secret paramilitary actions - with much less emphasis on intelligence gathering - or if this has caused US intelligence to continue to make the same old mistakes. If this is true, do these proactive covert programs and practices of the CIA still remain in our best national interest?

    And do they remain true to our values as Americans who desire to abide by the Constitution? And is there a workable balance? This film will ask these tough questions - and ask them of those who are in a position to best understand and answer them.



    Weird.

    More Mark Fuhrman:

    rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - Mark Fuhrman's (OJ trial) JFK book. 'Bobby' diversion?

    rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - The Saga Of OJ Concludes

    Mark Fuhrman - The Education Forum