INTENSITY²

Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 20, 2007, 01:09:35 PM

Title: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 20, 2007, 01:09:35 PM
Surely all of you have heard about the (rather amusing)arrest of Senator Larry Craig in airport restroom for soliciting ass sex. I wonder if any of you guys have ever witnessed this shit in real life.......not long ago I took a leak in the Bathroom in Volunteer Park(Seattle)only to come across some faggot whackin' off while taking a shit :-&
I mentioned this is the gay and aspie thread on AFF but of course we all know those people are a bunch of fags and fag-hags so naturally they got offended :wanker:
Max the "bear"(which Im sure is some faggot slang term) even accused me of being akin to Cho Seung Hui...........BTW Im So fucking Glad that we have the liberty to slap fags around here @ I^2


:green:  :plus:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Alex179 on September 20, 2007, 01:17:01 PM
Something tells me that you don't like homosexuals.   The dude was jerking it while he was taking a dump?  lmao.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: maldoror on September 20, 2007, 01:17:33 PM
Are you from Seattle?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 20, 2007, 01:23:10 PM
uh-huh
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 20, 2007, 01:40:35 PM
Are you from Seattle?

uh-huh

The home of Kurt Kablam Cobain. :LMAO:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 20, 2007, 02:24:42 PM
Kurt Cobain was a total faggot. Im sure that Courtney Love prolly killed him but it was for the better :evillaugh:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: duncvis on September 20, 2007, 02:31:48 PM
whats with all the gaybashing anyway? did your daddy make you swallow or summat? ???
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 20, 2007, 02:38:16 PM
Bah! I have a beef with a certain bunch of fags from AFF, thats what all the gaybashing is about. But this thread isnt necessarily about gaybashing; I just find the topic of bathroom sex to be rather hilarious.  :laugh: If I walked in on it Im sure I'd laugh so hard I'd choke.  :green:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: duncvis on September 20, 2007, 02:47:07 PM
You'd think public bogs would be at the bottom of most people's list of locations. Judging by the graffiti in the ones round here they're like a message board for weirdos who don't have internet access. Disturbing how many people seem to want to be pissed on then fucked on the moors... the wind chill could be uncomfortable.

BTW Im So fucking Glad that we have the liberty to slap fags around here @ I^2


:green:  :plus:

bear in mind said ghey members have the liberty to slap you around an all. this is an equal opportunity slagfest we run here you know.  :evillaugh:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 20, 2007, 03:00:20 PM
Are you from Seattle?

Figure that with his homophobia,
and all, you might get lucky?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 20, 2007, 03:02:09 PM
Anyhow, I've seen eyes peeking through holes in stalls.
I just go piss somewhere else. A friend of mine caught
some guy doing this though, and just totally freaked on
him.

Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: odeon on September 20, 2007, 03:40:59 PM
funny how some people think that freedom of speech is about bashing others.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 20, 2007, 03:57:09 PM
To some extent, it is.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: odeon on September 20, 2007, 04:21:01 PM
it doesn't have to be.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 20, 2007, 04:33:05 PM
it doesn't have to not be.






:smarty:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ozymandias on September 20, 2007, 06:08:26 PM
The majority of gays that I know look with contempt upon this bathroom "jazz" or crap!  The people like Senator Craig are "closet type hypocrites" or "poseurs" that build this image around themselves and when the truth comes out, they go into "uber-denial" mode.  It's interesting that a lot of these creepazoids are CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS". :eyebrows:  At least a perv like Clinton was boinking a WILLING woman intern! :laugh:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: maldoror on September 20, 2007, 06:13:21 PM
The people like Senator Craig are "closet type hypocrites" or "poseurs" that build this image around themselves and when the truth comes out, they go into "uber-denial" mode.

Sherlock Holmes is onto something.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 20, 2007, 06:31:11 PM
it doesn't have to be.

No. But preventing people from bashing
one another IS a limitation on freedom.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ozymandias on September 20, 2007, 07:50:41 PM
The people like Senator Craig are "closet type hypocrites" or "poseurs" that build this image around themselves and when the truth comes out, they go into "uber-denial" mode.

Sherlock Holmes is onto something.

It don't take no sherlock holmes to figure that one out!
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 20, 2007, 08:27:42 PM
The people like Senator Craig are "closet type hypocrites" or "poseurs" that build this image around themselves and when the truth comes out, they go into "uber-denial" mode.

Sherlock Holmes is onto something.

It don't take no sherlock holmes to figure that one out!

Phuck Yu is my twinkie bitch. That's no secret.  ;) :-*
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 20, 2007, 08:56:15 PM
I don't think I've ever had anal sex
in a bathroom.  :-\
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 20, 2007, 09:23:12 PM
I don't think I've ever had anal sex
in a bathroom.  :-\

:beer:
:o
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 20, 2007, 09:25:29 PM
Bahaha! Remeber Mark Foley trying to solicit buggery to a 14-yo boy online? :lol:
I have to wonder though, for some reason I think its the effete fags who are the ones who like to get buggered in public bathrooms. BTW might I add, there's
plenty of gaybashing here on I^2 other than my use of the word faggot.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 20, 2007, 09:26:58 PM
But you seem particularly homophobic.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 20, 2007, 10:19:08 PM
But you seem particularly homophobic.


What better way to cover up his latent homosexual tendancies??  :laugh:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 21, 2007, 01:11:13 AM
Quote
What better way to cover up his latent homosexual tendancies??

 :minusevil:


You Wish! :green:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: duncvis on September 21, 2007, 03:23:12 AM
methinks Phuc Mi protests too much.  >:D :ghey:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 21, 2007, 03:58:58 AM
Aye. He needs a good ass fucking.
Might be drunk enough to do his ugly
hide.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 21, 2007, 05:49:32 AM
Quote
Aye. He needs a good ass fucking.
Might be drunk enough to do his ugly
hide.
:eyebrows:


Spreeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaad yer Cheeks Baby.Time to luBe up that LUV Tunnel :green: ;D :-*

Looks like we're All a bunch of fags around here :lol:
Still though, I pump the living shit out of Gareth Nelsons Ass. :P
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Pyraxis on September 21, 2007, 08:23:25 AM
Gareth Nelson's shit is alive?!  :o
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: duncvis on September 21, 2007, 10:19:26 AM
Apparently.



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 21, 2007, 10:55:15 AM
Ok, so I may very have latent homosexual tendecies..........SO what?
For me, its really about dominance. Buggering other guys into bitchdom :lol:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: The_P on September 21, 2007, 12:23:41 PM
Apparently.



Also known as Ascunt.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: duncvis on September 21, 2007, 12:30:17 PM
 :evillaugh:  :plus:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Alex179 on September 21, 2007, 12:42:02 PM
Ok, so I may very have latent homosexual tendecies..........SO what?
For me, its really about dominance. Buggering other guys into bitchdom :lol:

So they are gay for taking it in the ass and you aren't for giving it to them?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 21, 2007, 01:20:38 PM
Ok, so I may very have latent homosexual tendecies..........SO what?

:LMAO: :rofl:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 21, 2007, 01:21:51 PM
Dont get to excited there Litigious :wanker:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Randy on September 21, 2007, 02:52:47 PM
Yes, Lit don't get too excited with your playboy magazine.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 21, 2007, 03:27:40 PM
Ok, so I may very have latent homosexual tendecies..........SO what?
For me, its really about dominance. Buggering other guys into bitchdom :lol:

See? Serious difference. I have NO desires for males.
Simply was curious about how a couple things might
be. Pretty much decided that they aren't worth
the trouble.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 22, 2007, 05:10:15 AM
Yet Im not sexually attracted to men. And this is the point: sometimes you wanna fuck people in order to establish dominance as opposed to fucking them cuz you lust after them.
I dont see why thats so hard for some of you to understand.............. ::)
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: odeon on September 22, 2007, 05:28:07 AM
hence the word "latent". :P
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 22, 2007, 06:27:45 AM
Quote
hence the word "latent".
:violin:

 
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: odeon on September 22, 2007, 08:56:14 AM
my, this really is a sensitive issue for you, isn't it?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 22, 2007, 10:19:05 AM
Well then, if Im a *closet* Homo then that gives me free reign to say fag as often as I damn well please :green:
Lately Ive developed a prison rape fetish :evillaugh:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: purposefulinsanity on September 22, 2007, 11:33:55 AM
Well then, if Im a *closet* Homo then that gives me free reign to say fag as often as I damn well please :green:
Lately Ive developed a prison rape fetish :evillaugh:

Do those fantasies start with you dropping the soap by any chance?  >:D
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: DirtDawg on September 22, 2007, 12:26:23 PM
Well then, if Im a *closet* Homo then that gives me free reign to say fag as often as I damn well please :green:
Lately Ive developed a prison rape fetish :evillaugh:

Pitcher or catcher?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: DirtDawg on September 22, 2007, 12:27:16 PM
Well then, if Im a *closet* Homo then that gives me free reign to say fag as often as I damn well please :green:
Lately Ive developed a prison rape fetish :evillaugh:

Do those fantasies start with you dropping the soap by any chance?  >:D

I'm wondering if he tosses the soap.

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Natalia Evans on September 22, 2007, 12:43:28 PM
uh-huh


I thoguht you said you were from Portland?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Natalia Evans on September 22, 2007, 12:49:20 PM
I'm going to be saying to my kids "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can be rude and nasty."
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: maldoror on September 22, 2007, 12:57:15 PM
I'm going to be saying to my kids "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can be rude and nasty."

But then you'd be lying!
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Natalia Evans on September 22, 2007, 02:03:36 PM
I'm going to be saying to my kids "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can be rude and nasty."

But then you'd be lying!


Why?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 22, 2007, 02:06:44 PM
Spokane Girl wrote:
Quote
Why?

Why? Because thats a total contradiction! How do you define "rude and nasty" anyway?
Especially since different people have different standards and *the rules* apply diffrerently to different people.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Natalia Evans on September 22, 2007, 02:07:37 PM
Spokane Girl, I never said I was from Portland! I said that I live in portland.
Now as for prison sex, its always exciting when I hear about some (white)criminal who did something really terrible and violent and I imagine him
getting the shit raped out of his ass by a black muslim weight-lifting prisoner :evillaugh:
Seriously though, dont you guys think that there are some criminals whose crimes are so heinous that they do deserve to get raped in prison?
I mean, I think its an outrage when non-violent criminals are subjected to it but when it comes to violent predatory criminals, its part of the punishment. :green:
Like that guy John Couey who murdered that little girl Jessica Lunsford not long ago. Why should he not get fucked behind bars...... >:D


Okay, I see what you are saying. Live and From are two different things. For lot of people, when they say they are from somewhere, they are talking about that's where they live. Like I lived in Montana for 8 years so therefore I used to say I was from Montana instead of from Oregon which was where I was born. Now I say I am from oregon. When I move to Spokane (if I ever will), I be saying I am from Spokane.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Natalia Evans on September 22, 2007, 02:12:11 PM
Spokane Girl wrote:
Quote
Why?

Why? Because thats a total contradiction! How do you define "rude and nasty" anyway?
Especially since different people have different standards and *the rules* apply diffrerently to different people.


I was always taught to treat people with respect and no name calling and put downs and bullying. I grew up in a house hold where bullying wasn't allowed and put downs and making fun of people. I'd get in trouble whenever my mother found out I was mean to another kid so I would envy the other kids in the neighborhood who were allowed to be mean to other kids because their parents were too lazy to do their job or they thought just because they're kids it's okay for them to do it.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 22, 2007, 02:45:38 PM
Yet Im not sexually attracted to men. And this is the point: sometimes you wanna fuck people in order to establish dominance as opposed to fucking them cuz you lust after them.
I dont see why thats so hard for some of you to understand.............. ::)

No. I've DONE that, and I can't say that I'd feel anything
like it, under rational senses. Nor with someone I don't
already love.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 22, 2007, 02:51:28 PM

Seriously though, dont you guys think that there are some criminals whose crimes are so heinous that they do deserve to get raped in prison?


Not particularly. I'm rather opposed to vengeance, philosophically.
Doesn't mean that I wouldn't take pleasure in other acts against
someone who personally harmed me (and a HELL of a lot less
than the kinds of crimes you're talking about - I'd gladly kill an
impolite person, if there weren't consequences), but rape is
too small a price for those that I truly despise, and not particularly
gratifying, for me.

But, someone whom I have no particular reason to hate? No. And
the passion of my own vengeance leads me to believe that all such
feelings are misdirected. Society needs to protect itself. It doesn't
need to torture.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Peter on September 22, 2007, 03:07:54 PM
Anyhow, I've seen eyes peeking through holes in stalls.
I just go piss somewhere else. A friend of mine caught
some guy doing this though, and just totally freaked on
him.

Somewhere else? Like through the peep-hole?
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Peter on September 22, 2007, 03:14:21 PM
Spokane Girl wrote:
Quote
Why?

Why? Because thats a total contradiction! How do you define "rude and nasty" anyway?
Especially since different people have different standards and *the rules* apply diffrerently to different people.


I was always taught to treat people with respect and no name calling and put downs and bullying. I grew up in a house hold where bullying wasn't allowed and put downs and making fun of people. I'd get in trouble whenever my mother found out I was mean to another kid so I would envy the other kids in the neighborhood who were allowed to be mean to other kids because their parents were too lazy to do their job or they thought just because they're kids it's okay for them to do it.

Which means that you grew up in an environment where you couldn't freely express yourself.  Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say 'fuck you' to everyone and anyone.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 22, 2007, 03:22:23 PM
Anyhow, I've seen eyes peeking through holes in stalls.
I just go piss somewhere else. A friend of mine caught
some guy doing this though, and just totally freaked on
him.

Somewhere else? Like through the peep-hole?

Probably would have gotten a kick out of that.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 22, 2007, 03:25:45 PM
Spokane Girl wrote:
Quote
Why?

Why? Because thats a total contradiction! How do you define "rude and nasty" anyway?
Especially since different people have different standards and *the rules* apply diffrerently to different people.


I was always taught to treat people with respect and no name calling and put downs and bullying. I grew up in a house hold where bullying wasn't allowed and put downs and making fun of people. I'd get in trouble whenever my mother found out I was mean to another kid so I would envy the other kids in the neighborhood who were allowed to be mean to other kids because their parents were too lazy to do their job or they thought just because they're kids it's okay for them to do it.

Which means that you grew up in an environment where you couldn't freely express yourself.  Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say 'fuck you' to everyone and anyone.

That is a good point, Peter.  

However, I think there is a difference between appropriate expression of freedom of speech in adults among other adults and the appropriate expression of freedom of speech that we try to teach our children.  If a child says, "Fuck you!" to her teachers and her classmates, then she will suffer unpleasant consequences and as parents, we want to protect our children from these sorts of consequences as much as we can by teaching them appropriate behavior.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 22, 2007, 06:07:20 PM
Honestly, I very much do believe in vengeance philosophically. Not to mention the fact that for some reason I find it very emotionally satisfying. But there are certain crimes for which I think that prison rape is a very fitting punishment. Like rape iself, (extreme)child physical/sexual abuse, and child homicide.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 22, 2007, 06:15:21 PM
Never even could understand punishment.
Some sort of mixture of deterrence and vengeance.

If I am wronged, I want blood. But, I realize that that
is NOT how society should operate, rather a bit of barbarism
which was necessary before man made laws.

Society should have no such emotions.

Now, as to a deterrent effect, I'm not at all
convinced that these are effective. 'Tis impossible
to judge WHAT is a deterrent on a particular insane
(and yes, I see violence as insanity) mind. For example,
the fact that I might get shot down by cops was always
the attractive part of going on a shooting spree. And
Manson was rather relieved to be going back to his prison
home, at times.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ozymandias on September 22, 2007, 06:39:46 PM
Honestly, I very much do believe in vengeance philosophically. Not to mention the fact that for some reason I find it very emotionally satisfying. But there are certain crimes for which I think that prison rape is a very fitting punishment. Like rape iself, (extreme)child physical/sexual abuse, and child homicide.

**imagines OJ Simpson dropping the soap in a prison shower!**   >:D
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 22, 2007, 07:49:25 PM
Man, no one in prison would fuck with OJ! :evillaugh:
If some white boy tried that OJ would turn around, tackle him and drive his big black dick between them skinny white buns :lol:
Besides, he'd pretty much all the Brothers in the tank would get his back. Makes me wonder though, why did Nicole really leave OJ? :eyebrows:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 22, 2007, 08:49:34 PM
Man, no one in prison would fuck with OJ! :evillaugh:
If some white boy tried that OJ would turn around, tackle him and drive his big black dick between them skinny white buns :lol:
Besides, he'd pretty much all the Brothers in the tank would get his back. Makes me wonder though, why did Nicole really leave OJ? :eyebrows:

Domestic violence.  He beat the crap out of her and he was possessive and controlling.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 22, 2007, 09:44:32 PM
I honestly dont know enough about the true facts of the case to really take sides Callaway, but have you heard about the case of Bettie Broderick?
The *female* equivalent of OJ Simpson? If you havent there's always google/wikipedia. :P
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 22, 2007, 10:18:09 PM
Man, no one in prison would fuck with OJ! :evillaugh:
If some white boy tried that OJ would turn around, tackle him and drive his big black dick between them skinny white buns :lol:

This seems to be a re-occuring theme in your posts. I could always spraypaint myself black for you, sweetcheeks.  :eyelash: :eyelash: :-* :-* :-*
:bananas::bananas::bananas::bananas::bananas:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 23, 2007, 01:16:52 AM
I honestly dont know enough about the true facts of the case to really take sides Callaway, but have you heard about the case of Bettie Broderick?
The *female* equivalent of OJ Simpson? If you havent there's always google/wikipedia. :P

Betty Broderick (http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics2/broderick/) is by no means a female OJ Simpson (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html).  Their stories are completely different.  The only similarity is that they both apparently killed their spouses and one other person.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 23, 2007, 11:53:06 AM
Quote
**imagines OJ Simpson dropping the soap in a prison shower!**    >:D


So Ozy, are you fantasizing about revenge on OJ cos he's a black man who killed a white woman and was found not guilty??
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ozymandias on September 23, 2007, 01:00:08 PM
Quote
**imagines OJ Simpson dropping the soap in a prison shower!**    >:D


So Ozy, are you fantasizing about revenge on OJ cos he's a black man who killed a white woman and was found not guilty??

Not really, I would feel the same way if it was a white man who killed a black woman in a domestic violence case!  Of course my feeling haven't been changed by his continued "quest" to find the "real killers" of his wife and her friend. ::)
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 23, 2007, 02:26:04 PM
Quote
**imagines OJ Simpson dropping the soap in a prison shower!**    >:D


So Ozy, are you fantasizing about revenge on OJ cos he's a black man who killed a white woman and was found not guilty??

Not really, I would feel the same way if it was a white man who killed a black woman in a domestic violence case!  Of course my feeling haven't been changed by his continued "quest" to find the "real killers" of his wife and her friend. ::)

I think that OJ probably did it, but if I had been on that jury and saw everything that they saw, I would have voted for acquittal too.  I believe that the LAPD tried to frame him by planting evidence because they thought he was guilty anyway and that is so horrible they can't be encouraged to keep doing it.  His blood at the crime scene had EDTA (an anti-coagulant) in it in the same concentration that was in his test vials that were drawn and for some unexplained reason Philip Vannatter just happened to bring with him both to the crime scene and to OJ Simpson's residence. 

Quote from: http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm
Lead detective Philip Vannatter also had access to Simpson's blood. Blood was drawn from Simpson by Thano Peratis, a nurse employed by the LAPD, the day after the crime. Peratis placed the tube of Simpson's blood in an unsealed envelope and gave it to detective Vannatter. The defense established that LAPD policy  calls for evidence of this sort to be booked immediately, and that Vannatter could have booked it within minutes at either of two locations. But he did not do so. Instead, he kept Simpson's blood with him for at least several hours and, by his account, drove across the city with it to Simpson's residence, where he gave it to LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung. Whether Vannatter's account is accepted or not, the defense argued, it is clear that he had sole possession of Simpson's blood tube long enough to have removed blood and made some swatches had he chosen to do so.

Furthermore, blood was missing from Simpson's reference tube. Nurse Thano Peratis testified at a preliminary hearing that he had drawn eight milliliters (ml.) of blood from Simpson. Under close questioning, he expressed confidence that the amount was between 7.9 and 8.1 ml. n21 However, records in the LAPD Crime Laboratory indicated that the tube had contained only 6.5 ml. when it was received by the laboratory. The prosecution responded that Peratis must have been mistaken about how much blood was drawn.

Nicole Brown Simpson's Blood Was Planted On the Sock. The blood matching Nicole Brown Simpson that was found on the sock was a large, thick stain, slightly larger than the size of a quarter. It had a slightly crusty appearance and made the underlying material of the sock stiff and puckered. Surely this stain would have been noticed, the defense argued, had it been on the sock at the time the sock was collected. Yet on three separate occasions the sock was examined and the stain was not noticed. On June 13, 1994, criminalist Dennis Fung collected the socks in O.J. Simpson's bedroom. At that time he was conducting a search for blood in Simpson's residence. He noted no blood on the socks. On June 22, 1994, the socks were examined at the LAPD laboratory by Michelle Kestler, a laboratory supervisor, and two experts for the defense, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf. They noted no blood. On June 29, 1994, the socks were examined again as part of an inventory of evidence ordered by Judge Ito. The express purpose of the inventory was to determine what blood samples might be available to be split with the defense. No blood was observed on the sock. The laboratory notes say "blood search, none obvious." Then on August 4, 1994, the blood stain was discovered. The defense argued that this sequence of events makes it obvious that the blood was planted on the sock sometime after June 29, 1994.

Defense experts Dr. Henry Lee and Professor Herbert MacDonnell examined the sock and concluded that the blood stain had been pressed onto it while it was lying flat, and not while someone's leg was in the sock. The blood had soaked through one  side of the sock and left a "wet transfer" on the opposite inner wall at a point that would have been directly under the stain had the sock been lying flat. The wet transfer is inconsistent with the prosecution theory, the defense argued, because Simpson's leg would have blocked such a transfer had he been wearing the sock when the blood was deposited on it during the murders. Based on Professor MacDonnell's estimates of the drying rate of blood on the sock, the defense argued that by the time Simpson got home and removed the socks, the blood would have dried, making a wet transfer impossible at that point.

The planting theory is also supported by evidence that the chemical preservative ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ("EDTA") was found in the stain, the defense argued. The victims' blood samples were stored at the LAPD laboratory in tubes that contained EDTA. When the defense first raised the theory that the blood on the sock had been planted, the prosecution sent the sock to the FBI laboratory and asked that the stain be tested for EDTA. Absence of EDTA would presumably have been taken as proof that the stain did not come from the laboratory tubes. But the tests performed by FBI agent-examiner Roger Martz did show evidence of the presence of EDTA. When the prosecution declined to call Martz as a witness, he was called by the defense. Martz admitted that the stain showed traces of EDTA but opined that the quantity was too low to be consistent with blood from a reference tube. The defense then presented Dr. Fredrick Reiders, who reviewed Martz test results and expressed the opinion that the quantities of EDTA present in the stain were indeed consistent with the stain originating in blood from a reference tube, and are too high to be consistent with blood from a living human being. The defense argued that Dr. Reiders was a better qualified and more credible witness than Martz, who does not have an advanced degree, and that Reider's conclusion, if true, proves that the blood on the sock was planted.

O.J. Simpson's Blood Was Planted on the Back Gate. Most of the blood samples from the crime scene were collected on June 13, 1994, the day after the murders; but the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994. According to the prosecution account, these stains were simply missed during the initial collection and were only noticed later. According to the defense account, these stains were not collected the day after the crime because they were not there at that time. The defense offered a powerful piece of evidence to support the planting  theory. A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist Dennis Fung. After displaying a photograph of the stains that Fung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung had no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution.

The defense argued that the planting theory was consistent with the quantity and condition of the DNA in the samples from the rear gate. The other samples collected at the crime scene, including those from the front gate, were highly degraded and contained little typeable DNA. By contrast, the samples from the back gate contained high concentrations of undegraded DNA. The defense argued that these samples should have been somewhat degraded had they been exposed to the environment for three weeks before being collected.

The planting theory was also supported by the FBI tests, which showed evidence of EDTA in the samples from the back gate.


Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ozymandias on September 23, 2007, 02:39:53 PM
Thats the other thing that boils my blood, corrupt incompetent cops, incompetent prosecution, incompetent judge and of course he had a brilliant defense team!  It really pisses me off that Mark Fuhrman, the ultimate corrupt cop, is a talking head for Fox news and Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck's brand of conservative punditry.  The Las Vegas cops certainly seem to be doing things differently, but, who am I kidding.  He's got millions stashed away and the best defense lawyers will be scrambling to defend him for the millions of dollars in publicity that doing so will get.  OJ will still get the buxom blonde(s) and party on with the strip clubs and his "posse".

Q.  Why don't sharks bite lawyers??

A.  Professional Courtesy!
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 23, 2007, 03:46:47 PM
I'm actually glad that OJ had a brilliant defense team, because they were able to show how the police attempted to frame him and point out a huge problem with the LAPD.

If they tried to frame me or you or some other regular person, they would have just gotten away with it, an innocent person would be in prison, and that makes my blood boil.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ozymandias on September 23, 2007, 04:01:47 PM
I'm actually glad that OJ had a brilliant defense team, because they were able to show how the police attempted to frame him and point out a huge problem with the LAPD.

If they tried to frame me or you or some other regular person, they would have just gotten away with it, an innocent person would be in prison, and that makes my blood boil.

Your right, you, me or anybody else not rich and famous would be jailbound PDQ!
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 23, 2007, 05:00:45 PM
Nancy Grace is  a racist White Bitch,Man! :lol:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 23, 2007, 05:08:51 PM
I'm actually glad that OJ had a brilliant defense team, because they were able to show how the police attempted to frame him and point out a huge problem with the LAPD.

OJ was innocent??

.......news to me.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 23, 2007, 05:30:58 PM
Nancy Grace is  a racist White Bitch-Man! :lol:

fixed.  ;D
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 23, 2007, 05:32:58 PM
I love you Phuc Yu.  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

Is your love tunnel lubed up for me??  :eyelash: :eyelash: :eyelash: :eyelash: :eyelash:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ozymandias on September 23, 2007, 06:22:07 PM
Nancy Grace is  a racist White Bitch,Man! :lol:

Racist.....yes, white..........yes, bitch..............yes,..................ATTENTION WHORE..........100% certainty YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I AM THE LORD O THE EXCLAMATION POINTS,   :P
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: duncvis on September 23, 2007, 06:23:33 PM
I AM THE LORD O THE EXCLAMATION POINTS,   :P

Yes. Yes you are.  :agreed:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 23, 2007, 06:30:59 PM


I think that OJ probably did it, but if I had been on that jury and saw everything that they saw, I would have voted for acquittal too.  I believe that the LAPD tried to frame him by planting evidence because they thought he was guilty anyway and that is so horrible they can't be encouraged to keep doing it.  His blood at the crime scene had EDTA (an anti-coagulant) in it in the same concentration that was in his test vials that were drawn and for some unexplained reason Philip Vannatter just happened to bring with him both to the crime scene and to OJ Simpson's residence. 



Yeah. As SOON as the officers of the law seem to
be biasing the investigation, it pretty much ruins
all credibility to ANYTHING that their investigation
might turn up.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 23, 2007, 06:34:48 PM
I'm actually glad that OJ had a brilliant defense team, because they were able to show how the police attempted to frame him and point out a huge problem with the LAPD.

If they tried to frame me or you or some other regular person, they would have just gotten away with it, an innocent person would be in prison, and that makes my blood boil.

Indeed. When my wife was arrested,
they tried planting the old crack pipe
in the back seat. She stood them down,
and told them to take a blood test. They
backed down, and didn't even bother.


When I was arrested, they put a blank form
in my hands, and told me to sign it. They added
their transcript of my interrogation later. I would
have never signed it, had I seen what they put
there. It was cut up, and taken out of context.
No idea how much value such things are, but
they don't seem to play fair, I'll tell you that.

Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 23, 2007, 06:35:53 PM
I'm actually glad that OJ had a brilliant defense team, because they were able to show how the police attempted to frame him and point out a huge problem with the LAPD.

OJ was innocent??

.......news to me.

Try reading the discussion. That's NOT what she said.
But, it really does call the whole damned thing into
question.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 23, 2007, 08:36:59 PM
I'm actually glad that OJ had a brilliant defense team, because they were able to show how the police attempted to frame him and point out a huge problem with the LAPD.

OJ was innocent??

.......news to me.

I think that OJ probably killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, but I would have voted for acquittal if I had been on his jury and saw all the information they saw because I don't think that the prosecution proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  I think his defense team was able to prove that the LAPD falsified evidence in an attempt to frame him, and I think that is heinous.

If you ever are under suspicion of the LAPD for a crime and they falsify evidence to frame you, they should not be able to get away with doing that.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 23, 2007, 08:46:41 PM


If you ever are under suspicion of the LAPD for a crime and they falsify evidence to frame you, they should not be able to get away with doing that.

Don't just limit it to the LAPD. I've found that most
city police departments are pretty damned corrupt.
I've noted my experiences with the Buffalo dept. Here
in Eugene, there was a huge cover-up associated with
sex crimes by detectives. Then you have incidents
like the gang raping of suspects by policemen, in
NYC.

I really think it's a job which attracts the worst sort of
low life.

I could go further, and describe what police parties are
like, where they try and force strippers to be prostitutes
as well.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 23, 2007, 09:01:10 PM


If you ever are under suspicion of the LAPD for a crime and they falsify evidence to frame you, they should not be able to get away with doing that.

Don't just limit it to the LAPD. I've found that most
city police departments are pretty damned corrupt.
I've noted my experiences with the Buffalo dept. Here
in Eugene, there was a huge cover-up associated with
sex crimes by detectives. Then you have incidents
like the gang raping of suspects by policemen, in
NYC.

I really think it's a job which attracts the worst sort of
low life.

I could go further, and describe what police parties are
like, where they try and force strippers to be prostitutes
as well.

I knew someone in law enforcement in Alabama.  This man was actually a good cop, but there was definitely an old boy's network where they protect their own. 

He told a story of a policeman who shot and killed a suspect who he believed to be armed with a gun, but he turned out not to be.  The suspect was lying face down and every policeman who came to the scene looked closely at him.  When the chief arrived, he turned the suspect over and there were several knives under his body.  The chief laid the man back face down, said he was leaving to get some coffee and when he came back, he wanted there to be just one knife under this man's body.

There was a small town policeman near here who I read about years ago in the newspaper.  He made the news because he made so many more drug busts secondary to traffic stops than any of the other policemen in the area.  This newspaper article was actually very complimentary, but I felt sure that this policeman must be planting drugs on people to get such a huge number of drug busts.  It turns out that I was correct.  It took several years, but they finally caught him doing it and he was fired.

I think law enforcement attracts a lot of good people too, but when there are a few low life people that are so bad who are attracted to it for the feelings of power over people's lives, that makes us suspect them all.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: ANTON_UBER_ALLES on September 23, 2007, 09:18:56 PM
I think OJ did it too. Nicole said he beat her but I think she was lying as part of character assassination plot against OJ. I think he loved her but she fell out of love and moved on, so he killed her. I wont openly condone what he did but to some extent I sympathize with OJ about that. If I had given everything to a woman I loved for years and she suddenly decided to leave me, Id want her dead too. :evillaugh:
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Calandale on September 23, 2007, 09:29:51 PM


I think law enforcement attracts a lot of good people too, but when there are a few low life people that are so bad who are attracted to it for the feelings of power over people's lives, that makes us suspect them all.

Yeah. I've known some good cops.
And, I'm sure that the stress of the
job causes additional problems. I've
just known a lot of young guys, who
were so into the idea of the power
trip of it - really their main reason for
wanting to be such.

A lot of the same kind of people end up
in fire departments, but there, it seems
to actually work a little better. Ah, they
still can be assholes, but at least they aren't
usually trying to ruin people's lives.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Scrapheap on September 23, 2007, 09:37:36 PM
I think his defense team was able to prove that the LAPD falsified evidence in an attempt to frame him, and I think that is heinous.

If you ever are under suspicion of the LAPD for a crime and they falsify evidence to frame you, they should not be able to get away with doing that.

I think that the LAPD bungled the evidence, I never saw anything that convinced me that they planted anything, they just mis-handled most of the forensic evidence.
Title: Re: Bathroom Buggery
Post by: Callaway on September 23, 2007, 10:05:37 PM
I think his defense team was able to prove that the LAPD falsified evidence in an attempt to frame him, and I think that is heinous.

If you ever are under suspicion of the LAPD for a crime and they falsify evidence to frame you, they should not be able to get away with doing that.

I think that the LAPD bungled the evidence, I never saw anything that convinced me that they planted anything, they just mis-handled most of the forensic evidence.

Did you read this post earlier in this thread?

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=5828.msg264767#msg264767

I think that there is credible evidence that Philip Vannatter planted OJ Simpson's blood at the crime scene.

Somebody planted a large amount of Nicole Brown Simpson's blood on OJ Simpson's sock as well, enough that it soaked through to the other side of the sock, which it could not have done if OJ had been wearing the sock when that amount of her blood had gotten onto it.