Bathroom Buggery

[ANTON_UBER_ALLES]

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.

[Calandale]

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.

[ozymandias]

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!**   

[ANTON_UBER_ALLES]

Man, no one in prison would fuck with OJ!
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?

[Callaway]

Man, no one in prison would fuck with OJ!
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?

Domestic violence.  He beat the crap out of her and he was possessive and controlling.

[ANTON_UBER_ALLES]

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.

[Scrapheap]

Man, no one in prison would fuck with OJ!
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. 

[Callaway]

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.

Betty Broderick is by no means a female OJ Simpson.  Their stories are completely different.  The only similarity is that they both apparently killed their spouses and one other person.

[ANTON_UBER_ALLES]

**imagines OJ Simpson dropping the soap in a prison shower!**   

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??

[ozymandias]

**imagines OJ Simpson dropping the soap in a prison shower!**   

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.

[Callaway]

**imagines OJ Simpson dropping the soap in a prison shower!**   

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. 

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.

[ozymandias]

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!

[Callaway]

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.

[ozymandias]

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!

[ANTON_UBER_ALLES]

Nancy Grace is  a racist White Bitch,Man! :lol: