Kato Kaelin

[wpshooter]

I am wondering if that guy (Kato Kaelin) who was involved in the O. J. Simpson trial as a witness was not really much more involved in that incident than meets the eye.

It just seems to me, that he is getting too much enjoyment out of O. J. Simpson's latest predicament.

I just wonder if Mr. Kaelin was ever looked at by the Los Angles police as a possible suspect ?

I wonder if he was ever ask to submit to a polygraph test regarding his testimony and possible involvement in the crime ?

 

[OdiN]

No cuz OJ did it. DUH!

 

[wpshooter]

Originally posted by: OdiN
No cuz OJ did it. DUH!

So, I take it that if one of your loved ones was killed, the authorities should look to you to the exception of everyone else !!! DUUUUUUUUH.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Did the glove fit on Kato?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: OdiN
No cuz OJ did it. DUH!

So, I take it that if one of your loved ones was killed, the authorities should look to you to the exception of everyone else !!! DUUUUUUUUH.

You cant honestly think OJ is innocent....please tell me you arnt that stupid

 

[Queasy]

Kato turns into Optimus Prime?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: OdiN
No cuz OJ did it. DUH!

So, I take it that if one of your loved ones was killed, the authorities should look to you to the exception of everyone else !!! DUUUUUUUUH.

If that's where the evidence points then yes.

Evidence against OJ Simpson:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

Not to mention the fact that he had a motive and no alibii...

It amazes me that he was not found guilty of killing his ex-wife and her lover.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Kato Kaelin - more than meets the eye???

No, there's less. Much much less...

 

[wpshooter]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: OdiN
No cuz OJ did it. DUH!

So, I take it that if one of your loved ones was killed, the authorities should look to you to the exception of everyone else !!! DUUUUUUUUH.

If that's where the evidence points then yes.

Evidence against OJ Simpson:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

Not to mention the fact that he had a motive and no alibii...

It amazes me that he was not found guilty of killing his ex-wife and her lover.

The jury did not seem overly impressed by all of this "evidence" !!!

When you have been around as long as I have, you will learn that things may not always be as they appear to be at first hand. And also from personal experience, I know that "some" police (not all) have a great tendency to grab onto one suspect and not let go for fear of being ridiculed by the public for not solving the case. Sometimes this causes them to not give proper attention to other possible suspects.

 

[nick1985]

Answer this question.

If some all-knowing being suddenly appeared before you and asked if you thought OJ Simpson was guilty or not, what would you choose? Also, if you get the answer incorrect he shoots you in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, so you better choose wisely.

I eagerly await your answer to this highly probable hypothetical situation!

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: OdiN
No cuz OJ did it. DUH!

So, I take it that if one of your loved ones was killed, the authorities should look to you to the exception of everyone else !!! DUUUUUUUUH.

If that's where the evidence points then yes.

Evidence against OJ Simpson:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

Not to mention the fact that he had a motive and no alibii...

It amazes me that he was not found guilty of killing his ex-wife and her lover.

The jury did not seem overly impressed by all of this "evidence" !!!

When you have been around as long as I have, you will learn that things may not always be as they appear to be at first hand. And also from personal experience, I know that "some" police (not all) have a great tendency to grab onto one suspect and not let go for fear of being ridiculed by the public for not solving the case. Sometimes this causes them to not give proper attention to other possible suspects.

Well lets not forget that the trial was in L.A. and the Rodney King ordeal was only a few years old and they didn't want a repeat.

Also, If they didn't go after OJ we wouldn't have gained the Chewbacca Defense.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: wpshooter
It just seems to me, that he is getting too much enjoyment out of O. J. Simpson's latest predicament.

I haven't been following this recent story, but don't you think it could be because he wants to extend his 15 minutes of fame that ended 10 years ago? Maybe get some publicity, get a TV show or something (didn't he already have a TV show?)?

 

[jdini76]

Wouldn't that be the ultimate twist to the story. Kato did it!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Answer this question.

If some all-knowing being suddenly appeared before you and asked if you thought OJ Simpson was guilty or not, what would you choose? Also, if you get the answer incorrect he shoots you in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, so you better choose wisely.

I eagerly await your answer to this highly probable hypothetical situation!

Guilty! No doubt in my mind.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If that's where the evidence points then yes.
Evidence against OJ Simpson:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence:
3. Fiber evidence:
4. Blood evidence:
5. Glove evidence:
6. Shoe evidence:
7. Other evidence:
Not to mention the fact that he had a motive and no alibii...

It amazes me that he was not found guilty of killing his ex-wife and her lover.

pardon me but I was too young when the trial occured, so how did OJ get away? just because the glove didn't fit? the Jury can't be that stupid right?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

The jury did not seem overly impressed by all of this "evidence" !!!

When you have been around as long as I have, you will learn that things may not always be as they appear to be at first hand. And also from personal experience, I know that "some" police (not all) have a great tendency to grab onto one suspect and not let go for fear of being ridiculed by the public for not solving the case. Sometimes this causes them to not give proper attention to other possible suspects.

I lived in Los Angeles during the OJ trial. I also turned 40 this year and personally I think the prosecution botched the trial and a group of slick attorneys were able to hoodwink a bunch of gullible jurors into a not guilty verdict.

OJ did it.

 

[wpshooter]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Answer this question.

If some all-knowing being suddenly appeared before you and asked if you thought OJ Simpson was guilty or not, what would you choose? Also, if you get the answer incorrect he shoots you in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, so you better choose wisely.

I eagerly await your answer to this highly probable hypothetical situation!

My answer would be that I do not know for sure whether he did it or not but that he should not be considered the only possible suspect to the elimination of any other.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: nick1985
Answer this question.

If some all-knowing being suddenly appeared before you and asked if you thought OJ Simpson was guilty or not, what would you choose? Also, if you get the answer incorrect he shoots you in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, so you better choose wisely.

I eagerly await your answer to this highly probable hypothetical situation!

My answer would be that I do not know for sure whether he did it or not but that he should not be considered the only possible suspect to the elimination of any other.

Then you get shot in the face. BOOM HEADSHOT.



Come on, just admit that if your life was riding on it you know you would say guilty...

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If that's where the evidence points then yes.
Evidence against OJ Simpson:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence:
3. Fiber evidence:
4. Blood evidence:
5. Glove evidence:
6. Shoe evidence:
7. Other evidence:
Not to mention the fact that he had a motive and no alibii...

It amazes me that he was not found guilty of killing his ex-wife and her lover.

pardon me but I was too young when the trial occured, so how did OJ get away? just because the glove didn't fit? the Jury can't be that stupid right?

the whole trial was a circus and the defense managed to have tons of evidence (including DNA evidence) thrown out due to technicalities and protocols not being followed.

 

[Old Hippie]

I think the prosecution botched the trial and a group of slick attorneys were able to hoodwink a bunch of gullible jurors into a not guilty verdict.

Winner!

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Pretty much everyone on the jury was "pretty sure" he did it, but "pretty sure" isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless you're in traffic court.

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: nick1985
Answer this question.

If some all-knowing being suddenly appeared before you and asked if you thought OJ Simpson was guilty or not, what would you choose? Also, if you get the answer incorrect he shoots you in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, so you better choose wisely.

I eagerly await your answer to this highly probable hypothetical situation!

My answer would be that I do not know for sure whether he did it or not but that he should not be considered the only possible suspect to the elimination of any other.

roflcopter

He wrote a book smacktard. It was entitled I Did It if I remember correctly. Now, let's see...

I agree with Nick. BOOM HEADSHOT SON!

 

[wpshooter]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: nick1985
Answer this question.

If some all-knowing being suddenly appeared before you and asked if you thought OJ Simpson was guilty or not, what would you choose? Also, if you get the answer incorrect he shoots you in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, so you better choose wisely.

I eagerly await your answer to this highly probable hypothetical situation!

My answer would be that I do not know for sure whether he did it or not but that he should not be considered the only possible suspect to the elimination of any other.

Then you get shot in the face. BOOM HEADSHOT.



Come on, just admit that if your life was riding on it you know you would say guilty...

No, I would not. Not everyone is as weak willed and closed minded as you !!!

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: nick1985
Answer this question.

If some all-knowing being suddenly appeared before you and asked if you thought OJ Simpson was guilty or not, what would you choose? Also, if you get the answer incorrect he shoots you in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, so you better choose wisely.

I eagerly await your answer to this highly probable hypothetical situation!

My answer would be that I do not know for sure whether he did it or not but that he should not be considered the only possible suspect to the elimination of any other.

Then you get shot in the face. BOOM HEADSHOT.



Come on, just admit that if your life was riding on it you know you would say guilty...

No, I would not. Not everyone is as weak willed and closed minded as you !!!

So you wouldnt even give an answer, knowing full well you will get shot in the face? Sounds stupid to me...

 

[jdini76]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: OdiN
No cuz OJ did it. DUH!

So, I take it that if one of your loved ones was killed, the authorities should look to you to the exception of everyone else !!! DUUUUUUUUH.

If that's where the evidence points then yes.

Evidence against OJ Simpson:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

Not to mention the fact that he had a motive and no alibii...

It amazes me that he was not found guilty of killing his ex-wife and her lover.

The jury did not seem overly impressed by all of this "evidence" !!!

When you have been around as long as I have, you will learn that things may not always be as they appear to be at first hand. And also from personal experience, I know that "some" police (not all) have a great tendency to grab onto one suspect and not let go for fear of being ridiculed by the public for not solving the case. Sometimes this causes them to not give proper attention to other possible suspects.

If I rememebr correctly a lot of this evidence was thrown from the trial and the jury was given strict instructions not to consider it when deliberating a verdict. That could have been a major reason why "the jury wasn't impressed".

Also, What was the reason why he lost the civil suit? Was this evidence presented then?

Why would one be not guilty of a crime, but then be sued for being responsible for the crime?


And finally, how long have you been around?