O.J. Simpson & Nicole Brown’s Alleles Combined

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 20 June 2016 05:35.

       
        Simpson & Brown’s daughter at age 30 - YKW recombination

       
        Nicole Brown, at age 35, an equally gruesome outcome

        O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior and typical Jewish facilitation -
       
          NPR, “The Perfect Perversity of the O.J. Simpson Case”, 14 June 2016:

         

          NPR series: there is no doubt that OJ Simpson committed the murders.

There were signs from the very first date he had with the 18 year old Nicole Brown that OJ Simpson was violent.

        Brown’s friend had noticed signs that Simpson had forced himself upon her in the first date..he had ripped open her pants…

...

The series reveals many other facts not previously well known about the case:

Another 9-11 call from Nicole has a policeman arrive. Brown tells the policeman emphatically that Simpson is going to kill her. Brown has a bruise on her face and Simpson tells the policeman that he doesn’t care, he doesn’t want her in his bed, he has two other women.

The policeman tells Simpson that he is under arrest for domestic violence. Simpson goes into his house, ostensibly to get dressed, but races away in his car via a rear exit. The police pursue, but don’t catch him and don’t pursue him afterward.

This is one of the surprising elements of the series: The L.A. Police Department was not eager to prosecute Simpson. They treated him with kid gloves.

The detective who interviewed Simpson after the murder did not ask him to provide a time line of his day - which would have caught him in several lies - basically, because the detective was following The L.A. P.D.‘s tendency to treat Simpson and his celebrity with deference.

       
In fact, in being racial, Fuhrman was an outlier to this culture. He actually had sued the L.A. Police Department for early retirement, claiming psychological disability because he could not stand having to deal with blacks.

The L.A. P.D. won the case, was not compelled to accept Fuhrman’s claim, and told him to get back to work.

Unfortunately for the case against Simpson, Fuhrman was the one who collected Simpson’s glove left at the scene of the murder.

Simpson was advised to stop taking his arthritis medicine so that his hands would swell up. When the glove didn’t fit Simpson’s hand in a demonstration before the jury, it added to the suggestion that Fuhrman’s racism might motivate him to set-up Simpson - a Negro man in an interracial relationship which Fuhrman was known to not like - prosecuting him unjustly by planting the glove as fake evidence.

         
Allowing Simpson to try-on the glove was black prosecuting attorney Christopher Darden’s blunder. Darden was said to have had an affair with Marcia Clarke during the trial.

“If it doesn’t fit you must acquit” was Simpson’s black defense attorney, Johnny Cochran’s famous line, but what was most important in the acquittal was the way he successfully pandered to a majority black jury, Jewish legal system and zeitgeist, by diverting them from the obvious evidence against O.J. Simpson, into “juicestice” instead, presenting the case as an indictment of Furhman and the L.A. Police Department’s early stage ‘Hitleresque’ will to genocide, racism and cover-up of its racism - a particularly effective argument in L.A. following the Rodney King incident.

Key excerpts from Corchran’s closing argument:

Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don’t stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.‘s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn’t it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don’t take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don’t take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out—that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren’t always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here.

                               
Fuhrman sued LAPD years before, seeking early retirement because he couldn’t stand having to deal with blacks and interracial couples.

[Ibid. Johnny Corchran’s closing argument] I don’t know how this subject was raised but officer Fuhrman says that when he sees a Nigger, as he called it, driving with a white woman, he would pull them over. I asked what if he didn’t have a reason and he said that he would find one. I looked at the two marines to see if they knew he was joking, but it became obvious to me that he was very serious.” Now, let me just stop at this point. Let’s back it up a minute, Mr. Harris. Pull it back down, please. If he sees an African American with a white woman he would stop them. If he didn’t have a reason, he would find one or make up one. This man will lie to set you up. That is what he is saying there. He would do anything to set you up because of the hatred he has in his heart. A racist is somebody who has power over you, who can do something to you. People could have views but keep them to themselves, but when they have power over you, that is when racism becomes insidious. That is what we are talking about here. He has power. A police officer in the street, a patrol officer, is the single most powerful figure in the criminal justice system. He can take your life. Unlike the supreme court, you don’t have to go through all these appeals. He can do it right there and justify it. And that is why, that is why this has to be routed out in the LAPD and every place. Make up a reason because he made a judgment. That is what happened in this case. They made a judgment. Everything else after that is going to point toward O.J. Simpson. They didn’t want to look at anybody else. Mr. Darden asked who did this crime? That is their job as the police. We have been hampered. They turned down our offers for help. But that is the prosecution’s job. The judge says we don’t have that job. The law says that. We would love to help do that. Who do you think wants to find these murderers more than Mr. Simpson? But that is not our job; it is their job. And when they don’t talk to anybody else, when they rush to judgment in their obsession to win, that is why this became a problem. This man had the power to carry out his racist views and that is what is so troubling. Let’s move on. Making up a reason. That is troubling. That is frightening. That is chilling. But if that wasn’t enough, if that wasn’t enough, the thing that really gets you is she goes on to say: “Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all niggers gathered together and killed. He said something about burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used. However, I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer sworn to uphold the law.” And now we have it. There was another man, not too long ago in the world, who had those same views who wanted to burn people, who had racist views and ultimately had power over people in this country.

People didn’t care. People said he was just crazy, he is just a half-baked painter. They didn’t do anything about it. This man, this scourge, became one of the worse people in the history of this world, Adolph Hitler, because people didn’t care or didn’t try to stop him. He had the power over his racism and his anti-religion. Nobody wanted to stop him, and it ended up in world war ii, the conduct of this man. And so Fuhrman, Fuhrman wants to take all black people now and burn them or bomb them. That is genocidal racism. Is that ethnic purity? What is that? What is that? We are paying this man’s salary to espouse these views? Do you think he only told Kathleen Bell whom he just had met? Do you think he talked to his partners about it? Do you think commanders knew about it? Do you think everybody knew about it and turned their heads? Nobody did anything about it.

                           
Reaction to the “innocent verdict”: O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior (dindu) and typical Jewish enabling. The glove trick was the idea of Shapiro (in background). F. Lee Baily, O.J. Simpson and Johnny Corchran, react in foreground.

In what is supposed to be prosecuting attorney Marcia Clark’s “closing argument” against the eminently guilty O.J. Simpson (who is merely one expression of pervasive black hyper-assertion, social irresponsibility and violence that needs to be defended against), Clark instead makes it a key point to condemn and condemn ultimately, Mark Fuhrman, a dedicated, competent and fair, career police detective:

       

Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worst L.A. P.D. has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by the L.A. P.D.? Yes. Should L.A. P.D. have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there was no such person on the planet? Yes.

This “closing argument” by Marcia Clark is unbelievably perverted - she devoted 41 seconds (1/4th) of her 2:44 second long closing argument to condemning, and condemning ultimately, Mark Furhman, for the innate and necessary capacity that all species have to discriminate on behalf of their own survival - she even explicitly denounces Furhrman’s very existence.

Marcia Clark’s lawyering efforts were thoroughly co-opted by Jewish, anti-White purposes of destroying Whites.

Anti-racism is a Jewish construct that capitalizes on Cartesianism’s rational blindness to prejudices, to the fact that its way of viewing the world is not innocent, that it is hurting and it is killing people - it targets Whites, especially.

       
29 April 1992, during black riots: Blacks pulled Reginald Denny from his truck passing through the riot areas, and then celebrate after having thrown a brick full force, point blank into his head. This was far worse than the incident which sparked the riots, a baton beating that police administered to physically resistant Rodney King, who had been apprehended after a dangerous, high-speed car chase.



Comments:


1

Posted by trail of blood on Wed, 03 Aug 2016 02:10 | #

VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON (“ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY”) (1999)

The trail of blood

VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON (1999) (PART 2) (BUGLIOSI’S “FINAL SUMMATION” TO THE JURY)

 


2

Posted by O.J. is not happy on Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:09 | #

Bad News For O.J. Simpson

Apparently, he has been calling all of his remaining friends and family complaining about his constant misery in prison.

He apparently had gotten cash from female friends in the past

That included the last seven years he was locked up, but he is apparently finding out that aging is not good for keeping the ladies at bay.

His Cash Is Drying Up

#1 OJ is Not Happy


3

Posted by O.J. Simpson's cheerful parole hearing on Sun, 23 Jul 2017 03:56 | #

Connie Bisbee is Chairman of the Nevada Board of Parole. She addressed killer O.J. Simpson with giddy smiles at his parole hearing. After accidentally citing Simpson’s age as “90”, she gushes gleefully toward the murderer, Simpson, “that he looks great for 90.” Is it any surprise that killer OJ got parole with the likes of her presiding?


4

Posted by OJ verdict: wake-up call for some gen Xers on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:46 | #

Counter Currents, “O. J. Simpson & the Red Pill that White America Forgot”, 22 Mar 2018:

Travis LeBlanc, 1,265 words

Recently, FOX aired a program entitled “O. J. Simpson: the Lost Confession.” The program showed clips from a 2006 interview where O. J. Simpson talks “hypothetically” about murdering his wife Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The interview was originally intended to promote Simpson’s book If I Did It, his clumsy attempt to profit from his crimes without technically admitting to them. In between clips, FOX had assembled a panel of experts who offer horrified reactions to O. J.’s blunt confessions.

One thing you couldn’t help noticing was that O. J. Simpson’s guilt is never questioned. The program assumed O. J. Simpson was guilty and assumed everyone watching agreed. You would never guess from watching FOX’s program that this was not always the case.

It may be difficult for people too young to remember the O. J. Simpson trial to understand what it meant to people at the time.

The O. J. Simpson trial is probably for millennials what Watergate was for my generation. Being Generation X, I was too young for Watergate, and the Watergate break-in itself seems like small potatoes to me because I’ve grown up in a world government corruption and intrusion have become normal. So it’s difficult, if not impossible, for me to put myself in the shoes of someone in the 1970s hearing about that kind of government malfeasance for the first time.

Likewise, millennials have grown up in a much more racially-charged environment. They’ve seen several high-profile race trials like those surrounding the deaths Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown. It is commonplace for POC’s to openly celebrate the demise of whites and wax poetic about their intense hatred of whites. One of the purposes of this article is to let younger readers know why the O. J. Simpson trial was such a big deal.

O. J. Simpson murdered his wife and her friend Ronald Goldman on June 13, 1994. He was acquitted for that murder on October 3, 1995. What happened in between was an all-consuming social/cultural/media phenomenon unlike anything I’ve seen in my lifetime. Even if you weren’t trying to follow the story, you still knew what was going on because it was all anyone was talking about.

The O. J. Simpson trial was a forerunner to the recent “cop shoots black kid” trials. There was heavy press coverage, accusations of police racism, and public opinion on the matter split along racial lines.

On October 2, 1995, the eve of the Simpson verdict, the New York Times reported that 64% of white Americans believed O. J. Simpson was probably guilty of murdering his wife. Only 11% of whites believed that O. J. Simpson was innocent. Among black Americans, 59% said they believed that O. J. Simpson was innocent of murder, while only 12% believed that Simpson was probably guilty.

But the difference between the O. J. Simpson trial and more recent racial trials, is that there was no ambiguity. The evidence against Simpson was overwhelming: he had the blood of the victims in his car, on his clothes, and at his house. The case did not need to rely on he said/she said witness testimony or circumstantial evidence. The evidence was right there.

But what was mind-boggling for white Americans is how immune to evidence black Americans can be. The same New York Times article reported “The trial has had little effect on the public’s perception of Mr. Simpson’s guilt or innocence. In a Gallup Poll taken in July 1994, 62 percent of the adult Americans surveyed said the charges against Mr. Simpson were probably true and 21 percent said they were probably not true. In the recent CBS poll, 57 percent of those surveyed said Mr. Simpson was probably guilty and 18 percent said he probably not.” In other words, the more evidence of O. J. Simpson’s guilt blacks saw, the more convinced they became of his innocence.

Another interesting quirk is blacks’ warped idea of fairness. Before the verdict was announced and smart money was on O. J. going to jail, only 45% of blacks polled believed that O. J. had received a fair trial. This number would jump up to 80% a couple days later after O. J. was acquitted. To blacks, “fair” is whatever benefits them.

Racial politics in the 1990s were not the all-consuming obsession that they are today, but there were three big stories in the ’90s with heavy racial overtones: the Rodney King video and the subsequent LA Riots, the emergence of rap music and hip hop culture, and the O. J. Simpson trial. Of the those three, the O. J. trial was probably the least consequential but also the most redpilling.

I could understand why the intense images of the Rodney King video might provoke emotional or violent responses, and one could make a case that rap music was escapist fun. But for the life of me, I could not comprehend celebrating an obviously guilty man walking free.

For videos of blacks responding to the O. J. Simpson verdict, click here, here or here.

Black America’s unwavering devotion to an obvious murderer was something the liberal narrative could not explain. There were only two possible explanations for this phenomenon, and both scared white people to the core: either blacks were dumb, or blacks were liars.

Either blacks honestly and genuinely believed that O. J. Simpson was innocent and/or being framed for the murder of his wife as part of a racist police conspiracy, in which case they were dumb. Or blacks secretly knew O. J. was guilty but professed a belief in his innocence out of tribal solidarity. If that were the case, that would make blacks liars. Try to think of another explanation that does require blacks being one of those two things. You can’t do it.

The behavior of black Americans at this time went against everything we were led to believe about race. Mine generation was assigned To Kill a Mockingbird in school. It was a story about how tribalistic white jurors unfairly used the court system to protect their racial kin and attack the racial other and did so in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. White people who read the book were supposed to walk away thinking those jurors were the most evil people in the world.

So when the O. J. Simpson trial turned out to be To Kill a Mockingbird in reverse, what was white America supposed to think while watching our black countrymen in jumping around in jubilant ecstasy over a gross perversion of justice? Are we supposed to hate them too? But that would make us racist!

And what did it say about the future? As we are heading into a future in which whites will be a minority, we will be increasingly dependent on non-whites to treat us fairly. Was the O. J. Simpson verdict an omen of what to expect?

But as time has gone by, that lesson has faded from the public consciousness. Recent polls have shown that a majority of blacks now believe O. J. was guilty (although an astonishing 40% of blacks still maintain O. J.’s innocence). Nowadays people are more likely to remember the O. J. affair as simply a major tabloid story with some racial overtones.

There was a period in the late ’90s when O. J. Simpson was the JFK on Generation X. While our parents all remember where they were when JFK was shot, everyone in Gen X remembers where they were when they heard the O. J. Simpson verdict. It was a moment of mass cognitive dissonance for white people, and everyone remembers what it felt like the moment they found out that black people hate us.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Polexit: The Polish Case Against The European Union
Previous entry: Massive Israeli border fence system between Israel & Syria (and other countries adjacent to Israel)

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:31. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:12. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:44. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:03. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:06. (View)

shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View)

Vought commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:43. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:56. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert' on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:10. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View)

affection-tone