Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Will OJ Simpson Ever Find the "Real K... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Pub Talk » Will OJ Simpson Ever Find the "Real Killers"? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James Jeffrey Paul
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 12:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Forget the 60th anniversary of D-Day--the 10th anniversary of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson is coming up. Do you think that OJ will ever succeed in his goal of finding the "real killers"?

I mean, anytime except when he looks in the mirror?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 652
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 10:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi James

If they are on the elite golf courses of the world, he may stumble upon them.

All The Best
Gary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 140
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 1:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was really kind of disappointed with that whole thing. I mean, yeah, there's the obvious reasons that two people were killed, a killer bought his freedom, and all that, but the entertainment possibilities were so wasted. Hollywood has trained us with big summer blockbuster movies that when famous athletes and movie stars get blamed for murder, they set out on a one man mission to bring the real killers to justice, usually with handguns and explosives.

When OJ and that other athlete were in the infamous Blanco Bronco and the police were chasing them I was thinking we might finally end up with a real life action adventure movie. It'd start with the set up murders, then go into a huge chase scene involving a busy highway and ten million cop cars like in the Blues Brothers, and then OJ would swerve and speed and turn around and go against traffic, and dodge the attack helicopters (because the copters would have to shoot at them so we could see the special effects of a row of bullets approaching the heroes). Then he'd make it to some crime hideout, apply a little arm twisting to the informant, and go chase the real bad guys in a huge skyscraper / airplane / speeding train. And then he'd eventually find the solid proof of who did what, probably on a video tape or computer disk, and fight it out to the death. And when he'd finally give the evidence to the cops they'd say, oh, wow, you really didn't do it, never mind about trying to run us off the road and all the wrecked police cars from that, you're good to go, sorry to have bothered you.

But do we get that? No. We get a stupid 25 mph "chase" with OJ holding a gun to his head and then a bunch of lawyers and an absurd trial with no "real killers" exposed at the end.

Reality so completely sucks compared to Hollywood.

Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal

Post Number: 159
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 5:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I always wondered why OJ needed to do it himself anyway?
I would have thought someone with his money would hire someone. After all, they're hardly likely to reveal themselves at the time of the court case or in future if they were paid a million dollars?

But of course we may never know the truth
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vincent
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 11:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Neal wrote: "I always wondered why OJ needed to do it himself anyway?"

Good question. What does it take to do THAT to another human being? To the end of my days I will never understand how you can do that to someone you were once intimate with. I can understand being a soldier and killing someone with a knife. That's war. I just can't understand the frenzy that he killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman with.

I also can't understand how Greta Van Susteren can stand to be in the same hemisphere with him, let alone the same room. Not that she is any danger--she was after all his CNN-appointed attorney. I just wonder if she has nightmares...

Regards, Vincent
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559

Post Number: 411
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

OK, time to add a little controversy. I don't believe that OJ killed them both. I think that his eldest daughter killed Nicole and when he realized that she had left the house he went looking for her at Nicole's where he saw what was happening and killed Ron to keep his daughter off the hook. She has no alibi, she claimed to be at a movie, but couldn't remember the name and just happened to be at home at the same time OJ was at home that night. OK, start throwing things, I'm ready for it.

Mikey
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 649
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 5:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What would the motive be?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559

Post Number: 416
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 5:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The motive was pure hatred and MONEY.

Mikey

P.S. Go into chat Ally.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 134
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Michael,

Are you intending to write a book on the Ripper murders? Because with your thought processes, it ought to make for an entertaining read.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Please read the forensic evidence of the murders then tell me how a girl of that age, build and height could have possibly committed those murders.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 650
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 9:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

She was 20-something and didn't look all that dainty to me. Not saying that she did it, but a girl of that age, build and height could have done it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 136
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

I'm not suggesting that a 20 year old girl couldn't be a murderer. I'm saying that she couldn't have committed THOSE murders, based on the evidence. And let's not forget that Ron and Nicole were not very dainty, either. I would say I'm curious as to how Michael would explain the girl obtaining OJ's blood to place at the crime scene, but I'm really not curious, since any explanation would be silly. Did she also put that awfully convenient cut on his hand? Both were in good shape, and probably didn't want to die. OJ did it. Personally, I hope the girl never stumbles upon any of these careless postings suggesting that she killed her own mom. And am I to understand that Michael Raney is a cop? Jeez.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 651
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 6:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nicole wasn't her mother. And you didn't say based on the evidence, you said based on the fact that she was a girl, her age and build. That's not evidence, that's the kind of sexist thinking that has been allowing women to get away with murder for years and as a woman, I would definitely want you on my jury.




Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 137
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally writes: "you didn't say based on the evidence, you said based on the fact that she was a girl, her age and build."

The postscript to my original message to Michael Raney, to which Ally is referring to and misquoting from, reads: "Please read the forensic evidence of the murders then tell me how a girl of that age, build and height could have possibly committed those murders."

I felt that by referring Mr. Raney to the "forensic evidence", it would be understood that I myself had taken such evidence into consideration when stating that a 20-something year old girl was not the killer, and was not operating solely from a "sexist" (thank you for not calling me mysoginistic) viewpoint that impairs my thought processes to the point where it is inconceivable to me that a female could commit murder. But I have learned from this lesson, and next time will post the words 'FORENSIC EVIDENCE' in caps so that they will be clearly seen by anyone wishing to stamp me with one of those fashionable labels that us repressive white males are supposed to be so frightened of these days(i.e. sexist, racist, homophobic, ignorant, NASCAR fan).
Thank you, Ally, for reminding me that Nicole wasn't the mother of the daughter Mr. Raney is slandering.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Just for the record, I do find the accusation of being a NASCAR fan offensive.
P.S.S. I believe Lizzie Borden was guilty as sin. She was fortunate I wasn't on HER jury.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 652
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ah..right. Because a woman in her 20s, more than average height, in fair shape could not possibly stab someone to death, but a man of equal build and age could.

There's some compelling evidence.

There is nothing in the forensic evidence that says that a woman of her height, age and build couldn't have done it.

Frankly, I don't think you knew about the older daughter, were thinking it was Nicole's young daughter Mikey was referring to and rather than admitting that, you are going to be snarky.






Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 346
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Pffh - I'll say it. I've seen pictures of the older daughter, and no, I don't think she could have done it based on her age and build. I don't know a lot of people who could single handedly kill two people, both in fairly good shape and in the prime of their lives.

I mean to do something like that you would have had to have been in very very good shape. Maybe someone who played professional sports . . .

-K
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 653
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yeah...because it takes a lot of physical skill to stab someone in the back. Once she had done that, they were pretty much down. The coroner report said that the initial attack was to their back. Considering she would not have taken them on both at the same time, the reconstruction says that Ron Goldman came in after Nicole was already killed, she could easily have killed Nicole, then when Ron came in and found Nicole, he's standing there in shock and she stabs him in the back. He may very well have put up a tremendous struggle after the fact, but if she got him good on the first hits, there would have been no problem.

There is nothing in the way they were killed that indicates it had to be a man. There are reports of a 70 year old women knifing intruders in their house. It's not like it requires great skill or strength.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 347
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 10:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Where are these reports of 70 year old women?

I disagree, I think it would take some strength to stab someone, there's a lot of fat and muscle to get through which isn't the soft butter some would have us believe. And that's not even getting into hitting bones and such. And who's to say once you've been stabbed in the back you are pretty much down? I seem to recall reading that some people after being stabbed in the back feel that they have only been punched hard. And what about that elderly woman who was stabbed in the back on the street and then sauntered off to the supermarket and shopped for the better part of half an hour until people pointed out to her that she had been stabbed?

Don't get me wrong, Ally, I'm not saying that it isn't possible for a woman to stab someone to death, believe me. I'm just saying I find it unlikely that she killed two people at the same time, because as far as I am concerned the reconstruction is still conjecture, granted educated conjecture, but still.

-K

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 654
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You're right..old women tend to shoot the people they kill.

I can link you to several instances though of 30 year old women and younger stabbing people to death...including big brawny men.

She didn't kill them at the same time. She killed one, the other came in and found the body and while in undoubted shock, she stabbed him. I think the combination of finding your lover's body butchered and then being stabbed a few times would be sufficient.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 655
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

P.S. I just realized that it sounds like I think she actually did it. I don't. I am just saying that it is not sufficient to say she didn't because she was a woman.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 348
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

I agree with you, and I was basing my judgement on her size and stature, not on the fact that she was a woman.

I happen to think woman are in almost every aspect superior to men, so I'm about the last person you would find saying that.

-K
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 656
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 2:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ron Goldman was 5'9 and weighed 170 pounds. We'll say he was in average shape. What size woman do you think it would take to kill a man this size with a knife?

I am of course buying into the sexist idea that the man would have presented more of a challenge than the woman.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 349
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 3:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, I'm not sure to tell you the truth. I would have to think that she would need to be pretty close to the same size . . . My wife and I are about the same size and are very comparable in strength, so that's what I'm gauging my thoughts from.

From the pictures I have seen she wasn't quite that big, mind you I've seen maybe two photos of her. His other two kids saw a lot more exposure than she did.

So, I would say that was his advantage over her. Do you know if there was any evidence that he may have been bludgeoned first? That's what I would do. That makes it all so much easier.

So, I guess what I'm saying is because I am assuming he was larger than her it would have proposed more of a problem.

Is that an answer? I'm not sure myself now.

-K

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 657
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 6:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Okay...today I am having mental problems. The killer attacked from the back but not "in" the back...preposition problems galore in my above posts. That's what I get for multi-tasking. So I am going to rephrase my posts from above.

The killer attacks FROM the back, and stabs/cuts Ron in the neck. I don't think you would have to be exceptionally strong to stab someone in their throat from the back. This would have been an incapacitating wound.

A woman of my size could have easily have done this. Now if I remember correctly, there was a lot more wounds to Ron Goldman than to Nicole...the prosecution argued that this was proof that it was OJ in a jealous rage...but it could also have been a woman who sees the man as her more pressing problem and makes sure she gives him double/triple what she gave the girl.

Now as for size comparisons. I am 5'5. I know, without any hesitation, that I am physically capable of doing what was done (mentally possibly not, but physically it would have been easy).

The assailant would not have had to arm wrestle with Ron...just stab him in the throat.



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 138
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

You got me. Alright. I'm convinced. She did it. Ha ha. Now, be a good little woman and go snag Stephen a beer, will ya?
And if I appeared 'Snarky' (whatever the hell that means) in my last post it was not because you corrected me on who the daughter's mother or mother was not (and no, I had assumed it was the older one, whom I remember from photos, but whose biography I have not committed to memory - yet another incorrect assumption on Ally's part. Don't tear a tendon from all that conclusion-jumping, Alegria), but because you blatantly and intentionally misquoted me, and attacked me with accusations based on nothing but my sex. YOU'RE A FEMALE CHAUVANIST PIG!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. O.J. is not the same build, size, etc. as this daughter. O.J. is the man I stated was guilty, so where you get that I said that, I have no idea...but then you've made a habit out of misquoting and misreading me on this thread. Been rather amusing. You...you..you......DIARYIST!!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 350
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 8:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally, you may be right . . . I guess we won't know unless you decide to attack someone. Let me know if you ever do, by the way.

-K
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sara
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 6:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If any daughter, older or younger, of OJ Simpson would murder for inheritance, why target Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman? OJ was and still is the primary cash cow of the family. And the notion of OJ's older daughter from a previous marriage should kill her by-then ex-step-mother for monetary reasons is just plain silly. Unless NB-S (still bearing in mind that any money she would have had would originate from her ex-husband, OJ)had made a will with the step-daughter as a beneficiary, she would have nothing to gain from her death. Quote Jackie Aprile of the Sopranos: "In Jersey they would'a fried his worthless ass".
Sara
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum

Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Now, be a good little woman and go snag Stephen a beer, will ya? [...] YOU'RE A FEMALE CHAUVANIST PIG!

lol! i love it when someone denies being chauvinistic by posting a chauvinistic sentence :-)


Chris
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith

Post Number: 90
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 9:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

To find the killer, O.J. will have to look in the mirror. The judge and the prosecution botched the case from day one. Of course now he is beyond the reach of the law (Double jeapordy) He should let everyone know the truth but he'll hide behind the fiction of "Looking for the real killers" Neil
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 354
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 3:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

This is kind of off topic, yet sort of on topic with what has been discussed on this particular thread for a bit anyway . . . I've been thinking of the discussion we were having a few posts above about male/female strength and I was wondering do you think women are of equal strength to men? Obviously some are stronger and some are weaker, but in general, do you think your average woman on the street is the same strength as your average man?

-K
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 660
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 5:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Kris,

I think your question is overly simplistic. I assume by strength you mean physical strength. Women are generally smaller than men. So I would say that the average 5’5 woman is less physically strong than the average 5’9 man. But I don’t believe that a 5’9 woman is significantly weaker than the 5’9 man even factoring testosterone percentages. I also don’t believe that “strength” can be defined in purely physical terms. I also believe that women are taught to think weak and mental ideas influence physical realities.

Let’s take this example. Back in my misspent youth, the following situation occurred: At a party, five guys of average to above average physical ability, sport/jock types decided it would be fun to throw a couple of the girls into the pool and I was one of the girls chosen for the honor. Why men are compelled to do such things I do not know, but they were. Now, considering that I am 5’5 and they were all larger than I was, if we were laying statistical odds and went by purely physical definitions of strength, then my arse was getting tossed in the pool. However, I decided I wasn’t into the squealing girl routine and I wasn’t going into the pool. I didn’t go in the pool. They intensely tried to get me in, redoubling their efforts when the surrounding crowd began to jeer them for being unable to overpower a “little girl”. They eventually gave up from embarrasment. They were all "stronger" than I was. If we had an arm-wrestling match any one of them would have won. But that didn't matter much did it?

There are other examples I could provide where I made up my mind to do something and my physical size didn’t really factor into it as much as it should. To tie into the above topic of conversation, considering, how much would it have changed if I had a knife in my hand?



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James Jeffrey Paul
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 1:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did you ever hear about the two cell phone calls that OJ got during his slow-speed freeway chase?

One was from Rodney King, who told him: "Whatever you do, OJ--don't get out of the car!"

The other was from Michael Jackson, who said: "Don't worry, OJ. I've got the kids, and the other glove!"

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 355
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 9:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

I agree that my question was overly simple. I thought about how to word it best, and couldn't think of a way that didn't sound awkward, but I went with it anyway.

The reason I ask is because late last week I was having a discussion with some friends and the physical differences between men and women came up.

One of my friends is a fairly hardcore feminist, while another is a bit of a chauvinist, although I wouldn't go so far as to say misogynist. The rest of us fall somewhere in the middle.

So through a long series of conversations the topic of how women had been so oppressed throughout society came up and my friend who is a tad chauvinistic said something to the effect of "If women outnumbered men throughout history and are the same strength as men, then they deserved to be oppressed."

This, obviously, inflamed many of the people at the table, but it began me thinking later. Not that I think women deserved to be oppressed at all, and i suspect that they didn't always outnumber men, but why do you think women were so oppressed?

I realize this question, too, is loaded and overly simplified, but I'm just looking for your opinions. I've been asking all the ladies I know.

-K
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 661
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 9:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Actually it's a fairly simple question with a fairly simple answer. Sex and reproduction. In matriarchal societies where inheritance is passed through the female line, women have more freedoms than in patriarchal societies. Let's face it, matriarchal lineage is the only type that makes sense considering you can only guarantee someone shares the same blood as you if a child is born to a female that you know shares the same blood as you because you share a female ancestor.

In patriarchal societies, men really have no way of knowing whether their wives offspring are their own unless they keep the wife so sheltered and controlled that she has no opportunity to mate with anyone else.

If inheritance is passed through female lines, there is no need to control the women, because the male role is unimportant.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 356
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ok, fair enough, but why do you think the women in the patriarchal societies allowed themselves to be dominated? Was it just because they were brought to believe that was how the world was? Or, was it just easier? Or were they taught that they were indeed weaker and wouldn't be able to fight back?

Before you answer I will tell you what I think. First, I have no idea if women outnumbered men throughout time. I could look it up, but I'm not all that interested, only mildly so. So, I won't even bring that into my theory.

I think that early on the men got into the "food gathering" thing, and yeah I know that a lot of tribes or societies had women gatherers too, or instead of, but not most. So, I think with the men being the gatherers they got used to using the weapons, so when war came they were the more likely choice to go to war. With war came more weapons and the need of armour, all of which were then fitted to men's physiques. War became more important as people began to venture out and try to take over more land. Eventually men only had time for war, and the women only had time for child rearing, and farming. At that point there would be little reason to teach the women how to fight, wear armour, or carry weapons, and as such they became victim to ignorance. They didn't know how to use the weapons they they would need to fight back against men, should they decide to do so.

I have no idea if this is true, my interests in history are not focused on these areas so these are guesses more than a theory.

What say you?

-K
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 8:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,
exactly. Good point I was just about to answer the same...babies...
Jennifer
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris

Post Number: 452
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 3:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally,

You never did answer my last question.

-K
I'll see you in time . . .
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer

Post Number: 471
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 1:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In patriarchal societies, men really have no way of knowing whether their wives offspring are their own unless they keep the wife so sheltered and controlled that she has no opportunity to mate with anyone else. '

True; but this insidious male jealousy is partially biological (not an excuse but an explanation). Biologists have argued that the males domination of the female is because he wants to insure his own genes are passed on. The female, on the otherhand, instinctively wants to ensure a healthier, more geneticaly diverse stock, and thus might be drawn to someone outside the immediate village (ie., 'the sexy stranger')--almost certainly a biological function of not wanting to corrupt the gene pool by too much inter breeding with the local village idiots. Some studies have shown that women are more fertile when they're out of town--away from their husbands/boyfriends. Men on the otherhand, become more fertile in the domestic setting. (he's trying to ensure he's got the best chance of impregnating his mate). Of course all of this is an over-simplification, terribly unpoetic, and only shows one influence of many. We must rise above, rise above.

(Message edited by rjpalmer on October 16, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Baby Angel
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 9:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Why do we still worry about O.J Simpson, it has been about 10 years?


Baby Angel
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Baby Angel
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 9:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Why do we still worry about O.J Simpson, it has been about 10 years?


Baby Angel
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 575
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And ten years is ancient history, especially compared to, say, the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888?

Not following you at all, Baby Angel, but that's OK.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile    Email    Dissertations    Website
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie

Post Number: 122
Registered: 9-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Johnny Cochran was a smart lawyer. Before the evidence was even layed out, he made a statement to the jury that made me predict O.J. Simpson will be found Not Guilty.
In his opening argument, Johnny Cochran said to the Jury. "Remember Rodney King". Rodney King was the man who was videotaped being beaten by LAPD officers. And it was around the same time the public was outraged at the LAPD because of this. I was watching the trial on television. When he got this statement in, I said that the trial is over. He was looking for one person on that Jury to take the message and use it to get back at the LAPD. All the evidence that proved O.J. killed these 2 people went right out the window. I'm sure a few people on that Jury had it in their minds to vote Not Guilty because of that statement. A real shame.

Yours Truly,

Eddie

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.