[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlene
T1:
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 06 Aug 1999
Time: 06:43:50
Remote Name: proxy-358.public.rwc.webtv.net
Kate I will try again. I am even having trouble navigating the articles to read this AM.
The Media/jounalists in this case have More of a problem than bias. I agree here with everything you say but there is More to this story as well.
The reporters would have to be deaf, blind and stupid to FAIL to notice some very Odd and disturbing info that came from this trial and the activities and testimony surrounding it.
Example: Recently while doing research I came across a NEWS article --one of those wire service type ones--where it TELLS that Dr. Lee testifies to finding that Blood has SOAKED thru 2 brown bags from the socks onto Ron's shoes in a box that they both have been placed in to send to him.
Excuse Me? Blood from the socks soaked through 2 brown bags?
Firstly, the shoes on Ron's feet went to the morgue with him (photos show this). Secondly, NObody reports wet blood on the socks at the time that they were collected. In fact, nobody reports blood at ALL for months.
Just how LONG are we to believe that it takes blood to DRY.
The socks and the shoes did not meet up with each other for months as per my understanding of the issues.
How can completely dry blood soak through 2 brown bags in a box months later?
To me this is 100% proof that the socks were planted with blood at a much later date.
Ron's clothes and shoes were not turned over for a period of time from the morgue if you will recall. They were supposed to be in a drying cabinet at the morgue. However, you may recall that THEY had molded and mildewed yet NIcole's had not. They were not dried properly was the "excuse".
Testimony did not put the socks and shoes together for MONTHS.
Tell me how a reporter as he typed his report FAILED to notice that this was more than enough proof that the socks were tampered with.
I am sure that this is just one example of testimony or other things that had to send up BIG RED FLAGS in this case. This was not reported until the Civil Trial.
IN other circumstance, wire service reports become the Headline News or the top story on the network news reports in the evening.
Not so things like this from the OJ trial. MANY times there were things like this in the OJ trial where the story (even if reported) failed to be picked up by the national news or investigated further.
Yeah, you can call it bias but it is Also CONTROL of the media. It especially works well with the "if Dan Rather didn't tell me that on the evening news, it DIDN'T HAPPEN crowd." The "if that were TRUE, Rather would have told us" crowd.
I think those controlling the media know this full well and take Great Advantage of it.
You can Kill a story just by omitting it. You don't Have to discredit it or even comment on it. You can Just Fail to report it.
This wouldn't happen so much now, since the Internet has Exploded since the time of the trials. It would still happen because still most people don't have the Internet but that is changing.
I believe that Today if that story had been filed, there Might have been a different response to it. I came across it recently. This was before I had the Internet so it was News to me.
But had it been reported now--on the wire services--the Internet might be Hot with the news being sent everywhere amongst the OJS sites at the very least if not more.
I believe this is one reason the "government" and powers that be want to have More control over the Internet sites and are quick to Discount ALL that is on the Internet as Made Up Stuff. charlie
PS I have been TOLD by people when I point out OJS info from the trials that I am lYING because if it were true it would have been on Dan Rather. Sad isn't it?