J Neil Schulman

Neil later btw abandoned his God's theory about OJ being framed and switched to Bill Dear's theory, which is an entirely different one.

So it looks like God's A is not A anymore in Neil's eyes. B)

Said the Simpson "expert" Xray who has neither watched the Bill Dear documentary nor read my book on the subject.

I'm quite skeptic when comes to such "documenantaries"; I recall watching "crockumentaries" where perps guilty as hell were presented as "innocent".

If I watch it, we're going to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Interested?

Not really.

Interesting that after telling me to watch it, you now suddenly don't want me to go through it.

I've already concluded that the documentary could contain date-and-time stamped security camera video footage of Jason Simpson murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then mugging for the camera, and you still wouldn't believe it.

So you have already "concluded" that for which you cannot provide a scintilla of evidence since it is an expression of a mere belief on your part. Your argumentation on the "God" thread btw was based on the same thinking error.

No, I've concluded that you're not interested in examining any evidence that doesn't agree with your prejudices.

For anyone other than Xray, who I consider a hopeless cultist worshiping at the Mount of Failed Evidence, here is the link once again to Bill Dear's award-winning documentary, The Overlooked Suspect:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7905933759946122795&hl#&hl=en

This is a full-length free Google video.

Chris, if I'd know Bill Dear's documentary, The Overlooked Suspect was already on the web at full length I would have posted this link myself.

XRay, this is the documentary I've been referring to repeatedly.

Watch it.

Can one watch that one for free?

No, clicking on the link to watch the Google video automatically deducts $10,000 from your checking account. In the name of God, don't click it! *snort*

For the one you had linked to a while ago, one would have had to pay.

Yeah, I can see how open to contrary evidence you are on this subject that you're too fucking busy to click and find out.

I'm quite skeptic when comes to such "documenantaries"; I recall watching "crockumentaries" where perps guilty as hell were presented as "innocent".

If I watch it, we're going to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Interested?

Not really. I've already concluded that the documentary could contain date-and-time stamped security camera video footage of Jason Simpson murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then mugging for the camera, and you still wouldn't believe it.

Do people have some type of powers here? I'm especially asking Xray this question. It seems that Xray saw the murder take place with his/her own eyes, or at least believes it.

Here is a very interesting documentary which argues that Jason Simpson (OJ's son) actually did it. He also argues that OJ did go to the murder scene, that OJ knew that his son did it, and that OJ wanted to divert attention from his son.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl#

Chris, if I'd know Bill Dear's documentary, The Overlooked Suspect was already on the web at full length I would have posted this link myself.

XRay, this is the documentary I've been referring to repeatedly.

Watch it.

The very title of this discussion is an attack on reason. And it's not because it's the Simpson case. It's anti-reason to assert that someone questioning any conclusion, based on any collection of evidence, is an attack on reason. It's declaring one's own opinion is unquestionably orthodox, omniscient. Ridiculously dogmatic.

Neil: how do you know I'm not already a convert, albeit one without the benefit of God having entered my body?

A convert to what?

Neil:

Out of curiosity, do you recall how many total CD' s were on the table?

Adam

Behind the table. Half a dozen, give or take.

I asked Schulman whether he and his mother checked which Bach concerto was in the player, but got no reply. It looks like they did not even think of checking it out.

I found the post in which Neil described the Bach incident.

Here's the part that interests me:

Now, I know Bach's work intimately, and the violin concerto my mom and I were hearing was not Bach. You can't mistake baroque era violin for the romantic-era violin concerto my mom and I were hearing. I said so and asked to see the CD they were playing. He said he was just watching the table until the owner came back and if I returned in a half hour I could ask him.

So, a half hour later I returned to the table and asked the owner what the CD was that was playing when my mom and I walked by their table for the first time. He said, "Bach." I said something like, "Look, we know what we heard and it couldn't be Bach. Could I look through your CD's?" He said yes.

The CD in the player was Bach.

Every other CD they had at the table was Bach.

There was no CD at the table with any romantic 19th century violin concertos.

Draw your own conclusions. My mom and I know what we heard, and we both heard the same thing: an unknown violin concerto in the style of a 19th century composer -- the exact sort of violin repertoire my dad most loved to play, and which sounded like him playing -- coming out of a CD player that the owner's claim -- and the immediate evidence -- could not have been playing.

Everyone else aside from my mom and me said they heard Bach.

Neil, when you say that every CD in the collection at the table was Bach, do you mean that you had examined each of the CD discs, or just the CD cases or sleeves?

Of course it crossed my mind. I didn't just check jewel cases or CD labels. I checked every CD by putting it into the player. They were all Bach, all the time.

Jeff Riggenbach, I know you read this forum. Do you honestly think there's even the slightest possibility I can't tell the difference between Bach and a late 19th century violin concerto? I know that you could in about five seconds.

I do not honestly think there is the slightest possibility that either of us could hear a Bach violin concerto and think it was written in the late 19th Century.

JR

JR,

How would you explain what happened?

I'd be more interested in learning which Bach violin concerto was being played (or claimed to have been played). Did I miss it on this thread, or was there no attempt made to discover the specific name or title of the piece of music which was being misinterpreted as something other than what it was?

J

I asked Schulman whether he and his mother checked which Bach concerto was in the player, but got no reply. It looks like they did not even think of checking it out.

A question about terminology: With regard to the music both you and your mother heard playing: suppose what was playing on the CD really WAS Bach, then obviously your brains wrongly processed the sensory input you received. Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?

Really? That's your parsimonious explanation?

You have evaded my question. I'll ask you again: "Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?"

As for the Simpson case discussion, I'll reply to your and others' posts about it on a separate thread which I have opened in the 'Living Room' section:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10018

Two independent musically expert listeners hearing a piece of music that wasn't playing? The possibility of both "misprocessing" Bach -- any composition by Bach, and certainly none on any of the CD's I looked through -- as a romantic violin concerto approaches zero.

The technical term I'd use for this happening is "maximum hypothesis."

If you need to sleep at night you'd do better simply saying my mom and I are liars and simply made the whole thing up.

And you might even get away with it, since close to a decade later I'm unlikely to be able to find the people who were selling the Austrian School audio lectures in Spanish, and the likelihood that they'd remember this is not good for me.

And two of the friends I told about it -- Sam Konkin and Kerry Pearson -- are now dead, and another friend who was there who I just checked with doesn't remember me telling him about it at the time.

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God,

So we have it from your own mouth that it was Starbuckle who invited you. So why all the ballyhoo as to who it was? (??)

Starbuckle didn't invite me into this discussion by any known rules of etiquette. He merely posted my name on the web with a subject title inviting a challenge, where a Google alert could find it and where anyone else who knew me might invite me to respond. He did welcome me into the discussion as soon as I made my first post.

"Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination -- in which Bugliosi concluded that Oswald acted alone -- is laughable to anyone who gives a moment's thought to why Mafia-operative Jack Ruby -- obviously not the sort of guy to be emotionally overwrought by the shooting of the Mick president who broke his promise to the Mob after they rigged the election for him -- shot Oswald, precluding Oswald's day in court. And if you believe the Warren report, you're loonier than someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Bugliosi wrote perhaps the worst book of the 30-or-so I read on the Simpson trial. Kato Kaelin's memoir contained more useful information. Bugliosi's entire agenda was to show how stupid Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were and how much better he would have been if he had prosecuted. It's pathetic self-aggrandizement. His entire case requires ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and interpreting all evidence -- no matter how irrelevant -- as proof of Simpson's consciousness of guilt."

----------------

I am afraid I can't agree with you on this Neil. Some of VB's other claims to fame: over 100 felony convictions in front of juries, with one loss.

That's an easy-to-fabricate record. Simply don't try anything but easy-to-win cases. That's typical stats-managing used by virtually all prosecutors. If a case is at all dicey you offer an attractive plea bargain and since most cases are handled by public defenders they'll recommended it to get it off their caseload.

You might think the Manson case was a lay-down, but I doubt you will hear many people who try cases to juries say that. Also, he out-dueled Gerry Spence in one of the more famous trial reenactments of all time, with real witnesses: the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. Spence said nobody else could have obtained a conviction in that case.

In that case Bugliosi did not have to win by arguing that Oswald acted alone. Oswald may have been one of the shooters, or even the only shooter. Doesn't mean he wasn't hired or manipulated by others. Bugliosi subscribing to the Warren Commission's findings shows him to be a party-line statist toady -- after that book, not someone I'd ever use as an example of an intelligent investigator on anything.

Also, VB is one of the more refined tacticians on the subject of best practices for trial lawyers. He is, for instance, one of the few trial lawyers who has theorized the proper way to ask a witness the "why" question on cross examination. Finally, VB has also been a successful defense attorney, after he retired from the DA's office.

Again, as a defense lawyer, he can pick and choose his cases, and maintain a track record by pleading out or turning down any case he doesn't feel he can win at trial.

I have practiced law throughout the country for 24 years. If I or a close family member were accused of a serious crime, I would hire VB to defend me. If I could steal a day of one other lawyer's time to help me become a better trial lawyer, I would pick Spence or Bugliosi.

I wouldn't accept Bugliosi as my lawyer if he was working pro bono.

Now, can we please allow this thread to die? ;)

You can adjust your settings to not follow it anymore, any time you decide to.

What are you worried about -- that I might win some "converts"?

"More tomorrow."

Must there be? Would it be so wrong to let this thread die a well-deserved death?

I'm aware that the Simpson discussion is off-topic here (my apologies); the main reason I engaged in it was to demonstrate the substantial problems Neil has with rationality and drawing correct conclusions. And it is precisely these problems which also led him to conclude he "met God".

It was the study of criminal cases btw which finally got me interested in epistemology.

One can learn more about logic and reasoning from Vincent Bugliosi's books than from some philosophers ...

Well, there's your problem right off the top.

Bugliosi's entire claim to fame as a prosecutor was prosecuting Charles Manson in a case that a first-year law student could have won because Manson's behavior in front of the jury was so vile and crazy Manson convicted himself.

Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination -- in which Bugliosi concluded that Oswald acted alone -- is laughable to anyone who gives a moment's thought to why Mafia-operative Jack Ruby -- obviously not the sort of guy to be emotionally overwrought by the shooting of the Mick president who broke his promise to the Mob after they rigged the election for him -- shot Oswald, precluding Oswald's day in court. And if you believe the Warren report, you're loonier than someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Bugliosi wrote perhaps the worst book of the 30-or-so I read on the Simpson trial. Kato Kaelin's memoir contained more useful information. Bugliosi's entire agenda was to show how stupid Marcia Clark and Chris Darden were and how much better he would have been if he had prosecuted. It's pathetic self-aggrandizement. His entire case requires ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and interpreting all evidence -- no matter how irrelevant -- as proof of Simpson's consciousness of guilt.

So if you're using Vincent Bugliosi as your gold standard of rational argument, well, good luck with that.

So unless Neil claimed he got an email from God inviting him to OL (one never knows with Neil ;)), why does it matter who here invited him?

Hmmm. God and Google both start with the letter "G" ... :-)

God Googled From Heaven. How's that for a title for your next book? ;)

Since people's god concepts change as the world changes, to imagine your personal god as some Supertechie with a PC in Paradise would be no more absurd than to still believe in in the biblical God who was modeled over 2000 years ago (by powerless and deprived desert nomads) after the tyrannical oriental potentates they were familiar with.

Since all attempts to define a God are equally absurd, how people define their god/gods is epistemologically irrelevant really. If you want, you can even "define" your God as a bunch of contradictions. For contrary to what you believe, there exists no such thing as "a law of non-contradiction" for figments of the imagination.

You evidently are persuaded that merely making an unsupported assertion, or sneering, is a proof, and everyone will rush to rally beside you.

Try that in front of a real audience not made up of your own cult and see how far that gets you.

A question about terminology: With regard to the music both you and your mother heard playing: suppose what was playing on the CD really WAS Bach, then obviously your brains wrongly processed the sensory input you received. Which technical term would you use for this type of misprocessing?

Really? That's your parsimonious explanation?

As for the disguise material the evidentiary significance of which you downplay so much: can't you see the coincidence between Nicole giving Simspon back the birthday presents OJ had given her and the time he purchased the disguise material?

No. Celebrities wear disguises all the time to avoid aggressive paparazzi, particularly when out with their children.

Simpson loved public attention, he clearly enjoyed his celebrity. In his biography, The Education of a Rich Rookie, he says "I loved it when people recognized me on the street." (quoted in Bugliosi's book, p. 125).

Camouflage Celebs: Stars In Disguise

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ryi4agARkB0J:www.dailyfill.com/Camouflaged-Celebrities-Stars-In-Disguise-Hide-From-The-Paparazzi-66376/+celebrity+disguise+paparazzi&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Anti Paparazzi Disguises

http://www.no7agency.com/anti_paparazzi_disguises_celebrities_in_disguise.html

And there certainly was no question of his children accompanying him when he had the disguise material, bundle of cash and his passport with him during the slow speed chase.

With him in a bag in his car. For a celebrity who traveled regularly and kept a travel bag packed at all times.

I, myself, have a bag in which I keep my passport with me, ready to go. And O.J. kept cash with him to pay off golf bets, a daily occurrence for him.

Bugliosi, p. 124:

It [the date of the purchase] was May 27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned to Simpson earrings and a bracelet he had given her for her birthday, May 19, telling him that their relationship was finally over.

This is just lame. You're seriously arguing that O.J. Simpson planned this murder for weeks ahead?

I'm arguing that the thought of murdering Nicole planted itself in his mind at some point, and that this thought grew more and more powerful.

For that it was not necessary for Simpson to possess the mental attitude of a professional killer planning a murder ahead in acribic detail, taking into account everything which might possibly happen.

I don't think he even planned a specific day, but imo after the dance recital he attended with Nicole's family present, something acted as a trigger, tearing down the last barrier which may still have been his mind regarding the deed.

Imo the murder of Nicole was a mixture of premeditation and an act of impulse in terms of the time when it was committed.

The murder of Ron Goldman, while not planned beforehand, still was a first-degree murder, the motive being to eliminate him as an eyewitness.

"IMO," "IMO," "IMO." All speculation based on your assumption that O.J. Simpson was the perp. Without that assumption you've got nothing except "IMO" -- and your opinion is nothing but empty frustrated speculation based on the fact that after one of the longest criminal trials in American history O.J. Simpson was unanimously acquitted of the murder charges by a jury of twelve. Apparently the Superior Court criminal jury didn't share your belief that there was no doubt that Simpson was guilty.

For what reason would O.J. Simpson murder Nicole? Why? Give me a motive for weeks-before premeditation. Because he couldn't get another girlfriend just as pretty? Because he wanted to be stuck with sole custody of his children? Because he wanted to change his status overnight from one of the most liked celebrities in the world to one of the most vilified?

I can't understand why you as a fiction writer find it so difficult to think of a motive. You have to approach this case far more from a psychological angle than you are doing.

If you don't look behind the surface of the facade, how are you going to see what is there? But you don't even scratch at that surface.

If the study of criminal case teaches us anything, Neil, it is to look behind the surface of things.

More tomorrow.

By all means, look behind the surface of things. You'll find that Jason Simpson did have a motive, had no alibi, was a violent psychotic off his meds whose weapon of choice was a knife, and a knife matching the forensic wounds found in autopsy was found in his belongings.

Far more realistic only because you assume that O.J. was the murderer. Your assumption does not prove your conclusion. That's circular reasoning.

A circular reasoning which I don't apply, in case it eluded you. Since the evidence clearly marks beyond all doubt OJ Simpson as the killer, to see him as guilty is nothing that was pulled out of thin air as a mere "assumption".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg7OTs7cif4

Neil S. Schulman: And from what evidence are you assuming O.J. Simpson would threaten his children? There is no witness testimony to his ever being anything but entirely sane and decent to them -- and you'll get that testimony from Nicole's parents.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I mistyped by forgetting to insert to "kill".

Here is the corrected passage:

"A far more realistic scenario: by pressing the knife agains Nicole's neck, Simpson forced her NOT to do something: not to scream. He probably threatened [to Nicole] that he woud kill the children as well if she made enough noise to awake them."

I got it the first time. And with or without your typo you can offer no evidence or testimony that O.J. would ever make such a threat against his children. Objection. No foundation.

And apparently moving away from the Simpson discussion.

What is to be considered as evidence? If it's nothing but data fed to the brain by operation of the five senses -- eyesight, aural hearing, smell, taste, and touch -- there is no way rationally to be certain of any ontological conclusion. As we see in the case of George H. Smith, this assumption readily dismisses anything perceived but unexplainable elsewise as hallucination.

That someone was hallucinating can be a perfectly rational explanation when assessing certain data.

Yes, if someone is impaired by chemicals, or someone diagnosed with a neurological disease or traumatic brain injury, or someone suffering from some extraordinary stress.

But any of these would need to be diagnosed before concluding hallucination is a lesser hypothesis than an actual perception through lesser-understood means.

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God, since every documentary account I have affixed my byline to on this subject has repeatedly denied that I have any to offer anyone else. All I have ever said is that I found validations of the experience enough to overcome my own skepticism. These validations carry no weight for anyone else. Therefore I relate my experiences as raw anecdotal data, with no reasonable expectation of convincing anyone else of their truth. But I do suggest that when others of a rational mindset -- including George H. Smith -- relate personal experiences of what have sometimes been tagged "the supernatural," the assumption of hallucination as an explanation of such phenomena is weakened.

Why is the assumption of hallucination as an explanation weakened? Of course George H. Smith could have had a hallucination, given the condition he was in. I get the impression that you wrongly assume rational persons cannot have hallucinations. But Ghs would certainly not deny that this is possible. I read his post on the issue to mean he did have a hallucination (or that at least his senses deluded him to a remarkable degree).

George describes his condition as sober and unimpaired by drugs when he heard his dead father's voice, repeatedly, over a period of months. I conclude that George's reasoning is as follows, "Since the dead can not speak if I am hearing the dead I must be hallucinating." Negate the first premise as necessary and universal and you negate the assumption of hallucination as conclusive.

My question to you, Neil: Can you rule out that you were hallucinating or had some other break with reality?

I've answered this before in this discussion; I'll answer it again. If the "mindmeld" of 2/18/1997 had been an isolated event in my life I might have concluded it was a hallucination generated by ketosis and dehydration. When put into a wider life context of other paranormal events when I was not suffering from ketosis and dehydration, I find against the conclusion of hallucination and regard the experience as perceiving something externally real, and interpreted according to the nature of this experience and information retained from it.

I further propose that without the assumption that we have not been designed by a creator, it makes perfect sense that a designer would build in a communications mechanism that can be triggered by a specific set of conditions producing ketosis and dehydration. The assumption that thin air, dehydration and starvation produce hallucinations rather than turning on this communications channel is pre-selecting your conclusion by assuming the alternative is impossible. Again, entirely circular reasoning where the assumption determines the conclusion.

The cult of O.J. Simpson's guilt never ceases to amaze me, and it's particularly odd in a forum that supposedly rejects dogmatic faith. "

To conclude that OJ Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of hard evidence.

What "control wounds"? "

Knife pressure wound to Nicole's neck -- not the throat slash but a separate wound indicating someone was trying to force her to do something. "

A far more realistic scenario: by pressing the knife agains Nicole's neck, Simpson forced her NOT to do something: not to scream. He probably threatened to the children as well if she made any noise.

"

Far more realistic only because you assume that O.J. was the murderer. Your assumption does not prove your conclusion. That's circular reasoning. And from what evidence are you assuming O.J. Simpson would threaten his children? There is no witness testimony to his ever being anything but entirely sane and decent to them -- and you'll get that testimony from Nicole's parents.

"

Simpson was explaining how he'd bled on his own driveway, blocks away from where the murders took place on Bundy Drive. "

That's correct. My mistake.

In the interview Simpson stated he bled in his home "last night" (= the night of the murders).

"

So O.J. Simpson's bleeding in his own home is irrelevant.

"

"From V. Bugliosi's book Outrage, p. 128:

The detectives also tell Simpson that in addition to the blood in his car and home, they also found blood in the driveway of his home.

Lange: Well, there's blood at your house and in the driveway, and we've got a search warrant, and we're going to get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that's there?

Simpson: If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.

Lange: Last night?

Simpson: Yeah. "

Simpson is far too evasive as to how he cut himself. He says he doesn't know. A deep cut on his finger and he has "no idea" how it got there.

[quote[

Bugliosi is trying to make soup from bones. Why on earth should O.J. have remembered how he cut his finger in his own home? I can't tell you how many times I've found myself bleeding and have no clue what caused it. It's a common experience.

"

Bugiosi p. 409: (bolding mine).

"T. L.: Okay, so it was last night you cut it?

P. V. : Somewhere after the dance recital?

O.J.S.: Somewhere when I wss rushing to get ut of my house.

P. V.: Okay, after the recital?

O.J.S. Yeah.

P. V.: What do you think happened?

O.J.S.: I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea.

"

Very revealing, that passage. Why does it matter what the police tells you in order for you to remember where and how you cut yourself??

This was of course a huge slip-up on Simpson's part. "You guys haven't told me anything to which I can tailor my answer to fit the evidence you have found." Imo THESE were the murderer's real thoughts shining through in his answer.

"

Again, you and Bugliosi are assuming Simpson is being "evasive." But if he really wanted to be evasive, he would have taken his lawyer's adamant advice and refused the interview in the first place. He was being cooperative when he didn't need to be. Once again, this is circular reasoning: your only proof is your assumption.

"

It's the contamination of the tailing blood drops at Bundy that Scheck proved contained preservative -- in other words, contamination after the police arrived."

Contamination cannot alter a blood type, also, whatever contamination it was, it obviously posed no obstacle in extracting DNA which was found to match Simpson's.

"

Or was dropped from the blood taken from Simpson by LAPD with lab preservative added. LAPD is one of the most corrupt police departments on earth. Would they contaminate a crime scene with the suspect's collected blood if it made their case? You bet your ass they would!

"

"Bugliosi, p. 11:

At the crime scene, were five blood drops leading away for the slain bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman towards he rear alley four of which were immediately to the left of bloody size 12 shoe prints (Simpson's shoe size). This indicated of course, that the killer had been wounded on the left side of his body. And the morning after the murders, Simpson was observed by the police to be wearing a bandage on his left middle finger. When the bandage was removed, it was seen that he had a deep cut on the knuckle of the finger. "

"

And these blood drops -- from a vial that was proved in court by Scheck to have missing blood -- all had lab preservative in it, proving that -- as Henry Lee said -- the crime scene was "played with."

"

Isn't everyone's DNA (identical twins excepted) unique? "

The DNA of a father and son would match on many points. You'd have to have samples of both and be actively looking for differences."

But if the DNA in a blood sample has been found to match person X, it is as clear as it can get, isn’t it?

"

Not if it isn't tested against a second suspect who shares much of the same DNA.

"

Not only did Simpson have a history of domestic violence and a motive, he also had the opportunity to commit the murders in the time frame during which they happened. He was even seen at the crime scene, and his blood and shoeprint have been found in very incriminating locations; in addition, he had bought a disguise kit some weeks before the murders and that disguise kit he took with him in the car during the slow speed chase. "

Wrong on all counts.

First, O.J. Simpson was no longer romantically involved with Nicole at the time of the murders. Cell phone records show him phoning his own girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, at the time of the murders."

In the Vannatter/Lange interview, Simson verbatim says: (bolding mine)

O.J.S.: She [Nicole] came back about a year and four months ago about us trying to get back together, and we gave it a shot. We gave it shot the better part of the year. And I think we both knew it wasn't working, and probably three weeks ago, or so we said it just wasn't working and we went our separate ways.

"

Exactly. Nicole tried to get them back together, not O.J. When Simpson got disgusted with Nicole's out-of-control coke use and screwing around near his kids, he ended it again and was back with his girlfriend, Paula Barbieri.

"

]Second, a history of domestic violence is not evidence of murder. "

No one said it is "evidence of murder". It is not even the prosecution's duty to provide a motive for why the defendant committed the crime. All they have prove is THAT he committed the crime.

But speculation about the motive are of course allowed, and again, look at the complete picture. We have it straight from Simpson’s own mouth that as late as three weeks before the murders, he and Nicole still were having discussions about their relationahsips in terms of whether it was going to work or not. That is, Simpson had not really given up on Nicole..

"

Again, irrelevant, since it was Nicole's plan to try to get back together, not O.J.'s.

"

As for the disguise material the evidentiary significance of which you downplay so much: can't you see the coincidence between Nicole giving Simspon back the birthday presents OJ had given her and the time he purchased the disguise material?

"

No. Celebrities wear disguises all the time to avoid aggressive paparazzi, particularly when out with their children.

"

Bugliosi, p. 124:

It [the date of the purchase] was May 27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned to Simpson earrings and abracelet he had given her for her birthday, May 19, telling him that their relationship was finally over.

"

This is just lame. You're seriously arguing that O.J. Simpson planned this murder for weeks ahead? For what reason would O.J. Simpson murder Nicole? Why? Give me a motive for weeks-before premeditation. Because he couldn't get another girlfriend just as pretty? Because he wanted to be stuck with sole custody of his children? Because he wanted to change his status overnight from one of the most liked celebrities in the world to one of the most vilified?

"

"The author of the study on "batterer's syndrome" was on a defense witness list ready to be called to testify that based on her interviews, O.J. did not fit the pattern of batterers who later murder. She was not called because the case was running too long and the defense wanted to rest."

There exist many perps who don't fit certain patterns. What is the evidentiary value of claiming that someone doesn't seem to fit a pattern when the hard forensic evidence tells another story? A prosecution team worth their salt would have also confronted that witness with Nicole repeatedly stating she feared Simpson was going to kill her. And all the witness would have had to offer would be a lame “But based on my interview,. OJ does not fit the pattern of batterer who later murders!”. Imo that witness would have looked an utter fool.

"

Once again, you have nothing to offer but your fixation on Simpson as the murderer, because he was tried for the crime and acquitted because the evidence didn't add up.

"

And for Simpson having “no motive” in your opinion:

I can't believe it - which world do you live in, Neil? Ever heard of injured pride? Ever heard of a narcissistic personality's ego being deeply hurt, of persons whose feelings of revenge and raw hatred blinded all empathy, the result being murder? Open up the paper and you can read about similar tragic cases almost daily.

"

And that was not O.J. Simpson, a sports celebrity who had gorgeous women hitting on him all the time. There is no evidence whatsoever for the love-starved Simpson the pro-prosecution spin-doctors made up out of whole cloth.

"

He was not paying Nicole alimony. Their marital dissolution agreement was a complete buy out -- including the condo Nicole was living in, which she wanted O.J. to still claim as his own commercial property so she could avoid an IRS tax. O.J. refused, so if anything she had a motive to murder him. O.J. had no further financial obligations to Nicole at the time of the murders. "

All irrelevant points, since this clearly was no crime committed for monetary reasons. It was a crime of jealousy and revenge.

"

Utter horseshit. There isn't a scintilla of evidence for this motive.

"

He was no longer romantically involved with her at the time of the murders. And he was video'd laughing and smiling with her parents just hours before the murders."

See above. It was only three weeks before the murders when Nicole made definitely clear to Simpson that there was no prospect for them ever getting together again. Imo this ultimate realization that it was over for good was what set in motion in the narcissist's mind that Nicole was going to pay for it with her life.

"

That is fantastic speculation. No evidence for it.

"

And he was video'd laughing and smiling with her parents just hours before the murders."

Please, Neil, where's your common sense? Simpson didn't want anyone to get suspicious of course. That's why he faked it, playing the role of the laughing and smiling, no grudge-harboring ex-partner.

"

Your assumption of guilt spinning this. You need to assume O.J. having a long-term plan to murder his wife to make this ridiculous speculation of his acting this when he had no fucking idea he was even being video'd. Occam's Razor is that he was, in fact, the laughing and smiling, no grudge-bearing ex-partner.

Fourth, O.J. was not seen at the Bundy crime scene, period. "

That's correct. My error.

"

The closest anyone claimed was that a man matching his description was in his Bronco at an intersection nearby, driving away. "

At what time was that?

"

Presumably after the time of the murders, the time of which has been set by the police based on the assumption that O.J. was the murderer. If one leaves out Simpson as the presumed suspect, the time of the murders can be as late as midnight, since the police didn't arrive until 12:30 AM the following morning.

"

Fifth, as I said, anyone with access to O.J.'s closet (like Jason) could have been wearing the Bruno Maglis.

"

Simpson's blood drops to the left of the Magli shoe imprint tell us who wore those shoes that night.

"

Blood drops containing lab preservative.

"

I would really like to discuss the Simpson case in greater detail with you, but this is not the place. Have you also posted on a true crime forum where this case has been discussed?

"

Back in 1997, yes. Not since my book was published.

"

But what your line of argumentation clearly shows: you prefer highly improbable to downright impossible scenarios over the highly probable ones.

"

That's the pot calling the kettle black. The jilted-lover-takes-revenge scenario is for some pathetic loser, not O.J. Simpson, a beloved sports celebrity who fantastic women hit on all the time. It's ludicrous, absurd, self-negating.

"

The same is true for the "case for God" you are trying to make here.

"

Whatever.

Okay, I just took another look at your website. Once again, it made me think that it makes you look like a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood.

J

This is the "hype" you'll find on my web pages. Boy, does all this add up to shlock artist!

"I received Alongside Night at noon today. It is now eight in the evening and I just finished it. I think I am entitled to some dinner now as I had no lunch. The unputdownability of the book ensured that. It is a remarkable and original story, and the picture it presents of an inflation- crippled America on the verge of revolution is all too acceptable. I wish, and so will many novelists, that I, or they, had thought of the idea first. A thrilling novel, crisply written, that fires the imagination as effectively as it stimulates the feelings."

--Anthony Burgess, author of A Clockwork Orange

"One of the most widely hailed libertarian novels since the classic works of Ayn Rand."

--Reason Magazine

"The narrative is fast-paced, the plot well-developed... [T]he book reads extremely well and its intellectual thrust is clear and is not belabored. I was too engrossed in the novel to read it critically."

-- Thomas S. Szasz, MD

"'The Rainbow Cadenza' is much more than merely a well and complexly plotted novel. It is also a novel of ideas -- ideas about art and commercialism; politics; economics and technology; and human psychology. It is that rare thing, a genuinely intellectual thriller."

--Jeff Riggenbach, San Jose Mercury News

"An original and thoughtful book which raises questions that have not appeared in fiction before."

--Gregory Benford

"An intensively interesting evocation of complex psychological realities. Imaginative and original. Mr. Schulman is a remarkably gifted writer."

--Nathaniel Branden

"Every libertarian should read it. It should win the Prometheus Award."

--Robert A. Heinlein

"Schulman has humour, wit and imagination, and I devoured this latest offering with pleasure."

- Colin Wilson

"Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose."

--Charlton Heston

Lady Magdalene's is a combination of humor, wit, political observation and sexiness.

--Charles Robert Carner,

Writer/Director, The Fixer, Louis L'Amour's Crossfire Trail

"I saw this film at DragonCon last year, and it is a wonderful mix of comedy, mystery, singing and dancing."

--Graham H. Green,

Director, The Man Who Spoke to Himself, The Torturer

Steve Reed's general point is right. You can't judge how good a book is by its cover or whether a movie is worth watching by its trailer.

And my point, for the fourth time, is that I'm not trying to judge books by their covers or movies by their trailers. I'm judging book covers and movie trailers, among other things, by looking at book covers, movie trailers and the relevant other things.

Then I hope you find your diet of book covers and movie trailers nourishing.

That works both ways. I can't tell you how many lousy movies I've bought because the trailer made it look good by putting in the only three laughs in the entire movie; and J.D. Salinger eventually demanded his publishers remove all cover art and copy from his book covers because he found them so ludicrous. Of course he didn't do that until his books were on every school's suggested reading list and his books were permanently married to best-sellers' lists.

Hype is part of surviving as an artist ... or any self-employed entrepreneur or indie. Get over it.

I agree that "hype" is important. The questions is, what do you think you're trying to communicate with your style of "hype"? Are you trying to give the impression that you're a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood? If so, then I think you've chosen exactly the right type of "hype."

J

Steve Reed went after you on the Ed Wood comment because Ed Wood was a shlock artist, a man with no concern whatsoever with the quality control of his product.

I should probably leave defense of the quality of my output in the hands of others, like Steve Reed, but you need a lesson in manners.

Notice what authors have endorsed my books. Notice what awards my works have won. Read the pull quotes from major reviews.

Then compare me to Ed Wood, one more time.

I didn't comment on Neil's work, and wasn't judging it. In fact, I specifically said that I was reserving judgment until I had read it. I made it clear that my impression of him, so far, is based on his appearance here, and on the look and feel of his website.

That's still an unsupported judgment for which you've adduced no evidence but your own reaction.

And what evidence would you accept? Anything I cite will be rejected as a maliciously disingenuous opinion, no? If I point to evidence of the impassioned but amateurish style of Neil's promotional efforts and the materials at his website, you, with your inability to recognize them as such, will tell me that they are not amateurish, that your opinion is objective, and that mine is subjective and mean-spirited, no?

Actually, I do have an excuse: I've been too busy and have higher priorities at the moment.

You have no excuse for not at least reading Alongside Night, marginal acquisition cost of zero (as has been linked more than once), before giving this much of a generalized smear of Neil as to his creations of fiction.

This is the third time now that I've said that I was not judging Neil's creations of fiction, which I haven't read or watched. I was judging his participation here, as well as the style and content of his promotional efforts at his website. Yet, once again, you say that I'm judging his fiction. Why? Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you intentionally lying?

[...] Why do [you] assume that my calling Neil a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood is necessarily an insult?

Because apart from a genuine filmmaker deciding that the Wood / Corman / Levine cheap-budget matrix of film creation has virtues outweighing those movies' limitations — as Neil has, and is entitled to do, by dint of an achievement you can't even shell out a lousy three bucks to see as yet on line — it is not just an insult, but another smear, as you very well know.

My comment wasn't intended as a "smear," but as a simple observation/comparison. I think that Wood had admirable qualities along with his obvious failings, and my adding "libertarian thinking man's" to the mix obviously indicates that my estimation of Neil is higher than that of Wood.

You're routinely disingenuous about everything else, though, so why should this be an exception?

Tut-tut! Where are your objective examples and evidence that I'm disingenuous, let alone routinely? You've only offered "an unsupported judgment for which you've adduced no evidence but your own reaction." Smearer! Psychologizer!

... Jonathan's unsupported (and unsupportable) smears of both Neil and me, as to esthetic tastes, really aren't worth dignifying with any further discussion...

You say that my judgments of you are "unsupportable." That suggests to me that you've closed your mind to the possibility that you might have bad tastes, that you refuse to even consider the idea that you might lack the requisite knowledge and experience to make some of the judgments about the arts that you make. So, how would you suggest that I go about supporting my opinions of the aesthetic tastes of someone who is emotionally invested in believing that he has great tastes? Any examples that I give will be met with your denial of their poor artistry, and with assertions of your objectivity and of my subjectivity, no?

,,,I've had to say that last phrase more than once recently at this site, and it's saving me a lot of angst and stomach acid.

Well, how dare anyone give an opinion which upsets Steve! Why, we've given him angst and stomach acid and maybe the vapors! Let's all agree to either agree with him or be silent so as not to upset his delicate tummy further!

All I'll say is that he could simply acknowledge that such asides are reflective of his tastes in artworks and discussion tenor differing from mine or Neil's. That is, rather than taking on the futile task of trying to impugn my esthetic judgment more generally. Yet from past go-rounds, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

I'm not trying to impugn your aesthetic tastes. Sometimes you write a great review of a great work of art. My problem with you is that you're not reliable because you also write glowing reviews of really low-grade stuff. I get the sense that thematic content or message is very important to you, and that artistry takes a back seat (Ed Wood-like, one might say). For example, in the visual arts, if a painter shows winged girls, it sets your heart aflutter, and you seem to be incapable of recognizing that the artist's skill level is at about that of the average junior high student. You speak of his work as if he is Caravaggio reincarnated.

J

Steve Reed's general point is right. You can't judge how good a book is by its cover or whether a movie is worth watching by its trailer. That works both ways. I can't tell you how many lousy movies I've bought because the trailer made it look good by putting in the only three laughs in the entire movie; and J.D. Salinger eventually demanded his publishers remove all cover art and copy from his book covers because he found them so ludicrous. Of course he didn't do that until his books were on every school's suggested reading list and his books were permanently married to best-sellers' lists.

Hype is part of surviving as an artist ... or any self-employed entrepreneur or indie. Get over it.

I didn't comment on Neil's work, and wasn't judging it. In fact, I specifically said that I was reserving judgment until I had read it. I made it clear that my impression of him, so far, is based on his appearance here, and on the look and feel of his website.

That's still an unsupported judgment for which you've adduced no evidence but your own reaction.

Actually, I do have an excuse: I've been too busy and have higher priorities at the moment.

You have no excuse for not at least reading Alongside Night, marginal acquisition cost of zero (as has been linked more than once), before giving this much of a generalized smear of Neil as to his creations of fiction.

[...] Why do [you] assume that my calling Neil a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood is necessarily an insult?

Because apart from a genuine filmmaker deciding that the Wood / Corman / Levine cheap-budget matrix of film creation has virtues outweighing those movies' limitations — as Neil has, and is entitled to do, by dint of an achievement you can't even shell out a lousy three bucks to see as yet on line — it is not just an insult, but another smear, as you very well know.

You're routinely disingenuous about everything else, though, so why should this be an exception?

... Jonathan's unsupported (and unsupportable) smears of both Neil and me, as to esthetic tastes, really aren't worth dignifying with any further discussion — I've had to say that last phrase more than once recently at this site, and it's saving me a lot of angst and stomach acid.

All I'll say is that he could simply acknowledge that such asides are reflective of his tastes in artworks and discussion tenor differing from mine or Neil's. That is, rather than taking on the futile task of trying to impugn my esthetic judgment more generally. Yet from past go-rounds, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

First, thanks to Steve Reed for sticking up for me. Even Ayn Rand had to acknowledge that while there are objective technical standards which can be applied to art, esthetics itself is not a science but itself an art. The problem with critics -- an analysis which Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis converged on -- is when critics replace criticism of art with psychoanalysis of the artist what you get is not actual criticism but a dismissal of art through a variation of ad hominem attack.

I can't tell you how often I've seen the competency of an artist attacked by critics who disagree with the artist's viewpoint. These critics aren't honest enough to acknowledge that they have their own views which differ from the artist whose work they're reporting on so instead of being up front with their biases and writing an honest assessment of the work, they sneer at the work as a way of marginalizing the artist.

This is the common method of attack reviews today. It's Orwellian, which isn't surprising because this sort of lying was invented by professional political propagandists like Joseph Goebbels.

Me, I've never been one to take this sort of attack lying down, and even though often enough it's been defense of my own work, I'm not willing to be victimized by such lowlife scumsucking bottom-feeders without calling them out as the shitsellers that they are.

Apparently there is second-hand smoke from this gunfire, as one critic uses the method of the attack review in an attempt to marginalize another critic with whom he disagrees.

Let me stand up a second time for Steve Reed here. I've often enough been the target of his criticism -- the last time we spoke by phone I wished him a hasty good night and hung up on him - but I find Steve more willing to get as good as he gives than almost any other critic of my work I've run into.

From all of these made-up post-hoc justifications for spiritist beliefs, I conclude that Neil really believes he is pretty dang special. If he didn't hammer on about a crappy Twilight Zone episode, and a blacklist that kept him from achieving his due as a fine screenwriter, and if he didn't bang on about his specialness in every other endeavor he has attempted, I would be more inclined to accept his unique special connection with pixie world.

But his entire identity and self-concept is at stake in every challenge to any aspect, so he resists to the point of delusion.

Wow, Bill, I didn't catch that the first time around. What was I thinking when I accepted you as a Facebook friend? :-)

Yeah. It sounds mean and overwrought, doesn't it? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound mean and overwrought, so I apologize for the tone and the temper -- especially for the personal swipes in the first paragraph above.

I frenzed you on Facebook to winnow out what Steve was responding to in the excerpts he posted up thread.

Anyhow, I don't know what remains to be said in this thread, Neil. I have read your complete book twice online, and I have reviewed your posts here several times. I have put the time in to try to figure you out, to try to figure out how you gained your 'beliefs,' how you came to accept the whole personal cosmology, how you constructed the world you live in, how you defend your 'beliefs' and your stances and yourself.

I strip away the unpleasant, ugly words in the bit you quote, and I can probably sum up my psychological findings. But, you know what? I don't have to share that (not that it's particularly dire).

I do think this, for what it's worth -- I think you are talented, quite talented, and well-married to your pen. In my heart of hearts I think you would be happier writing the fiction that you so obviously love, and that you thrive on.

For what it's worth, I find the hard kernel of your spiritual cosmology appealing in its simplicity -- the god you describe sounds like the lovely man you want to be, a man who looks into other people's hearts and finds goodness, who is not responsible for other people's badness and failures and pains. The god you describe is especially poignant in his human weakness and his wonder at other humans. He doesn't always understand humans; he yearns to do so. In his humanity he wishes to see his creations (and his loved ones) live on forever, and he wishes only the best from this world and its peoples. He is not judgmental, punishing or wrathful, but kind and forgiving and seeking.

That's the kind of god you want to walk with you and incorporate and it is a wonderful thing.

I'd like to leave this thread now, and meet you on other threads of interest, and help make sure that you find within this community great arguments and fellowship and learning. I set aside from here on any considerations of your personal cosmology. It doesn't matter to me, the god business. I set all that to one side, incorporate what I have learned, and move on.

I hope we can have some great and rousing arguments in other places in the OL multiverse.

I leave you the last words in this thread and wish you well in all your ventures, come what may.

Bill that was very gracious, and I'll take you up on the "last words" offer.

I think the title of this thread asks the wrong question, or at least one which requires other subjects to be addressed long before we ask whether I'm logically justified in believing in God.

Here are questions that have been debated in this thread, but I think which have not been resolved to anyone's satisfaction. These are the premises upon which the question of my logic must rest.

Are there any axioms of existence or known scientific laws which preclude existence comprising multiple continua, some of which are designed, rather than the whole of existence being a single undesigned universe?

Is there any conclusive proof that human consciousness is solely a product of evolutionary biology, or could human consciousness precede evolutionary biology?

Is the human brain a generator of human consciousness, or merely a modulator of it?

Is human consciousness of an identity and nature that it can escape the termination of a human brain?

Could the "afterlife" be an actual physical destination for a human's conscious identity located in another continuum?

In the event where a phenomenal experience presents itself as paranormal or supernatural, is there anything other than an unproved assumption of impossibility that necessitates interpreting such an experience as unreal?

I repeat that I'm unable to present evidence of the reality of my paranormal experience of a person I've identified as God to anyone else.

Nonetheless, my experience has caused me to examine each of these questions and reach my own answers.

I suggest exploring each of these questions with epistemological and scientific rigor is no less of a requirement for anyone else who wishes to assert flat conclusions about the nature of existence and human consciousness.

Neil

In publicity I've described Lady Magdalene's as a Jerry Bruckheimer film made on an Ed Wood budget.

Dammit, Neil, he clearly didn't mean it as a compliment!

But Steve, as Bill Scherk would be quick to point out, my ego is so big I accept even insults as compliments.

And while we're at it, an Objectivist Living forum in which people try to insult each other by accusing each other of being too confident, having egos too big, and being too arrogant?

Ayn Rand would be spinning in her grave if she weren't tossing back mojitos in Heaven.

So unless Neil claimed he got an email from God inviting him to OL (one never knows with Neil ;)), why does it matter who here invited him?

Hmmm. God and Google both start with the letter "G" ... :-)

I do think this, for what it's worth -- I think you are talented, quite talented, and well-married to your pen. In my heart of hearts I think you would be happier writing the fiction that you so obviously love, and that you thrive on.

I haven't read any of Neil's fiction yet, or watched his film, and I'm reserving judgment until I do, but, so far, from his appearance here, and from the look and feel of his website, I'm getting the strong impression that he's a libertarian thinking man's Ed Wood.

J

In publicity I've described Lady Magdalene's as a Jerry Bruckheimer film made on an Ed Wood budget.