Hillary's "appalling behavior" loses Dominick Dunne

Vanity Fair | December 20016 | Dominick Dunne

[Republic]

See post # 140. Thanks.

[Rocko]

"...but Hillary was pissed off, about what we'll never know...."

That a Republican president was doing so well, perhaps?

[OldFriend]

Dunne knows all too well how little it would take for his Hollyweird pals to turn on him so he must have realized it was safe to bash her heinous.

I think her rude behaviour was a signal to her sycophants to follow her 'lead'. It badly backfired, the nation is in no mood to play politics while thousands are buried in the rubble of WTC.... Once again, she has shown her disdain for this country but at least now, some people are opening their eyes.

[Benrand]

SInce she got into office, she hasn't done anything to really prepare for being a Pres. candidate...her cynicism and apathy are dragging her down...good.

[Minty]

She is a boil on the butt.

Oh My Goshhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! you are sooooo right.

[VA Advogado]

[Aedammair]

I think it was Dunne who stated shortly after President Clinton left office, that while this ex-president might be bright and charismatic, his absolute "congenital" lack of class, and blatant money grubbing ways, reduced him to the archetype of the bright politico with dog swipe perpetually on his heel.

[NYCVirago]

Dominick Dunne knows a lot about how the look on somebody's face can say a lot. Remember the look on his face at the O.J. trial, when Simpson was found not guilty? Dunne's face said it all!

[VOA]

Remember the look on his face at the O.J. trial, when Simpson was found not guilty?
Dunne's face said it all!

Hate to admit that I (even for a fairly literate "Okie" at the time) didn't know Dunne
but by literary reputation.
But the face that got me was the lawyer friend of O.J.'s ...named something like
Kardasian (sp?). When O.J. was read his not-guilty verdict, Kardasian looked
like he'd been hit by a thunderbolt.
Anyway...if the topic interests you, a "sidebar" has surfaced in Los Angeles in the
last year in the local free weekly "NewTimesLA" (a MUCH better local investigative source
than the Los Angeles Times!) and even on local talk radio (on "The John and Ken Show"
on 640AM).

This investigator by the name of William Dear from Dallas has been (apparently)
following his nose and built what I think is at least a plausible case that NOT O.J., but
his mentally-unstable son (from his first marriage) might have done the double murder...
without any fore-knowledge of the act on O.J.'s part. Most damning info. that didn't come
out at the time of the trial (to Dear, and probably me to) is O.J. hiring his son the
services of a very prominent criminal defense lawyer a day or so after the murders (if I recall
Dear's thesis correctly).
This Dear fellow my just be grandstanding, but I haven't heard any "de-bunkers" really
take him (or his theories) on yet in the past year.
In case you're a murder-theory junky, you can find Dear's book on amazon.com:

O.J. Is Guilty But Not of Murder
by William C. Dear

PS: My "brush with fame"
1. Moved to LA in late 1995; accidentally found and took up an apartment 1.5 blocks from
the site of the (in)famous double murder.
2. Got stuck in traffic on Sunset Blvd. while running an errand...on the day O.J. was released
from the criminal trial.

[NYCVirago]

But the face that got me was the lawyer friend of O.J.'s ...named something like Kardasian (sp?). When O.J. was read his not-guilty verdict, Kardasian looked like he'd been hit by a thunderbolt.

Yeah, I remember that, as well. And he was the one who carried out O.J.'s bag of tricks right after the murder. Dunne was the grey-haired gentleman at the trial wearing a bow tie, and he had such a shocked, upset look on his face when the verdict came in.

As for the "O.J.'s son did it" theory, a friend of mine had that very theory, but I decided when I heard it that it was bogus for several reasons:

* How do you explain the cuts on O.J.'s hands right after the murder,

* Why did O.J. have so many different alibis for what he was doing that night -- an innocent man would have had one,

* What about the "ugly-ass" Bruno Magli shoes -- does his son wear his father's shoes? Are they even the same size?

* How about the gloves -- did his son wear his father's gloves as well? The son and daughter (not Nicole's kids, the ones from the previous marriage) were not particularly close with their father until they would paraded around after the murder. They weren't living at the house before then.

* The DNA evidence incriminated O.J., not his son (his son would have DNA material from his mother, not just O.J. -- the only way the DNA would be the same is if they were identical twins!)

* And finally, and most importantly, although I do think O.J. was tipped off as to the verdict beforehand (word has it someone told him the night before), he had no guarantee until then that he would be found not guilty. O.J. is simply too selfish and narcissistic to ever take the fall for his son and risk going to jail for life. I just can't buy it, with his personality makeup. (For the same reasons, I never bought the theory that the Jon-Benet Ramsey's son killed her, and the parents covered it up.) Anyhow, I will check out this author's theory, and see how he explains how the son could have been guilty.

[Alissa]

Actually, he is correct there. I have to admit that even though most times I delight in their embarassment (or lack thereof), but don't you ever wonder HOW some of these political "errors" happen to two people who are suppose to be so politically savvy? I mean, it's like junior high school.

Of course he is correct! That's the shame, how long did it take these idiots to realize that the Clinton's were sophomoric? But they use their snobbiness to put "fly over country" down as stupid. I think what's getting them is that fly-over voters were much smarter than these "elitist" fools! The Clintons have never changed - they were just the same in '92 - the "liberal" elitist media were their backbone! Now these fools should be shown constantly their error, so that HISTORY will get it right, and this mistake won't be repeated AGAIN!

[Howlin]

I'm counting on Hillary and Bill to show them their error; so far, they are doing a better job of it then we conservatives EVER could have......or even ever could have hoped for.

Think about it: have the Clintons EVER disapointed us with their vile behavior? Just think of the "uproars" just since they left the White House.

They won't let us down; they'll deliver a fresh, new tacky incident any day now. They're due.

[Alissa]

True - now I got to figure out this new instant message stuff that the Robinson's just invented, which is how I found your reply so quickly! :)

[Howlin]

The little You've Got Mail/Posts box? Cool, huh?

[lara]

That's too bad that's what it took to convert him.

[mickie]

Dear Sam,
I'm so glad I just read this entire thread......because I found your two posts absolutely great.
Boy, you 'made my day'..........how I detest that evil woman.

[nutmeg]

...Everything about Hitlery gets my ire up...

Oh, you are going to LOVE Free Republic! You are amongst like-minded individuals. Welcome! :-)

[nutmeg]

LOL! Great post! (#146)

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Was any act ever done that would give her opportunity to fake?