Comments on: Did ex-NFL player, girlfriend, kill millionaire?
Add a Comment
- you big little big..."swynee-whynee-soup-A'doupa-cotton-pikin-ikky-dikky,-pooper-yyuck,..-itchy-dicky,-itty-bitty,willy-wwanken-..tiny-hynee-yipER'yapERer-phony-bla-bla-blabbler!!!-..bite-my-1-&'only!. . . im on2-you!.... you cold-hearted-prik!!!,...& yabble-dabble-WHAT CAN BE NEXT!!??!...well-WATTA-YOU-NO!!....A GIFT OF BLAAAB...ALL WRAPPED-2-GO!!...THEN-THROW IN'a LATE-insult-if-by-pleezz!!!!!!!.. COMEBACK!..-LOOKY-WATTA WEe-after-hours-insult!!!-..AZ-THO-ALL;YA'CUD-THROW!!...WHO'Z POPIN-IN NEXT???...JST-WEN-YA-GOTTA BELIEVE-IN-ORDER-2-WISH-FOR YET-MORE YIPP-YAPP-BLO-AND WATTA-U-NO!!?.....OH!!NO-NO-BIFF-NO!! "US DUMMYEEZ'EZ..ONLOOKING'Ez AUDIANCE-PEOPLE'EZ-ALL-DUMBOZ-WE-I'Z!!!............YEH!..."CUZ"-..."I'M-ZO-BRILLIANT-&-SNAZZY!...SO MY PLAN WAS LIKE-THIS!!!..."US-IDIOTS"!...WHAT i decided to play waz an "in-your-face"-..."lemmy-rubb-back-each-detail!!..."wich-by-truth!,...would,& always-duz.....LEAD STREIGHT TO THE....OH...."T R U T H"!!....that "i boldly, & involantarily "LIED" IN-UR-FACE"....AT EVRY NOOK-& CRACKER-"I POSSIBLY-ABLE"!!!....SO WE'D ALL KNOW HOW BRAVE HE'D SEEM-TO-US'EZ-ALL!!!....DAAT "I DECIDED-2-FORCE-MYSELF-&-CRAWL-OUT-FROM-EACH-"..."H O L E"!!!-......."HOW'S MY BOLD-NOW!!??-HEH??......wHAT!?...Y'ALLS'EZ-THINK-I-"DON'T GETIT??!!....I SHUDA-NOT-COVE'D-MY-HYNY-AT-EA.-TWIST-WIT-DA-TRUTH??!......"TOO-EAZZY!!"......&-BESIDES...."YEH-RRITE".....I "TOOK MY GUN-...POPPED SIX EX-ECUTIONS'EZ-"WACK-SMACK-DEAD!!....."SO I CAN WHAT?"....BUY A HOUSE"?!!"..."...."YO-SEE-WHERE-IM-COMMIN-FROM-HERE"!!?....CUZ.."I'Z WOODA-BOUGHT-A YAHT!!"....."US-FOOLS'EZ"!!!?....."SEE"??!!!!....."WHO-GOZE-&-KILLS-A-WHACK-JOB"?...."for-a-MANSION?!!!?.......WAISTA-"LOOT"-ON-WATA-FRONT-HOUSING"??....."RRITE"?....'!!...SO..."NOW-US'EZ-ALL-SEE-ME"?!....MR;-RRICKY-PICKOUSKI!!.....
.............So dat was my thinking wit all "thu-rest-of-it-also"......i dug a pit for each "murder-conviction"....Mr.Houdiney!....so-dat "WE-US'EZ-ALL".......WILL SEE HIM-FACE-COURAGE!!...& BLINDLY ALLOW MYSELF TO HAVE TO-FACE=A 4X4!!....."& "C H A N C E".....MY WAY OUT!!...........WATTA-GUY-PIG-INSULT-2-LOSERS'EZ-GUY!! - Reply to this comment
- I don't think he did it either. He has played the field in his life and knows he doesn't have to pin all his hopes on this gal who is taking a risk to stay there. He offers some help as a friend (maybe she's just nuts), the story of him giving her a gun to defend herself following story of her reporting abuse was something he may have been reluctant to do but as more involved in what she said could have done that, she wants her share of the money which suggests she had the skill, other guy had the nerve to make it pay. Police might know more of him as a bouncer, being called to disturbances which could help him, bet he saw the risk in that job and took up job as personal trainer to settle down and not get hurt.
- Reply to this comment
- Seems most of you must have watched a different program than I and also must not read the recent information in the article that now, all of a sudden after being convicted, Eric Naposki is saying Nanette did ask him to kill Bill for her and he gave her the name of someone who could arrange it.
Please, if she was so rich because she developed the blood plasma separating device and brought it to Bill and also could buy a 60k car w/ cash.. why would she be sharing a house with one of her investors.. and, why wouldn't she just move out into one of her own fabulous places once Bill "started trying to come in her room and molest her"? As dumb as Eric appears to be... no one is that stupid..I hope!
I followed the trial closely, it was in Santa Ana and had a mix of people on the jury....there were not 12 elite, rich Newport Beach residents on the jury. Get the transcripts from the trial if you want to really understand why they convicted Naposki.
So much more than this... but a couple points... Naposki said he had an alibi, and his "investigator" gets on the stand saying he drove the route and no way could Eric have made it from the Denny's in Tustin to Newport Beach on a regular Thursday night in time...but that Dec. 15, 1994 there was even more traffic due to the opening of the Newport Beach Boat Parade... Well, Murphy's detectives drove and video taped the trip 15 times and each time made it in time to park, get thru gate and into house. And, he got the "investigator" to reiterate that he confirmed with the chamber of commerce that the boat parade started on the 15th in 1994... Murphy then brings up evidence of when the boat parade really began that year, which was the 17th as it had been for years. Then he brought an actual witness from the chamber of commerce to the stand to testify this fact. So even if Eric did make that phone call he still had enough time to commit the murder. And, like someone stated, why wouldn't you have kept every single shred of an alibi you had... you would have copies of everything.... No one is that stupid. Also, no one but the police and the murderer knew the gun was the kind Eric owned and lied about owning...
And, on the day of the funeral Nanette bought her and Eric matching Harley's and he had them in a storage facility that he failed to tell the police about. But, the neighbors saw Nanette and Eric driving their new Harley's around the Beachfront house. Really, would an innocent man accept expensive gifts from someone who had asked him to kill her "business partner" who he told no he wouldn't kill the guy but gave him the name of someone who could take care of it??? They were together for months after the murder and hooked up a few times after she got out of jail for pleading guilty to check fraud... If you were on trial for murder with special circumstances and didn't do it wouldn't you have given the name of the guy who arranges murders that you gave to your girlfriend after she asked you to murder someone but you said no....before your trial even started???? Seems like that would be a more effective defense than some phone record that your investigator, lawyer and you yourself lost..and even if it existed.... still doesn't clear you from the murder. Even so, if he was asked to kill someone, declined but gave a name of someone who could take care of it.... that is admitting to conspiracy to commit murder if he gave her the name of someone who would arrange it. If he thought she had done this all these years why wouldn't he have said so right after he was picked up???
Nanette is/was an evil manipulator and was able to get seemingly sane men to do her bidding.... and while her in home sex chair/contraption she showed off to friends and neighbors isn't really a trapeze per say... it may have done the trick w/ her catching her most recent husband and father to her youngest... he also thought she was rich and when he learned the truth after her arrest, ditched her and remarried fairly quickly.
The 48 hours program is very misleading as well due to the fact that some of the interview of Naposki quoted was before the trial....before Murphy showed video of his detectives. You can't go on the various news articles. Even the ones who were in the courtroom... they still got some information wrong... like not being clear that Bill McLaughlin's son was hit by a drunk driver while skateboarding in his teens (not that he was injured while drunk driving). You can't know the whole story from a few articles and a news report.
Order the transcripts and read what the jurors heard. - Reply to this comment
- In response to bmwlaw on Oct 31st at 6:21 pm, you totally mis-interpreted my point. I was not saying that it is "liberal to stand up against what appears to be the abuse of....". I was commenting on the many previous posters who said that the conviction could be blamed on the conservative leanings of OC (and therefore the jurors). May I point out that you accused me of doing what I was accusing the other posters of doing. Which is blaming any part of the case's outcome on politics. Your mis-perception of my point should be directed at the same people I was addressing. Just like you said, "it is not liberal to stand up against......", conservatism (perceived or real)is not why a 12 person jury decided to rule for conviction in this case. How is this case, where somebody was convicted on flimsy evidence, any different that the Casey Anthony case where somebody was acquitted when the evidence was far beyond reasonable doubt? It is all a reflection of our justice system, and until we are ready to switch to having professional juries, we must accept it as the laws of selection and of human nature. However, I do believe that the law should somehow ensure that jurors are fully compensated monetarily for time missed from work, and are not subjected to any negative repercussions at work (such as having to work at home after court, or having your work pile-up while you are serving, or other negative judgement by your employer), in order to facilitate and ensure that our juries are a true cross-section of the population, including Type A workaholics and employees of dynamic companies, in addition to retirees, unemployed, etc. Through the years, when I have notified my employer that I have received a jury summons, I have been advised on how to get out of serving while going through voire dire. Of course, I declined their advice. This is also the sentiment of a high percentage of my co-workers also. The one's who then lament cases such as this one, and the Casey Anthony case, and Michael Jackson, and OJ, etc. I say if you want something done right, do it yourself, do you civic duty and honor your jury summons with complete integrity.
- Reply to this comment
- The fact that Nannette left a note saying she would be late....how did she know she would be late when she left the note before the game? I think the DA is embarassed that they dropped the ball and is just too prideful to stamp COLd CASE on it.
- Reply to this comment
- "You weren't very honest with investigators," Roberts commented to Naposki. "If you're an innocent man, why would you do that?"
"I'm an innocent man now...there's no...handbook when you're being looking at as a suspect in a murder case,"
"Why weren't you truthful about the 9mm with police?"
"I think I was just scared," he replied. "Because I didn't buy that 9mm for myself. ...That was Nanette's 9mm Beretta. ...I was scared to start throwing around, 'that's Nanette's gun. You know, go look at Nanette.' ...that would have been really like just pointing the finger."
Wher is the gun? What a bufoon. Produce the "9mm Baretta and exonerate yourself or don't drop the soap big guy. - Reply to this comment
- From some of the comments lots of you are way off. But thats how intellectual people think - two things are apparent Nannette had this guy killed - Eric is the likely culprit it all boils down to manipulation 101. When this woman told Eric the victim would come in her room and sexually molest her - thats all she had to say -- that set off Erics primal instinct to protect "that poor innocent woman" who he fallen for,
got to get him is what went thru eric's mind and he did very sad case all this talk about OC being this & that and he fits in and who doesnt is hog wash - that guy died a horrible death all behind money and a undercover hooker who had plenty game and street smarts -- to the men out there listen to your children when they tell you they don't like your new girlfriend its not always because they are jealous specially your female children - like Paul Mccarthney daughter Stella told him don't marry that last wife of his she proved to be right - gold diggers are dangerous people and these divorce laws in america should be torn up and re written period! These people walk into these marriage with nothing and leave with millions you can't be serious - Nannette went on to get several more wealthy men unbelievable - just goes to show you - no matter how successful you are if you don't have street smarts and are not wise in the ways of the World - the Nannettes of this world will get ya! Beware of undercover hookers - if anything get you a real one that way you'll come out cheaper and stay emotionally detached. - Reply to this comment
- This was in the Orange County Papers for years. There is obviously more evidence that was not addressed in the 48 Hours Mystery. When a trial lasts weeks, can one really expect to get all the facts in a one-hour TV Show. Remember the woman is going on trial in November ... probably have things that can't be public knowledge yet. For California to convict this guy there has to be LOTS of evidence .. we usually let everyone go free.
- Reply to this comment
- My gut tells me he was involved. But my common sense tells me, as a juror I would have found reasonable doubt and voted not-guilty. That said, in addition to not making this a forum for judgement of the victim, let it also not serve as a forum for left-coast liberals to blame the conviction on the conservative leanings of OC (not only a gross generalization, but even if true, it is a breath of fresh air in the liberalism that is California, and yes this is a statement that is totally off-subject and I don't care).
- Reply to this comment
- If I was going to commit a crime of this magnitude, with as much money at stake, I would think long and hard about finding some dumb slob who could take the blame. You feed the innocent with enough circumstances so that they are bound to be implicated, and it never occurs to them that they need to protect themselves. And sometimes, the innocent are duped into crossing the line and should be prosecuted as the result. Defending a woman against sexual harassment when none existed in the first place. The police and prosecutors have a really tough job trying to figure it out.
- Reply to this comment
