Skip to content

LAPD finds Andre Ethier jersey carrying blood of Bryan Stow

Jun 12, 2011, 9:22 AM EDT

Antonio Villariagosa, Charlie Beck AP

From Patrick Healy of NBC Los Angeles comes a major update in the still unsolved Opening Day beating of Giants fan Bryan Stow:

A blood-stained jersey dropped off at a cleaning establishment may be linked to the severe beating of Giants fan Bryan Stow, NBC LA has learned.

The jersey triggered suspicion at the cleaners, which notified law enforcement.  Los Angeles Police took possession of the jersey and submitted it for DNA analysis.  The results came back a match to Stow, NBC LA has learned.

The LAPD arrested a suspect, Giovanni Ramirez, on May 22 and have kept him in custody for the past three weeks on an unrelated parole violation. He has not yet been charged in the beating, but sources informed NBC Los Angeles this weekend that police believe Ramirez was the one who dropped the bloodied Andre Ethier jersey off at the cleaners and that it may have been worn on Opening Day by a woman driver in a getaway car.

Ramirez claims that he was with his daughter in East Hollywood on Opening Day and not in the vicinity of Dodger Stadium. He’s gone before a suspect lineup and taken two polygraphs, the results of which have not yet been released nor discussed publicly by the LAPD. Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck expressed confidence recently that the police have the right man in custody and that the case is moving along.

Stow remains in a coma and is believed to have suffered significant brain damage as a result of the attack.

100 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM

    Taking what’s like a shrink-proof, fade-proof blood stained jersey to a dry cleaners after all the enormous publicity surrounding this case? File this one in the “stupid criminals” file. You didn’t see OJ hang on to his expensive top of the line 3 1/2″ blade Swiss army knife after he used it to lop off Nicole’s dome, did you?

    What I think needs to be done with gang bangers like this is to put a parachute on them, fly them over an uninhabited island hundreds of miles from anything and then kick them out over the island. That would be FAR, FAR more of a deterrent than jail time or even the death penalty.

    • kyleortonsarm - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:33 AM

      O.J was never convicted of that. He’s innocent of that crime. I hope they catch the real killer someday though.

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:47 AM

        Ya… OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman alright, just as Elvis is still alive living the life of luxury on an otherwise uninhabited island in the Bahama’s.

        Read Marsha Clark’s and Detective Mark Furman’s books, and then you’ll be informed. The case was botched by the prosecution, but then again public prosecutors are seldom, if ever, a match for far more seasoned high profile (and very expensive), defense attorneys either.

        The really sad part about our justice system is that if you have enough money to hire the right attorneys you can even get away with murder (as OJ did).

      • Old Gator - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM

        OJ beat the rap because the prior corruption and malfeasance of one of the arresting cops, Mark Furman, forced the jury to vote for acquittal, the only logical thing they could have doneif the legal system is to maintain any semblance of legitimacy as a cornerstone of democratic process. No one’s looking for another killer because no one believes there was one.

      • pisano - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM

        They have caught the REAL killer, he’s in jail in Las Vegas doing 9 to 33 years.

      • georgeanderson2 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM

        It was OJ’s son who did it. The Chef who lied about being at work, the chef who owned knives similar to the one used in the crime, and they myserioulsy went missing. The same son who when OJ found out about the incident retained a high profile lawyer for his sons defense. OJ took the rap for his kid.
        Would like to see some investigative news team take on the task of hiring someone to go through all the evidence again after all the advancements in technology and see what they come up with.
        OJ was found not guilty, if he was guilty then he should be in jail for that crime at that time. For him to be found not gulity in criminal court but lose a civil judgement is whats wrong with the legal system. Its only about money , not about justice.

      • Old Gator - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM

        “Good thing you weren’t posting this in the ’50′s, or you would have been thrown in jail by now and labeled a Communist, you left wing bleeding heart liberal!” Heh – got your drooling knuckledragger togs on this morning, eh? Nostalgia is such an ugly thing when evinced by a right-wing thug, isn’t it?

      • clydeserra - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM

        Sorry Kyle, there seem to be a lot of broken sarcasm meters this morning.

      • raysfan1 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

        Gator–you replied on the wrong line, dude. I was hoping purdueman was being over-the-top or joking.

      • Old Gator - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:57 AM

        Raysfan – Luddite that I am….

      • scottinbwk - Jun 12, 2011 at 1:01 PM

        There is a BIG difference between “innocent” and “not guilty”!

        OJ was found “not guilty” of the murdering Nicole and Ron by a (questionable) jury. He WAS NOT found “innocent”.

        He was found “guilty” in the Civil Lawsuit brought by the Goldman family because the evidence was overwhelmingly against him and everything could be admitted into evidence to prove his “guilt”.

        Judge Ito (and I use that term very loosely) ruled against so much evidence being admitted at the Criminal Trial that the Prosecution never had a chance. At the Civil Trial the Judge was NOT intimidated by the Defendants (OJ) lawyers and everything was admissable.

    • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:35 AM

      Yes, because “gang bangers” (aka unsavory brown folk) aren’t really Americans, and therefor not really subject to that whole troublesome “cruel and unusual punishment” business.

      • cur68 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:37 AM

        Better turn on the ‘sarcasm font’ there JB.

      • nudeman - Jun 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM

        There is no such thing as “guilty” in a civil trial.

        He was found “Liable”. And the burden of proof there is much less than in criminal court. Still, he did it. We know that.

    • nudeman - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:43 AM

      I like the idea.
      Just not sure why you’re suggesting they get parachutes. Just sayin’ …

    • nudeman - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM

      OJ? Really? We’re going down that road?

      OK, I’ll play

      Not sure it was the prosecution’s fault. Yes, they made mistakes. But the real reasons that clown went free are:

      1) A jury made up entirely (I think) of minorities who hated cops and were ready to buy into anything exculpatory about OJ. And from the post trial interviews I saw – the jurors seemed to have a collective IQ of about 48.

      2) Judge Ito who was star struck in the presence of Johnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, OJ and Shapiro, and practically let them run the trial themselves.

      No prosecutor was going to get a conviction with that judge and jury.

      • clydeserra - Jun 12, 2011 at 12:01 PM

        as for 1, no it wasn’t and the prosecution had control over who was on the jury

      • Old Gator - Jun 12, 2011 at 12:06 PM

        So let’s see – you’re suggesting that because there were members of “minorities” on the jury (and by that I sure hope you weren’t referring to Latin Americans in…southern California????) that they automatically “hated cops”? I hope I got that inference wrong, because if not I think you better have your lobotomy reviewed by the local medical board. I think your dentist might have pulled too hard.

      • pisano - Jun 12, 2011 at 12:09 PM

        nudeman…. As I remember it the jury consisted of 10 blacks, 1 Asian and 1 Hispanic, pretty much a slam dunk for Simpson. Going into the trial Johnny Cochran (aka Jive Ass Johnny) said all he needed was one black juror to get OJ off. He got more than he could have dreamed for.

      • nudeman - Jun 12, 2011 at 12:23 PM

        Clydeserra, you need to study a little about how juries are picked. The Prosecution had no more control than the Defense over the jury makeup. Sorry.
        Secondly, Gil Garcetti, LA DA could have put the trial in Santa Monica which was its natural jurisdiction. There, the jury would have been largely white and made up of sunburned people named Spencer, Skip, Charles III and Buffy calling each other “Dude”. Can you say GUILTY?
        Instead he put it in LA for logistical reasons, AND … because he thought the defendant would get a fairer shake from a mixed jury there.

        Wake Up, Dude.

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM

        EXCELLENT post nudeman! EXCELLENT!!!

        The trial turned on two events that never should have been allowed to happen:

        1) Fat old windbag F. Lee Bailey turned the trial from being one of murder to one of the black residents of the poored South Central LA vs. the white LAPD. At that point the murder charge was tossed out the window and replaced with the race card; and

        2) Inexperienced junior prosecutor Darden allowing OJ (knowing that he was a trained actor), to put on the shrunken bloody glove while wearing another glove underneath. How stupid can you be? Hopefully Darden by now has found another profession.

        The key piece of missing evidence that would have likely convicted OJ? Blood stains with mixed blood from the victims and the attacker on the back gate behind the condo, where the White Bronco was parked in waiting to be the getaway vehicle.

        Why wasn’t this damning evidence introduced? Simple. Because the “chain of evidence” had been broken. Furman, the first detective on the seen, noted the blood in his initial crime notes that he then had to turn over to fumblebutt Detective Van Etter when he took over the crime scene.

        Standard police procedure is that the initial crime notes are all followed up on by the Detective taking ove the crime scene, but Van Etter had so much personal disdain for Furman he didn’t look at Furman’s notes for almost three weeks after the crime was committed, which broke the chain of evidence and made the blood later found on the walk and gate leading out from behind the condo inadmissible.

    • deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2011 at 2:57 PM

      “Taking what’s like a shrink-proof, fade-proof blood stained jersey to a dry cleaners after all the enormous publicity surrounding this case?”

      That’s the first thing that struck me. I mean seriously- I’m glad he’s stupid because it got him caught- but how hard is it to find another Either jersey?

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:06 PM

        deathm…. the gang banger lived in a small apartment and small apartments aren’t furnished with washers and dryers. Obviously he’s a lazy ass, because it’s easier to just drop the jersey off at the dry cleaners than to get off his ass and go down to the nearest laundromat.

        Blood stains, particularly on non absorbent fabrics (most replica jerseys are made of non absorbent polyester), easily come out if pre-treated and washed in a washer in a reasonable amount of time. Not only is he a stupid criminal, but he’s a lazy criminal as well.

    • skerney - Jun 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM

      In the movie American Psycho, Christian Bale takes his blood stained sheets to the cleaners. I remember thinking “That would never happen!” This psycho has proven me wrong.

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:19 PM

        skerny… you’re not wrong per se’, but your obviously an inexperience punk under 25 or 26 years old who still has no clue what life if about. Life ain’t about how the movies portrays it sonny boy, but I don’t expect you to understand that at your tender, inexperienced years.

  2. hcf95688 - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:35 AM

    It might be a good idea for that dry cleaner to think about selling the business.

    • nudeman - Jun 12, 2011 at 1:27 PM

      Won’t be necessary.

      I think it’s being sprayed with kerosene as we speak.

  3. wkinsomnia - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

    Kyle…stfu. It’s idiots like you that allow murderers to go free when your in the Jury being the ones that hand down the verdict. Going more off of someones celebrity than the raw facts

    • kyleortonsarm - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:40 AM

      Is that what they really believe in the country that you’re from? I live in the USA and over here they present raw facts to the jury of your peers and they decide from there. Obviously the evidence wasn’t beyond a reasonable doubt, he was found not guilty, and that’s the end of that story.

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:51 AM

        Good thing you weren’t posting this in the ’50’s, or you would have been thrown in jail by now and labeled a Communist, you left wing bleeding heart liberal! Why not have lunch with Michael Moore or Susan Sirandon today? The color of the sky in their world is sure to be a better match to the one in yours than blue as it is for the rest of us.

        OJ innocent? Puhl-ease! Do your homework before you post and READ Marsha Clark’s and Mark Furman’s books before you post such drivel.

      • Old Gator - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM

        No, it wasn’t the end. He was also sued for wrongful death by his wife’s family and lost that to a second jury presented with he same evidence and for whom Mark Furman’s malfeasance wasn’t an issue. Our system periodically both convicts or exonerates incorrectly; innocent folks go to jail and the guilty walk. The system establishes guilt or innocence within its own context, and that often has little to do with reality. We abide by it,and accept its decisions for the most part, because it’s one of the structures that holds orderly processes of social life together, however tenuously. I would have voted the same way the jury did once I became aware that one of the arresting officers had planted evidence in prior cases where he was convinced that he had the guilty party in his sights, and might well have done so again. Remove that monstrous blunder from the case and consider the evidence without Furman’s own criminal behavior and OJ is very likely rotting in prison – where, as a matter of fact, he is anyway.

      • raysfan1 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM

        I ultimately would have voted to acquit too, for the same reason as Gator. …and purdueman, I’m no liberal. This, despite the fact I do think he’s guilty as hell. The point is, in criminal trials, the prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt–they failed by themselves introducing the doubt.
        OJ lost the civil case case where the burden of proof for the plaintiff is only the preponderance of the evidence. For that reason, the prosecution’s gaffes in the earlier criminal case didn’t hurt.
        During the OJ trial I was in Africa (deployed as part of the operation to withdraw troops from Somalia) & STILL the OJ trial was everywhere on the TV.
        I’m glad the police appear to have found substantive evidence. I do not like that they are parading it before the media/public. Seems like trying to try the case before the trial.

  4. shaggylocks - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM

    Wow, when I first saw the headline I thought Stow’s blood was found on Andre Ethier’s jersey. “Wait, Ethier was involved?” I thought. “This story just took a turn for the weird…”

    • bleedgreen - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:03 PM

      I missed the word ‘jersey’ completely and am thinking ‘Why was Andre Ethier carrying the blood of Bryan Stow?’

      • jimbo1949 - Jun 12, 2011 at 4:55 PM

        TMI, a generic “Dodger jersey” would have worked better.

  5. jimsjam33 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM

    In the O.J. case the jury didn’t want to be confused with the facts .

    • Old Gator - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:21 AM

      Clearly the jury needed to look beyond the facts given the revelations about LAPD “procedure” that emerged during the trial. Then again, Judge Ito’s non-stewardship of the trial was such a disgrace that he pretty much fertilized and watered the media-friendly antics of Simpson’s defense team and the carnival atmosphere prevailing within the courtroom itself. The entire episode was a disgrace to American jurisprudence and law enforcement alike, but the jury, under the circumstances, really had no choice but to vote the way it did.

  6. BB_Baker - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM

    Not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. The jury did not find him innocent, just not guilty. That means they believed he had some hand in their deaths but the prosecution didn’t prove their case well enough.

    • thegoche - Jun 12, 2011 at 1:17 PM

      Unless the California justice system is different from most places in this regard (in which case I defer to people who know more about California criminal courts), there is no such thing as being found “innocent.” It’s guilty or not guilty.

      “Guilty” means it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, “not guilty” encompasses anything short of proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

      So “not guilty” could mean that they thought he was probably involved but not enough to meet the reasonable doubt standard, or that they thought he was innocent.

      There is no implication to be made about the actual guilt or innocence of a defendant based on the wording of “not guilty.” It literally only means that, for the purposes of the court system, the case against the defendant is not strong enough to find him guilty.

      • nudeman - Jun 12, 2011 at 1:24 PM

        Exactly right, thegoche. No such thing as “innocent”. “Not guilty” just means the prosecution didn’t meet the burden of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”.

        If you watch any of the real life crime shows on Dateline, American Justice, etc, many times they interview the jurors after the fact and they’ll say something like “He probably did it, but I couldn’t say so for certain.”


        As maddening as it is for a slob like OJ to go free, it turns my stomach more to see a story about some innocent guy who spends 30 years in the slammer for a crime he didn’t commit. Better to err on the side of not guilty.

  7. Old Gator - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

    All of this antiquarian distraction aside, let’s hope that the stupidity of the criminals in the Stow case leads directly to the capture and imprisonment of everyone involved, including the second assailant and the woman who drove the getaway car. And let’s hope they’re all taken and kept off the street for a long, long, long time.

    • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM

      Oh, right. Yes.

    • jimbo1949 - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:01 PM

      Done properly, no LAPD shortcuts – crossing the eyes and dotting the tees.

  8. hcf95688 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:28 AM

    That damn murdering Andre Ethier!

  9. clydeserra - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    OK, so back to the topic.

    How was the blood tested? DO you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you send something to the cleaners? Wouldn’t the LAPD have to get a warrant to take the shirt? what sort of PC is there?

    So far, this seems like the type of detective work that is done on TV shows that will result in the entire case being thrown out because its unconstitutional.

    • cur68 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:43 AM

      Read the article up there clyde; the jersey wasn’t ‘seized’; the cleaner gave it to the law. As such no warrant. Evidence turned in by a concerned citizen covers it.

      Generally blood testing for DNA is carried out using PCR assays.

      The link is an excellent explanation for the layperson on DNA testing;

      • clydeserra - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:50 AM

        I don’t think the cleaner can give it to law enforcement, nor can they run tests without a warrant.

        These are issues that will come up when this woman and the others are arrested.

        Thanks for the link,

      • clydeserra - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:58 AM

        I have read the article, I don’t think important details are there. Actions may have been taken to get a warrant to take the shirt from the dry cleaner, but it doesn’t seem like blood on the most popular dodger’s replica shirt is enough probable cause to have the warrant issued.

        Judges do it from time to time and its reversed on appeal from time to time.

      • cur68 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM

        When all the lawyers who read this blog wake up and see this I bet we’ll find that it’s ‘found evidence’ just like if you leave the murder weapon with your friend and he turns it in to the cops. But, I can’t know for sure. Here in Canuckistan, province of Beaverberta, that’s how it would work, though. Seems reasonable, too. The item was not on personal property. It was discovered not by the police in an illegal search and seizure but surrendered by the owner to a third party who would them be responsible as they saw fit for it’s disposition but not held responsible for loss or damage. That’s what it says on the back of my last dry-cleaning bill at any rate.

      • thegoche - Jun 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM

        The cops don’t need a warrant because they didn’t “take” the shirt from the cleaners. It was turned in by the cleaners.

        The 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure only apply to state action, basically it’s illegal to take evidence from someone, but not to receive evidence.

        There is no expectation of privacy that the shirt will not be tested. The guy gave up the shirt to the cleaner. The cleaner turned it over to the police. The police can do whatever tests are necessary.

        Even more, in taking the shirt to the cleaners, the person was attempting to destroy evidence. Taking the shirt to the cleaners could probably be charged as a crime in and of itself since the shirt is evidence. There is no expectation that when you ask someone to destroy evidence for you, that they won’t turn it over to the cops.

      • clydeserra - Jun 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM

        I don’t agree with that analysis.

        A lot depends on what the actual course of action was, which is all speculation. If you give up your REP by dropping the evidence off, I still don’t see how the police have a right to seize it for testing.

        First, you are not giving it to the cleaners, the cleaner has no possessory interest greater than a bailment. for them to give it to the police is an illegal conversion. But for arguments sake we’ll say they alerted the police and the police came by to have a look. Then the police thought, gee I want to test this blood. OK, so what does that look like?

        First they have to take it from the cleaners, then they have to cut up the shirt or in some way repossess the shirt to collect enough evidence to test for DNA.

        I have a real problem with that. Its like saying if you take your car in to be serviced and the mechanic reports some damage to your car consistent with a recent hit and run, the police can seize your car for testing.

        I don’t know what the law is on this, but I doubt its as clear as, “yeah, you drop something off at the cleaners the police can take it and destroy it for testing.”

      • purdueman - Jun 13, 2011 at 2:45 PM

        clyde… how do you think that the police go about trying to find someone guilty of a hit and run accident? They send detectives to fan out to all the local body shops looking for vehicles that have damage consistent with what likely occurred at the scene of the accident! I don’t see how this is any different… except of course for the bleeding heart left wing liberals out there.

      • clydeserra - Jun 13, 2011 at 6:03 PM

        I would think a conservative would be AGAINST the government seizing personal property.

    • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM

      Thegoche has got it right. In brief, the law says that evidence provided by a third party cannot be used in court if it was obtained illegally; in this case, obviously, it wasn’t.

      The LAPD screws up royally and often, but especially in a case as high-profile as this one, I’m guessing they’ve taken extra care to dot their i’s and cross their t’s! Let’s hope this case has a speedy and just outcome, and let’s continue to hope that Bryan Stow makes an unexpectedly successful recovery.

    • jxegh - Jun 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM

      Clyde the idiot…..

  10. cur68 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    At last. Some solid evidence to link SOMEONE to the crime. Now, if the dry cleaner has video surveillance or solid witnesses, there’s another good link right there. Good for the LAPD for finally getting somewhere with this. I only hope the slowness of the proceedings has to do with them being very careful with establishing evidence, witnesses, and following due procedure. The last big case that came their way certainly suffered for the lack.

  11. 4d3fect - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM

    The headline wording seems to be missing sonething. LAPD didn’t find the jersey, the dry cleaner business did. Seems like a fundamental difference to me.

    • 4d3fect - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:56 AM

      something, not sonething, dammit. stupid spell check.

  12. tominma - Jun 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM

    Am I the only one who thinks that the gangbangers existing in our country are FAR more dangerous to us than the Japanese Americans who were “interned” during WW2??? I think we interned the wrong people then, then we’re not interning the right people now!

    • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM

      That’s charming.

    • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:18 PM

      tominma… the answer to your question is because the left wing liberal kooks in this country would scream bloody murder that that would be “profiling”, and a “violation of their civil rights”, even though many of these gang bangers of course violate the civil rights of law abiding citizens without the liberals complaint.

      A while back, I got pulled out of line at JFK in NYC because unbeknownst to me I had two half empty complimentary hotel hand lotion bottles that had fallen to the bottom of my pc bag that I failed to declare and weren’t in plain view.

      The idiots at TSA patted me down, put me through the air blower chamber, had dogs sniff my carry on and took everything out of my carry on and pc bag and then confronted me about the undeclared contraband.

      I looked at the head moron, who by then of course had been summoned to the terrorist threat that I presented, and said: “Are you really that dumb? Like a middle aged, white American with a wife and children who’s never been charged with any crime and whose parents were born in this country and none of them ever got charged with any crime either and you have the nerve to question 2 half empty, mostly dried up hotel samples of body lotion?”

      His repsonse? Believe it or not it was: “You do realize that we’ll have to confiscate these?”. Am I the only one that thinks this country has more than their fair share of total idiots?

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM

        Nice to know that me and my fellow kooky left wing radicals are in control of the TSA! You know, Purdue, maybe you should stick to baseball and not talk politics.

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:55 PM

        never said that TSA is liberal; just sayin’ that they use no common sense and most of them that I’ve encountered have IQ’s just a notch above your average bowling ball.

        My point is that it’s the bleeding heart liberals in this country who prevent organizations like TSA from profiling.

        Lemme see now… middle aged white guy in a suit carrying an expensive pc gets the total shakedown while Arab man in his 20’s wearing a turban traveling alone with no luggage on a cross country trip from NY to LA sails right through security. What’s wrong with this picture?

        The entire arbitrary limitations placed on carrying on toiletries is beyond asinine and is a total waste of taxpayers time and money.

      • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:59 PM

        I’m as disgusted as anybody with the TSA these days, but I’m 100% in favor of having them hassle anyone who’s repulsive enough to use his whiteness and his heterosexuality as “evidence” that he can’t possibly be a criminal.

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM

        then live your life like a mushroom (in the dark), and be disgusted, but I CHALLENGE you to find EVEN ONE legitimate terrorism related incident, JUST ONE, that has taken place in the US that’s been committed by a middle aged white guy. Give me an ‘effing break!

      • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:16 PM

        “Am I the only one that thinks this country has more than their fair share of total idiots?”

        I’ve long suspected as such, but reading your posts removes all doubt. Well done, sir.

      • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:22 PM

        “Lemme see now… middle aged white guy in a suit carrying an expensive pc gets the total shakedown while Arab man in his 20′s wearing a turban traveling alone with no luggage on a cross country trip from NY to LA sails right through security. What’s wrong with this picture?”

        Yes, let’s all stop and shed a tear for the great suffering of white males in America…

        “If you’re white and you don’t admit that it’s great, you’re an ASSHOLE”

      • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:24 PM

        Well, Timothy McVeigh probably WOULD have become a middle-aged white terrorist had he not been executed for murdering hundreds of people as a twenty-something white terrorist. Then there’s Scott Roeder and the rest of the domestic terrorists who target and murder abortion providers; they tend to be middle-aged white guys. Another handful of middle-aged white guys (let’s just use “MAWGs” to save time) were recently arrested after it was discovered that their white-pride group was planning to kill state troopers and a judge in Alaska. Jim David Adkisson was 58 when, motivated by his hatred of “liberals,” he shot and killed multiple churchgoers in Tennessee. Byron Williams, 45, started a shootout with California Highway Patrol officers who foiled his plan to attack the ACLU and the progressive Tides Foundation. John Patrick Bedell, 36, also started a shootout—this time at the Pentagon; he didn’t survive long enough to execute his murderous plans. As for Jared Lee Loughner, we can all hope he’ll remain safely incarcerated long into his MAWG-hood and beyond.

        How’s that for a start, Purdueman? Oh, I’m sorry—you were using “terrorism” to mean “acts of violence committed by brown people against white people,” weren’t you? Sorry, my bad!

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:36 PM

        jber… as the old tried and true saying goes: “takes one to know one”, so coming from one of this forum idiots like you I guess makes you think that everyone else is too, huh?

        Oh well… the mentally challenged are always easily amused!

        Here’s a fun exercise for you to try. Take a dollar bill and on both sides on top write: “How to keep me busy all day”. Then follow the instructions… you’ll be amused for hours and hours!

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM

        you and JB both have way too much time on your hands. Thank God though that neither of you are any of our elected representative officials. Please… stay down in your Mom’s basement!

      • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM

        “then live your life like a mushroom (in the dark), and be disgusted, but I CHALLENGE you to find EVEN ONE legitimate terrorism related incident, JUST ONE, that has taken place in the US that’s been committed by a middle aged white guy. Give me an ‘effing break!”

        Off the top of my head:

      • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:41 PM

        I notice that you, too, had plenty of time for commenting until you realized you were losing the argument. :) Cheers, Purdueman!

      • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM

        I feel like this should never be posted in a Baseball forum, but here’s the actual full list of domestic right-wing terrorism since ’08:

        Twenty-four incidents. Twenty. Four. And of course, white middle aged males are responsible for the overwhelming majority of them. But then, it would be unfair to classify all white males as domestic terrorists, even if virtually all domestic terrorists are in fact white males.

        See how that profiling thing works, white people?

      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

        fearless… you are truly a legand! Too bad it’s only in your own mind!

        The ballgame I was watching is OVAH and now I have to get some stuff done before the NBA finals come on in a little bit over two hours from now. Bye now! Buh-bye!

      • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM


      • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:17 PM

        notdumb=one total very inexperienced in life dumbass. ’nuff said.

    • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:14 PM

      gangbangers existing in our country are FAR more dangerous to us

      I’ll translate:

      “Gangbangers” = brown people who don’t really count as American citizens
      “Us” = white people, who are of course True Americans.
      “Our Country” = America is the property of white people.

      • notdumb - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:29 PM

        jberardi= inferiority complex
        jberardi= brainwashed dumb ass that doesnt realise white people have been the biggest and best slaves in this country for over a hundred years less than a half percent of white people have it great you envious dumb racist ass
        purdueman= dumb ass brainwashed working class republican that doesnt realise hes just a slave like everyone else

  13. tominma - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM

    1) Im wondering why some people are politicizing this. It makes NO sense.

    • jimbo1949 - Jun 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM

      sez the guy who wants to open internment camps for those people who aren’t like him.

      • JBerardi - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM

        His politics are “common sense” or some such nonsense, while other people’s politics are POLITICS, and politics are BAD, of course.

  14. tominma - Jun 12, 2011 at 3:50 PM

    I thought Id get FAR more crap for saying that I think these gangbangers should be interned like the Japanese Aemricans were during WW2!! They are a LOT more dangerous and this is reaching crisis proportions!

    • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 4:03 PM

      I think you’ve gotten exactly as much attention as you need. You can go back to the basement with your Cheetos now.

  15. purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 4:07 PM

    You do all realize that today is the exact anniversary date of the night that OJ lopped his ex-wife’s dome off, don’t you? (talk about a timely topic!).

    My favorite moment in the OJ trial was when a guy (I forget who), testified that OJ was so obsessed with Nicole that he went into a rage after having spied on her in the bushes through her front window and saw her balling the plumber on the couch! True! ROFLMAO just picturing the scene!!!

  16. royalsfaninfargo - Jun 12, 2011 at 4:45 PM

    The suspect in this case is also connected to an attempted murder in the Las Vegas area. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to bring a blood covered jersey to a dry cleaners? Good for the owner of that business to take the initiative.

    • purdueman - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:06 PM

      not trying to split hairs here, but I don’t see how the suspect/moron could possibly have dropped the jersey off at the dry cleaners because he’s been locked behind bars now for several weeks. My bet is that it was the chubby chick who was seen driving the car with him and his buddy in it out of Dodger Stadium that dropped it off.

      my guess is that she didn’t want to risk him ripping her a new one if she somehow ruined in the wash, but was tired of it hanging around in her apartment. Just an educated guess…

      • royalsfaninfargo - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:49 PM

        My bad Purdueman, I wasnt trying to imply that the suspect had dropped it off. I was more referring to the act itself. With all the publicity around this case whoever dropped it off is a complete moron. I have read the other things on here about the expectation of privacy, but that is BS. If you willingly give something to a 3rd party other than your spouse or attorney you forfeit the right of privacy to that object.

  17. raysfan1 - Jun 12, 2011 at 7:48 PM

    @purdueman: In one of the above threads you asked for just one terrorist incident pulled off by a middle aged white man. Okay, here you go: When Terry Nichols helped bomb the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on Apr 19, 1995, he was 40.
    Justice is only real if applied to all equally. I’ve never once objected to a pat down by the TSA. Enemies of this nation (and our allies) are more than capable of making themselves look like “one of us.”

  18. notdumb - Jun 12, 2011 at 10:42 PM

    listening to you brainwashed dumbasses argue about racism is so funny and depressing things will never change until people realise that our owners dont care about race but promoting racism is a great way of keeping the peasant population fighting amongst our selves the only thing that matters is rich vs poor and if your making less than say 100000 yearly your poor it just doesnt seem like it because everyone else you know is living the same shit life you are

    • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:48 PM

      The first thing they do is steal all your punctuation.

      • cur68 - Jun 13, 2011 at 1:08 AM

        Then they brainwash you so you can no longer use decent grammar.

        It’s funny how the nuts are in the minority but how disproportionately their voices are heard. The reasonable people spend all their time trying to be, well, reasonable, while a few nut jobs are hopping around like crickets on speed spewing their various brands of ‘common sense’.

        Makes me tired.

    • dfreeser - Jun 13, 2011 at 1:45 AM

      Exactly… Middle East has been at war for how long… forever. But us silly Americans spend so much time trying to right everyone else we forget that we aren’t that much better.

      I love this country but nothing is going to be perfect. I am an educated mutt (german-mexican) and I personally hate gangbangers. They are a blight on america and on minorities. But at the same time, they aren’t all minorities. Nowadays it is cool to be a gangbanger… I have seen and dealt with asian and white gangbangers… I say take them all out and shoot them. You cost the city 10k for graffiti… ok.. bang bang. You knock up 4 baby mommas in a year and you have no job so she is on welfare… ok.. bang bang

  19. nudeman - Jun 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

    Purdueman, I agree with 99.9% of what you said. Very insightful, and I’ve only once before heard about the bloody fingerprint on the gate. I heard Fuhrman himself tell that story a few years back; the interviewer asked “what would that print have done for the prosecution’s case?” He said “We’re talking end of the case”.

    However, I disagree. After seeing those jurors interviewed afterward, NOTHING would have resulted in a conviction. Not even a videotape of OJ doing the murders. They were the all time idiot jury, and if you want to blame anyone for that, it’s Gil Garcetti who made the decision to put the trial in LA and pull from the LA jury pool. Much fairer for the defendant; totally ridiculous for the rest of us with common sense.

    Lastly, I blame Cochran, not Bailey for turning the trial into a referendum on race in America. Yes, it was Bailey who went to North Carolina and interviewed that woman who Fuhrman had made the racist comments to. But that whole thing was at Cochran’s direction. I was shocked at how unappealing and unlikeable Bailey was; a grouchy old man, well past his overrated prime, hands shaking most of the time, and able to contribute damn little. A few years later I grew to like Johnny; I still detest Bailey, who by the way has been in the slammer himself and has been disbarred. Karma.

    • purdueman - Jun 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM

      nudeman… I agree that the OJ jury was largely made up of dim bulbs, but I’m not so sure that if the LAPD detectives hadn’t made two rookie mistakes (one being Van Etter totally ignoring Furman’s initial crime scene notes about the rear gate, the other taking the vial of OJ’s blood drawn for DNA analysis inexplicably to the crime scene), and Darden’s gaffe (having OJ try on the shrunken bloody glove while wearing another glove underneath), that the outcome would have been different.

      A lot of trials are like horse-races… it’s crucial how the prosecution gets out of the gate, especially when the prosecution team is made up of attorneys on the public payroll, not proven high powered attorneys.

      Like him or hate him, you can’t take away Johnny Cockroach’s record; he was pure show biz… a black Perry Mason (and I mean that as a compliment), and Ito allowing the trial to be aired on TV it just played all the more towards Johnny’s strengths.

      Bailey? Death of a salesman. An old windbag that loves to hear himself talk, but also the perfect fumblebutt white attorney to play on that juries sympathies too.

      I’m sure that Garcetti didn’t push for a change of venue because everyone in the LAPD connected with the case has zero doubts about OJ being guilty, but obviously that was another big gaffe.

  20. shawnuel - Jun 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM

    “Stow remains in a coma and is believed to have suffered significant brain damage as a result of the attack.”

    Don’t know why this sentence makes me laugh. The obviousness of the statement, I guess.

    • nudeman - Jun 14, 2011 at 10:41 PM

      shawnuel, you need help.

      Hate to sound like I have my undies on too tight, but really, there’s just nothing laughable about it.

      The poor guy went to a ballgame, probably wanted to have a couple beers and cheer for his World Champion SF Giants (first time ever since moving to SF), gets beaten to a pulp by a couple of idiot gang bangers with a collective IQ of 46, and hasn’t awoken in a couple months. Has a wife and a couple kids, btw, who he might never speak with again.

      That’s “funny”? Did you laugh through Schindler’s List too?

      Idiot Alert.

      • raysfan1 - Jun 14, 2011 at 10:55 PM

        You’re giving too much IQ credit, nudeman–can’t be higher than 20 between them.

        Still praying for Mr Stow and his family. Even if he does come out of the coma, it’s going to be a long, hard road for rehab and an extreme likelihood of permanent severe brain damage.

      • shawnuel - Jul 1, 2011 at 9:17 PM

        No…not an idiot….just misunderstood because of the limitations of the written medium. I was definitely NOT making fun of the fact Stow was in a coma. I happen to loathe the type of attitude that causes moron fans to beat another one simply because of the cap they might be wearing……really don’t like violence at all. What struck me funny was the simplistic nature or obviousness of the sentence that I highlighted. Stow was in a coma for a couple of months. and he is only “believed” to have suffered significant brain damage? Sure, I’m not a doctor and perhaps you can lapse into a coma after that type of head trauma and not have serious brain damage, but still…..that seeming redundancy struck me as funny. NOT the injury or beating.

        and you may want to loosen your undies a bit : )

  21. purpleronin - Jun 15, 2011 at 9:53 PM

    Are you really that dim? You seem to have a republican like aversion to the truth – just kinda fling it up there and see if it sticks ehh? The trial was held in Simi Valley known as a ‘coptown’ at that time because a HUGE percentage of LAPD lived there. You could hardly have found a demographically more white community in L.A County, outside of Bel Air. When the trial was moved to Simi it was seen as a huge blow to the defense and I can recall CNN/cspan all but declared the trial over b4 it started! And, as I also recall, the jury had its fair share of caucasians…

  22. nudeman - Jun 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM

    Purdueman, I don’t remember testimony about her screwing a plumber; I do however remember testimony about being in the hot tub with some guy named Keith Zlomzowitcz, or something like that. OJ, who made his name in life for being a fine, upstanding parent, was upset that they were doing it when/where the kids could see.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2519)
  2. C. Correa (2517)
  3. Y. Puig (2512)
  4. B. Crawford (2403)
  5. H. Pence (2273)
  1. G. Springer (2224)
  2. H. Ramirez (2158)
  3. M. Teixeira (2144)
  4. J. Hamilton (2126)
  5. J. Baez (2097)