O.J. In The News Again

[tv]

I believe most of us have received infractions -- so guess we're all victims of the injustice of inequality on this board.But if we're all victims of the injustice of equality wouldn't that make us equal? :tongue:

[William Anthony]

But if we're all victims of the injustice of equality wouldn't that make us equal? :tongue:

If that were true. We are off topic.

[weezer]

But if we're all victims of the injustice of equality wouldn't that make us equal? :tongue:

:D :eek: :shrug:

[weezer]

As I see it, the discussions relevant to this thread dealt with the concepts of justice, right and wrong, and fairness and the display of blacks, despite the allegation that 9/10 of them felt that Simpson was in someway involved in the murders.

As I see it, you have taken it upon yourself to change the topic on this thead -- why not just start a new thread with your topic?

[William Anthony]

The topic of this thread is Simpson in the news again.

[William Anthony]

As I see it, you have taken it upon yourself to change the topic on this thead -- why not just start a new thread with your topic?

I posted it on the wrong thread and deleted it. I apologize to the community for my mistake.

[William Anthony]

I have been able to find some information on a property owner's right to use force to retrieve his property under Nevada law. It seems that a property owner can use reasonable force. I believe then the question will become what force is reasonable under the circumstances.

[weezer]

“Property of another person” defined. “Property of another person” means real, personal or intangible property in which any person other than the defendant has an interest which the defendant is not privileged to infringe, including, without limitation, property in which the defendant also has an interest, notwithstanding that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as contraband. Property in the possession of the defendant in which another person has only a security interest shall be deemed not to be the property of that other person, even if that person holds legal title to the property pursuant to a security agreement.

[weezer]

Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person convicted of burglary is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. A person who is convicted of burglary and who has previously been convicted of burglary or another crime involving the forcible entry or invasion of a dwelling must not be released on probation or granted a suspension of his sentence.

3. Whenever a burglary is committed on a vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, in motion or in rest, in this State, and it cannot with reasonable certainty be ascertained in what county the crime was committed, the offender may be arrested and tried in any county through which the vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car traveled during the time the burglary was committed.

4. A person convicted of burglary who has in his possession or gains possession of any firearm or deadly weapon at any time during the commission of the crime, at any time before leaving the structure or upon leaving the structure, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.

[martin II]

can we also post under multiple nics? :tongue:

This is totally off topic and a stick out your tongue personal comment.
Maby you would want to delete it.imo

[weezer]

"Robbery
Many states define robbery as theft/larceny of property or money through the offender's use of physical force or fear against a victim. Where a deadly weapon such as a gun is used or the victim suffers injury, the robbery may be charged as "armed" or "aggravated." Unlike burglary, the crime of robbery almost always requires the presence of a victim who suffers actual injury, or is threatened with harm.

For example, Dan approaches Victor from behind, demanding Victor's wallet while pressing a hard object into his back. Fearing that Dan has a gun, Victor gives up his wallet. If Dan did use a gun, or if Victor suffered an injury, the charge would likely be elevated to "armed" or "aggravated" robbery."

[tv]

This is totally off topic and a stick out your tongue personal comment.
Maby you would want to delete it.imoThis comment was posted yesterday. Why bring it up now? Unless you know of someone posting under multiple nics I don't know why you consider this a personal comment.

[weezer]

Nevada Robbery . . .

"Robbery is defined as larceny by the threat of violence. Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. . ."

"The element of force differentiates robbery from embezzlement, larceny, and other types of theft. . . Armed robbery involves the use of a weapon. . ."

[weezer]

"Nevada Kidnapping . .

Kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This is often done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime. A majority of jurisdictions in the United States retain the "asportation" element for kidnapping, where the victim must be confined in a bounded area against their will and moved. Any amount of movement will suffice for the requirement, even if it is moving the abductee to a house next door."

[martin II]

“Property of another person” defined. “Property of another person” means real, personal or intangible property in which any person other than the defendant has an interest which the defendant is not privileged to infringe, including, without limitation, property in which the defendant also has an interest, notwithstanding that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as contraband. Property in the possession of the defendant in which another person has only a security interest shall be deemed not to be the property of that other person, even if that person holds legal title to the property pursuant to a security agreement.

In this case the "SELLERS" were in posession of stolen goods and they had no legal right to posession of the goods.They were present in the hotel room
with the intent to make a illegal sale transaction.

[weezer]

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: as·por·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "as-p&r-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin asportatio, from asportare to carry off, from abs- away + portare to carry

: a carrying away; specifically : the carrying away of someone else's property that is an element of larceny

[martin II]

This comment was posted yesterday. Why bring it up now? Unless you know of someone posting under multiple nics I don't know why you consider this a personal comment.

I just saw it today.imo It does not matter when it was posted. it is there.

[martin II]

"Robbery
Many states define robbery as theft/larceny of property or money through the offender's use of physical force or fear against a victim. Where a deadly weapon such as a gun is used or the victim suffers injury, the robbery may be charged as "armed" or "aggravated." Unlike burglary, the crime of robbery almost always requires the presence of a victim who suffers actual injury, or is threatened with harm.

For example, Dan approaches Victor from behind, demanding Victor's wallet while pressing a hard object into his back. Fearing that Dan has a gun, Victor gives up his wallet. If Dan did use a gun, or if Victor suffered an injury, the charge would likely be elevated to "armed" or "aggravated" robbery."

In this case oj did not put a gun to victor and did not demand any property of victor.

[tv]

I just saw it today.imo It does not matter when it was posted. it is there.Accept my apology, martin. I'm sure you brought this up in an effort to to improve the quality of postings in this community. I forgot about your mission. :)

[martin II]

Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person convicted of burglary is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. A person who is convicted of burglary and who has previously been convicted of burglary or another crime involving the forcible entry or invasion of a dwelling must not be released on probation or granted a suspension of his sentence.

3. Whenever a burglary is committed on a vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, in motion or in rest, in this State, and it cannot with reasonable certainty be ascertained in what county the crime was committed, the offender may be arrested and tried in any county through which the vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car traveled during the time the burglary was committed.

4. A person convicted of burglary who has in his possession or gains possession of any firearm or deadly weapon at any time during the commission of the crime, at any time before leaving the structure or upon leaving the structure, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.

1. Oj did none of this

2. NA

3. NA

4 NA

[martin II]

Accept my apology, martin. I'm sure you brought this up in an effort to to improve the quality of postings in this community. I forgot about your mission. :)

TV
Personal attacks do seem to distract the discussion which is why i try very hard not to make them.I am not perfect but i do try. Thanks

[martin II]

"Nevada Kidnapping . .

Kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This is often done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime. A majority of jurisdictions in the United States retain the "asportation" element for kidnapping, where the victim must be confined in a bounded area against their will and moved. Any amount of movement will suffice for the requirement, even if it is moving the abductee to a house next door."

Thanks for posting this, as i have posted before on the "ASPORTATION" requirement before.

"Asportation" did not take place in this case as no 'SELLER" was moved from where they were initially.

[weezer]

Thanks for posting this, as i have posted before on the "ASPORTATION" requirement before.

"Asportation" did not take place in this case as no 'SELLER" was moved from where they were initially.

LOL -- you need to read the definition of 'asportation' -- ;)

[tv]

TV
Personal attacks do seem to distract the discussion which is why i try very hard not to make them.I am not perfect but i do try. ThanksYou're welcome.

[tv]

LOL -- you need to read the definition of 'asportation' -- ;)Thanks for suggesting reading the definition of 'asportation'. It's not exactly what I thought it was.

[William Anthony]

“Property of another person” defined. “Property of another person” means real, personal or intangible property in which any person other than the defendant has an interest which the defendant is not privileged to infringe, including, without limitation, property in which the defendant also has an interest, notwithstanding that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as contraband. Property in the possession of the defendant in which another person has only a security interest shall be deemed not to be the property of that other person, even if that person holds legal title to the property pursuant to a security agreement.

I posted the case law in Nevada on robbery. The case law says robbery is the intend to deprive a person of his property, not the property of another.

[William Anthony]

Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person convicted of burglary is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. A person who is convicted of burglary and who has previously been convicted of burglary or another crime involving the forcible entry or invasion of a dwelling must not be released on probation or granted a suspension of his sentence.

3. Whenever a burglary is committed on a vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, in motion or in rest, in this State, and it cannot with reasonable certainty be ascertained in what county the crime was committed, the offender may be arrested and tried in any county through which the vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car traveled during the time the burglary was committed.

4. A person convicted of burglary who has in his possession or gains possession of any firearm or deadly weapon at any time during the commission of the crime, at any time before leaving the structure or upon leaving the structure, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.

"With the intent."

[William Anthony]

Nevada Robbery . . .

"Robbery is defined as larceny by the threat of violence. Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. . ."

"The element of force differentiates robbery from embezzlement, larceny, and other types of theft. . . Armed robbery involves the use of a weapon. . ."

Can you post what comes after intimidation?

[weezer]

Can you post what comes after intimidation?

no problem: ". A. . ."

[weezer]

"With the intent."

so you don't believe orenthal when he said why he was going there?

[William Anthony]

so you don't believe orenthal when he said why he was going there?

I believe he said his intent was to take back his property.

[William Anthony]

no problem: ". A. . ."

:) :) :)

[weezer]

I believe he said his intent was to take back his property.

what do you believe, "Take it all!" meant?

[William Anthony]

what do you believe, "Take it all!" meant?

We have gone over this. He could have been saying take all that is in the pile that he believed belonged to him. He could have been saying I want my stuff, take it all. I think we will have to let it play out in court.

[martin II]

LOL -- you need to read the definition of 'asportation' -- ;)

I think it may be you that need to read it.

[martin II]

This issue of Aspertation was initially disscussed in relation to kidnapping
of victims and moving them form their original place. I have no idea for what or how you are using it.imo

[weezer]

This issue of Aspertation was initially disscussed in relation to kidnapping
of victims and moving them form their original place. I have no idea for what or how you are using it.imo

I posted the definition. obviously you have chosen to make up your own. LOL

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: as·por·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "as-p&r-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin asportatio, from asportare to carry off, from abs- away + portare to carry

: a carrying away; specifically : the carrying away of someone else's property that is an element of larceny

[martin II]

We have gone over this. He could have been saying take all that is in the pile that he believed belonged to him. He could have been saying I want my stuff, take it all. I think we will have to let it play out in court.

"i only want my stuff" does not sound like any intent to take any stuff that was not his. "Give him back his cell phone" does not sound like intent to take his cell. It seems to me that oj was pointing to HIS stuff and it was being piled on that bed.That imo is when the take it all( in the pile as they were leaving) was spoken. OJ did not walk out with anything in his hands and NO ONE asked either victim to give them something that was theirs.imo

[martin II]

I posted the definition. obviously you have chosen to make up your own. LOL

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: as·por·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "as-p&r-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin asportatio, from asportare to carry off, from abs- away + portare to carry

: a carrying away; specifically : the carrying away of someone else's property that is an element of larceny

I hve not made up anything . i have posted Aspertation from legal media and lawyers post and i believe you know this.

What ever was taken 'AWAY' from the room did not belong to the victims
as it was stolen goods from oj simpson. So imo your definition does not apply to the case.imo

[weezer]

I hve not made up anything . i have posted Aspertation from legal media and lawyers post and i believe you know this.

What ever was taken 'AWAY' from the room did not belong to the victims
as it was stolen goods from oj simpson. So imo your definition does not apply to the case.imo

I've posted the definition I found for 'aspertation' -- how about you post the definition you found.

[weezer]

"i only want my stuff" does not sound like any intent to take any stuff that was not his. "Give him back his cell phone" does not sound like intent to take his cell. It seems to me that oj was pointing to HIS stuff and it was being piled on that bed.That imo is when the take it all( in the pile as they were leaving) was spoken. OJ did not walk out with anything in his hands and NO ONE asked either victim to give them something that was theirs.imo

"Up against the wall", "Over there!", "Take it all!", the guy begging orenthal not to break/take the phone -- doesn't sound like he was after his 'sh*t' -- sounds like an armed robbery to me.

if nothing else, orenthal should thank the powers to be that the guy didn't have the heart attack during all of that happening instead of afterwards.

I think it's going to be especially interesting to see what comes out about orenthal and his 'sh*t' from the people who know --

[martin II]

Although the statute does not say it, Nevada law--like most jurisdictions in the United States--imposes the additional element of "asportation" to the crime of kidnapping. Asportation means that the victim must be confined in a bounded area and then moved. Almost any amount of movement will suffice, but it usually must be movement outside the bounded area.

[weezer]

Although the statute does not say it, Nevada law--like most jurisdictions in the United States--imposes the additional element of "asportation" to the crime of kidnapping. Asportation means that the victim must be confined in a bounded area and then moved. Almost any amount of movement will suffice, but it usually must be movement outside the bounded area.

martin, can you post the link to this please.

[martin II]

"Up against the wall", "Over there!", "Take it all!", the guy begging orenthal not to break/take the phone -- doesn't sound like he was after his 'sh*t' -- sounds like an armed robbery to me.

if nothing else, orenthal should thank the powers to be that the guy didn't have the heart attack during all of that happening instead of afterwards.

I think it's going to be especially interesting to see what comes out about orenthal and his 'sh*t' from the people who know --

I believe the jury will sort out who said what.
I think "people who know" would be the ca superior judge that refused to give the goods to fred after he asked for them.imo

[weezer]

I believe the jury will sort out who said what.
I think "people who know" would be the ca superior judge that refused to give the goods to fred after he asked for them.imo

I think you're right and orenthal has made it easy for them by his usual screaming, ranting and raving -- LOL

orenthal surrounded himself with these folks after the trial -- they helped him steal and hide assets from the Goldmans and Brown Estate. I think it is going to be fun to watch that unravel.

you can gloat over the Goldmans and Brown Estate not getting the 'goods' when orenthal gets to take them home. ;)

[martin II]

martin, can you post the link to this please.

You are asking for a link.
I will look for it.

Who was moved?????

Meanwhile

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_22_cfa_19970328_150435_asm_comm.html



Kidnapping - Applicable Law .

a) Simple kidnapping, and kidnapping for robbery and for
sexual offenses, requires that the victim be moved a
substantial distance (asportation) by means of force or
other means of instilling fear. People v. Alcala (1984) 36
Cal.3d 604, 621-622; People v. Moya (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th
912. (See Penal Code Section 207.) In simple kidnapping,
there need not be any specific intent proved for the
asportation, although taking away a child so as to prevent
imminent harm to the child is not kidnapping. ( People v.
Rodriquez 42 Cal.3d 1005, 1016-1017.)

[martin II]

I think you're right and orenthal has made it easy for them by his usual screaming, ranting and raving -- LOL

orenthal surrounded himself with these folks after the trial -- they helped him steal and hide assets from the Goldmans and Brown Estate. I think it is going to be fun to watch that unravel.

you can gloat over the Goldmans and Brown Estate not getting the 'goods' when orenthal gets to take them home. ;)

Is it against the law for one to yell? maby someplaces.
OJ gave fred everything the civil court judge ordered him to give up for the auction.
How did oj help anyone 'STEAL' his own goods.

Weezer. I am not sure i know how to 'GLOAT'
martin II:cool:

[William Anthony]

okay let's get this over with. I am not backing down on my statement that you thought kennedy should do jail time -- that was the tone of your posts when you compared him to orenthal.

I don't know how I overlooked this. You talk about the tone of my posts. I think it was clear that the tone of my posts was that Kennedy was allowed to plea to a lesser charge, fleeing the scene of an accident, which negated a trial and all the facts coming out and there was not the public outcry against his preferential treatment as their was to the Simpson criminal verdict. You then posted that I said Kennedy should go to jail. I never said that and asked you to point it out. You could not and now want to place your slant on my posts.

I think I have made myself clear on my feelings about the presumption of innocence, which would apply to Kennedy irrespective of the charges, until he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the appellate process had been exhausted. I still believe that you owe an apology to this community.
are you saying that anyone charged with manslaughter should not do time?

[William Anthony]

This is the law on kidnapping that will be applicable in this case.

"NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony."

[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05]—(NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)

I believe the words in bold are the ones applicable to the case. Since I believe the state will have a difficult if not impossible burden of proving robbery (intent and ownership), the words in bold would therefore be the ones to ultimately be considered. Because Nevada law allows a property owner to use reasonable force to retrieve his property, I believe the state must prove that it was unreasonable not irrational for Simpson to have acted (use of force) in the manner that he did under the circumstances. Therefore, I believe the main focus of the trial will be intent, ownership of the property and reasonableness under the circumstances.

[William Anthony]

Tru Tv may be showing a hearing in the Simpson trial. One issue is supposed to be the jury questionnaire, and questions about what Simpson answered on his interrogatories about his property in the civil suit. They say the answer is that Simpson said he owned nothing but his home and furnishings and his defense is that the property was stolen and, therefore, he did not include it.

[William Anthony]

It appears that the hearing will not be televised.

[William Anthony]

I believe the jury will sort out who said what.
I think "people who know" would be the ca superior judge that refused to give the goods to fred after he asked for them.imo

It would appear to me that this would mean that the California judge did not want to decide the concept of ownership, which would necessitate a ruling on whether or not he believed the goods had been stolen from Simpson. I think he decided to leave it to Nevada to sort out.

[William Anthony]

Nevada Robbery . . .

"Robbery is defined as larceny by the threat of violence. Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. . ."

"The element of force differentiates robbery from embezzlement, larceny, and other types of theft. . . Armed robbery involves the use of a weapon. . ."

I think I now understand your response and why, when I asked you to post what followed intimidation. I found the source of your post and it was an advertisement for a law firm. I think the firm put forth a general idea on the concept of robbery and not the statutory definition. Here is what followed Intimidation.

Nevada Robbery Criminal Defense Attorney

"Robbery is defines as larceny by the threat of violence. Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. A perpetrator of a robbery is a robber. Violence is an ingredient of most robberies, and its use sometimes results in the murder of the victim(s). Robbery is generally an urban crime. In common with most legal terms, the precise definition of robbery varies between jurisdictions.

The element of force differentiates robbery from embezzlement, larceny, and other types of theft. Piracy is a type of robbery. Armed robbery involves the use of a weapon. Highway robbery takes place outside and in a public place. Carjacking is the act of stealing a car from a victim, usually at gunpoint. We work with experienced Nevada Criminal Defense Attorney's in each state. We provide state and federal Nevada Criminal Defense Attorney referrals to individuals facing major crimes. "

[weezer]

Tru Tv may be showing a hearing in the Simpson trial. One issue is supposed to be the jury questionnaire, and questions about what Simpson answered on his interrogatories about his property in the civil suit. They say the answer is that Simpson said he owned nothing but his home and furnishings and his defense is that the property was stolen and, therefore, he did not include it.

hmmm -- so orenthal said he didn't own that 'sh*t' he went after with a gun? go figure.

[weezer]

I think I now understand your response and why, when I asked you to post what followed intimidation. I found the source of your post and it was an advertisement for a law firm. I think the firm put forth a general idea on the concept of robbery and not the statutory definition. Here is what followed Intimidation.

Nevada Robbery Criminal Defense Attorney

"Robbery is defines as larceny by the threat of violence. Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. A perpetrator of a robbery is a robber. Violence is an ingredient of most robberies, and its use sometimes results in the murder of the victim(s). Robbery is generally an urban crime. In common with most legal terms, the precise definition of robbery varies between jurisdictions.

The element of force differentiates robbery from embezzlement, larceny, and other types of theft. Piracy is a type of robbery. Armed robbery involves the use of a weapon. Highway robbery takes place outside and in a public place. Carjacking is the act of stealing a car from a victim, usually at gunpoint. We work with experienced Nevada Criminal Defense Attorney's in each state. We provide state and federal Nevada Criminal Defense Attorney referrals to individuals facing major crimes. "

I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify my post but. . . .actually, what followed 'intimidation' was: ". . .A perpetrator of a robbery is a robber. Violence is an ingredient of most robberies, and its use sometimes results in the murder of the victim(s). Robbery is generally an urban crime. In common with most legal terms, the precise definition of robbery varies between jurisdictions. . ." I didn't post it because I didn't think it was pertinent to the discussion.

BTW: which part of the description do you think is wrong in this advertisement?

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- so orenthal said he didn't own that 'sh*t' he went after with a gun? go figure.

Own as in possession or in title. Those are distinctions in the law.

[socaldiva]

hmmm -- so orenthal said he didn't own that 'sh*t' he went after with a gun? go figure.

It probably clashed with his ugly azz shoes :D

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify my post but. . . .actually, what followed 'intimidation' was: ". . .A perpetrator of a robbery is a robber. Violence is an ingredient of most robberies, and its use sometimes results in the murder of the victim(s). Robbery is generally an urban crime. In common with most legal terms, the precise definition of robbery varies between jurisdictions. . ." I didn't post it because I didn't think it was pertinent to the discussion.

BTW: which part of the description do you think is wrong in this advertisement?

I think all posts should be a clear as possible and there was no need to take it personally. I also think that when a quote is made there should be a link to it. There may not be anything wrong in this general definition but I prefer the statutory definition.

[William Anthony]

A witness at the preliminary hearing said that Simpson asked them to carry guns.

[weezer]

A witness at the preliminary hearing said that Simpson asked them to carry guns.

I heard somewhere that there is/could be an audio of that AND an audio of orenthal being told by an attorney not to carry out his plan. Anyone else remember seeing/reading this?

[socaldiva]

I heard somewhere that there is/could be an audio of that AND an audio of orenthal being told by an attorney not to carry out his plan. Anyone else remember seeing/reading this?

I seem to recall this also......

[William Anthony]

I heard somewhere that there is/could be an audio of that AND an audio of orenthal being told by an attorney not to carry out his plan. Anyone else remember seeing/reading this?

Not I.

[teachercrime]

Can you please give more details?


http://www.teachercrime.com

[William Anthony]

Can you please give more details?


http://www.teachercrime.com

Welcome aboard. I personally do not think I know of any details other than those that have been posted. I hope the trial in September will be televised but I doubt it.

[bobaugust]

400 Potential Jurors To Be Screened For OJ Simpson Trial

http://www.ktnv.com/global/story.asp?s=8368405

Close to 400 potential jurors will be screened to serve on the jury in OJ Simpson's trial.

A judge told lawyers potential jurors will have to fill out a questionnaire with at least 115 questions.

Those questions have not been made public.

Simpson and two other men are accused of robbing a sports memorabilia dealer at Palace Station last year.

The trial starts September 8th.

Stay tuned to Action News as we monitor developing news around the Valley.

[martin II]

Can you please give more details?


http://www.teachercrime.com

Is this relative to ' OJ IN THE NEWS AGAIN"

[weezer]

Is this relative to ' OJ IN THE NEWS AGAIN"

WTH -- evidently william thought it was when he posted updates on orenthal's hearings. the poster was asking for more details -- :shrug:

[martin II]

WTH -- evidently william thought it was when he posted updates on orenthal's hearings. the poster was asking for more details -- :shrug:

i was speaking about the web site listing crimes against children.

[weezer]

Simpson To Star In Winner's Next Film?
16 April 2008 5:11 AM, PDT | From wenn.com | See recent WENN news

British film director Michael Winner is hoping his pal O.J. Simpson will star in his next movie.

The Death Wish hitmaker forged an unlikely friendship with the sportsman-turned-actor last year and now the pair is collaborating on a possible film role for Simpson.

The former American football player was sensationally acquitted of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1994, and has since landed a variety of movie cameo roles.

But Winner insists he doesn't let his friend's troubled past affect their working relationship.

He jokes, "He's a very nice man for a double murderer.

"He came to see me about a year ago, and I said to (his fiancee) Geraldine, 'Answer the door, dear, and if he comes to the door with a knife throw yourself in front of me.'"

[tv]

I hope Fred Goldman's taking notes. ;)

[William Anthony]

A man of perspicacity! I wonder who would play Simpson in such a movie? Tom Cruise can work himself up into a rant especially around Scientology approved sofas..wait, wrong racial type. So, who could portray a man who knows how to play football, wield a knife and burst into hotel rooms?


That didn't make a difference in the minstrel shows, or when Whites played Native Americans in the movies. I must say that there is some truth in your post, since, historically speaking, White men use gun power, bombs and chemicals to commit mass murder and some used knifes to take scalps and it might be hard to you if you buy in the stereotype that White men can't run or jump and usually kill the kids too. Personally, I don't and would not go to see such a movie. I'd rather sit at home posting on the board and devouring a bowl of crackers. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

Couldn't help but notice that the level of posting went down after a certain poster started posting on these threads and even complained when we had a cordial day of discussion on race, religion and politics. IMHO. Things that make you go...

[weezer]

Couldn't help but notice that the level of posting went down after a certain poster started posting on these threads and even complained when we had a cordial day of discussion on race, religion and politics. IMHO. Things that make you go...

who are you dissing? limakey or martin?

[William Anthony]

who are you dissing? limakey or martin?

Not dissing anyone, just making an observation. I think it was tvdinner who responded to the poster, informing of our cordial day of posting. IIRC, you might have posted twice on that day. I don't think Limakey posted at all that day or the following day. The complaint was made the following day or same night, depending on the poster's neck of the woods; night, IIRC. That is my observation. I am positive it was day time where martin lives, when the post was made.

[martin II]

who are you dissing? limakey or martin?

weezer
I might as well just ask as others have asked me and i had no answer.

The toes represent or stand for what?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I am going to apologize to the board, because this is off topic but you seem to know about Australia. Do you know if they have a lot of big-mouth bass there?

[SlowHandSam]

weezer
I might as well just ask as others have asked me and i had no answer.

The toes represent or stand for what?

it's simply that little kids' fat toes are cute.

<shrug> LOL

(that's really the answer, btw)

[martin II]

Martin,

I am going to apologize to the board, because this is off topic but you seem to know about Australia. Do you know if they have a lot of big-mouth bass there?

I don't know but if so, it seems that one escaped and landed here.

[William Anthony]

it's simply that little kids' fat toes are cute.

<shrug> LOL

(that's really the answer, btw)

Didn't you mean to say little boys' (that southern thing)?

[William Anthony]

I don't know but if so, it seems that one escaped and landed here.

Oh my, somebody grab it and pay its fare back, please?

[SlowHandSam]

Didn't you mean to say little boys' (that southern thing)?

nope, I didn't because even girls have cute fat toes. Well little kid girls. LOL

it's not a gender thing.

Not super sure why you are being rude when I gave an honest answer - and did so politely.

[William Anthony]

nope, I didn't because even girls have cute fat toes. Well little kid girls. LOL

it's not a gender thing.

Not super sure why you are being rude when I gave an honest answer - and did so politely.

I was not being impolite. I have never known any little girl with toes that size but its been a long time since I have been south. I seriously thought they were an adult's toes. Maybe, it's just the picture.

[martin II]

nope, I didn't because even girls have cute fat toes. Well little kid girls. LOL

it's not a gender thing.

Not super sure why you are being rude when I gave an honest answer - and did so politely.

shs
The question was to weezer
How about you allow her to speak for her own toes.

[SlowHandSam]

shs
The question was to weezer
How about you allow her to speak for her own toes.

apologies to others for being OT ...

martin when you stop answering for your William, I'll not answer for FBG. Sounds like a good trade off, really.

And why do you have to be so dang rude? I answered, politely, with the real answer to the toes.

I was trying to be civil and you and WA attack. Tell me why that is?

[William Anthony]

THREAD-DERAILMENT

W.A.
Can't we excape your off-topic RANTS anywhere???????????????????????????

This topic is about a FALL of O.J.'s girlfriend.

The police have made it clear that it is NOT a criminal investigation and that O.J. is NOT A SUSPECT.

O.J. has NOT been arrested!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO trial with ANY evidence.
IMO

jotun
__________________
Some want to believe that O.J. gave the victims those

'COLUMBIAN NECKLACES'

It's from another thread but I just wanted to share it with you. The old off topic rants. Who'da thunk it?:biggrin:

I think you brought up the racial innuendos on this thread with you irrelevant, immaterial, off topic, offensive, unthinking, rude, disrespectful and asinine remarks because that is all you have to offer. What do you think, if you can?:seeya: ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

apologies to others for being OT ...

martin when you stop answering for your William, I'll not answer for FBG. Sounds like a good trade off, really.

And why do you have to be so dang rude? I answered, politely, with the real answer to the toes.

I was trying to be civil and you and WA attack. Tell me why that is?

I did not attack you and explained what I thought. You made the post, speaking of the difference between southerners and northerners, so, as I thought they were pictures of adult male toes, I asked why you did not use the word boys. You explained and I accepted and told you why I questioned you. Why are you still mentioning my name and accusing me? If the pictures are pictures of Texas toes, maybe its true, with the exceptions of politeness and brain power (I believe they are irrelevant to a person's location) that things grow bigger in Texas.

[martin II]

apologies to others for being OT ...

martin when you stop answering for your William, I'll not answer for FBG. Sounds like a good trade off, really.

And why do you have to be so dang rude? I answered, politely, with the real answer to the toes.

I was trying to be civil and you and WA attack. Tell me why that is?

you cannot stop can you.
you answer a post not addressed to you and now you are arguing as a result
of you not being to mind your own business as if you had some.
please stop being such a pest.
imo

[tv]

you cannot stop can you.
you answer a post not addressed to you and now you are arguing as a result
of you not being to mind your own business as if you had some.
please stop being such a pest.
imo

I'll remind you what WA said about responding to a post not directed at him..."News flash, this is a public forum...". If you and WA have something to discuss that you don't want commented on by other posters please take it to PM.

[martin II]

I'll remind you what WA said about responding to a post not directed at him..."News flash, this is a public forum...". If you and WA have something to discuss that you don't want commented on by other posters please take it to PM.

Discussing issues and answering for others in a effort to seek arguments are two different things.

[tv]

Discussing issues and answering for others in a effort to seek arguments are two different things.I hope you will try to remember that.

[SlowHandSam]

Discussing issues and answering for others in a effort to seek arguments are two different things.

I wasn't the one picking a fight. I gave an honest, polite answer. Even laughed a little because I thought it was funny.

Y'all went on the standard response mode.

Just remember that you both have told me that you have the right to respond to anyone at any time.

there is now 3 threads derailed by some fashion or other with all this bullcrap.

Can we PLEASE get back to the dang discussions about OJ?

[martin II]

I'll remind you what WA said about responding to a post not directed at him..."News flash, this is a public forum...". If you and WA have something to discuss that you don't want commented on by other posters please take it to PM.

TV
The question was to weezer about her toes not toes belonging to all posters.

[William Anthony]

apologies to others for being OT ...

martin when you stop answering for your William, I'll not answer for FBG. Sounds like a good trade off, really.

And why do you have to be so dang rude? I answered, politely, with the real answer to the toes.

I was trying to be civil and you and WA attack. Tell me why that is?

Let me remind you that I am not owned by Martin nor do we have any type of relationship, especially sexual, that would allow you to post that I am his. Your post seems to be calling martin and me homosexuals. Is this the sort of posting you want to engage in?

[tv]

Let me remind you that I am not owned by Martin nor do we have any type of relationship, especially sexual, that would allow you to post that I am his. Your post seems to be calling martin and me homosexuals. Is this the sort of posting you want to engage in?It's certainly no worse than the trash you posted on the Prody thread. Your imagination is working overtime again. There's no mention of homosexuality in that post.

[William Anthony]

It's certainly no worse than the trash you posted on the Prody thread. Your imagination is working overtime again. There's no mention of homosexuality in that post.

I was not the one who spoke of Ms. Prody's alleged character. I did not say there was a mention of it. You need not worry your southern self about my northern imagination. I said it was implied. I think the poster is capable of typing your friend, William, if that was the poster's intention.

[tv]

I was not the one who spoke of Ms. Prody's alleged character. I did not say there was a mention of it. You need not worry your southern self about my northern imagination. I said it was implied. I think the poster is capable of typing your friend, William, if that was the poster's intention.You are so far off the charts in your responses lately I don't even know how to answer you. This forum is turning into bizarro world.

[William Anthony]

You are so far off the charts in your responses lately I don't even know how to answer you. This forum is turning into bizarro world.

I agree that the posts are becoming bizarre with the additions of fried chicken, boys, wrong racial types, Somalian Blacks, scratching heads, your martin, your William and jungle fever remarks. As I have stated, I try to communicate with a poster in a language they will understand. As I have said, it seemed to have started shortly after a certain poster joined our discussions. If I have forgotten one of those types of remarks that sired the discussions, please forgive me.

[tv]

I agree that the posts are becoming bizarre with the additions of fried chicken, boys, wrong racial types, Somalian Blacks, scratching heads, your martin, your William and jungle fever remarks. As I have stated, I try to communicate with a poster in a language they will understand. As I have said, it seemed to have started shortly after a certain poster joined our discussions. If I have forgotten one of those types of remarks that sired the discussions, please forgive me.This post is a perfect example of how far away from the subject the discussion has moved. Do you think it would be possible to get back on the subject of OJ In The News Again?

[William Anthony]

This post is a perfect example of how far away from the subject the discussion has moved. Do you think it would be possible to get back on the subject of OJ In The News Again?

Why tvdinner, of course. I am use to your wanting to get back on topic when the truth is pointed out and you do not like it. ;) :cool:

[martin II]

This post is a perfect example of how far away from the subject the discussion has moved. Do you think it would be possible to get back on the subject of OJ In The News Again?

tv

Since there has been no complaint by you against the use of the above words directed at myself, am i to assume that you are in agreement that they are ok for this forum.You usually complain when you think something is not appropreate. imo

[tv]

tv

Since there has been no complaint by you against the use of the above words directed at myself, am i to assume that you are in agreement that they are ok for this forum.You usually complain when you think something is not appropreate. imo

Did you complain when William called me an insensitive b****? You didn't make one peep, which is fine, because I can take up for myself. I'm going to have to assume you agree with him.

[William Anthony]

Did you complain when William called me an insensitive b****? You didn't make one peep, which is fine, because I can take up for myself. I'm going to have to assume you agree with him.

Never did either. :cool:

[martin II]

Did you complain when William called me an insensitive b****? You didn't make one peep, which is fine, because I can take up for myself. I'm going to have to assume you agree with him.


i never saw anyone call you what you claim BUT that has nothing to do with my post to you about whether you consider bells names appropreate?

[tv]

i never saw anyone call you what you claim BUT that has nothing to do with my post to you about whether you consider bells names appropreate?

This is the OJ In The News Again thread. I've been guilty of being off-topic but I'm going to stop as of now. Consider it my contribution to raising the level of posting on this forum.

[William Anthony]

This is the OJ In The News Again thread. I've been guilty of being off-topic but I'm going to stop as of now. Consider it my contribution to raising the level of posting on this forum.

I think you could do better if you immediately stand up when you see racially offensive remarks being posted.

[William Anthony]

Hello everybody:seeya:

I am a refugee from insession/the old court tv forums, eh?

I am following along the best that i can concerning OJ..

I most likely missed seeing it, but can anyone give me a trial date?

tia

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/cbef7c79e6.jpg

Hello,

The last I heard was September 18th, IIRC.

[witchywoman]

Hello,

The last I heard was September 18th, IIRC.

Thank you so much...


eta, I had forgot about these forums, but glad i found them

[tv]

I think you could do better if you immediately stand up when you see racially offensive remarks being posted.Well, so much for extending the olive branch. That sure didn't last long. Perhaps you could do better if you didn't make such remarks.

[William Anthony]

Thank you so much...


eta, I had forgot about these forums, but glad i found them

Glad to have you here.

[William Anthony]

Well, so much for extending the olive branch. That sure didn't last long. Perhaps you could do better if you didn't make such remarks.

I do not understand how that could take back the branch. I simply meant that we should all take that stand. I do not know what you could find uninviting by my post.

[William Anthony]

Fly my pretties fly!!

But where will they fly to? The land of milk and occasional murder that is celebrity LA? Past the Dancing Itos? Past Cochran? Past Cora? Past the murders of 2 people? Past their shades?

Resume the experiments.

They may fly to the land of snow balls, past trailer parks loaded with crackers, past the land where redneck woodpeckers fly, to the land down under only to find that they do want them disturbing their assumed superior snow balls.

[tv]

I do not understand how that could take back the branch. I simply meant that we should all take that stand. I do not know what you could find uninviting by my post.The fact that you hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. I haven't taken back the branch; I've yet to fully extend it.

[witchywoman]

Glad to have you here.

Thank u, im sure glad i found this place, lol

[William Anthony]

The fact that you hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. I haven't taken back the branch; I've yet to fully extend it.

Then I understand to where you stand. Let me also extend to you the right to communicate to others in the manner they communicate to you and other posters, so that I do not seem sexist, as did MF. I truly did not think I needed to extend my second offer. ;) :cool:

[tv]

They may fly to the land of snow balls, past trailer parks loaded with crackers, past the land where redneck woodpeckers fly, to the land down under only to find that they do want them disturbing their assumed superior snow balls.

Here you go again. William, this is too much. Do you think we are unaware on this forum that you are using racial slurs? Here are the difinitions from the urban dictionary:

cracker:
opposite of n*****, an insult to whites... except white people aren't dumb enough to walk around calling each other that word because it's intended to be demeaning. It originally referred to the cracking of the slave owner's whip.

peckerwood:
Southern blacks used "peckerwood" as a derogatory term to describe poor and/or rural Southern whites. A dictionary of African-American slang explains that the term "peckerwood" had its origins in the word "woodpecker." Blacks saw blackbirds as a symbol of themselves and the contrasting redheaded woodpecker as a representation of whites. Eventually, the word "woodpecker" was inverted to become "peckerwood" in an attempt to hide the meaning and origin of the term. Later, peckerwood came to be used in the North as well, as a general description for white people.

[William Anthony]

Thank u, im sure glad i found this place, lol

Please, do not let the antics of one poster keep you from joining in but I respect your right to change your mind.

[William Anthony]

Here you go again. William, this is too much. Do you think we are unaware on this forum that you are using racial slurs? Here are the difinitions from the urban dictionary:

cracker:
opposite of n*****, an insult to whites... except white people aren't dumb enough to walk around calling each other that word because it's intended to be demeaning. It originally referred to the cracking of the slave owner's whip.

peckerwood:
Southern blacks used "peckerwood" as a derogatory term to describe poor and/or rural Southern whites. A dictionary of African-American slang explains that the term "peckerwood" had its origins in the word "woodpecker." Blacks saw blackbirds as a symbol of themselves and the contrasting redheaded woodpecker as a representation of whites. Eventually, the word "woodpecker" was inverted to become "peckerwood" in an attempt to hide the meaning and origin of the term. Later, peckerwood came to be used in the North as well, as a general description for white people.

Cracker is a food and I do believe there is a species of woodpeckers with red necks.

Have you ever heard this.

flies, flies, I do despise,
the more I see Ns,
the more I like flies.

Mr. Bell's comments were not lost on me. I made no complaint at his comment about flies landing in celebrity in LA with celebrity status and simply made a statement as to other places they may fly.

[tv]

Cracker is a food and I do believe there is a species of woodpeckers with red necks.

Have you ever heard this.

flies, flies, I do despise,
the more I see Ns,
the more I like flies.

Mr. Bell's comments were not lost on me. I made no complaint at his comment about flies landing in celebrity in LA with celebrity status and simply made a statement as to other places they may fly.No, I've never heard that. I don't even know what you're talking about. I can take the slurs I just wanted you to know we are all aware of your meaning. I had to go back and look at what you're talking about. I think he was talking about the winged monkeys from The Wizard of Oz in response to our new poster. I saw no mention of flies (as in the flying insect.) :confused:

[William Anthony]

Here you go again. William, this is too much. Do you think we are unaware on this forum that you are using racial slurs? Here are the difinitions from the urban dictionary:

cracker:
opposite of n*****, an insult to whites... except white people aren't dumb enough to walk around calling each other that word because it's intended to be demeaning. It originally referred to the cracking of the slave owner's whip.

peckerwood:
Southern blacks used "peckerwood" as a derogatory term to describe poor and/or rural Southern whites. A dictionary of African-American slang explains that the term "peckerwood" had its origins in the word "woodpecker." Blacks saw blackbirds as a symbol of themselves and the contrasting redheaded woodpecker as a representation of whites. Eventually, the word "woodpecker" was inverted to become "peckerwood" in an attempt to hide the meaning and origin of the term. Later, peckerwood came to be used in the North as well, as a general description for white people.

What do you think Mr. Bell meant by this part of his post.

"Past their shades?" As you see I did not use the term, peckerwood.

[William Anthony]

No, I've never heard that. I don't even know what you're talking about. I can take the slurs I just wanted you to know we are all aware of your meaning. I had to go back and look at what you're talking about. I think he was talking about the winged monkeys from The Wizard of Oz in response to our new poster. I saw no mention of flies (as in the flying insect.) :confused:

I am sure you are aware the monkeys was used as a term to describe Blacks. Either way his comments were not lost on me.

[tv]

What do you think Mr. Bell meant by this part of his post.

"Past their shades?"I took it to mean the ghosts of Ron and Nicole.

5 a: a disembodied spirit : ghost

What did you think it meant? Seriously. :confused:

[tv]

What do you think Mr. Bell meant by this part of his post.

"Past their shades?" As you see I did not use the term, peckerwood.

Eventually, the word "woodpecker" was inverted to become "peckerwood" in an attempt to hide the meaning and origin of the term.

I am sure you are aware the monkeys was used as a term to describe Blacks. Either way his comments were not lost on me.If you want to perceive a slight everywhere you look that's your problem. I suppose we have to add monkeys to the list of things we can't mention.

[William Anthony]

Eventually, the word "woodpecker" was inverted to become "peckerwood" in an attempt to hide the meaning and origin of the term.

If you want to perceive a slight everywhere you look that's your problem. I suppose we have to add monkeys to the list of things we can't mention.

I think that you have to consider the context in which words are used and the particular poster's history of posting. I did not take offense at the avatar of signature of the new poster. If it's alright to use boys, then I am sure its alright to use woodpecker.

[William Anthony]

Eventually, the word "woodpecker" was inverted to become "peckerwood" in an attempt to hide the meaning and origin of the term.

If you want to perceive a slight everywhere you look that's your problem. I suppose we have to add monkeys to the list of things we can't mention.

Just for your education.

http://something2say.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/monkeys-black-people/

[William Anthony]

I took it to mean the ghosts of Ron and Nicole.

5 a: a disembodied spirit : ghost

What did you think it meant? Seriously. :confused:

I see no mention of the word ghosts. So, let's put the post in context.

Fly my pretties fly!!

But where will they fly to? The land of milk and occasional murder that is celebrity LA? Past the Dancing Itos? Past Cochran? Past Cora? Past the murders of 2 people? Past their shades?

Resume the experiments.

Since the obvious reference is to Simpson living in LA with a celebrity status, i.e Brentwood, then I took shades in its common meaning to mean coloring. Surely, you are not suggesting that Mr. Bell intended to call the spirits of Nicole and Ronald monkeys? If so I am offended for a different reason, as I think we all should be.

[tv]

I think that you have to consider the context in which words are used and the particular poster's history of posting. I did not take offense at the avatar of signature of the new poster. If it's alright to use boys, then I am sure its alright to use woodpecker.
I don't mind if you use the word woodpecker or cracker or whatever else was contained in your post that went over my head. I realize these are common everyday words and part of the language. It's all about the context. You used these words in the context of being insulting. Are we really getting anywhere with this kind of stuff?

[tv]

I see no mention of the word ghosts. So, let's put the post in context.Makes sense to me.

Fly my pretties fly!!

But where will they fly to? The land of milk and occasional murder that is celebrity LA? Past the Dancing Itos? Past Cochran? Past Cora? Past the murders of 2 people? Past their ghosts?

Resume the experiments.

[William Anthony]

I don't mind if you use the word woodpecker or cracker or whatever else was contained in your post that went over my head. I realize these are common everyday words and part of the language. It's all about the context. You used these words in the context of being insulting. Are we really getting anywhere with this kind of stuff?

I did not use them to be insulting. I used them in a sentence just like Mr. Bell used his words.

[tv]

I see no mention of the word ghosts. So, let's put the post in context.



Since the obvious reference is to Simpson living in LA with a celebrity status, i.e Brentwood, then I took shades in its common meaning to mean coloring. Surely, you are not suggesting that Mr. Bell intended to call the spirits of Nicole and Ronald monkeys? If so I am offended for a different reason, as I think we all should be.

William, if he meant coloring he could have used a better word than that. If you perceive a slight in a reference to the winged monkeys in the Wizard of Oz you might consider taking a step back from all this.

[William Anthony]

Makes sense to me.

Fly my pretties fly!!

But where will they fly to? The land of milk and occasional murder that is celebrity LA? Past the Dancing Itos? Past Cochran? Past Cora? Past the murders of 2 people? Past their ghosts?

Resume the experiments.

The word ghosts was never used and you said he was referring to flying monkeys. If he called the ghosts of Nicole and Ronald flying monkeys as you claim, then I take offense. Don't you?

[William Anthony]

William, if he meant coloring he could have used a better word than that. If you perceive a slight in a reference to the winged monkeys in the Wizard of Oz you might consider taking a step back from all this.

Now, you are speaking for Sweetie, Mr. Bell, when you asked on another thread why we were quoting you in a post addressed to Mr. Bell. I understand your desire to speak for him, as he so frequently flatters you by agreeing with what you say, when he isn't he is making comments like these. I think that if he meant ghosts, he could have used a better word.

[William Anthony]

Fly my pretties fly!!

But where will they fly to? The land of milk and occasional murder that is celebrity LA? Past the Dancing Itos? Past Cochran? Past Cora? Past the murders of 2 people? Past their shades?

Resume the experiments.

Mr. Bell,

Did you mean that flying monkeys ignored all of the things listed in you post by flying past them?

[tv]

Now, you are speaking for Sweetie, Mr. Bell, when you asked on another thread why we were quoting you in a post addressed to Mr. Bell. I understand your desire to speak for him, as he so frequently flatters you by agreeing with what you say, when he isn't he is making comments like these. I think that if he meant ghosts, he could have used a better word.Shade is a synonym for ghosts. When I read it that's how I took it.

[William Anthony]

Shade is a synonym for ghosts. When I read it that's how I took it.

This is what I found and I will look for a poetic use.

http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/shade/

I did find one source that confirms you interpretation in that encyclopedia that is not well respected. However, you took it one way and I took it another based on this particular poster's history.

[tv]

This is what I found and I will look for a poetic use.

http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/shade/You didn't look far enough. On the same site under the tab that says 'definitions' you will see that #7 is ghost.

[William Anthony]

You didn't look far enough. On the same site under the tab that says 'definitions' you will see that #7 is ghost.

Did I not say that it confirmed you interpretation? I saw it as having a different connotation with a different meaning. I did not jump in on your meaning until after you had jumped in on my interpretation. This is not to say you did not have the right. I see what you say and hope that you see what I say. Perhaps, if this poster had not shortly after posting on the forum engaged in the tactics he did, then I would agree with your interpretation.

[tv]

Did I not say that it confirmed you interpretation? I saw it as having a different connotation with a different meaning. I did not jump in on your meaning until after you had jumped in on my interpretation. This is not to say you did not have the right. I see what you say and hope that you see what I say.I see what you're saying but you have to stop taking offense at every word that is posted. After all this I need a break.

[William Anthony]

I see what you're saying but you have to stop taking offense at every word that is posted. After all this I need a break.

Are you still working the night shift? Don't blame me. :)

[tv]

Are you still working the night shift? Don't blame me. :)Yes I am but I didn't work last night. I felt very well rested until about 3 hours ago.

[William Anthony]

Yes I am but I didn't work last night. I felt very well rested until about 3 hours ago.

I worked that shift and found that I was easy to become irritable.:) I don't know the prolonged effects of working that shift. :)

[William Anthony]

I am going to ask all posters to drop all past grudges and start posting anew in a civil and respectful manner.

[William Anthony]

fbgweezer,

Did you disagree with Jami Floyd on the presumption of innocence in this event?

[weezer]

let me say it again for this board: "Oh for Pete's sake!" jamie floyd's comments are a joke. IMO

[William Anthony]

let me say it again for this board: "Oh for Pete's sake!" jamie floyd's comments are a joke. IMO

Enough said. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

let me say it again for this board: "Oh for Pete's sake!" jamie floyd's comments are a joke. IMO

This is the comment you call a joke, correct?

"Let’s talk about O.J. Simpson and the court of public opinion.

Because if you think celebrities have an advantage, think about this. In the public eye celebrities are guilty, until proven innocent. And maybe even after proven innocent. O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson all prove that. Each was presumed guilty, each was acquitted, but the public dialogue was about the accused as legally innocent but factually guilty. Not guilty but not innocent either.

Now comes O.J. Simpson again. And this time with a couple of co-defendants. All presumed guilty. And the trial hasn’t even started yet. Folks will tell you, I’m not on the jury. I don’t have to presume anyone innocent.

But that’s wrong. Because when we convict folks before the jury does, the effects are long lasting. Not just for the defendants. But for the system. And for all of us. So let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we judge Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Stewart. Or even, yes, Mr. Simpson himself."

[weezer]

This is the comment you call a joke, correct?

"Let’s talk about O.J. Simpson and the court of public opinion.

Because if you think celebrities have an advantage, think about this. In the public eye celebrities are guilty, until proven innocent. And maybe even after proven innocent. O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson all prove that. Each was presumed guilty, each was acquitted, but the public dialogue was about the accused as legally innocent but factually guilty. Not guilty but not innocent either.

Now comes O.J. Simpson again. And this time with a couple of co-defendants. All presumed guilty. And the trial hasn’t even started yet. Folks will tell you, I’m not on the jury. I don’t have to presume anyone innocent.

But that’s wrong. Because when we convict folks before the jury does, the effects are long lasting. Not just for the defendants. But for the system. And for all of us. So let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we judge Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Stewart. Or even, yes, Mr. Simpson himself."

To quote ms floyd: "Now, comes O.J. Simpson again. . ." says it all.

[William Anthony]

To quote ms floyd: "Now, comes O.J. Simpson again. . ." says it all.

I personally like this part. "Because when we convict folks before the jury does, the effects are long lasting. Not just for the defendants. But for the system. And for all of us. So let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we judge Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Stewart. Or even, yes, Mr. Simpson himself"

[weezer]

I personally like this part. "Because when we convict folks before the jury does, the effects are long lasting. Not just for the defendants. But for the system. And for all of us. So let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we judge Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Stewart. Or even, yes, Mr. Simpson himself"

To quote ms floyd: "Now, comes O.J. Simpson again. . ." says it all.

[martin II]

What do you think Mr. Bell meant by this part of his post.

"Past their shades?" As you see I did not use the term, peckerwood.

There is a resturant that sells food by the name "CRACKER BARREL" It is owned by whites but really don't like to serve blacks.

[martin II]

I personally like this part. "Because when we convict folks before the jury does, the effects are long lasting. Not just for the defendants. But for the system. And for all of us. So let’s wait until all the evidence is in before we judge Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Stewart. Or even, yes, Mr. Simpson himself"

Those that are judging now did the same thing before the criminal trial and got their little feelings hurt when the verdict came out.

[weezer]

There is a resturant that sells food by the name "CRACKER BARREL" It is owned by whites but really don't like to serve blacks.

love, love, love their food.

[William Anthony]

To quote ms floyd: "Now, comes O.J. Simpson again. . ." says it all.

I don't think anyone should be taking the charges as a joke.

[William Anthony]

I do not think that we should allow some posts to reduce us to a level not befitting our adulthood and level of civilization, for lack of a better word. :)

[William Anthony]

Good for you William. Let's see if you mean it.

I will say by you claims on the other thread you aren't making it an easy task. ;) :cool:

[William Anthony]

Why? Because I speak the truth?

Yes, like Linder is a Dean. :)

[William Anthony]

You have the right to place your trust in whom you would like. You do not have the right to represent that source as something he is not and then try to justify the misrepresentation with the claim that he is a Dean. If you have the link, stating he is a Dean, then post it. I have posted the ones, stating he is not.

[William Anthony]

Because you don't look hard enough William is your problem.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials10.htm

Enjoy

I have looked at your link and did not see any claim that Linder was a Dean. I did see this.

"Every month, Professor Douglas Linder of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, developer of the Famous American Trials website, introduces JURIST readers to one of legal history's famous trials. This month..."

It appears that this Professor created a website where others can read his opinions on famous trials. This is not a scholarly article that has been peer reviewed and certified for publication, imho. I did not need to read the entire article to regurgitate what I had already read, so I did not enjoy it. Simply admit that you were mistaken and the Professor is not a Dean. That I would enjoy and consider a reason to allow you to purchase a ticket to love everlasting. The journey begins with an unbiased evaluation of self.

[William Anthony]

William build a bridge and get over it. You've been outmanouvred and you know it. Sigh. Wrong, wrong, wrong William. You are yet again wrong.

Quite to the contrary. You are wrong and a Professor is not a Dean and a website written by a professor and read by law schools, if they choose, is not a law journal article. You are as wrong as the shoe prints Bodziack testified to. You have given your source a title based on your hypothetical speculation. I will not travel on any bridge you build, because I would be afraid you left support out and dreamed it was there. ;) :cool: :)

[weezer]

I have looked at your link and did not see any claim that Linder was a Dean. I did see this.

"Every month, Professor Douglas Linder of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, developer of the Famous American Trials website, introduces JURIST readers to one of legal history's famous trials. This month..."

It appears that this Professor created a website where others can read his opinions on famous trials. This is not a scholarly article that has been peer reviewed and certified for publication, imho. I did not need to read the entire article to regurgitate what I had already read, so I did not enjoy it. Simply admit that you were mistaken and the Professor is not a Dean. That I would enjoy and consider a reason to allow you to purchase a ticket to love everlasting. The journey begins with an unbiased evaluation of self.

this from a poster who quotes jami floyd! LOL

[William Anthony]

this from a poster who quotes jami floyd! LOL

Yes, I asked a question of you about Ms. Floyd's explanation of the presumption of innocence, which you unabashedly called a joke. I did not promote Ms. Floyd to her current position on Trutv. I apologize if I misspelled her name. I did not claim she was something she wasn't. Here is her, imho, rather impressive resume.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2387060/resume

[weezer]

Yes, I asked a question of you about Ms. Floyd's explanation of the presumption of innocence, which you unabashedly called a joke. I did not promote Ms. Floyd to her current position on Trutv. I apologize if I misspelled her name. I did not claim she was something she wasn't. Here is her, imho, rather impressive resume.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2387060/resume

ahh william you've twisted meanings AGAIN. I never said the explanation was a joke, I said jami floyd and her twisted defense of orenthal was a joke.

[William Anthony]

ahh william you've twisted meanings AGAIN. I never said the explanation was a joke, I said jami floyd and her twisted defense of orenthal was a joke.

Why not admit what you said. You did so when you made your comment. She did not defend Simpson. She defended the concept. Here's what you said.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
let me say it again for this board: "Oh for Pete's sake!" jamie floyd's comments are a joke. IMO

[weezer]

Yes, I asked a question of you about Ms. Floyd's explanation of the presumption of innocence, which you unabashedly called a joke. I did not promote Ms. Floyd to her current position on Trutv. I apologize if I misspelled her name. I did not claim she was something she wasn't. Here is her, imho, rather impressive resume.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2387060/resume

very impressive -- although I couldn't find verification of her win of the PPFA or the U.S. Video award. I could only find where she is listed on the CINE website having won the CINE award in 2002. I found the NABJ website for her 2nd (Broadcast) place win in 2001. And I also found her 2007 award for Outstanding Program Host. I was hoping to find more than media awards --

[William Anthony]

very impressive -- although I couldn't find verification of her win of the PPFA or the U.S. Video award. I could only find where she is listed on the CINE website having won the CINE award in 2002. I found the NABJ website for her 2nd (Broadcast) place win in 2001. And I also found her 2007 award for Outstanding Program Host. I was hoping to find more than media awards --

I think this part of her resume speaks to her legal skills.

"After graduating with honors from the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, Floyd clerked at the California Supreme Court. She then joined the law firm of Morrison &amp; Foerster where she practiced civil and criminal law. In 1993, she joined the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender, where she continued her work as a trial attorney. In late 1993, Floyd moved to Washington, D.C., to serve as a White House fellow, assigned first to the office of First Lady Hillary Clinton, and later to the office of Vice President Al Gore."

[martin II]

very impressive -- although I couldn't find verification of her win of the PPFA or the U.S. Video award. I could only find where she is listed on the CINE website having won the CINE award in 2002. I found the NABJ website for her 2nd (Broadcast) place win in 2001. And I also found her 2007 award for Outstanding Program Host. I was hoping to find more than media awards --

She is qualified to speak leagally.That is for sure. What is your complaint.

[weezer]

I think this part of her resume speaks to her legal skills.

"After graduating with honors from the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, Floyd clerked at the California Supreme Court. She then joined the law firm of Morrison &amp; Foerster where she practiced civil and criminal law. In 1993, she joined the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender, where she continued her work as a trial attorney. In late 1993, Floyd moved to Washington, D.C., to serve as a White House fellow, assigned first to the office of First Lady Hillary Clinton, and later to the office of Vice President Al Gore."

the numbers don't add up. help me out here. how many years do you see that she practiced criminal law?

[weezer]

She is qualified to speak leagally.That is for sure. What is your complaint.

what makes you think she's qualified to speak 'leagally'?

[William Anthony]

the numbers don't add up. help me out here. how many years do you see that she practiced criminal law?

More than your or I, I believe.

[martin II]

Because you don't look hard enough William is your problem.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials10.htm

Enjoy

University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
The urban public law school with a small liberal arts feel





Click here for Alphabetical Listing



Administration | Admissions/Records | Alumni Development
Career Services | Continuing Legal Education | Entrepreneurial Clinic
Faculty | IT Dept. |Law Library | Misc. | Student Organizations
Suite Secretaries | Tax Clinic



Room Administration
Phone
1-205
Berman, Jeffrey (Associate Dean)
816/235-1640

1-200
Brown, Andrea
816/235-5379

1-208
Fleming, Adela
816/235-1654

1-202
Green, Tom
816/235-1646

1-200
Higgins, Sari
816/235-1007

1-209
Klosterman, Jean
816/235-5739

1-204
Suni, Ellen (Dean)
816/235-2372

1-206
Thomas, Jeffrey (Associate Dean)
816/235-2378

816/235-6328

---
Fax Machine
816/235-5276

Room Admissions/Records
Phone
1-207
Brooks, Debbie (Assistant Dean)
816/235-1672

1-200
Johnson, Claudia
816/235-1677

1-200
Pegues, Carol
816/235-1688

1-200
Pinkman, Marcia
816/235-1644

1-200
Staples, Costella
816/235-5378

Room Alumni/Development
Phone
046
Kafer, Jyll (Director of Alumni)
816/235-5361

1-203
Pike, Diane (Director of Development)
816/235-2441

1-200

816/235-1645

Room Career Services
Phone
028

816/235-1668

041
Moore, Lynda (Director)
816/235-1669

--
Fax Machine
816/235-6513

Room Continuing Legal Education
Phone
034
Sarah McKee
816/235-5849

037
Hohensee, James
816/235-1617

034
Kucherovsky, Evelyn
816/235-6451

2-200
Kunkel, Nancy
816/235-1647

038
McCarroll, Daniel (Director)
816/235-1649

031
Smith, Kassandra
816/235-1648

039
Stadler, Jim
816/235-1707

---
Fax Machine
816/235-5414

Room Entrepreneurial Clinic

4747 Troost
Phone
214B Hood, Ed 816/235-6424

214A
Sharp, Judith
816/235-6140

General Number 816/235-6341

Fax Machine 816/235-6425

Room Faculty
Phone
1-311
Abdel-Khalik, Jasmine
816/235-1676

1-411
Achtenberg, David
816/235-2382

040
Belian, Julia
816/235-1662

1-410
Berger, Mark
816/235-2374

1-205
Berman, Jeffrey (Associate Dean)
816/235-1640

1-508
Black, Bill
816/235-6266

1-104
Callister, Paul
816/235-2436

1-508
Carbone, June
816/235-6486

1-510
Cheslik, Julie
816/235-2547

2-507
Downs, Robert
816/235-2392

2-210
Eckhardt, William
816/235-2377

2-310
Ferguson, Kenneth
816/235-2386

1-511
Glesner Fines, Barbara
816/235-2380

2-410
Susan Grover
816/235-2388

2-311
Hanna, Francis
816/235-2387

1-310
Holman, Christopher
816/235-2384

2-510
Hood, Edwin
816/235-2394

2-511
Hoyt, Christopher
816/235-2395

1-507
Kisthardt, Mary Kay
816/235-2373

2-408
Kobach, Kris
816/235-2390

2-411
Levit, Nancy
816/235-2391

2-407
Linder, Doug
816/235-2375

2-508
Luppino, Tony
816/235-6165

2-208
Martin, Eric
816/235-5818

050 Murphy, Tiffany
816/235-1006

1-407
O'Brien, Sean
816/235-6152

1-509
O'Malley, Mary Kay
816/235-6298

2-307
Picker, Colin
816/235-5928

025
Popper, Judith
816/235-2693

1-308
Ragsdale, John
816/235-2376

2-211
Randolph, Patrick
816/235-2379

1-307
Rostron, Allen
816/235-2267


Sharp, Judith
816/235-6140

1-204
Suni, Ellen (Dean)
816/235-2372

2-308
Temm, Wanda
816/235-5311

1-206
Thomas, Jeffrey (Associate Dean)
816/235-2378

1-408
Thompson, Mikah
816/235-2381

026
Weddle, Dan
816/235-5654

2-207
Wilson, Barbara
816/235-5374

2-512
Wiseman, Judith
816/235-1658

Room IT Department
Phone
1-112
Ellis, Jeff
816/235-5637

1-107
Johnson, Phill (Director)
816/235-2632

1-102
Leutzinger, Rachelle
816/235-2860

1-106
Thomas, Rick
816/235-2649

Room Leon E.

[martin II]

what makes you think she's qualified to speak 'leagally'?

Education and work history.

Can you match hers?

[martin II]

the numbers don't add up. help me out here. how many years do you see that she practiced criminal law?

One would give her more than most posting here. right?

[weezer]

One would give her more than most posting here. right?

no reason to be defensive -- actually, I don't know who the posters are or what they do so I'm reluctant to give her that.

[William Anthony]

no reason to be defensive -- actually, I don't know who the posters are or what they do so I'm reluctant to give her that.

I think you misread martin's post. He didn't say more than the ones posting here.
He said one would give her more than posting her and I think her resume bespeaks that.

[weezer]

I think you misread martin's post. He didn't say more than the ones posting here.
He said one would give her more than posting her and I think her resume bespeaks that.

LOL -- I don't know what your sentence even means. LOL

martin said:

"One would give her more than most posting here. . ."

gee, I'm still trying to find her credentials but then, I may require more than 'most posting here.'

[William Anthony]

LOL -- I don't know what your sentence even means. LOL

martin said:

"One would give her more than most posting here. . ."

gee, I'm still trying to find her credentials but then, I may require more than 'most posting here.'

Maybe, I needed to reread it. I stand corrected. What pray tell my young lady, do you think the link I provided was?

[weezer]

Maybe, I needed to reread it. I stand corrected. What pray tell my young lady, do you think the link I provided was?

which link?

[William Anthony]

which link?

Why my dear young lady the one that caused you to request my help in adding up the years she practiced criminal law.

[weezer]

Why my dear young lady the one that caused you to request my help in adding up the years she practiced criminal law.

I'm neither 'dear' or 'young' and martin would certainly question your use of 'lady' -- :)

with that said, I assume you mean the resume link. I asked for help in figuring the years she practiced criminal law was all. not a big deal. I just can't seem to get the numbers to add up.

[William Anthony]

I'm neither 'dear' or 'young' and martin would certainly question your use of 'lady' -- :)

with that said, I assume you mean the resume link. I asked for help in figuring the years she practiced criminal law was all. not a big deal. I just can't seem to get the numbers to add up.

When in doubt punt. However, when you have sufficient knowledge to know your opponent the go for it. Woman, :) I have not been able to find the year she became licensed to practice law.

[weezer]

When in doubt punt. However, when you have sufficient knowledge to know your opponent the go for it. Woman, :) I have not been able to find the year she became licensed to practice law.

I found her listed as a '89 BOALT alumni.

[William Anthony]

I found her listed as a '89 BOALT alumni.

I found this which means approximately seven years.

http://alumni.binghamton.edu/AJ/2005/winter/feature03.htm

[weezer]

I found this which means approximately seven years.

http://alumni.binghamton.edu/AJ/2005/winter/feature03.htm

can't be seven -- if she graduated in '89 and by '93 she was in washington and in between '89 and '93 she was clerking AND practicing civil and criminal law --

see what I mean?

[William Anthony]

Correction-However, when you have sufficient knowledge to know your opponent then go for it

[William Anthony]

can't be seven -- if she graduated in '89 and by '93 she was in washington and in between '89 and '93 she was clerking AND practicing civil and criminal law --

see what I mean?

The link I posted says 86.

[weezer]

The link I posted says 86.

that was her political science BA from Binghampton. the link I found says she graduated BOALT in '89.

[William Anthony]

that was her political science BA from Binghampton. the link I found says she graduated BOALT in '89.

Considering she went straight to law school, that would be about right, which would give her approximately four years. I would say the evidence supports a reasonable inference that she is well connected (pun intended).

[martin II]

no reason to be defensive -- actually, I don't know who the posters are or what they do so I'm reluctant to give her that.

Not being defensive. Just wondering what your motive for challanging her education and work history. Obviously she is qualified for her current job.

[William Anthony]

There is another relatively new member that has violated the rules and posted a link to their home page on reverse speech. I was disgusted to see the blatant posting of the most vile and reprehensible word in the English language, imho, posted on his home page on the link to Michelle Obama. I would ask the community to take a stand on this.

[weezer]

Judge won't delay O.J. Simpson armed robbery trial Story Highlights
NEW: Co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart loses bid to delay the trial

He says he should be tried separately from Simpson

Nevada Supreme Court is considering request for separate trial

Stewart is last co-defendant in memorabilia robbery case

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- A Las Vegas judge has rejected a request by a co-defendant of O.J. Simpson to delay the start of their upcoming trial on charges of armed robbery and kidnapping.

Clarence "C.J." Stewart is the last of O.J. Simpson's co-defendants.

1 of 2 A lawyer for Clarence "C.J." Stewart had asked Judge Jackie Glass to put off the September 8 trial until the Nevada Supreme Court considers Stewart's request for a separate trial.

Stewart's lawyers argue that it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial because most of the focus will be on Simpson.

Stewart lawyer Robert Lucherini said he would appeal Monday to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Stewart's defense team filed a motion last week asking Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass for a delay of the September 8 trial until the Nevada Supreme Court considers his request for a separate trial.

It was the third time Glass had rejected a request for a separate trial. The judge pushed back the trial date once, from April 7.

A Supreme Court clerk said the justices hadn't scheduled discussions on Lucherini's August 4 appeal for a separate trial.

Stewart is one of five men who accompanied Simpson during a confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers last September 13 at a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Don't Miss
Co-defendant: O.J. will drag me down
Stewart, 54, and Simpson, 61, have pleaded not guilty to felony charges of kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole, and a robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

Their four former co-defendants have accepted plea deals and agreed to testify against Simpson.

Lucherini argues in his state Supreme Court filing that it will be impossible for Stewart to get a fair trial partly because of Simpson's 1995 acquittal in Los Angeles of criminal charges that he murdered his ex-wife and her friend.

The former Hall of Fame football player, actor and commercial pitchman was later found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and was ordered to pay a $33.5 million civil judgment to Goldman's family.

Lucherini said a Las Vegas jury would be swayed by reminders of the "hideous murders that many people believe were committed by Mr. Simpson," and that Stewart could be convicted only because he was named as a defendant with Simpson.

Simpson maintains he went to the hotel room to retrieve items stolen from him, that he never saw guns in the room, didn't know anyone had guns, and never asked anyone to bring guns.

Stewart's lawyer has said Stewart believed Simpson was retrieving property that belonged to him.

Court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said 500 people had been summoned for jury duty for the trial

[martin II]

Judge won't delay O.J. Simpson armed robbery trial Story Highlights
NEW: Co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart loses bid to delay the trial

He says he should be tried separately from Simpson

Nevada Supreme Court is considering request for separate trial

Stewart is last co-defendant in memorabilia robbery case

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- A Las Vegas judge has rejected a request by a co-defendant of O.J. Simpson to delay the start of their upcoming trial on charges of armed robbery and kidnapping.

Clarence "C.J." Stewart is the last of O.J. Simpson's co-defendants.

1 of 2 A lawyer for Clarence "C.J." Stewart had asked Judge Jackie Glass to put off the September 8 trial until the Nevada Supreme Court considers Stewart's request for a separate trial.

Stewart's lawyers argue that it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial because most of the focus will be on Simpson.

Stewart lawyer Robert Lucherini said he would appeal Monday to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Stewart's defense team filed a motion last week asking Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass for a delay of the September 8 trial until the Nevada Supreme Court considers his request for a separate trial.

It was the third time Glass had rejected a request for a separate trial. The judge pushed back the trial date once, from April 7.

A Supreme Court clerk said the justices hadn't scheduled discussions on Lucherini's August 4 appeal for a separate trial.

Stewart is one of five men who accompanied Simpson during a confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers last September 13 at a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Don't Miss
Co-defendant: O.J. will drag me down
Stewart, 54, and Simpson, 61, have pleaded not guilty to felony charges of kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole, and a robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

Their four former co-defendants have accepted plea deals and agreed to testify against Simpson.

Lucherini argues in his state Supreme Court filing that it will be impossible for Stewart to get a fair trial partly because of Simpson's 1995 acquittal in Los Angeles of criminal charges that he murdered his ex-wife and her friend.

The former Hall of Fame football player, actor and commercial pitchman was later found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and was ordered to pay a $33.5 million civil judgment to Goldman's family.

Lucherini said a Las Vegas jury would be swayed by reminders of the "hideous murders that many people believe were committed by Mr. Simpson," and that Stewart could be convicted only because he was named as a defendant with Simpson.

Simpson maintains he went to the hotel room to retrieve items stolen from him, that he never saw guns in the room, didn't know anyone had guns, and never asked anyone to bring guns.

Stewart's lawyer has said Stewart believed Simpson was retrieving property that belonged to him.

Court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said 500 people had been summoned for jury duty for the trial

if the trial moves foward as now scheduled and stewart is convicted and the appeals court then rules in his favor, what happens them?

[martin II]

5-6 men go into a hotel room to help oj get his goods, two, not oj have guns.
the prosecution lets four off the hook if only they testify against oj. they accept. That is stacking the deck .imo. Good old american prosecution conduct.

[weezer]

Police called to O.J. Simpson's house after fight between girlfriend and daughter
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:48 PM on 28th August 2008

'Not involved': O.J. Simpson insists he wasn't involved in the argument between the two women

Police were called to disgraced American football star O.J. Simpson's Florida home over the weekend following an altercation between his girlfriend and eldest daughter.

Initial reports suggest the Naked Gun actor, 61, was injured by his daughter Arnelle Simpson, 39, as he tried to break up the argument on Sunday night.

Arnelle was said to be angry with her father for giving money to his girlfriend Christine Prody , while her mother, Simpson's first wife Marguerite Whitley was struggling to pay her bills.

The National Enquirer alleged Arnelle had pushed Simpson into a glass cupboard during her argument with Christine.

Despite reports Simpson had suffered a cut to the head and a bleeding lip, he was looked intact when he spoke to U.S. TV channel CBS this week.

Simpson said: 'Look at me, I look fine. It must be slow news day.'

He told CBS the fight was strictly between the two women and he wasn't involved.

The police report says officers were called to the football star's Kendall home after an incomplete emergency call.

The Enquirer also alleged Arnelle criticised her father for leaving her mother to marry his second wife Nicole Brown.

Simpson was acquitted of Nicole's murder in 1995, but was found 'responsible' for her death in a 1997 civil lawsuit.

Meanwhile, a Las Vegas judge refused to delay Simpson's trial for armed robbery.

Simpson's co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart had asked Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass to put off the September 8th trial until the Nevada Supreme Court considers Stewart's request for a separate trial.

Stewart's lawyers argued it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial because most of the focus will be on Simpson.

Stewart and Simpson face felony charges of kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon stemming from a confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room last September.

[weezer]

5-6 men go into a hotel room to help oj get his goods, two, not oj have guns.
the prosecution lets four off the hook if only they testify against oj. they accept. That is stacking the deck .imo. Good old american prosecution conduct.

the guys wouldn't have been there except for orenthal and his half-baked, idiotic 'sting'

[weezer]

'. . .Initial reports suggest the Naked Gun actor, 61, was injured by his daughter Arnelle Simpson, 39, as he tried to break up the argument on Sunday night.

Arnelle was said to be angry with her father for giving money to his girlfriend Christine Prody , while her mother, Simpson's first wife Marguerite Whitley was struggling to pay her bills.

The National Enquirer alleged Arnelle had pushed Simpson into a glass cupboard during her argument with Christine.

Despite reports Simpson had suffered a cut to the head and a bleeding lip, he was looked intact when he spoke to U.S. TV channel CBS this week.
Simpson said: 'Look at me, I look fine. It must be slow news day.'

He told CBS the fight was strictly between the two women and he wasn't involved.

The police report says officers were called to the football star's Kendall home after an incomplete emergency call.

The Enquirer also alleged Arnelle criticised her father for leaving her mother to marry his second wife Nicole Brown.

Simpson was acquitted of Nicole's murder in 1995, but was found 'responsible' for her death in a 1997 civil lawsuit. . ."

my, my, my -- that little acorn didn't fall far from the tree! :eek:

[martin II]

the guys wouldn't have been there except for orenthal and his half-baked, idiotic 'sting'

When all of them walked into the hotel room they all knew what they were doing and why they were there.I have not read any testimony that oj forced anyone to go into the room including the guys with the guns or forced the two guys to bring their guns.

The fact that the procesution has agreed to give 4 probation for testifying against oj shows that there is biase against him and that the prosecution has decided that oj was the target of the prosecution.

People have been charges with armed robbery of resturants in vagas and received probation but not oJ.

[martin II]

my, my, my -- that little acorn didn't fall far from the tree! :eek:

When did this incident happen today? where is the source.

[Kate Sachel]

When did this incident happen today? where is the source.

The source of the article is listed.

However, it appears that the incident happened on Wednesday, August 27th. It was reported in the New York Daily News, the Denver Post, MSN.com, and CBS to name a few. OJ Simpson himself commented on the incident.

That is all I know thus far.

Kate

[weezer]

The source of the article is listed.

However, it appears that the incident happened on Wednesday, August 27th. It was reported in the New York Daily News, the Denver Post, MSN.com, and CBS to name a few. OJ Simpson himself commented on the incident.

That is all I know thus far.

Kate

puts that family violence discussion in a whole new light don't you think?

[martin II]

puts that family violence discussion in a whole new light don't you think?

Was anyone arrested as a result of this violence you speak of?

[weezer]

Was anyone arrested as a result of this violence you speak of?

hmmm -- it doesn't appear so but then no one ever was in any of his other 'smack-downs'

arnelle's getting a little long in the tooth to be so physical don't you think?

[martin II]

hmmm -- it doesn't appear so but then no one ever was in any of his other 'smack-downs'

arnelle's getting a little long in the tooth to be so physical don't you think?

i dont know Arnell personally.Do you?

[weezer]

i dont know Arnell personally.Do you?

do I need to know her personally to say she's getting a little old to be involved in 'smackdowns'?

[martin II]

do I need to know her personally to say she's getting a little old to be involved in 'smackdowns'?

well you for some time indicated your hatred for Arnell through your negative post of her so i had wondered if you have ever had any personal contact that would allow you to know who she is. But i guess not.

[William Anthony]

The source of the article is listed.

However, it appears that the incident happened on Wednesday, August 27th. It was reported in the New York Daily News, the Denver Post, MSN.com, and CBS to name a few. OJ Simpson himself commented on the incident.

That is all I know thus far.

Kate

Well put, imho.

[William Anthony]

Although it has been 14 years, I think the latest saga in the continuing Simpson story shows that Simpson would have had a difficult time, if not an impossible one, of killing two people in the narrow time frame set by the prosecution. I think he would have had a much harder time with Mr. Ronald Goldman than he did with Ms. Arnelle, who, by what I heard, beat him and his girlfriend. I anticipate the argument that Simpson did not have a knife in the latest chapter. However, the theory was that there was a violent struggle and Mr. Ronald Goldman was stronger than Ms. Arnelle, imho.

[weezer]

Nevada Supreme Court won't delay Simpson trial
By BRENDAN RILEY – 17 hours ago

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — A request from O.J. Simpson's last remaining co-defendant to delay the Sept. 8 start of the pair's armed robbery and kidnapping trial was rejected Thursday by a divided Nevada Supreme Court panel.

In a 2-1 decision, Justices Bill Maupin and Ron Parraguirre refused to stay Simpson and Clarence "C.J." Stewart's upcoming trial, and rejected Stewart's petition for a separate trial.

The brief majority order said justices "are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted at this time."

Justice Michael Cherry dissented, saying he would have granted the stay. He called for an answer from prosecutors to the petition for separate trials.

Stewart's attorney, Robert Lucherini, did not return calls seeking comment on whether he would ask the high court to reconsider.

Lucherini appealed to the Supreme Court after Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass refused to halt proceedings. Glass delayed the start of the trial once in April and vowed not to postpone it again.

Lucherini argued it will be impossible for Stewart to get a fair trial sitting next to Simpson, the NFL Hall of Fame player, actor and advertising pitchman who was acquitted in 1995 in Los Angeles of criminal charges that he murdered his ex-wife and her friend. Simpson was later found liable for the deaths in a civil case.

Simpson and Stewart are charged in a Sept. 13, 2007, confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers at a casino hotel room in Las Vegas. Four men who accompanied Simpson and Stewart have accepted plea deals and agreed to testify.

Simpson and Stewart each face 12 charges, including felony kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole, and a robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

Simpson maintains that he went to the hotel room to retrieve items stolen that had been from him, that he didn't ask anyone to bring guns and that he didn't know anyone in the room was armed.

The trial is expected to take at least five weeks. A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole, and a robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

[weezer]

well you for some time indicated your hatred for Arnell through your negative post of her so i had wondered if you have ever had any personal contact that would allow you to know who she is. But i guess not.

I don't 'hate' arnelle -- but you're right -- I do view her in a very, very negative light.

In fact, I have her in the same category as her daddy -- psycho/sociopath.

BTW martin, you always ride to her defense so I assume you know her personally?

[fgump2]

I don't 'hate' arnelle -- but you're right -- I do view her in a very, very negative light.

In fact, I have her in the same category as her daddy -- psycho/sociopath.

BTW martin, you always ride to her defense so I assume you know her personally?
One interesting point concerning Arnelle was that when OJS was returing to LA from Chicago he sat next to a patent lawyer named Mark Partridge. Mr. Partridge said that OJS knew some facts about the death of NBS that the cops hadn't told hime: Another man was killed, and it happened in a garden near where NBS lived.
Arnelle later testified for the civil trial, that the cops had told her this in the early morning hours after the murders. I think that Arnelle lied to bail out OJS.
It would be interesting to see exactly what Mr. Partridge testified to, there is a summary of it in the D Petrocelli's book about the civil trial. Police don't like to pass unnecesary information on the suspects or anybody else until the crime as been solved. They would probably be even more reluctant to pass information on to someone they were trying to frame.

[weezer]

One interesting point concerning Arnelle was that when OJS was returing to LA from Chicago he sat next to a patent lawyer named Mark Partridge. Mr. Partridge said that OJS knew some facts about the death of NBS that the cops hadn't told hime: Another man was killed, and it happened in a garden near where NBS lived.
Arnelle later testified for the civil trial, that the cops had told her this in the early morning hours after the murders. I think that Arnelle lied to bail out OJS.
It would be interesting to see exactly what Mr. Partridge testified to, there is a summary of it in the D Petrocelli's book about the civil trial. Police don't like to pass unnecesary information on the suspects or anybody else until the crime as been solved. They would probably be even more reluctant to pass information on to someone they were trying to frame.

I believe arnelle was/is a co-conspirator to the murders based on her lies concerning the sweatsuit, laundry, and entrance into rockingham by LE.

I don't remember anything about someone else being killed in a garden where NBS lived -- do you have a link to that info?

[martin II]

One interesting point concerning Arnelle was that when OJS was returing to LA from Chicago he sat next to a patent lawyer named Mark Partridge. Mr. Partridge said that OJS knew some facts about the death of NBS that the cops hadn't told hime: Another man was killed, and it happened in a garden near where NBS lived.
Arnelle later testified for the civil trial, that the cops had told her this in the early morning hours after the murders. I think that Arnelle lied to bail out OJS.
It would be interesting to see exactly what Mr. Partridge testified to, there is a summary of it in the D Petrocelli's book about the civil trial. Police don't like to pass unnecesary information on the suspects or anybody else until the crime as been solved. They would probably be even more reluctant to pass information on to someone they were trying to frame.


When the chicago LA plane took and mr Partridge was in the seat next to oj,
Partridge testified that oj simpson make several phone calls from the plane.

One call Partridge remember was a call to a person named SKIP. That was skip taff. It is resaonable to believe that the call to his lawyeer Skip Taff and the other calls to people from the plane is how oj was informed about the details of who had been murdered.
So my question to you is what does this mean to you other than oj was told while on the plane what had happened in LA.


MS. CLARK: And you indicate after the plane took off, he immediately requested a telephone, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's right.

MS. CLARK: The stewardess brought him a phone, did she?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: The first call, were you able to hear who he was speaking to?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I heard a name, yes.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wasn't able to hear. I heard a name.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Skip.

MS. CLARK: And approximately how long did he speak to this person named Skip?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That particular call was quite brief. I would say a minute.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And I take it you've somewhat followed this case; have you not, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Somewhat, yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you heard the name of an attorney named Skip Taft?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I have heard that name.

MS. CLARK: And have you learned whether or not he was the Defendant's attorney?

[martin II]

One interesting point concerning Arnelle was that when OJS was returing to LA from Chicago he sat next to a patent lawyer named Mark Partridge. Mr. Partridge said that OJS knew some facts about the death of NBS that the cops hadn't told hime: Another man was killed, and it happened in a garden near where NBS lived.
Arnelle later testified for the civil trial, that the cops had told her this in the early morning hours after the murders. I think that Arnelle lied to bail out OJS.
It would be interesting to see exactly what Mr. Partridge testified to, there is a summary of it in the D Petrocelli's book about the civil trial. Police don't like to pass unnecesary information on the suspects or anybody else until the crime as been solved. They would probably be even more reluctant to pass information on to someone they were trying to frame.

When Arnell was at her car to get her address book for Randas telephone number at the request of le , it was either Vanhatter or Lang that told her that Nicole had been killed.This was after le had awaken her and were in the house. How is this a lie?

I have never heard that anyone was murdered in a garden near where Nicole lived.

[martin II]

When the chicago LA plane took and mr Partridge was in the seat next to oj,
Partridge testified that oj simpson make several phone calls from the plane.

One call Partridge remember was a call to a person named SKIP. That was skip taff. It is resaonable to believe that the call to his lawyeer Skip Taff and the other calls to people from the plane is how oj was informed about the details of who had been murdered.
So my question to you is what does this mean to you other than oj was told while on the plane what had happened in LA.


MS. CLARK: And you indicate after the plane took off, he immediately requested a telephone, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's right.

MS. CLARK: The stewardess brought him a phone, did she?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: The first call, were you able to hear who he was speaking to?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I heard a name, yes.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wasn't able to hear. I heard a name.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Skip.

MS. CLARK: And approximately how long did he speak to this person named Skip?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That particular call was quite brief. I would say a minute.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And I take it you've somewhat followed this case; have you not, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Somewhat, yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you heard the name of an attorney named Skip Taft?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I have heard that name.

MS. CLARK: And have you learned whether or not he was the Defendant's attorney?

Correction

reasonable

[weezer]

Homepage / Las Vegas News

Simpson Case Witness Seeks Sponsorship
Riccio Selling Clothing Opportunities, Interview Pitches

POSTED: 8:05 am PDT September 2, 2008
UPDATED: 8:53 am PDT September 2, 2008


LAS VEGAS -- A witness in the O.J. Simpson case is looking to profit from his role in the trial.

Thomas Riccio is offering himself up for sponsorships during the trial, which starts Monday.

For $5,000, Riccio will mention a product during television interviews his publicist is trying to schedule, according to a press release from his attorney. Another $5,000 will see him eating dinner at the sponsoring restaurant the evening he testifies, and he will appear in a 30-second ad for $1,000, the release said.

"This is the fourth time Tom has been through an endeavor like this," said Jon Fondy, Riccio's attorney. "People (have) come up to him and offered him money to be a sponsor on his media tour and his book tour."

Riccio has set up a Web site -- bustedvegas.com -- where the Simpson witness will give insider information during the trial.

Riccio was one of the sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel room with Simpson and five friends entered and stole some of Simpson's belongings at gunpoint, police said.

Auctioneer Riccio said he arranged the hotel meeting between dealers and a private collector, but he did not mention the collector was going to be Simpson. He then leaked audio of the confrontation to TMZ.

Since the preliminary hearing, four of Simpson's co-defendants -- Michael McClinton, Charles Ehrlich, Charles Cashmore and Walter Alexander -- have reached plea deals with the Clark County district attorney and will testify against Simpson.

A fifth co-defendant, Clarence C.J. Stewart, will stand trial concurrently with Simpson.

FOX5 has contacted District Attorney David Roger's office, who has yet to make a statement about Riccio's pitch.

For more information on the Simpson case, visit the case's special section or view the national coverage.
Copyright 2008 by KVVU.com. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[weezer]

September 3, 2008
O.J. Simpson’s lawyers ready for trial
Posted: 09:28 AM ET
LAS VEGAS, Nevada – O.J. Simpson’s attorneys answered ready for trial Tuesday in a Las Vegas courtroom.

Attorneys for co-defendant Clarence “C.J.” Stewart moved yet again for severance on the grounds that Stewart cannot get a fair trial if he is seated next to, and tried with, Simpson on armed robbery and kidnapping charges. Stewart’s attorneys also requested a continuance of the proceedings. It was no surprise that Judge Jackie Glass denied all Stewart’s motions but his attorneys have certainly made an exhaustive record of his concerns in multiple motions for severance.

A few facts were learned about the approximately 500 jury questionnaires the attorneys and judge have been reviewing in the past weeks. About half of the prospective jurors have been eliminated already, many for expressing strong opinions about Simpson. The judge hopes to seat 12 jurors and six alternates in a week but the defense believes that’s a bit optimistic.

The State announced it intends to call 25 witnesses. Those witnesses include the two alleged victims, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley, Thomas Riccio, the four one-time co-defendants who pled guilty to charges stemming from the incident, and Simpson’s former agent Mike Gilbert. Simpson’s attorney, Gabriel Grasso, said their witnesses incorporate all of the names on the State’s list plus another 3-4 names. Those other names include Tom and Sabrina Scotto (the couple whose wedding Simpson attended the weekend of the alleged robbery) and Simpson’s daughter, Arnelle. Stewart’s attorney, Robert Lucherini, said he plans to call six or seven witnesses although his witness list has three times the number.

At the end of the brief hearing, Judge Glass cautioned the attorneys to have their witnesses “properly attired” for court. Thomas Riccio’s latest announcement may have prompted Glass’s comment. Riccio, the memorabilia dealer responsible for getting everyone together at the Palace Station Hotel & Casino, will be a critical witness for the prosecution. He expects a lot of media attention on him especially on the day he testifies.

Riccio is offering to advertise for businesses for $1,000-$5,000. For example, should he indeed arrive at the courthouse in a limousine, ads may be strategically placed on the limo for a fee; he could wear a ballcap and a tee shirt with ads for yet other businesses. He’ll dine at a sponsoring restaurant for $5,000 and mention a product in television interviews for a fee. Judge Glass is not likely to be amused if Riccio takes the stand bedecked in a promotional tee but, alas, her power to limit his entrepreneurial undertaking is confined to the courtroom.

Preparations for the trial spilled outside the courtroom. A woman from court administration sat at a table at the entrance to the courthouse Tuesday morning handing out press credentials. More than 400 members of the media have applied for credentials, many of whom will want to be in the courtroom. But there are only 20 seats for the media at any given time. Alas, as in many high-profile trials, we’ll have to rotate seats and be satisfied with an hour or two of watching the action from the public gallery.

-Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

[weezer]

arnelle's going to testify? hahahahahaha

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson goes to trial, dogged by his past
Shadow of 1994 slayings to loom large over Vegas robbery, kidnapping case

Rick Wilking / AP
O.J. Simpson sits in a courtroom during his bail revocation hearing in Las Vegas on Jan. 16.

LAS VEGAS - Once upon a time O.J. Simpson was a national sports hero, showered with adulation and endorsement contracts. He was the "Juice" — a Hall of Fame football star, actor, TV commentator and pitchman with a beautiful wife, two children and a Rolls Royce.

But the stabbing death of his ex-wife more than 14 years ago makes those early days seem like a fairy tale for Simpson. It was a life before allegations of murder, robbery and kidnapping, before the world he knew ended and a new, darker one began.

The next chapter unfolds Monday in a Las Vegas courtroom, where Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart go on trial on armed robbery and kidnapping charges.

The Nevada Supreme Court rejected a motion filed Thursday by Stewart's lawyers seeking to have the two men tried separately.

A conviction could send them to prison for life.

Simpson, 61, is accused of leading an odd collection of characters, including three convicted criminals, to a casino hotel room, where they were charged with holding two sports collectibles dealers at gunpoint and taking memorabilia that Simpson maintains belonged to him.

Simpson, who lives in Miami, has said he was trying to retrieve personal belongings and family heirlooms, that he didn't ask anyone to bring guns and that he didn't know anyone in the room was armed.

But four of the five men who accompanied him have pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Simpson.

One, Michael McClinton, testified that Simpson asked him to bring guns and told him to look "menacing" during the confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Shadow of slayings hangs over trial Hanging over the trial, scheduled to last five weeks, will be the shadow of the 1994 slaying of Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, who was found slashed to death along with her friend, Ronald Goldman.

As a stunned nation looked on, Simpson led a slow-speed chase in a white Ford Bronco and was charged with the killings. A year later, after a televised trial watched by millions, he was acquitted. A civil jury later held him liable for the killings, but he hasn't paid the $33.5 million in damages, insisting he did not commit the slayings.

And then Simpson retreated to Florida seemingly intent on living the life of a retiree, playing golf every day and looking after his children.

But things have not been idyllic for Simpson.

He was tried in a road rage case and acquitted. Family disputes went public.

This latest episode ironically resulted from a clash between past and present — Simpson's obsession with keeping control of memorabilia from his glory days.

One of the men expected to testify against him, Thomas Riccio, a convicted felon and a memorabilia dealer who arranged the meeting, said Simpson's motive was clear when he went to the hotel room at the Palace Station casino a year ago and demanded the return of items he said belonged to him.

"O.J. wanted to be able to pass these things down to his kids," said Riccio, who wasn't charged in this case.

The memorabilia dealer, who has known Simpson for many years and got a book published as a result of the Las Vegas case, acknowledged letting Simpson into the hotel room with a key. He also had a tape recorder running inside the room and later sold an audio tape of the events to a gossip Web site. The audio tape will be key evidence against Simpson, along with the testimony of the four former co-defendants, Riccio, Beardsley and Fromong.
Prosecutors say Beardsley and Fromong were lured to the room and held against their will at gunpoint. Defense lawyer Yale Galanter say prosecutors overreached for charges against Simpson. He called the witnesses against him "a cast of very nefarious characters" with credibility problems and a financial incentive to twist their stories.

Some believe the new trial will be shadowed by the past.

"For the public, it's justice delayed," said Jerry Reisman, a Garden City, N.Y., attorney who represented Simpson on business matters before the murder case.

"I think the public is going to see and hear what they want to and hope that he is convicted," Reisman said. "It's going to be difficult for O.J. to get a fair trial. A lot of the public believes he was guilty of the crimes he was charged with back then and he got away with it."

The challenge for Simpson's attorneys will be to keep the focus on the current charges, he said.

Ian Weinstein, a professor of criminal law at Fordham University who has followed Simpson's legal travails over the years, said the "celebrity factor" may weigh in favor of Simpson if jurors are old enough to remember his triumphs as well as his downfall.

"Some of us have a longer view of him," Weinstein said. "My students in our law school know him only as a celebrity with legal problems. But to me he's still the guy running through the airport in the Hertz commercials."

[William Anthony]

This is why we cannot believe all of what we read.

"As a stunned nation looked on, Simpson led a slow-speed chase in a white Ford Bronco and was charged with the killings. A year later, after a televised trial watched by millions, he was acquitted. A civil jury later held him liable for the killings, but he hasn't paid the $33.5 million in damages, insisting he did not commit the slayings."

A false understanding is quite often the cause of the promulgation of false information.

[One2Snoop]

OJ Simpson faces robbery, kidnap trial
September 7, 2008, 1:45 pm

Thirteen years after his acquittal in one of the most publicised murder cases in American history, former football great OJ Simpson returns to court on Monday for jury selection in a robbery and kidnapping case that could send him to prison for life.

Legal experts say the outcome of the case is far from clear as Simpson, 61, faces a dozen felonies that stem from a confrontation in a hotel room last September in which he and a gang of gun-toting cohorts departed the scene with pillow cases stuffed full of sports memorabilia.

The charges against Simpson and one of those men, Clarence "CJ" Stewart, includes kidnapping and armed robbery, both of which carry potential life sentences in the state of Nevada.

Simpson and his group allegedly stormed the room at the Palace Station Hotel-Casino to retrieve memorabilia largely related to the football star's career that he has insisted was stolen from him.

It was in the possession of two collectibles dealers, Bruce L Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Simpson later insisted he did not know that two of the men with him would be carrying guns and did not see them brandish their weapons.

Four of the gang, including the two who carried weapons, have struck plea agreements for reduced sentences in exchange for testifying against Simpson.

The encounter was arranged by another memorabilia dealer, Thomas Riccio, who recorded the incident and sold those recordings to the celebrity website TMZ.Com for a reported $US165,000 ($A203,578.04) before he shared the audio with police.

Fromong said Simpson and his group took hundreds of items including his new mobile phone and many collectibles that were related to the careers of other American sports figures.

Legal analysts say that such a banal case rarely would go to trial but that the famous defendant has turned it into a much more complicated matter.

"Nothing about an OJ case is a normal case because it's OJ," says former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson based in Los Angeles who covered the 1995 trial for CBS News. "A guy who can get off of a double homicide with DNA evidence is not a normal defendant. There's going to be some pressure to vindicate the judicial system in this case."

Choosing a jury will be a crucial phase. The court distributed a 26-page questionnaire to 500 prospective jurors to weed out those with strong feelings about Simpson, who was acquitted in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

"It's not a total solution but I do think a younger jury would probably come in with preconceived notions against OJ," Simpson attorney Gabriel Grasso said. "But that could also go against us. Some young people don't even know OJ was a football player."

Grasso said the defence will work to impugn the credibility of the four men who have copped pleas as well as the alleged victims, all of which have criminal records and many of whom have sought to capitalise financially from their connection to this case.

Only Simpson has never been convicted of a crime, he noted.

Yet the fact that there are audio tapes of the incident could be troublesome for the defence, said Vegas lawyer David Chesnoff, who famous clients have included lifestyle guru Martha Stewart and boxer Mike Tyson.

"I think they have more things to worry about than even they realise," Chesnoff said. "The cooperation of the participants and OJ Simpson 's own voice on the tapes could be big problems.

"His tone on the tape will be an important issue, whether it sounds threatening or strong-arming the alleged victim."

Interest in the case is high, although it's nothing on the order of the national obsession that was the 1995 criminal trial in which Simpson was acquitted, said TruTV executive vice-president Marlene Dann.

The network, formerly known as CourtTV, plans live gavel-to-gavel coverage.

"That was a particular time in TV history, a point at which people weren't as familiar with trial proceedings," said Dann of the 1995 trial.

"Saying that, if our email is any indication, there's a huge appetite for this trial. I think people ultimately want to see if he's going to finally end up in jail."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/4996542/oj-simpson-faces-robbery-kidnap-trial/

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson faces robbery, kidnap trial
September 7, 2008, 1:45 pm

Thirteen years after his acquittal in one of the most publicised murder cases in American history, former football great OJ Simpson returns to court on Monday for jury selection in a robbery and kidnapping case that could send him to prison for life.

Legal experts say the outcome of the case is far from clear as Simpson, 61, faces a dozen felonies that stem from a confrontation in a hotel room last September in which he and a gang of gun-toting cohorts departed the scene with pillow cases stuffed full of sports memorabilia.

The charges against Simpson and one of those men, Clarence "CJ" Stewart, includes kidnapping and armed robbery, both of which carry potential life sentences in the state of Nevada.

Simpson and his group allegedly stormed the room at the Palace Station Hotel-Casino to retrieve memorabilia largely related to the football star's career that he has insisted was stolen from him.

It was in the possession of two collectibles dealers, Bruce L Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Simpson later insisted he did not know that two of the men with him would be carrying guns and did not see them brandish their weapons.

Four of the gang, including the two who carried weapons, have struck plea agreements for reduced sentences in exchange for testifying against Simpson.

The encounter was arranged by another memorabilia dealer, Thomas Riccio, who recorded the incident and sold those recordings to the celebrity website TMZ.Com for a reported $US165,000 ($A203,578.04) before he shared the audio with police.

Fromong said Simpson and his group took hundreds of items including his new mobile phone and many collectibles that were related to the careers of other American sports figures.

Legal analysts say that such a banal case rarely would go to trial but that the famous defendant has turned it into a much more complicated matter.

"Nothing about an OJ case is a normal case because it's OJ," says former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson based in Los Angeles who covered the 1995 trial for CBS News. "A guy who can get off of a double homicide with DNA evidence is not a normal defendant. There's going to be some pressure to vindicate the judicial system in this case."

Choosing a jury will be a crucial phase. The court distributed a 26-page questionnaire to 500 prospective jurors to weed out those with strong feelings about Simpson, who was acquitted in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

"It's not a total solution but I do think a younger jury would probably come in with preconceived notions against OJ," Simpson attorney Gabriel Grasso said. "But that could also go against us. Some young people don't even know OJ was a football player."

Grasso said the defence will work to impugn the credibility of the four men who have copped pleas as well as the alleged victims, all of which have criminal records and many of whom have sought to capitalise financially from their connection to this case.

Only Simpson has never been convicted of a crime, he noted.

Yet the fact that there are audio tapes of the incident could be troublesome for the defence, said Vegas lawyer David Chesnoff, who famous clients have included lifestyle guru Martha Stewart and boxer Mike Tyson.

"I think they have more things to worry about than even they realise," Chesnoff said. "The cooperation of the participants and OJ Simpson 's own voice on the tapes could be big problems.

"His tone on the tape will be an important issue, whether it sounds threatening or strong-arming the alleged victim."

Interest in the case is high, although it's nothing on the order of the national obsession that was the 1995 criminal trial in which Simpson was acquitted, said TruTV executive vice-president Marlene Dann.

The network, formerly known as CourtTV, plans live gavel-to-gavel coverage.

"That was a particular time in TV history, a point at which people weren't as familiar with trial proceedings," said Dann of the 1995 trial.

"Saying that, if our email is any indication, there's a huge appetite for this trial. I think people ultimately want to see if he's going to finally end up in jail."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/4996542/oj-simpson-faces-robbery-kidnap-trial/

I guess, if the trial is televised, we will all have a first hand opportunity to see if he will receive a fair trial or will the stigma that attaches itself to him will overcome the concept of a fair trial. I think the emphasis should be on whether or not the trial is fair so that, regardless of what the verdict is, the verdict will have a high degree of credibility.

[One2Snoop]

I guess, if the trial is televised, we will all have a first hand opportunity to see if he will receive a fair trial or will the stigma that attaches itself to him will overcome the concept of a fair trial. I think the emphasis should be on whether or not the trial is fair so that, regardless of what the verdict is, the verdict will have a high degree of credibility.

One can only hope thats the way it will play out William Anthony. They're only using a jury pool of 500? How interesting.
I was called to jury duty not long ago for a vehicular manslaughter case - the jury pool was well over 800 people and no one famous I knew of was involved. . hmmmmm?

[One2Snoop]

You can also follow the up and coming OJ trial thru this website...

http://thelegaledge.com/

but then you have to come back here and make comments. ;)

[William Anthony]

One can only hope thats the way it will play out William Anthony. They're only using a jury pool of 500? How interesting.
I was called to jury duty not long ago for a vehicular manslaughter case - the jury pool was well over 800 people and no one famous I knew of was involved. . hmmmmm?

I think the trial will illuminate several controversial legal issues and some may involve one's Constitutional rights, or privileges, if you will. I am interested in seeing how the defense forms his defense and will the jury be receptive of those arguments, despite Simpson's fame or infamy depending on how one see's them. Can the jury set aside their personal feelings about him and listen to and apply the law, despite those feelings. The verdict, rulings of law and the trial will have an effect upon, who is a property owner and the rights of those property owners that will effect all property owners in Nevada, imho.

[William Anthony]

You can also follow the up and coming OJ trial thru this website...

http://thelegaledge.com/

but then you have to come back here and make comments. ;)

Viewer discretion is advised. :)

[martin II]

I think the trial will illuminate several controversial legal issues and some may involve one's Constitutional rights, or privileges, if you will. I am interested in seeing how the defense forms his defense and will the jury be receptive of those arguments, despite Simpson's fame or infamy depending on how one see's them. Can the jury set aside their personal feelings about him and listen to and apply the law, despite those feelings. The verdict, rulings of law and the trial will have an effect upon, who is a property owner and the rights of those property owners that will effect all property owners in Nevada, imho.

I believe that when the prosecution charged all of the people in the group
and then got most to testify against oj in exchange of probation, the possibility of a fair trial went out the window.It is like no one commited a crime but oj.The two guys that admitted they had guns out get probation for their testimony against the target. The guy that orchastrated the whole event at the hotel that set up the meeting and rented the hotel room is not even charged.

what a joke.

[martin II]

Today reported on fox.

Someone called vegas police and reported oj simpson driving a car and that he was drunk. Police searched and found oj in a car. investigated the charge and found he was not drunk or drinking so that let him go on his way.

[Kate Sachel]

I detest OJ Simpson and all things surrounding him. However, my biggest fear with this particular case is that the court of public opinion will far outweigh the principles of our legal system.

It alarms me that many people I have spoken with are of the thought process that, regardless of whether he deserves conviction for this particular alleged crime, they want to see him recieve the punishment.

I personally believe that he should currently be in his 14th year behind bars, but a jury who delivered a verdict in 1995 disagreed and so he remained a free man. The justice system did its work then, and despite my distaste for the man, I must hope that if he is in fact convicted on these charges that he is done so for all of the right and appropriate reasons rather than yet another stage for payback.

Kate

[William Anthony]

One can only hope thats the way it will play out William Anthony. They're only using a jury pool of 500? How interesting.
I was called to jury duty not long ago for a vehicular manslaughter case - the jury pool was well over 800 people and no one famous I knew of was involved. . hmmmmm?

I heard that both sides were only allowed seven preemptory challenges, which may come from a desire to begin the trial. I hope that fairness will not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

[William Anthony]

I detest OJ Simpson and all things surrounding him. However, my biggest fear with this particular case is that the court of public opinion will far outweigh the principles of our legal system.

It alarms me that many people I have spoken with are of the thought process that, regardless of whether he deserves conviction for this particular alleged crime, they want to see him recieve the punishment.

I personally believe that he should currently be in his 14th year behind bars, but a jury who delivered a verdict in 1995 disagreed and so he remained a free man. The justice system did its work then, and despite my distaste for the man, I must hope that if he is in fact convicted on these charges that he is done so for all of the right and appropriate reasons rather than yet another stage for payback.

Kate

A very interesting post. You have stated that the jury delivered the right verdict 14 years ago based on the trial but you believe that he should have been incarcerated. I think that things other than the trial caused you to believe him guilty, if I understand correctly. Your statement that you hope that if he is convicted on these charges it will be for the right and appropriate reasons rather than yet another stage for payback, indicates to me, if I am correct, that you believe that payback previously entered the scene in regard to his treatment in the legal system. Based on those statements, I am asking if you believe that the criminal and civil trials were fair legal processes.

[martin II]

"If you are here to think that you're going to punish Mr. Simpson for what happened in Los Angeles back in '95, this is not the case for you," Judge Jackie Glass told the jury pool.


I wonder how many agree with judge Glass and if her statement will hold true.

[Kate Sachel]

A very interesting post. You have stated that the jury delivered the right verdict 14 years ago based on the trial but you believe that he should have been incarcerated. I think that things other than the trial caused you to believe him guilty, if I understand correctly. Your statement that you hope that if he is convicted on these charges it will be for the right and appropriate reasons rather than yet another stage for payback, indicates to me, if I am correct, that you believe that payback previously entered the scene in regard to his treatment in the legal system. Based on those statements, I am asking if you believe that the criminal and civil trials were fair legal processes.

William,

I have posted my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions on this issue for years now on this forum and thus your question has been adequately answered more than once.

I find your post interesting as well. It shows your lack of thought process and disregard for all of my previous postings on said matter.

Kate

[William Anthony]

William,

I have posted my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions on this issue for years now on this forum and thus your question has been adequately answered more than once.

I find your post interesting as well. It shows your lack of thought process and disregard for all of my previous postings on said matter.

Kate

I don't know why you arrived at the conclusion stated in your last sentence. I am aware that you feel that Simpson is guilty of the murders and feel that there was reasonable doubt. My question is whether your personal feelings about his guilt are based on something other than the trial. If we have discussed this previously, I don't remember. I am aware of your feelings on violence, especially domestic abuse and your admiral work to prevent it. Is it because of your feelings about domestic abuse that causes you to believe he is guilty?

I am uncertain as to whether you believe that the civil jury verdict was a form of payback, even though you may feel it was justified. I am aware of your feelings about Blaiser and victim bashing. I am unaware of your feelings toward the claims of Petrocelli, not what he claimed he proved, but whether or not you believe the evidence supported a finding that Simpson was liable based on the evidence he presented. I am not trying to start a debate. I just had some doubts and wanted you to clarify them for me, because I did not follow the civil trial and based on some of the things that have been posted and the rulings, I formed the opinion that the civil trial was a form of payback and called it a socio-political production. Because I find you to be honest is why I sought the clarification and did not want to create a debate/argument/discussion about your feelings but rely on your knowledge of the civil trial and may take into consideration things that I may not have previously considered.

[Kate Sachel]

I don't know why you arrived at the conclusion stated in your last sentence. I am aware that you feel that Simpson is guilty of the murders and feel that there was reasonable doubt. My question is whether your personal feelings about his guilt are based on something other than the trial. If we have discussed this previously, I don't remember. I am aware of your feelings on violence, especially domestic abuse and your admiral work to prevent it. Is it because of your feelings about domestic abuse that causes you to believe he is guilty?

I am uncertain as to whether you believe that the civil jury verdict was a form of payback, even though you may feel it was justified. I am aware of your feelings about Blaiser and victim bashing. I am unaware of your feelings toward the claims of Petrocelli, not what he claimed he proved, but whether or not you believe the evidence supported a finding that Simpson was liable based on the evidence he presented. I am not trying to start a debate. I just had some doubts and wanted you to clarify them for me, because I did not follow the civil trial and based on some of the things that have been posted and the rulings, I formed the opinion that the civil trial was a form of payback and called it a socio-political production. Because I find you to be honest is why I sought the clarification and did not want to create a debate/argument/discussion about your feelings but rely on your knowledge of the civil trial and may take into consideration things that I may not have previously considered.

I will try to clarify my position as well as I can.

I support the 1995 verdict of "not guilty of the crime of murder ..." because I believe that the defense effectively raised issues that created a reasonable doubt. When there is reasonable doubt, you should not convict. Because I believe that he murdered two human beings is why I make the statement that I believe he should be serving his 14th year behind bars. That statement comes from separating my legal thought process from my personal thought process. In our personal thought processes we are allowed to have those beliefs, to believe that an individual that commits a crime should be punished, but the law requires me to have a thought process independent of that. This may sound wholly contradictory, but it is not. To agree that an aquittal was appropriate given the circumstances does not require me to believe in his innocence and because I do not believe in his innocence I find it a shame that he walked a free man, but his defense did their job and the law requires that I accept that.

Moving on to the "payback" comment. All that was meant by that comment is that, for the past 14 years, it seems that payback has been a common theme in regard to OJ Simpson. Many believe the criminal trial was a form of payback, many others believe the same of the civil trial. Some believe that he will be found guilty in this current trial as a means of payback, etc. Do you see my point? I want the principles of our justice system to stand firm, rather than another cycle of payback whether real or percieved.

My personal feelings regarding domestic abuse are not what causes me to believe that he is guilty. His pattern of domestic violence and unhealthy obsession with controlling his wife do play into alot of things regarding my thought process, but does the fact that there was violence in their relationshp automatically lead me to assume his guilt? No, absolutely not.

I do not believe the civil trial was payback, nor do I believe that of the criminal trial. I do believe fully that his liability for the death of Ron and the battery of Nicole was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. I'd go as far as to say it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. That discussion will require a seperate posting.

I hope I have clarified some things.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I will try to clarify my position as well as I can.

I support the 1995 verdict of "not guilty of the crime of murder ..." because I believe that the defense effectively raised issues that created a reasonable doubt. When there is reasonable doubt, you should not convict. Because I believe that he murdered two human beings is why I make the statement that I believe he should be serving his 14th year behind bars. That statement comes from separating my legal thought process from my personal thought process. In our personal thought processes we are allowed to have those beliefs, to believe that an individual that commits a crime should be punished, but the law requires me to have a thought process independent of that. This may sound wholly contradictory, but it is not. To agree that an aquittal was appropriate given the circumstances does not require me to believe in his innocence and because I do not believe in his innocence I find it a shame that he walked a free man, but his defense did their job and the law requires that I accept that.

Moving on to the "payback" comment. All that was meant by that comment is that, for the past 14 years, it seems that payback has been a common theme in regard to OJ Simpson. Many believe the criminal trial was a form of payback, many others believe the same of the civil trial. Some believe that he will be found guilty in this current trial as a means of payback, etc. Do you see my point? I want the principles of our justice system to stand firm, rather than another cycle of payback whether real or percieved.

My personal feelings regarding domestic abuse are not what causes me to believe that he is guilty. His pattern of domestic violence and unhealthy obsession with controlling his wife do play into alot of things regarding my thought process, but does the fact that there was violence in their relationshp automatically lead me to assume his guilt? No, absolutely not.

I do not believe the civil trial was payback, nor do I believe that of the criminal trial. I do believe fully that his liability for the death of Ron and the battery of Nicole was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. I'd go as far as to say it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. That discussion will require a seperate posting.

I hope I have clarified some things.

Kate

The short answer is yes. As to the criminal trial I think that you and I agree up to a point, which we need not discuss. The only thing that I say that is different is that, after watching and tapping it, I was unable to form an opinion either to his innocence of guilt.

I find your diplomacy refreshing and I realize what you are saying as payback in the criminal trial. In an effort not to start a debate, I will simply say that I do not believe as some and agree that there was reasonable doubt.

You have somewhat clarified your position and I accept that. I know the cordial relationships are hard to maintain and I will not push the issue any further, because, even though I think we can remain cordial if you had given more specific reasons why you think he is guilty, the same may not be the case for others. You have answered my line of inquiry. I think we have agreed in substance on many things and for the integrity of our legal system I hope the trial will be seen by the vast majority as being fair. I know there will always be some to think it is not fair, regardless of the outcome. I think that you know my feelings on the judge's statement that caused me to feel that the civil trial was a socio-political production, which is not to say that it was not fair and I have not researched enough yet to form a definite opinion. I do question the statements and the rulings but, as I have said, I accept the verdict and cannot say that I am of the opinion that the civil trial, although improperly motivated, imho, was not a fair trial.

[William Anthony]

I think I need to clarify my statement that I feel that the motivation behind the civil trial was socio-political. I do not question the motivation of the plaintiffs or their right to bring the cause of actions but do question the motivation of the so-called court of public opinion.

[Redmama]

I will try to clarify my position as well as I can.

I support the 1995 verdict of "not guilty of the crime of murder ..." because I believe that the defense effectively raised issues that created a reasonable doubt. When there is reasonable doubt, you should not convict. Because I believe that he murdered two human beings is why I make the statement that I believe he should be serving his 14th year behind bars. That statement comes from separating my legal thought process from my personal thought process. In our personal thought processes we are allowed to have those beliefs, to believe that an individual that commits a crime should be punished, but the law requires me to have a thought process independent of that. This may sound wholly contradictory, but it is not. To agree that an aquittal was appropriate given the circumstances does not require me to believe in his innocence and because I do not believe in his innocence I find it a shame that he walked a free man, but his defense did their job and the law requires that I accept that.

Moving on to the "payback" comment. All that was meant by that comment is that, for the past 14 years, it seems that payback has been a common theme in regard to OJ Simpson. Many believe the criminal trial was a form of payback, many others believe the same of the civil trial. Some believe that he will be found guilty in this current trial as a means of payback, etc. Do you see my point? I want the principles of our justice system to stand firm, rather than another cycle of payback whether real or percieved.

My personal feelings regarding domestic abuse are not what causes me to believe that he is guilty. His pattern of domestic violence and unhealthy obsession with controlling his wife do play into alot of things regarding my thought process, but does the fact that there was violence in their relationshp automatically lead me to assume his guilt? No, absolutely not.

I do not believe the civil trial was payback, nor do I believe that of the criminal trial. I do believe fully that his liability for the death of Ron and the battery of Nicole was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. I'd go as far as to say it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. That discussion will require a seperate posting.

I hope I have clarified some things.

Kate

Kate,

I am aligned completely with you. A really great, well thought out post.

Redmama

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson jury selection enters home stretch
By LINDA DEUTSCH – 4 hours ago

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A judge who asked lawyers and prospective jurors to put in 10-hour days to get a jury for the O.J. Simpson kidnapping-robbery case suggested a panel to judge the former football star could be seated late Thursday or early Friday.

"The end is near, folks!" exulted Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass at the end of three grueling days of jury questioning. "There are people who thought it would take weeks to pick a jury. It will take only a week, maybe less."

Jury selection was scheduled to resume Thursday morning.

By day's end Wednesday, lawyers had cleared 27 prospects for the panel from which the final 12 jurors and six alternates will be chosen. Glass said she wants 40 cleared before lawyers begin exercising peremptory challenges, which allow them to remove prospects without stating a cause.

A few of those remaining have been challenged for cause, including bias against Simpson, but the judge rejected the moves.

One man's angry outburst against Simpson led to a defense motion to dismiss the entire jury pool because everyone had heard it. But the judge refused.

The man, who had been waiting for three days to have his say, blurted out a comment that stunned the courtroom.

"I feel the case down in Los Angeles — if someone got away with that, you would keep yourself clean and you wouldn't come back and commit another crime," he said.

The judge quickly dismissed him and asked other jurors to disregard his words. She told them they would have to put aside negative feelings about Simpson's murder acquittal.

"Conversely, if you are a super O.J. fan and think Mr. Simpson is the best thing that ever happened in football, can you set that aside?" she said.

Most prospective jurors have said they disagree with the 1995 verdict to acquit Simpson on charges of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and friend Ronald Goldman, though many have said they still believe they can fairly consider the Las Vegas case.

Simpson, 61, is accused with co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart, 54, of kidnapping, armed robbery and other crimes for allegedly stealing items from two sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel room confrontation last year. They have pleaded not guilty.

On Wednesday, there was a mix of those with strong feelings against Simpson and a few who paid little attention to the murder trial and said they were neutral. Some were teenagers when the trial happened and one man said he was 8 years old but remembered his parents denouncing the acquittal verdict.

"My parents had very strong opinions against the verdict," said the young ponytailed man. But he said he could put that aside and judge the Las Vegas case anew.

Wednesday's session was marked by a contentious verbal contest between Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter and a man who had shown anger against Simpson's acquittal in his written jury questionnaire. The man acknowledged he had written some strong, emotional opinions but said his three days in court had convinced him he could put those feelings aside.

One woman said she didn't follow the previous trial but was critical of Simpson for participating in an ill-fated book called, "If I Did It."

"The title alone is going to cause negative feedback, and I don't know who wants to invite that into your life," she said.

[William Anthony]

I heard and saw a portion of an argument in which the judge said the parties were on equal footing during the process of jury selection, with which Galanter disagreed, stating that the defense was entitled to the presumption of innocence, to which I agree.

[William Anthony]

And all White jury has been selected with two Blacks being selected as alternate jurors.

[Jules100]

September 3, 2008
O.J. Simpson’s lawyers ready for trial
Posted: 09:28 AM ET
LAS VEGAS, Nevada – O.J. Simpson’s attorneys answered ready for trial Tuesday in a Las Vegas courtroom.

Attorneys for co-defendant Clarence “C.J.” Stewart moved yet again for severance on the grounds that Stewart cannot get a fair trial if he is seated next to, and tried with, Simpson on armed robbery and kidnapping charges. Stewart’s attorneys also requested a continuance of the proceedings. It was no surprise that Judge Jackie Glass denied all Stewart’s motions but his attorneys have certainly made an exhaustive record of his concerns in multiple motions for severance.

A few facts were learned about the approximately 500 jury questionnaires the attorneys and judge have been reviewing in the past weeks. About half of the prospective jurors have been eliminated already, many for expressing strong opinions about Simpson. The judge hopes to seat 12 jurors and six alternates in a week but the defense believes that’s a bit optimistic.

The State announced it intends to call 25 witnesses. Those witnesses include the two alleged victims, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley, Thomas Riccio, the four one-time co-defendants who pled guilty to charges stemming from the incident, and Simpson’s former agent Mike Gilbert. Simpson’s attorney, Gabriel Grasso, said their witnesses incorporate all of the names on the State’s list plus another 3-4 names. Those other names include Tom and Sabrina Scotto (the couple whose wedding Simpson attended the weekend of the alleged robbery) and Simpson’s daughter, Arnelle. Stewart’s attorney, Robert Lucherini, said he plans to call six or seven witnesses although his witness list has three times the number.

At the end of the brief hearing, Judge Glass cautioned the attorneys to have their witnesses “properly attired” for court. Thomas Riccio’s latest announcement may have prompted Glass’s comment. Riccio, the memorabilia dealer responsible for getting everyone together at the Palace Station Hotel & Casino, will be a critical witness for the prosecution. He expects a lot of media attention on him especially on the day he testifies.

Riccio is offering to advertise for businesses for $1,000-$5,000. For example, should he indeed arrive at the courthouse in a limousine, ads may be strategically placed on the limo for a fee; he could wear a ballcap and a tee shirt with ads for yet other businesses. He’ll dine at a sponsoring restaurant for $5,000 and mention a product in television interviews for a fee. Judge Glass is not likely to be amused if Riccio takes the stand bedecked in a promotional tee but, alas, her power to limit his entrepreneurial undertaking is confined to the courtroom.

Preparations for the trial spilled outside the courtroom. A woman from court administration sat at a table at the entrance to the courthouse Tuesday morning handing out press credentials. More than 400 members of the media have applied for credentials, many of whom will want to be in the courtroom. But there are only 20 seats for the media at any given time. Alas, as in many high-profile trials, we’ll have to rotate seats and be satisfied with an hour or two of watching the action from the public gallery.

-Beth Karas, In Session correspondent


Yet another person making money out of peoples pain and sadness :flamemad:

[William Anthony]

Trutv has amended its statement that the jury is all White to they appear to be all White and there were 11 preemptory challenges for both sides.

[martin II]

And all White jury has been selected with two Blacks being selected as alternate jurors.

I believe 2-3 stated they believe oj got away with murder in the criminal trial
and they were allowed to remain.

[William Anthony]

I believe 2-3 stated they believe oj got away with murder in the criminal trial
and they were allowed to remain.

Yeah, they were asked, if they could set aside their personal feelings, and judge this case solely on the evidence presented and they said, the could.

[William Anthony]

Opening statements are about to begin and the trial is being televised. The judge is now reading jury instructions.

[William Anthony]

I would have objected to the prosecution's opening, regarding Simpson's signing of the interrogatories during the Simpson trial as to what property he had on the basis of relevance. Perhaps, his lawyer will make the point that Simpson always thought the property belonged to him in his opening and that is why he did not object. He was not on trial for falsifying statements in the civil trial. In a way the opening bolsters Simpson's state of mind that the property was his.

[martin II]

I would have objected to the prosecution's opening, regarding Simpson's signing of the interrogatories during the Simpson trial as to what property he had on the basis of relevance. Perhaps, his lawyer will make the point that Simpson always thought the property belonged to him in his opening and that is why he did not object. He was not on trial for falsifying statements in the civil trial. In a way the opening bolsters Simpson's state of mind that the property was his.

The prosecution has been allowed to bring info from the civil trial into this vegas trial anyway.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution has been allowed to bring info from the civil trial into this vegas trial anyway.

If you are listening and watching and I do not know how it is playing out in the courtroom but there are times when the tapes being played are distracting from the opening as the prosecution tries to over talk them, imho.

[martin II]

If oj did not walk out of the hotel with any stuff and all of the stuff was found by le in others lawyers offices. Oj is charged with robbery.

[weezer]

we've heard testimony and statements in the civil trial that orenthal couldn't shut up -- I guess the tapes we're hearing prove that! LOL

[weezer]

If oj did not walk out of the hotel with any stuff and all of the stuff was found by le in others lawyers offices. Oj is charged with robbery.

it couldn't have been orenthal's stuff -- didn't you listen to the answers he gave during the civil trial? he didn't have anything except what was in his home in Florida and there was no one holding stuff for him. so, sounds like he perpetrated an armed robbery.

[William Anthony]

The more germane part is what did he mean by what he said when his mouth was open. That is what the trial is about. ;):cool: