O.J. In The News Again

[martin II]

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.

On my computer in can hardly hear the prosecutor talking, he goes in and out depending where he is standing.I have the same problem that you have described.

[weezer]

you guys need to 'shop' around for a better feed -- mine is perfect.

[William Anthony]

It sounds like he falsified an answer in an interrogatory, because he thought the property was his, rightly or wrongly, and therefore took steps to hide it and get it back when it was stolen, negating the mens rea.

[martin II]

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.

I an trying to ignore statements from the civil trial so i can concentrate on this trial.He is on trial for the vegas affair not what was said in the civil trial.

[weezer]

LOL -- the tapes after the robbery are damaging to orenthal.

[William Anthony]

My feed is trutv, which made the prosecution's opening sort of bland, for lack of a better word.

[William Anthony]

Let's not rush to judgment. The trial has just began and let's remember the presumption of innocence.

[martin II]

you guys need to 'shop' around for a better feed -- mine is perfect.

I have been listening to political feeds all morning with no problem on cnn.Maby it will get better.

[weezer]

I an trying to ignore statements from the civil trial so i can concentrate on this trial.He is on trial for the vegas affair not what was said in the civil trial.

did you also ignore statements fromt he criminal trial in order to concentrate on the civil trial? LOL

[William Anthony]

If what Galanter says is true, then the proper steps were taken to try to attempt to get LE to do their job without avail and that he was only trying to get his personalities back. I see why he was chosen as a trial lawyer. His opening is much more exciting, imho, than was the prosecution's. He reminded the jury of their oath to set aside their feeling about the civil and criminal trial. Of course, the same does not apply to us as posters but we should be looking to see if a fair trial is given, imho.

[weezer]

anyone see arnelle and/or christie?

[weezer]

orenthal as articulate as always! LOL

[martin II]

did you also ignore statements fromt he criminal trial in order to concentrate on the civil trial? LOL

I am ignoring all info from all trials but this one.I think that is what the judge told the jurors to do.

[martin II]

anyone see arnelle and/or christie?

Why does that matter??

[martin II]

If what Galanter says is true, then the proper steps were taken to try to attempt to get LE to do their job without avail and that he was only trying to get his personalities back. I see why he was chosen as a trial lawyer. His opening is much more exciting, imho, than was the prosecution's. He reminded the jury of their oath to set aside their feeling about the civil and criminal trial. Of course, the same does not apply to us as posters but we should be looking to see if a fair trial is given, imho.

Both defense lawyers gave good info on what happened. Especially Stewarts lawyer told a detail story. not as wide and general accusation that the prosecution made. My feed is beter now.

[martin II]

LOL -- the tapes after the robbery are damaging to orenthal.

So far only very small pieces of the tapes have been played.I am waiting to hear all of the tapes before making a opinion.

[weezer]

Why does that matter??

it doesn't to the trial --

I haven't seen any pictures of Christie since all the 'accidents' and arnelle is, of course, always by daddy's side.

[weezer]

So far only very small pieces of the tapes have been played.I am waiting to hear all of the tapes before making a opinion.

sure hope we're able to read transcripts --

[One2Snoop]

OJ Simpson Prosecutor: Evidence Will Show Threats

Last Edited: Monday, 15 Sep 2008, 3:22 PM EDT
Created: Monday, 15 Sep 2008, 3:22 PM EDT

By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS -- A prosecutor told jurors Monday they will learn "the true face" of O.J. Simpson during the former football star's trial on charges of robbing sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room.

Prosecutor Chris Owens began his opening statement by playing an audio recording of the confrontation and pointed out one voice barking commands: "Don't let nobody outta here ... stand the (expletive) up before it gets ugly in here."

Simpson, who flashed a thumbs-up sign when he arrived at court, sat impassively while Owens described the rest of the recording.

"The audio will show threats, it will show force, it will show demands and it will show the taking of property from the victims in this case," Owens said.

"In our presentation of the evidence we are going to spend the next few days finding which may be the true face of ... Simpson, not necessarily the one he tries to put out to the world," Owens said.

In his opening statement, defense attorney Yale Galanter asserted that the evidence will not show that Simpson intended to commit a crime, but rather that he simply wanted to recover stolen personal effects, including pictures of his deceased parents, and not sports memorabilia.

"You can think what you want about his past, and you all as jurors have agreed to ignore that ... what you're going to hear in this courtroom is not a case about hiding anything from anybody. It's a case about recovering personal items," Galanter said.

snip
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7436474&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1

[martin II]

it doesn't to the trial --

I haven't seen any pictures of Christie since all the 'accidents' and arnelle is, of course, always by daddy's side.


I have not see Arnell by Oj side on the feed i am using.
Anything unusual about a daughter being by her fathers side?

[weezer]

I have not see Arnell by Oj side on the feed i am using.
Anything unusual about a daughter being by her fathers side?

you know that I believe the relationship between arnelle and orenthal is . . . .

[martin II]

you know that I believe the relationship between arnelle and orenthal is . . . .

And that means what in this trial?

[martin II]

OJ: 'i cannot believe you stole my s***

Fumong: "i didn't take it Mike took it"

later
Fumong: " i paid for this stuff, i designed it and i paid him for it"

[weezer]

And that means what in this trial?

oh good grief martin! it doesn't mean anything to this trial. you're the one that asked: ". . .Anything unusual about a daughter being by her fathers side?. . ."

[martin II]

oh good grief martin! it doesn't mean anything to this trial. you're the one that asked: ". . .Anything unusual about a daughter being by her fathers side?. . ."

You commented that Arnell was beside daddy and i responded

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson Prosecutor: Evidence Will Show Threats

Last Edited: Monday, 15 Sep 2008, 3:22 PM EDT
Created: Monday, 15 Sep 2008, 3:22 PM EDT

By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS -- A prosecutor told jurors Monday they will learn "the true face" of O.J. Simpson during the former football star's trial on charges of robbing sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room.

Prosecutor Chris Owens began his opening statement by playing an audio recording of the confrontation and pointed out one voice barking commands: "Don't let nobody outta here ... stand the (expletive) up before it gets ugly in here."

Simpson, who flashed a thumbs-up sign when he arrived at court, sat impassively while Owens described the rest of the recording.

"The audio will show threats, it will show force, it will show demands and it will show the taking of property from the victims in this case," Owens said.

"In our presentation of the evidence we are going to spend the next few days finding which may be the true face of ... Simpson, not necessarily the one he tries to put out to the world," Owens said.

In his opening statement, defense attorney Yale Galanter asserted that the evidence will not show that Simpson intended to commit a crime, but rather that he simply wanted to recover stolen personal effects, including pictures of his deceased parents, and not sports memorabilia.

"You can think what you want about his past, and you all as jurors have agreed to ignore that ... what you're going to hear in this courtroom is not a case about hiding anything from anybody. It's a case about recovering personal items," Galanter said.

snip
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7436474&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1

I would agree with Galanter. This trial is about the current charges and not what type of person Simpson is or any other charges.

[martin II]

Prosecutor in Simpson trial refers to '94 killings

Sep 15 06:43 PM US/Eastern
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent


LAS VEGAS (AP) - A week after jurors were told to forget O.J. Simpson's past, the prosecutor in his robbery-kidnapping trial on Monday reminded them of the civil judgment against the former football star in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife and her friend.
"That's a different case and different facts, but the effect of the judgment is something you may consider," Chief Deputy District Attorney Chris Owens said in his opening statement.

Simpson and a friend are accused of robbing sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room last year.

In his statement to jurors, Owens spoke of Fred Goldman, whose son, Ron, was slain in 1994 along with Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges but found liable in a civil case brought by Fred Goldman and ordered to pay more than $30 million.

Owens said he would show that Simpson came to Nevada to confront the two dealers because he felt that if he took back personal property in California, Goldman would seize and sell it.

Defense attorney Yale Galanter, angered by Owens' tactic, told jurors: "This case ... is not about what occurred in California. This case is not about Fred Goldman. It is about what happened in Las Vegas last year this time and whether crimes were committed."

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart have pleaded not guilty to charges including robbery, coercion, assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping.

But beyond the court clerk's reading of the charges, there was little mention of the legalities during opening statements. The prosecutor focused on Simpson's personal history, saying the trial would reveal his "true face, not necessarily the one he tries to put out to the world."

Simpson sat impassively as the prosecutor described an audio recording of the confrontation in a casino hotel room between the memorabilia dealers and Simpson, who arrived with a group of men.

"The audio will show threats, it will show force, it will show demands and it will show the taking of property from the victims in this case," Owens said.

The prosecutor played an excerpt from the incident in which a voice barked commands: "Don't let nobody outta here ... stand the (expletive) up before it gets ugly in here."

He said that was Simpson and he followed with many more taped excerpts, most of them noisy and unintelligible. Owens said most of the people involved, including the memorabilia dealers, had tape recorders operating before and during the confrontation at the Palace Station Hotel.

Owens also acknowledged that Tom Riccio, who set up the meeting, sold his recording to a gossip Web site. Galanter said the price was more than $100,000 and that those who accuse Simpson had a profit motive.

"They were in it for money. They are still in it for money," said Galanter. "They want to write books."

Owens quoted a taped conversation ahead of the incident in which Simpson said, "I'm gonna show up with a bunch of the boys and take the stuff back. They can't do nothing about it."

In another excerpt he quoted Simpson as saying, "I gotta be at my intimidating best in a few hours."

Galanter said the earlier tapes reflect only one thing about Simpson—he likes to talk, saying of his client: "He talks to everyone he meets."

While Owens referred to the items as memorabilia, Galanter disputed that.

"Memorabilia is commercially available," he said. "These were personal items ... pictures of his deceased mom and dad." Galanter said they included things stolen from Simpson's home in California.

The co-defendant, Stewart, was mentioned by Owens briefly. He claimed Stewart went along to provide a truck for transporting the materials. His lawyer, Robert Lucherini, told jurors that "he didn't know the property was stolen, and ... he didn't know there were guns going to be used in that room."

Galanter said Simpson knew nothing about guns either. And he said both men thought so much material was going to be recovered that Simpson hired a bellman.

"How many people commit a robbery and use a bellman?" he asked.

"You will conclude there was never any intent to commit crimes," he said. "This was a recovery. It wasn't a robbery."

___

Associated Press writer Ken Ritter contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All

[William Anthony]

Prosecutor in Simpson trial refers to '94 killings

Sep 15 06:43 PM US/Eastern
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent


LAS VEGAS (AP) - A week after jurors were told to forget O.J. Simpson's past, the prosecutor in his robbery-kidnapping trial on Monday reminded them of the civil judgment against the former football star in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife and her friend.
"That's a different case and different facts, but the effect of the judgment is something you may consider," Chief Deputy District Attorney Chris Owens said in his opening statement.

Simpson and a friend are accused of robbing sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room last year.

In his statement to jurors, Owens spoke of Fred Goldman, whose son, Ron, was slain in 1994 along with Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges but found liable in a civil case brought by Fred Goldman and ordered to pay more than $30 million.

Owens said he would show that Simpson came to Nevada to confront the two dealers because he felt that if he took back personal property in California, Goldman would seize and sell it.

Defense attorney Yale Galanter, angered by Owens' tactic, told jurors: "This case ... is not about what occurred in California. This case is not about Fred Goldman. It is about what happened in Las Vegas last year this time and whether crimes were committed."

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart have pleaded not guilty to charges including robbery, coercion, assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping.

But beyond the court clerk's reading of the charges, there was little mention of the legalities during opening statements. The prosecutor focused on Simpson's personal history, saying the trial would reveal his "true face, not necessarily the one he tries to put out to the world."

Simpson sat impassively as the prosecutor described an audio recording of the confrontation in a casino hotel room between the memorabilia dealers and Simpson, who arrived with a group of men.

"The audio will show threats, it will show force, it will show demands and it will show the taking of property from the victims in this case," Owens said.

The prosecutor played an excerpt from the incident in which a voice barked commands: "Don't let nobody outta here ... stand the (expletive) up before it gets ugly in here."

He said that was Simpson and he followed with many more taped excerpts, most of them noisy and unintelligible. Owens said most of the people involved, including the memorabilia dealers, had tape recorders operating before and during the confrontation at the Palace Station Hotel.

Owens also acknowledged that Tom Riccio, who set up the meeting, sold his recording to a gossip Web site. Galanter said the price was more than $100,000 and that those who accuse Simpson had a profit motive.

"They were in it for money. They are still in it for money," said Galanter. "They want to write books."

Owens quoted a taped conversation ahead of the incident in which Simpson said, "I'm gonna show up with a bunch of the boys and take the stuff back. They can't do nothing about it."

In another excerpt he quoted Simpson as saying, "I gotta be at my intimidating best in a few hours."

Galanter said the earlier tapes reflect only one thing about Simpson—he likes to talk, saying of his client: "He talks to everyone he meets."

While Owens referred to the items as memorabilia, Galanter disputed that.

"Memorabilia is commercially available," he said. "These were personal items ... pictures of his deceased mom and dad." Galanter said they included things stolen from Simpson's home in California.

The co-defendant, Stewart, was mentioned by Owens briefly. He claimed Stewart went along to provide a truck for transporting the materials. His lawyer, Robert Lucherini, told jurors that "he didn't know the property was stolen, and ... he didn't know there were guns going to be used in that room."

Galanter said Simpson knew nothing about guns either. And he said both men thought so much material was going to be recovered that Simpson hired a bellman.

"How many people commit a robbery and use a bellman?" he asked.

"You will conclude there was never any intent to commit crimes," he said. "This was a recovery. It wasn't a robbery."

___

Associated Press writer Ken Ritter contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All

Both sides blurred the lines between opening statements and closing arguments, imho. There was much less objecting from the defense. I think that was a calculated tactic, hoping that the leeway would be reciprocated, which proved not to be the case.

[William Anthony]

There is a wonderful discussion on the openings going on on Trutv.

[weezer]

I believe the reference to the judgement was to show 'motive' for the robbery --

[William Anthony]

I think that I should write to Galantar, because I am sure he realized that the motive to avoid paying the judgment was the most illogical argument I have ever heard. If the stuff was sold, the money from the sale would not have come from Simpson. The obvious motivation was that Simpson felt that, regardless of the judgment, the stuff was his, whether or not it legally belonged to the Goldmans. What I am saying is that it is proof of his lack of intent,mens rea, to commit a robbery.

[William Anthony]

The Goldmans are being interviewed on trutv. I will admit that the statements on the tapes that he intended to hide the stuff from the Goldmans can be viewed in two ways. One that he realized that the order would require him to turn over the stuff and the other is that he thought it was his stuff but realized that the Goldmans, if they were made aware of it, would try to get it. That statement will come force powerful arguments as it relates to the burden of persuasion.

[weezer]

I think the statements orenthal made about hiding assets from the Goldmans -- and how it was done -- coupled with his other statements about not paying them a dime no matter what -- will show his intent to rob the dealers.

[martin II]

I think the statements orenthal made about hiding assets from the Goldmans -- and how it was done -- coupled with his other statements about not paying them a dime no matter what -- will show his intent to rob the dealers.


Not paying Fred a dime = armed robbery in a vegas hotel. Thats very funny.

[William Anthony]

Not paying Fred a dime = armed robbery in a vegas hotel. Thats very funny.

I don't think he has been charged with armed robbery of the Goldmans.

[weezer]

Not paying Fred a dime = armed robbery in a vegas hotel. Thats very funny.

yep -- if orenthal hadn't cheated by hiding the stuff to start with, he wouldn't have had to rob to get it back.

I'm waiting for the funny part.

[William Anthony]

Here's the funny part. The prosecution claims the thieves, who stole property that did not belong to them, were robbed.

[martin II]

yep -- if orenthal hadn't cheated by hiding the stuff to start with, he wouldn't have had to rob to get it back.

I'm waiting for the funny part.

cheating is the funny part along with the rest.hahaha
According to what you think is proper oj cheated so you can just try him for cheating and i will watch the trial for armed robbery.

[William Anthony]

Grasso is over defending the case, imho. He had proven his point when he had the witness say Simpson told him he would leave the Montana stuff at the front desk and did not need to ask about a Montana room.

[weezer]

cheating is the funny part along with the rest.hahaha
According to what you think is proper oj cheated so you can just try him for cheating and i will watch the trial for armed robbery.

you think that's funny? your disrespect for the victims and their families turns my stomach.

you can't be so ignorant as to not understand that because he lied and cheated to get out of paying after being found liable for the deaths, he had to go in that room with goons and guns.

[weezer]

anyone know if orenthal left the montana stuff at the front desk?

[William Anthony]

The victims in this case are the thieves. There is a theory that society as a whole is victimized by crimes but yet these criminals walk free. However, let me address another point that Jamie Floyd addressed wonderfully on her last word segment. The charge is not about whether he lied or cheated of killed or assaulted anyone.

[William Anthony]

anyone know if orenthal left the montana stuff at the front desk?

I think he left it with the police.

[martin II]

you think that's funny? your disrespect for the victims and their families turns my stomach.

you can't be so ignorant as to not understand that because he lied and cheated to get out of paying after being found liable for the deaths, he had to go in that room with goons and guns.


If you can stick to the current vegas trial, there may not be cause to make personal comments because you believe info from the civil trial has anything to do with this trial.
Sorry you have a stomach turn .Try some mylanta

[martin II]

anyone know if orenthal left the montana stuff at the front desk?

correction

Simpson did not physically remove any of the items from the room. He walked out empty handed according to the hotel video shown in court.imo

[William Anthony]

I think there may be a misconception in that the thieves were giving notice of a public sale, as opposed to a clandestine meeting in a hotel room. The words third class rendezvous in a first class hotel comes to mind.

[William Anthony]

Fumong's true character is coming through on cross, imho and I can foresee a closing argument about what the word took meant in the context of how Fumong used it.

[Redmama]

Please let me know if this is something I should look up myself, as I have not followed this one closely at all.

Who, if any, persons would have been victims here - if that is the right word - the people who the guns were pointed it at?

[William Anthony]

Please let me know if this is something I should look up myself, as I have not followed this one closely at all.

Who, if any, persons would have been victims here - if that is the right word - the people who the guns were pointed it at?

You must have a crime before you have a victim. I don't think anyone would call a thieve in your home a victim, if you pointed a gun at them.

[martin II]

Fumong's true character is coming through on cross, imho and I can foresee a closing argument about what the word took meant in the context of how Fumong used it.

OJ: 'YOU STOLE MY s***

His answer to that comment was "MIKE TOOK IT'

It appears that the contex was stealing.

imo

[martin II]

You must have a crime before you have a victim. I don't think anyone would call a thieve in your home a victim, if you pointed a gun at them.

The bell hop though, by their actions, the three in the parking lot that brought the stuff, were acting unuasual.

With a truck full of stolen goods i understand.


I think Fumongs home location was LA/CA. If true did he bring that gun across state lines to vagas.

[Redmama]

You must have a crime before you have a victim. I don't think anyone would call a thieve in your home a victim, if you pointed a gun at them.

Good point - there is always another way to look at everything.

[William Anthony]

Good point - there is always another way to look at everything.

Not really. There is no way to look at thieve but as a misspelling of the word thief. I really must pay closer attention to what I type. :)

[martin II]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/16/oj.simpson.fromong.ap/index.html

[Redmama]

Good point - there is always another way to look at everything.


Ok - another way for me to ask a question - is there anyone that was in the hotel room that is not involved in this case? I don't mean those that agreed to testify against OJ or anyone else...but anyone that is tasked with just showing up telling what they saw?

[William Anthony]

Ok - another way for me to ask a question - is there anyone that was in the hotel room that is not involved in this case? I don't mean those that agreed to testify against OJ or anyone else...but anyone that is tasked with just showing up telling what they saw?

I do not know but what they saw outside of the room would be circumstantial evidence of what occurred in the room. I think that the more material evidence in this case is direct evidence of what transpired in the room. To me the charges turn on the issues of property ownership and intent to commit a crime. They have and may be currently asking someone, who was in charge of the video camera surveillance, and the video is possibly direct evidence of what happened after the incident in the room.

[martin II]

Ok - another way for me to ask a question - is there anyone that was in the hotel room that is not involved in this case? I don't mean those that agreed to testify against OJ or anyone else...but anyone that is tasked with just showing up telling what they saw?

Two peope that were in the room are defendants.
The two people that brought guns into the room have been given probation to testify against oj or testify to what the prosection needs them to say to get a conviction of oj.

The others have also been given probation to testify Against oj also.

The two selling the stolen goods in the hotel room have not been charged with posession of stolen goods or bringing stolen goods across state lines.
imo

[William Anthony]

I think an important part of Fumong's testimony is that he did not feel scared. I think most people fear when guns are pulled out and they are being robbed. I think this implies that he realized that Simpson was only interested in recovering his stuff and had no intention of robbing or harming anyone.

[martin II]

everyone that was in the room is involved in the case.The bell boy brought the stuff from the tuck to the room and left. He testified yesterday.His opinion was that they were acting in a unusual manner, not like regular guestand he wondered why they had a room so far away from the casino.imo

[William Anthony]

I did not hear all of Fumong's testimony and trutv is reporting that he said he did not allow him to feel fear, because fear is not an emotion that you allow yourself to feel in that situation, because someone might get hurt. I now think persuasion will be important on that testimony.

[martin II]

I think an important part of Fumong's testimony is that he did not feel scared. I think most people fear when guns are pulled out and they are being robbed. I think this implies that he realized that Simpson was only interested in recovering his stuff and had no intention of robbing or harming anyone.

Fumong has testified differently depending who is asking him questions about how he became to have the goods. The jury will have to try to decide which account is the truth and why there so many.

[martin II]

The feed i am using only shows a picture of oj.
Anyone got a feed that shows the witness?

[weezer]

The feed i am using only shows a picture of oj.
Anyone got a feed that shows the witness?

he heard the word 'contamination' and his little pointed ears perked up! LOL

[weezer]

is it just me or does he look like he's talking to himself?

[weezer]

I'm starting to get a little concerned about orenthal -- now it looks like he's answering himself! :tongue:

[tv]

If you compare the OJ of the criminal trial to the way he looks in court today it's an amazing difference. His entire demeanor is different.

[Redmama]

everyone that was in the room is involved in the case.The bell boy brought the stuff from the tuck to the room and left. He testified yesterday.His opinion was that they were acting in a unusual manner, not like regular guestand he wondered why they had a room so far away from the casino.imo

Thanks Martin - I fear at times that my questions may sound baiting - but they honestly aren't - I'd have to know something in order for that to be true (hee hee).

I really appreciate your answer - thank you.

[martin II]

If you compare the OJ of the criminal trial to the way he looks in court today it's an amazing difference. His entire demeanor is different.

Some females here have commented how handsome and healthy he appears to be.:cool:

[weezer]

Some females here have commented how handsome and healthy he appears to be.:cool:

LOL -- and which 'females' would that be martin?

[martin II]

LOL -- and which 'females' would that be martin?


Since you need to know

Female workers where i am.

[weezer]

Since you need to know

Female workers where i am.

ahhh --

did you think he was talking to himself earlier?

[martin II]

ahhh --

did you think he was talking to himself earlier?

Friday, i may entertain personal petty comments but not today.:cool:

[weezer]

Friday, i may entertain personal petty comments but not today.:cool:

it was neither petty nor personal -- I thought he looked like he was talking to himself. Just wondered if anyone else thought the same.

[martin II]

If oj was talking he could have been talking quitely to his lawyer sitting right next to him.
But if not so what?

[tv]

it was neither petty nor personal -- I thought he looked like he was talking to himself. Just wondered if anyone else thought the same.
I was wondering that myself. I also think he looks a little pale. JMO, of course.

[weezer]

I was wondering that myself. I also think he looks a little pale. JMO, of course.

I thought at first maybe he had a bluetooth or something but then I heard the judge make a fuss about cell phones and figured it couldn't have been that. He just looked strange -- sitting there talking and making facial expressions like he was engaged in a conversation but no one was interacting with him. Weird.

[martin II]

I was wondering that myself. I also think he looks a little pale. JMO, of course.

I and others think his chocolate colored skin looks smooth and healthy.Well rested.

[William Anthony]

I think there is a problem with something they want to enter into evidence due to lack of a foundation. It is my understanding that evidence can not be entered unless there has been a proper foundation laid. Trutv says that the judge is going to tell the jury they can give it what weight they desire. I question the propriety of that course of action. I will look further to gain more information and see what is done.

[tv]

I and others think his chocolate colored skin looks smooth and healthy.Well rested.He doesn't look like chocolate to me. More like coffee with a lot of cream.

[weezer]

He doesn't look like chocolate to me. More like coffee with a lot of cream.

he's obviously been eating well since the criminal trial! :eek::tongue:

[William Anthony]

He doesn't look like chocolate to me. More like coffee with a lot of cream.

And this has what to do with the charges or the trial, if you will?

[martin II]

I thought at first maybe he had a bluetooth or something but then I heard the judge make a fuss about cell phones and figured it couldn't have been that. He just looked strange -- sitting there talking and making facial expressions like he was engaged in a conversation but no one was interacting with him. Weird.

The lawyers face sitting next to oj was not on camera so i don't know how you know no one was talking back to him quitely.hahaha

[weezer]

The lawyers face sitting next to oj was not on camera so i don't know how you know no one was talking back to him quitely.hahaha

are you watching? He's doing it again.

imo

[weezer]

anybody seen/heard arnelle or christie in/around the courtroom and/or vegas?

[tv]

And this has what to do with the charges or the trial, if you will?I made the comment that he looked pale (as in not feeling well) and martin said he looked like chocolate. Why don't you asked martin why he made his comment? I don't recall needing your permission to talk to martin.

[martin II]

I made the comment that he looked pale (as in not feeling well) and martin said he looked like chocolate. Why don't you asked martin why he made his comment? I don't recall needing your permission to talk to martin.

I think i should not have responded to weezers baiting question of how oj looked and that he appeared to her as if he was talking to himself.

This imo is just another effort to create negative conversation about oj because of bias. It has nothing to do with the current trial. So i am finished with it.

[William Anthony]

I made the comment that he looked pale (as in not feeling well) and martin said he looked like chocolate. Why don't you asked martin why he made his comment? I don't recall needing your permission to talk to martin.

I have no qualms about you talking to anyone. It was your remark that he looked pale, which prompted me to question what that had to do with the charges and the trial. I think anyone facing a trial may not be well-rested and, especially if you thought that you may not receive a fair trial, because so many cannot accept the criminal verdict and the criminal and civil trials are so often referenced, which are irrelevant, imho, to these charges.

[tv]

I think i should not have responded to weezers baiting question of how oj looked and that he appeared to her as if he was talking to himself.

This imo is just another effort to create negative conversation about oj because of bias. It has nothing to do with the current trial. So i am finished with it.

martin, you can get angry with me if you want. I think the demeanor and well-being or lack of well-being of a defendant has a lot to do with the trial. You didn't get offended until William jumped on me.

I'm not at all biased. I think the whole bunch of them are slimeballs and this trial is a waste of taxpayers money. These people live and operate in the underbelly of society and don't live by the rules of normal people. If he's convicted I'm okay with it and if he's not I'm okay with that too.

[William Anthony]

martin, you can get angry with me if you want. I think the demeanor and well-being or lack of well-being of a defendant has a lot to do with the trial. You didn't get offended until William jumped on me.

I'm not at all biased. I think the whole bunch of them are slimeballs and this trial is a waste of taxpayers money. These people live and operate in the underbelly of society and don't live by the rules of normal people. If he's convicted I'm okay with it and if he's not I'm okay with that too.

WTH?

Did you not see that martin's response came before mine. Why are you constantly accusing me? Do you have an agenda to attempt to paint me in the worst light? How can I be the blame for martin becoming offended, if he did, at your comment? Were you not the first to mention martin's name, asking why I had not responded to his chocolate remark after your pale one?

[tv]

WTH?

Did you not see that martin's response came before mine. Why are you constantly accusing me? Do you have an agenda to attempt to paint me in the worst light? How can I be the blame for martin becoming offended, if he did, at your comment? Were you not the first to mention martin's name, asking why I had not responded to his chocolate remark after your pale one?

:seeya:

[William Anthony]

:seeya:

Not if I :seeya: first. :)

[tv]

Not if I :seeya: first. :)

Sorry, I beat you to it. :)

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I beat you to it. :)

Agreed. :)

[Redmama]

This is a televised trial - it is meant to be voyeuristic. The stations plan on it.

I'm such a people watcher - I see things that others don't - probably dependent a lot of the time about what I think of the person already.

I'm sure a lot of different comments would be being made if it was someone else up there. Would be interesting to see what the comments would be if it was someone disliked by most/all people.

[weezer]

This is a televised trial - it is meant to be voyeuristic. The stations plan on it.

I'm such a people watcher - I see things that others don't - probably dependent a lot of the time about what I think of the person already.

I'm sure a lot of different comments would be being made if it was someone else up there. Would be interesting to see what the comments would be if it was someone disliked by most/all people.

LOL -- I thought it was.

[weezer]

anybody seeing/reading anything on arnelle and/or christie?

[William Anthony]

This is a televised trial - it is meant to be voyeuristic. The stations plan on it.

I'm such a people watcher - I see things that others don't - probably dependent a lot of the time about what I think of the person already.

I'm sure a lot of different comments would be being made if it was someone else up there. Would be interesting to see what the comments would be if it was someone disliked by most/all people.

I thought that was what was happening. I know the trial of Saddam was televised and I did not see any poster commenting on his complexion.

[William Anthony]

On one of the transcripts of the tapes, an LE employee is repeating the statements of someone named John, saying that California couldn't get him, Florida couldn't get him but we will. The statement was made by the LE employee, quoting John, one day after the alleged robbery. The lead investigator admitted that he did not try to find out who owned any of the property. Fumong has not provided any proof that he owned any of the property. I think that he will be required to provide proof or there will be an appeal, if he is convicted.

[martin II]

All of the witnesses so far has referred to the stuff as stuff stolen from oj.

[Redmama]

LOL -- I thought it was.


Oh that was good!

[Redmama]

I thought that was what was happening. I know the trial of Saddam was televised and I did not see any poster commenting on his complexion.

If I would have been posting at that point I probably would have - it is what I was thinking while I was watching.

[Kate Sachel]

And this has what to do with the charges or the trial, if you will?

Well, nothing. But it has alot to do with general observations and conversation that many of us partake in during something such as this. And to be honest, I think he's well earned the ridicule that comes his way and our comments are certainly not going to interfere with his trial.

It's sort of the same thing as when the Scott Peterson trial was going on and myself and some female coworkers were commenting on how jail time had made him much more handsome than the pudgy orange haired man that he was at the time of his arrest. It's just conversation.

Half of what we discuss on this forum - yourself included - has nothing to do with the issues directly at hand.

Kate

[martin II]

On one of the transcripts of the tapes, an LE employee is repeating the statements of someone named John, saying that California couldn't get him, Florida couldn't get him but we will. The statement was made by the LE employee, quoting John, one day after the alleged robbery. The lead investigator admitted that he did not try to find out who owned any of the property. Fumong has not provided any proof that he owned any of the property. I think that he will be required to provide proof or there will be an appeal, if he is convicted.

At one time in his testimony Fumong testified that he paid for some items by check. Then he testified that the DA never asked him for copies of the canceled checks he used to pay for the items as proof.

[William Anthony]

If I would have been posting at that point I probably would have - it is what I was thinking while I was watching.

Too bad you weren't posting at the time. My point would have been moot. :)

[William Anthony]

Well, nothing. But it has alot to do with general observations and conversation that many of us partake in during something such as this. And to be honest, I think he's well earned the ridicule that comes his way and our comments are certainly not going to interfere with his trial.

It's sort of the same thing as when the Scott Peterson trial was going on and myself and some female coworkers were commenting on how jail time had made him much more handsome than the pudgy orange haired man that he was at the time of his arrest. It's just conversation.

Half of what we discuss on this forum - yourself included - has nothing to do with the issues directly at hand.

Kate

I get questioned about my remarks and reminded when they are considered off topic. I thought fairness dictates that I should do the same. Don't you or is it the reason you don't because tvdinner usually agrees with you, smile?

[Kate Sachel]

I get questioned about my remarks and reminded when they are considered off topic. I thought fairness dictates that I should do the same. Don't you or is it the reason you don't because tvdinner usually agrees with you, smile?

Your sarcastic smile does nothing for me and frankly I don't find that tvdinner usually agrees with me or if she does she does not publicly state so. When she responds to my posts it is generally with observations and opinions she has formed on her own, unlike the secondhand opinions that one individual here enjoys serving up in all of his bandwagoning with you.

When the day comes that you do decide to be fair, certainly let me know and then let fairness dicate away.

Kate

[martin II]

Geraldo this morning on fox tv.
RE; hotel room tape.

After the day of the incident Riccio had the tape for several days before turning it over to le after he sold it to TMZ

Geraldo
'The fbi tape examiner said the tape appeared to have been altered"
" The tape is the only smoking gun they have. without the tape the jury will have a hard time convicting oj"

[weezer]

Geraldo this morning on fox tv.
RE; hotel room tape.

After the day of the incident Riccio had the tape for several days before turning it over to le after he sold it to TMZ

Geraldo
'The fbi tape examiner said the tape appeared to have been altered"
" The tape is the only smoking gun they have. without the tape the jury will have a hard time convicting oj"

so the victims and defendants saying there were guns and that orenthal and goons took stuff that didn't belong to them means nothing? Naw --

[tv]

He really is talking to himself. What is that all about? I notice also that he's doing the lip blowing thing that he did when backed into a corner in the civil trial. His demeanor is very interesting.

[tv]

I get questioned about my remarks and reminded when they are considered off topic. I thought fairness dictates that I should do the same. Don't you or is it the reason you don't because tvdinner usually agrees with you, smile?

Anyone on this forum that follows Kate's posts knows that she posts her true feelings whether they are in line with anyone else or not. Kate's postings are always a bright spot on this forum. This remark was very unfair to her and one she didn't deserve. :mad:

[Redmama]

Anyone on this forum that follows Kate's posts knows that she posts her true feelings whether they are in line with anyone else or not. Kate's postings are always a bright spot on this forum. This remark was very unfair to her and one she didn't deserve. :mad:

I would like to second that!

[martin II]

so the victims and defendants saying there were guns and that orenthal and goons took stuff that didn't belong to them means nothing? Naw --

Ricco just testified that

In the room:
Fumong and Beadsley offered to give oj his stuff because "they knew it was his stolen stuff"
That oj said 'I ONLY WANT MY STUFF' and "TAKE ONLY MY STUFF" "I WILL GIVE BACK ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE"

That Riccio had told Beadsley previously " NOT to bring anything but ojs stuff". Beadsley brought more.

"There was no probem in the room until Mc clintock pulled out the gun for some reason"
Riccio

[martin II]

so the victims and defendants saying there were guns and that orenthal and goons took stuff that didn't belong to them means nothing? Naw --

Ask Geraldo.:cool:

[martin II]

so the victims and defendants saying there were guns and that orenthal and goons took stuff that didn't belong to them means nothing? Naw --

According to riccio, oj did not pack up any items in the hotel room.
According to the hotel video shown in court ,oj did not physically remove or take any items from the hotel.
imo

[martin II]

He really is talking to himself. What is that all about? I notice also that he's doing the lip blowing thing that he did when backed into a corner in the civil trial. His demeanor is very interesting.

tv

Maby oj should be informed that normal facial expressions by him are not allowed in that court room as it may appear to some that he is guilty or at a minimum causing some viewers to feel unconfortable.:cool:

[tv]

tv

Maby oj should be informed that normal facial expressions by him are not allowed in that court room as it may appear to some that he is guilty or at a minimum causing some viewers to feel unconfortable.:cool:

I always pay a lot of attention to the demeanor of witnesses and defendants in any trial. Like, Redmama, I'm a people watcher. I don't have an opinion at this time about his guilt or innocence nor do I feel uncomfortable watching him. Body language is an important part of communication. Since he's not speaking (except to himself) how else can we form an opinion on what he may be feeling?

I bet you don't mind if I say he nods his head when Riccio says he said he only wanted his stuff back and not the other stuff. ;)

[tv]

According to riccio, oj did not pack up any items in the hotel room.
According to the hotel video shown in court ,oj did not physically remove or take any items from the hotel.
imoHe was too busy supervising.

[martin II]

I always pay a lot of attention to the demeanor of witnesses and defendants in any trial. Like, Redmama, I'm a people watcher. I don't have an opinion at this time about his guilt or innocence nor do I feel uncomfortable watching him. Body language is an important part of communication. Since he's not speaking (except to himself) how else can we form an opinion on what he may be feeling?

I bet you don't mind if I say he nods his head when Riccio says he said he only wanted his stuff back and not the other stuff. ;)


If you can tell what oj FEELING when he yawns, wispers to Yale or moves his lips, you are very good.

During the tapes i guess there are times he wants to say no and sometimes he wants to say yes.

I have been surprised that the le detectives always referred to the stuff as oks stuff and stuff taken from oj. Fumong, (god bless his crazy soul) says all the time "MIKE TOOK IT" (OJS STUFF) Riccio keeps saying he knows the stuff was stolen from oj. Beadsley said the same. On the tapes oj is heard saying 2-3 times 'i only want my stuff etc etc.

So what i am thinking that all of them knew the stuff belonged to oj.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

He was too busy supervising.


No.. oJ was just yelling at his 'FRIENDS' and getting them to admit that his stuff was stolen.
That would have been McClintock that was supervising and Riccio, THE PLANNER.

[weezer]

No.. oJ was just yelling at his 'FRIENDS' and getting them to admit that his stuff was stolen.
That would have been McClintock that was supervising and Riccio, THE PLANNER.

LOL -- always someone else's fault/problem/to blame!

[weezer]

According to riccio, oj did not pack up any items in the hotel room.
According to the hotel video shown in court ,oj did not physically remove or take any items from the hotel.
imo

who had Fromong's cell phone?

[weezer]

Anyone on this forum that follows Kate's posts knows that she posts her true feelings whether they are in line with anyone else or not. Kate's postings are always a bright spot on this forum. This remark was very unfair to her and one she didn't deserve. :mad:

:beer::beer:

[martin II]

LAS VEGAS - Jurors in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery and kidnapping trial on Friday heard a recording of the football star angrily accusing two memorabilia dealers of stealing his mementoes and saying, "Don't let nobody out of this room."



On the witness stand introducing the audio was Thomas Riccio, the collectibles dealer who arranged the meeting at the Palace Station casino hotel room, made the secret recording and testified that he never expected what happened.

"The guy with the bald head, (Michael) McClinton, pulled out a gun. And it got crazy from there," Riccio said.

Asked what he was thinking, he said, "This is overkill — big time overkill. They didn't have to do this."

McClinton, an original defendant who made a plea bargain and agreed to testify against Simpson, is the only participant identified so far as having a gun in the room.

"I never at any time wanted a gun in my room. I am antigun," Riccio said.

He described McClinton as "hopping around with the gun" and said, "Maybe he was hyped up on something."

Listening through headphones, the jurors heard McClinton order people to bag the memorabilia spread out on the bed.

Throughout the confrontation, memorabilia dealer Alfred Beardsley kept trying to curry favor with Simpson, saying, "I don't have a problem with you, man. Are you mad at me?"

Beardsley later called 911 and reported he had been robbed at gunpoint by Simpson and a group of "thugs." He also threatened to call the news media, saying they would arrive faster.

"O.J.'s going to get arrested over this," Beardsley declared several times.

The other memorabilia dealer in the room, Bruce Fromong, was heard saying he was going to his truck to get a gun.

As a result of the Sept. 13, 2007, confrontation, Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart face 12 charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery, coercion and assault with a deadly weapon. They have pleaded not guilty.

Most of what the jurors heard was hours of small talk between Riccio and Beardsley before the confrontation.

Riccio was recorded repeatedly saying that the "buyer" he was bringing to the hotel wanted only "personal stuff."

Beardsley said he had the memorabilia, including photographs from Simpson's childhood when he had rickets and his legs in braces, and photos from his first wedding. But the pictures he bragged about never materialized, Riccio said.

When Simpson arrived at the hotel room with five other men, Riccio said the plan he had so carefully devised fell apart.

"Simpson walked in and went right to the front of Fromong and Beardsley and started scolding them. He just stood there and yelled and yelled at them," Riccio testified.

"He said, 'I know you guys. You stole my stuff,'" Riccio recalled.

Simpson was also heard on tape saying, "Don't let nobody out of this room."

The dealers blamed Simpson's former agent, Mike Gilbert, for taking the items, Riccio said.

He recounted that Simpson stressed, "I only want my stuff. Stuff that's not mine, we'll give back" as the other sports memorabilia were scooped up in the frenzy.

The start of testimony was delayed when Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass secretly told the jury to arrive early and went with them on a bus to the hotel to view the room. Simpson did not make the trip, but his lawyers and Stewart did.

Under a secret agreement approved by the court, a reporter and photographer from the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper and a videographer from cable network TruTV were the only members of the media to accompany the 12 jurors, six alternates, prosecutors, defense lawyers and court officials.

Other media members were not told about the tour until it was well under way.

Brian Haynes, the reporter allowed in, said that jurors entered the hotel room in pairs and that one ran her hand over the armoire where Riccio had secreted a small digital recorder.

___

[martin II]

Riccio: O.J. wanted only his memorabilia from Vegas hotel room
Associated Press



http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3597569

[martin II]

who had Fromong's cell phone?

Fromong had a gun in his truck that he had brought fromj la to vegas that he did not have a permit for. was he ever charged for this?

[socaldiva]

Riccio: O.J. wanted only his memorabilia from Vegas hotel room
Associated Press



http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3597569

Your link didn't work for me.

[socaldiva]

Fromong had a gun in his truck that he had brought fromj la to vegas that he did not have a permit for. was he ever charged for this?

I don't know, but what bearing does this have on the case against OJ?:shrug:

[weezer]

I don't know, but what bearing does this have on the case against OJ?:shrug:

oh socal, you KNOW it was everybody else's fault and not poor ole orenthal's. :tongue:

[martin II]

so the victims and defendants saying there were guns and that orenthal and goons took stuff that didn't belong to them means nothing? Naw --

Before Riccio sold that tape, however, he made a few more recordings that the court heard Friday.

In a telephone conversation made the next day, Riccio tells Simpson there was a gun involved.

Simpson tells Riccio he was "shocked" when he heard people saying there was a gun involved during the raid. "I didn't see it."

"I know you didn't see it," Riccio says.

"You need to stay straight," Simpson tells Riccio. "I'm stayin' straight. Tell the cops the truth."

[Redmama]

Before Riccio sold that tape, however, he made a few more recordings that the court heard Friday.

In a telephone conversation made the next day, Riccio tells Simpson there was a gun involved.

Simpson tells Riccio he was "shocked" when he heard people saying there was a gun involved during the raid. "I didn't see it."

"I know you didn't see it," Riccio says.

"You need to stay straight," Simpson tells Riccio. "I'm stayin' straight. Tell the cops the truth."


In my opinion, that telephone call sounds very staged.

[weezer]

In my opinion, that telephone call sounds very staged.

so did I -- especially after hearing the other tapes.

[martin II]

In my opinion, that telephone call sounds very staged.

No one knew they were being recorded by Riccio.

[martin II]

Riccio: O.J. wanted only his memorabilia from Vegas hotel room
Associated Press

[Redmama]

Riccio: O.J. wanted only his memorabilia from Vegas hotel room
Associated Press


And he only wanted to make money for his children's education and their well-being when he wrote the book about their mother - OJ only wants what is best. And I will add imo.

[martin II]

And he only wanted to make money for his children's education and their well-being when he wrote the book about their mother - OJ only wants what is best. And I will add imo.

Oj stated that he used the advance from the book to pay his home taxes which go to his children when he expires and to insure their furure.

[tv]

Oj stated that he used the advance from the book to pay his home taxes which go to his children when he expires and to insure their furure.

I thought he also bought a car.

[martin II]

I thought he also bought a car.

I know nothing about buying a car but if he did, that was his right.

[martin II]

tapes


Meanwhile, Riccio contacted the FBI and Los Angeles police, hoping they would join the effort to recover what he believed to be Simpson's stolen property. Both agencies declined, saying the disputed property was a civil matter, he said.

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

Simpson is also heard on the recording saying he hoped to recover his family photos.

"I just want my private pictures," he said. "The rest of it I don't give a (expletive) about."

But sometime after the poolside meeting, Beardsley told Riccio that the family photos would be included in a different deal, not the one set up for that evening, Riccio said.

During opening statements, Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter called the incident a "recovery, not a robbery."

On Thursday, Simpson's lawyers accused Las Vegas police of targeting him because of the double-murder case.

"You had the prosecutorial equivalent of a feeding frenzy," Gabriel Grasso said.

They referenced a remark by a police crime scene analyst that was captured on Riccio's digital audio recorder, which was hidden in the hotel room while police conducted their investigation.

"California can't get him. Now we'll be able to -- blank -- got him," Galanter said, reading from a transcript of the recording.

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



Caldwell had testified a day earlier that he and his colleagues wanted to be as thorough as possible with their investigation because of the scrutiny that would accompany Simpson's high-profile status.

When Galanter questioned Caldwell on Thursday on why he didn't look further into claims that night that the property taken from the Palace Station had been stolen from Simpson, Caldwell said it wouldn't have made a difference.

"Ownership is not an issue with robbery," he said.

[socaldiva]

I know nothing about buying a car but if he did, that was his right.

I guess you've forgotten, as it was discussed right here on this forum.

[weezer]

tapes


Meanwhile, Riccio contacted the FBI and Los Angeles police, hoping they would join the effort to recover what he believed to be Simpson's stolen property. Both agencies declined, saying the disputed property was a civil matter, he said.

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

Simpson is also heard on the recording saying he hoped to recover his family photos.

"I just want my private pictures," he said. "The rest of it I don't give a (expletive) about."

But sometime after the poolside meeting, Beardsley told Riccio that the family photos would be included in a different deal, not the one set up for that evening, Riccio said.

During opening statements, Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter called the incident a "recovery, not a robbery."

On Thursday, Simpson's lawyers accused Las Vegas police of targeting him because of the double-murder case.

"You had the prosecutorial equivalent of a feeding frenzy," Gabriel Grasso said.

They referenced a remark by a police crime scene analyst that was captured on Riccio's digital audio recorder, which was hidden in the hotel room while police conducted their investigation.

"California can't get him. Now we'll be able to -- blank -- got him," Galanter said, reading from a transcript of the recording.

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



Caldwell had testified a day earlier that he and his colleagues wanted to be as thorough as possible with their investigation because of the scrutiny that would accompany Simpson's high-profile status.

When Galanter questioned Caldwell on Thursday on why he didn't look further into claims that night that the property taken from the Palace Station had been stolen from Simpson, Caldwell said it wouldn't have made a difference.

"Ownership is not an issue with robbery," he said.

wouldn't it make sense that something would be reported as stolen? wonder why orenthal never reported his 'sh*t' as stolen? I mean, why would LE or the FBI become involved in something that had never been reported as stolen? and why would the LE or the FBI listen to someone other than the owner telling them that there was stolen property?

[martin II]

wouldn't it make sense that something would be reported as stolen? wonder why orenthal never reported his 'sh*t' as stolen? I mean, why would LE or the FBI become involved in something that had never been reported as stolen? and why would the LE or the FBI listen to someone other than the owner telling them that there was stolen property?

Anyone can report a crime to le.

[weezer]

Anyone can report a crime to le.

alrighty then -- guess I can call and tell them your stolen stuff is going to be in vegas. . . . what day do you want to make the trip? ;)

[martin II]

alrighty then -- guess I can call and tell them your stolen stuff is going to be in vegas. . . . what day do you want to make the trip? ;)

What i am thinking is that you have another persons stuff/deal you are arranging for a transaction mixed up with my stuff as i have all of my STUFF:cool:

[martin II]

In the meantime, public defenders in Clark County are claiming in testimony before the high court that Judge Glass will not allow them to challenge decisions made by the judge on whether defendants are mentally competent to stand trial. No decision on this has been made, but justices seemed surprised by the action that a judge would not even allow public defenders to submit what are called evaluations or to refute doctors the judge has appointed.

The public defenders say Judge Glass does not allow defense attorneys to read the evaluations, only her summaries, and are not allowed to file motions to be able to read the evaluations. The Supreme Court has not said when it would reach a decision on the case, and it isn’t known if their decision will have any affect on the Simpson case. At this time, mental evaluation of Simpson or Stewart has not been mentioned. In many minds, this is simply the way things are done in Clark County courtrooms. The more secretive, the better, is a known doctrine in southern Nevada



http://www.nevadaobserver.com/TNO%20Transfer%20Folder%20080915/oj_simpson.htm

[weezer]

In the meantime, public defenders in Clark County are claiming in testimony before the high court that Judge Glass will not allow them to challenge decisions made by the judge on whether defendants are mentally competent to stand trial. No decision on this has been made, but justices seemed surprised by the action that a judge would not even allow public defenders to submit what are called evaluations or to refute doctors the judge has appointed.

The public defenders say Judge Glass does not allow defense attorneys to read the evaluations, only her summaries, and are not allowed to file motions to be able to read the evaluations. The Supreme Court has not said when it would reach a decision on the case, and it isn’t known if their decision will have any affect on the Simpson case. At this time, mental evaluation of Simpson or Stewart has not been mentioned. In many minds, this is simply the way things are done in Clark County courtrooms. The more secretive, the better, is a known doctrine in southern Nevada



http://www.nevadaobserver.com/TNO%20Transfer%20Folder%20080915/oj_simpson.htm

so who are they talking about?

[weezer]

What i am thinking is that you have another persons stuff/deal you are arranging for a transaction mixed up with my stuff as i have all of my STUFF:cool:

just trying to get a clear picture here: so I can call LE and the FBI and tell them I don't have the 'stuff' and you haven't reported the 'stuff' stolen but they need to meet me in vegas?

[martin II]

just trying to get a clear picture here: so I can call LE and the FBI and tell them I don't have the 'stuff' and you haven't reported the 'stuff' stolen but they need to meet me in vegas?

if you want to get it straight, stop posting childish words.:cool:

[weezer]

if you want to get it straight, stop posting childish words.:cool:

I'll take this to mean you don't have an explanation. thanks.

[tv]

I know nothing about buying a car but if he did, that was his right.

Not it wasn't. That money should have gone to Fred Goldman.

[tv]

In the meantime, public defenders in Clark County are claiming in testimony before the high court that Judge Glass will not allow them to challenge decisions made by the judge on whether defendants are mentally competent to stand trial. No decision on this has been made, but justices seemed surprised by the action that a judge would not even allow public defenders to submit what are called evaluations or to refute doctors the judge has appointed.

The public defenders say Judge Glass does not allow defense attorneys to read the evaluations, only her summaries, and are not allowed to file motions to be able to read the evaluations. The Supreme Court has not said when it would reach a decision on the case, and it isn’t known if their decision will have any affect on the Simpson case. At this time, mental evaluation of Simpson or Stewart has not been mentioned. In many minds, this is simply the way things are done in Clark County courtrooms. The more secretive, the better, is a known doctrine in southern Nevada



http://www.nevadaobserver.com/TNO%20Transfer%20Folder%20080915/oj_simpson.htm

Oh I see, now Judge Glass is in a conpiracy against OJ Simpson. Poor OJ can't catch a break. :rolleyes:

[tv]

I guess you've forgotten, as it was discussed right here on this forum.
I thought I remembered something about a car. It's so nice to see you back posting...don't stay away so long again! :)

[martin II]

Oh I see, now Judge Glass is in a conpiracy against OJ Simpson. Poor OJ can't catch a break. :rolleyes:

This is a issue betrween the Public Defenders office and Judge Glass

[martin II]

I thought I remembered something about a car. It's so nice to see you back posting...don't stay away so long again! :)

If oj needed a car, it was his right to purchase one from the $1,000,000 he received from H.C.

[martin II]

Not it wasn't. That money should have gone to Fred Goldman.

In a judgement it is not ojs responsibility to report to Fred any monies received. It is freds responsibility to try to inforce the judgement. even fred knows this.

[martin II]

Riccio testifying:

* "In all his conversations with oj, oj never spoke of guns being
brought to the room."
" oj did not know guns were brought to the room"
* "Oj never asked him to lie"
* Initially Besdsley called Riccio and told him he had personal
pictures of ojs dead mother and dad and his dead daughter and
they were stolen from ojs throphy room at Rockingham and he wants to
sell them.

[martin II]

I'll take this to mean you don't have an explanation. thanks.

Let me try to help you.

Riccio testimony today:

He went to local police told them about person offering him stolem merchandise. They told him to call his lawyer.

He met with the FBI told them about Beadsley telling him he had stolen merchandise from oj simpsons trophy room. Told them about the plan to get the merchandise back at the hotel and asked them to come with them to get the stuff. Their response was 'WE ARE NOT INTERESTED"

[martin II]

Riccio testimony today.

When the detectives interviewed Riccio and Beadsley immediately after the incident at the hotel, Beadsley told the investigating detective that the merchandise taken from him was stolen from oj simpson. The detective responded 'that is not important there are other issues"

[weezer]

Let me try to help you.

Riccio testimony today:

He went to local police told them about person offering him stolem merchandise. They told him to call his lawyer.

He met with the FBI told them about Beadsley telling him he had stolen merchandise from oj simpsons trophy room. Told them about the plan to get the merchandise back at the hotel and asked them to come with them to get the stuff. Their response was 'WE ARE NOT INTERESTED"

martin, NOTHING had been reported STOLEN. geez

[weezer]

Riccio testimony today.

When the detectives interviewed Riccio and Beadsley immediately after the incident at the hotel, Beadsley told the investigating detective that the merchandise taken from him was stolen from oj simpson. The detective responded 'that is not important there are other issues"

that's not what I heard.

[martin II]

martin, NOTHING had been reported STOLEN. geez

I have posted Riccios testimony.The fbi recorded Riccios complaint but refused to get involved

[martin II]

that's not what I heard.

what did you hear Riccio testify to today on this issue?

[weezer]

I have posted Riccios testimony.The fbi recorded Riccios complaint but refused to get involved

so why didn't orenthal report his 'sh*t' stolen? why would LE or the FBI chase goods that were never reported stolen?

[martin II]

so why didn't orenthal report his 'sh*t' stolen? why would LE or the FBI chase goods that were never reported stolen?


If a person calls le and reports knowledge of a local fence of stolen goods (a crime) in your community, they investigate. If a person calls le and tell them that you are in a blue car with 5 stolen tv sets on main street, they investigate.
That is what Riccio knew and what he expected le to do.But they refused to help him.

[weezer]

If a person calls le and reports knowledge of a local fence of stolen goods (a crime) in your community, they investigate. If a person calls le and tell them that you are in a blue car with 5 stolen tv sets on main street, they investigate.
That is what Riccio knew and what he expected le to do.But they refused to help him.

not what I heard.

there was nothing stolen. there was nothing reported stolen. the alledged owner of the goods did not report anything stolen.

[martin II]

not what I heard.

there was nothing stolen. there was nothing reported stolen. the alledged owner of the goods did not report anything stolen.

Believe what you like:cool:

[tv]

In a judgement it is not ojs responsibility to report to Fred any monies received. It is freds responsibility to try to inforce the judgement. even fred knows this.

It's hard to enforce the judgement when Simpson deliberately hides the money from him. But I guess that's the whole point, right?

[martin II]

It's hard to enforce the judgement when Simpson deliberately hides the money from him. But I guess that's the whole point, right?

That is the case with most civil judgements in America. Most are never paid.This judgement is no different than a credit card company getting a judgement for credit. The original judgement was out of reach and has become impossible to be paid. So fred will continue to run up large legal fees searching and oj will continue to try to make money quitely.imo

[weezer]

That is the case with most civil judgements in America. Most are never paid.This judgement is no different than a credit card company getting a judgement for credit. The original judgement was out of reach and has become impossible to be paid. So fred will continue to run up large legal fees searching and oj will continue to try to make money quitely.imo

martin, your perception is so distorted. imo

[weezer]

Believe what you like:cool:

it's not what I 'like' -- it's the facts. unless of course, you can point me to a link that shows orenthal ever reported his 'sh*t' stolen.

[martin II]

it's not what I 'like' -- it's the facts. unless of course, you can point me to a link that shows orenthal ever reported his 'sh*t' stolen.

I responded by giving you what is required to report a CRIME.You seem to want to ignore it. Thats fine with me.

[martin II]

martin, your perception is so distorted. imo

I see you are looking for a fight again. I prefer not to get personal with you.

[Zold1]

pearyb, Simpson and Kaelin went to McDonalds after 9:00 P.M. returning to Rockingham shortly after 9:30 P.M. Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole over an hour later, shortly after 10:30 P.M.

bobaugust

Thought I'd stop by and see what's shaking. Same Misinformation and finger pointing by the same haunted boulderdash throwing crowd. LOL! :tongue: I should think you have heard by now that a jury of 12 peers said OJS did not, could not and would not kill anybody, let alone Nicole and Ron. I'll admit he does have a big mouth, though.

Ya'll have another great year though. When the real killer has surfaced I'll be back to hear more of the same because OJ cannot win. I'll be back in 2009. :seeya:

Carry on Martin. You're doing a great job!

[martin II]

Thought I'd stop by and see what's shaking. Same Misinformation and finger pointing by the same haunted boulderdash throwing crowd. LOL! :tongue: I should think you have heard by now that a jury of 12 peers said OJS did not, could not and would not kill anybody, let alone Nicole and Ron. I'll admit he does have a big mouth, though.

Ya'll have another great year though. When the real killer has surfaced I'll be back to hear more of the same because OJ cannot win. I'll be back in 2009. :seeya:

Carry on Martin. You're doing a great job!

Zoldi

Thanks for your comments.

I like your signature also.

[weezer]

Thought I'd stop by and see what's shaking. Same Misinformation and finger pointing by the same haunted boulderdash throwing crowd. LOL! :tongue: I should think you have heard by now that a jury of 12 peers said OJS did not, could not and would not kill anybody, let alone Nicole and Ron. I'll admit he does have a big mouth, though.

Ya'll have another great year though. When the real killer has surfaced I'll be back to hear more of the same because OJ cannot win. I'll be back in 2009. :seeya:

Carry on Martin. You're doing a great job!

you must be thinking that year 15 will be the magic year! LOL

[tv]

Thought I'd stop by and see what's shaking. Same Misinformation and finger pointing by the same haunted boulderdash throwing crowd. LOL! :tongue: I should think you have heard by now that a jury of 12 peers said OJS did not, could not and would not kill anybody, let alone Nicole and Ron. I'll admit he does have a big mouth, though.

Ya'll have another great year though. When the real killer has surfaced I'll be back to hear more of the same because OJ cannot win. I'll be back in 2009. :seeya:

Carry on Martin. You're doing a great job!

Not exactly, but good try. :)

[Redmama]

I love this judge - it is the first i've watched any of it - she just said "ok children, settle down" to the two attorneys. Too funny.

[mev]

I have to disagree with your comment Redmama, no offense. But this judge is acting almost child like, and I feel the lawyers are taking advantage of it. This is not a three ring circus, this a serious matter for all involved. I think she is about to loose control of the courtroom, and that just plays right into OJ's Hands. Anyone remember Judge ITO (sp?) I have been watching it for awhile, and quit do to the smirks, laughter and preschool behavior. IMO

[Redmama]

I have to disagree with your comment Redmama, no offense. But this judge is acting almost child like, and I feel the lawyers are taking advantage of it. This is not a three ring circus, this a serious matter for all involved. I think she is about to loose control of the courtroom, and that just plays right into OJ's Hands. Anyone remember Judge ITO (sp?) I have been watching it for awhile, and quit do to the smirks, laughter and preschool behavior. IMO

Well I believe the attorney's are acting like children - talking over each other and whining when they don't get their way. I learned better than that at like...maybe 4? I was working while I was listening and seriously hadn't even figured out which lawyer was on which side - and that's what I thought about it.

[mev]

Exactly my point Redmama, the lawyers are acting like children, and I also cant keep up with who is who, the whole thing is a pain to watch. The lawyers are acting up because the judge is allowing them to. The flippant way she speaks, even to the jury, speaking so fast. If I was a juror on this case I would be in misery. More American tax dollars being spent on the likes of OJ. I would rather just have the money spent go to the Goldmans.

[weezer]

Exactly my point Redmama, the lawyers are acting like children, and I also cant keep up with who is who, the whole thing is a pain to watch. The lawyers are acting up because the judge is allowing them to. The flippant way she speaks, even to the jury, speaking so fast. If I was a juror on this case I would be in misery. More American tax dollars being spent on the likes of OJ. I would rather just have the money spent go to the Goldmans.

I'm with redmama on this -- I like the judge. On the station I've been watching/listening to, both commentators have commented on her lack of judicial presence but as a spectator -- and from the masses the jurors come from -- I like her.

[William Anthony]

Your sarcastic smile does nothing for me and frankly I don't find that tvdinner usually agrees with me or if she does she does not publicly state so. When she responds to my posts it is generally with observations and opinions she has formed on her own, unlike the secondhand opinions that one individual here enjoys serving up in all of his bandwagoning with you.

When the day comes that you do decide to be fair, certainly let me know and then let fairness dicate away.

Kate

Why, I thought I was being fair and my smile was not sarcastic. It was done with levity, understanding and appreciation about a point that I was asked about doing something and thought it only fair to ask you the same.

[William Anthony]

Anyone on this forum that follows Kate's posts knows that she posts her true feelings whether they are in line with anyone else or not. Kate's postings are always a bright spot on this forum. This remark was very unfair to her and one she didn't deserve. :mad:

I have never implied or meant to imply anything about her honesty. I think that, if she takes a moment to reflect, she will understand that. I think she more than anyone understood my point and it was not negative in any sense. It was more a question of human nature and was not an accusation. I have never said that she did not speak her mind and did not speak it honestly, even if we disagree, I think that others should not try to start trouble where none was intended. There is a saying that some should follow, which goes, "Do not trouble trouble until trouble troubles you." I thank you for recognizing Kate's honesty and I am sure she does. I have spoken to it many times. I do not feel that what she posted was dishonest or not heartfelt. I simply wanted to ask a question of her in response to one she posted to me.

[William Anthony]

I would like to second that!

Then let me forward my above response. :)

[tv]

I have never implied or meant to imply anything about her honesty. I think that, if she takes a moment to reflect, she will understand that. I think she more than anyone understood my point and it was not negative in any sense. It was more a question of human nature and was not an accusation. I have never said that she did not speak her mind and did not speak it honestly, even if we disagree, I think that others should not try to start trouble where none was intended. There is a saying that some should follow, which goes, "Do not trouble trouble until trouble troubles you." I thank you for recognizing Kate's honesty and I am sure she does. I have spoken to it many times. I do not feel that what she posted was dishonest or not heartfelt. I simply wanted to ask a question of her in response to one she posted to me.
You meant it exactly as you stated it and Kate (and I) took it exactly the way you meant it. I'm sure Kate reflected more than a moment on your post. She doesn't strike me as someone who speaks before she thinks. If you're implying that I'm starting trouble then let me remind you that if you didn't want anyone to comment on what you said you shouldn't have said it. Try to remember that this is a message board, where many individuals are free to participate, not a platform for one person's inaccuracies to stand unchallenged.

[Kate Sachel]

Why, I thought I was being fair and my smile was not sarcastic. It was done with levity, understanding and appreciation about a point that I was asked about doing something and thought it only fair to ask you the same.

The difference being that she does not always share the same opinion as I, nor does she always speak to such, whereas your particular follower seems to not offer much more than secondhand opinions and crude comments.

Again, when you decide to be fair then by all means let me know.

Kate

[tv]

Speaking of OJ in the news, I saw some of Mike Gilbert's testimony yesterday and I thought he was very well-spoken and came across as very credible. Unfortunately, tru stops coverage at 3PM so I didn't see all of it.

[Kate Sachel]

You meant it exactly as you stated it and Kate (and I) took it exactly the way you meant it. I'm sure Kate reflected more than a moment on your post. She doesn't strike me as someone who speaks before she thinks. If you're implying that I'm starting trouble then let me remind you that if you didn't want anyone to comment on what you said you shouldn't have said it. Try to remember that this is a message board, where many individuals are free to participate, not a platform for one person's inaccuracies to stand unchallenged.

You are correct in your statement of how I viewed those particular comments, and I appreciate your postings on this since your name was directly involved.

Perhaps if someone does not want trouble, they should not post things that will clearly bring us down that road. And, you are more than expected to have a say on that post since, again, your name was mentioned.

Kate

[weezer]

Speaking of OJ in the news, I saw some of Mike Gilbert's testimony yesterday and I thought he was very well-spoken and came across as very credible. Unfortunately, tru stops coverage at 3PM so I didn't see all of it.

I'm going to PM you with a great link that will give you complete coverage.

[Kate Sachel]

I'm going to PM you with a great link that will give you complete coverage.

Would you be kind enough to include me on that as well?

Kate

[weezer]

Would you be kind enough to include me on that as well?

Kate

of course.

[weezer]

trial is on

[weezer]

uh-oh -- sounds like orenthal was way more involved in the robbery then he wants to admit

[weezer]

so now we know why arnelle would testify!

[weezer]

I guess orenthal knew that his little co-conspirator arnelle would be willing to do whatever daddy wanted.

[socaldiva]

I'm going to PM you with a great link that will give you complete coverage.

May I have one as well? :hat:

[martin II]

Speaking of OJ in the news, I saw some of Mike Gilbert's testimony yesterday and I thought he was very well-spoken and came across as very credible. Unfortunately, tru stops coverage at 3PM so I didn't see all of it.

I am returning from a two day trip and did not see testimony. what did mike testify to?

[martin II]

Alfred Beardsley took the stand Thursday in the O.J. Simpson trial as a witness for the prosecution.

By the end of his testimony, he walked away a star witness for the defense.


And it was all sealed with a wink.

Beardsley, one of two sports memorabilia dealers held up at gunpoint last September at the Palace Station, made it clear to the jury that he did not want to testify against Simpson, who along with co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart faces armed robbery, kidnapping and other charges.

"I found he had been misinformed, lied to, completely. I believe he was targeted by this con man so he could make quite a bit of money," Beardsley said, referring to middleman Thomas Riccio, who set up the confrontation under the guise of a Simpson memorabilia sale.

Beardsley's bombshell came after District Attorney David Roger played a secret audio recording that Riccio made of the hotel room confrontation.

"Considering the source, I can't authenticate it. ... He's had that tape too long," Beardsley said, suggesting Riccio could have doctored the recording. "We consider the tape to be a work of art."

Riccio gave Las Vegas police his digital recorder and the original recording eight days after the incident and only after he had sold a segment to celebrity news Web site TMZ.com for $150,000. An FBI expert testified earlier at trial that he could not determine whether the recordings had been tampered with.

Beardsley's revelation blindsided prosecutors.

The normally soft-spoken Roger charged to the podium and, with his voice filling the courtroom, confronted Beardsley about why he never told prosecutors about his issues with the recording.

Beardsley said he did tell people in the district attorney's office that "whole chunks" were missing from the recording.

Roger suggested Beardsley had changed his testimony to avoid trouble at a California prison where he is serving time for a parole violation.

"Do you know what a snitch is?" Roger asked.

"Objection!" Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter shouted.

"Yeah. Thomas Riccio," Beardsley said, drawing laughs in the courtroom.

"Withdrawn," Galanter said with a chuckle.

District Judge Jackie Glass immediately sent the jury out of the room and, despite Roger's argument, refused to allow additional questions on the snitching topic, citing Beardsley's pending release in a few weeks.

During questioning from Galanter, Beardsley denied tilting his testimony to help Simpson and said neither Simpson nor his lawyers ever asked him to.

A few minutes later, the lawyers in the case walked to a back hallway with Glass to discuss questions submitted by jurors. As the line of attorneys filed past the witness box, Beardsley looked up at Simpson lawyer Gabriel Grasso and winked.

Earlier in the day, prosecutors suffered another blow when Glass limited the questioning of Mike Gilbert, Simpson's former agent and the man who Simpson believed stole his game-used footballs and other one-of-a-kind mementos.

On the recording of the confrontation, both Beardsley and former Gilbert business partner Bruce Fromong tell Simpson, "Mike took it," as Simpson berates them for trying to sell his memorabilia.

Prosecutors hoped Gilbert would testify about helping Simpson hide his valuables from authorities, who were trying to seize them to help satisfy a $33.5 million civil judgment against Simpson. That judgment was levied after Simpson was found civilly liable in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was acquitted of the slayings in 1995.

Gilbert and Simpson had a falling out but not before Simpson gave Gilbert the memorabilia so the Goldman family wouldn't get it, Roger said.

Fromong has said he bought the memorabilia from Gilbert.

Prosecutors argued that Gilbert's testimony would show how the Palace Station confrontation was motivated by Simpson's desire for payback against Gilbert, who Simpson believed was selling the memorabilia that was wrongfully taken from him.

Simpson's lawyers called Gilbert a prosecution attempt to prejudice the jury.

Glass agreed and did not allow Gilbert to testify about how he received the memorabilia, fearing it would bring up the 1994 slayings. Gilbert simply testified that Simpson had given him the items.

Outside court, Gilbert said he should have been allowed to talk about the history of the memorabilia.

"People ask me all the time if O.J.'s going to get a fair trial," he said. "I'm more concerned about the state of Nevada getting a fair trial."

Contact reporter Brian Haynes at bhaynes@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0281.

[weezer]

where's the report that property was stolen from orenthal? there ain't one. nada. zilch.

we know that some of the stuff had already been out on the market for sale (the suit) and orenthal didn't report it stolen or go after it. hmmmm

am I surprised that orenthal's 'associates' are testifying for him? nope. we watched this once before.

you know what I do find interesting? the lack of interest in this trial. I'm guessing it's because no one cares what happens to orenthal. imo

[weezer]

May I have one as well? :hat:

of course -- it's on its way. check your PM

[martin II]

I think it was Walter Alexander, one of the guys with a gun, testified at the hearing that he asked oj and the wedding groom (forgot his name) for money
and if it was received, he would slant his testimony in favor of oj. They refused his request so he testified for the prosecution.:cool:

[martin II]

where's the report that property was stolen from orenthal? there ain't one. nada. zilch.

we know that some of the stuff had already been out on the market for sale (the suit) and orenthal didn't report it stolen or go after it. hmmmm

am I surprised that orenthal's 'associates' are testifying for him? nope. we watched this once before.

you know what I do find interesting? the lack of interest in this trial. I'm guessing it's because no one cares what happens to orenthal. imo

The previous criminal trial was about a black man accused of murdering a white woman and a white man.BIG DIFFERANCE.

[martin II]

where's the report that property was stolen from orenthal? there ain't one. nada. zilch.

we know that some of the stuff had already been out on the market for sale (the suit) and orenthal didn't report it stolen or go after it. hmmmm

am I surprised that orenthal's 'associates' are testifying for him? nope. we watched this once before.

you know what I do find interesting? the lack of interest in this trial. I'm guessing it's because no one cares what happens to orenthal. imo


Stuff is frequently stolen and not reported and later recovered.

I think oj said he had given the suit to someone and didn't want it.

Four of ojs "associates" have copped a plea and testified against him.

The detective and most of the prosecution witnesses have referred to the stuff as Goods stolen from oj.Riccio testified that Beadsley and Fumong stated in the room 'OJ MIKE STOLE IT' and were telling oj take it.
That is before the defense has put on one witnesses.

I found that strange.

[martin II]

Defense lawyers today took advantage of state witness Metro Police detective Andy Caldwell's second appearance on the stand by scrutinizing what investigators working on O.J. Simpson's robbery/kidnapping case said while processing the scene.

Defense attorney Gabriel Grasso pointed out several errors in the Metro-produced transcripts and indicated investigators were biased and racist.

Simpson and his co-accused, Clarence "C.J." Stewart, face a dozen robbery, kidnapping and weapons charges stemming from an altercation with two memorabilia dealers, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley, in a Palace Station hotel room last year.

Caldwell was re-called by prosecutors to explain how investigators obtained and used evidence. He was the seventh witness called to the stand and first addressed the court last week.

After Caldwell told the court how investigators contrasted phone records with audio recordings to establish a timeline of events surrounding the alleged robbery, Grasso scrutinized investigators' words that were secretly captured on tape.

The middleman who arranged the meeting between Simpson and the memorabilia dealers, Thomas Riccio, hid a tape recorder in the hotel room where the confrontation took place. Those recordings, which could not be verified by an FBI analysis, are now central evidence in the case.

Caldwell supervised the production of the transcripts of the recordings.

Page 193 of the LVPD transcript quotes two investigators as they process evidence in the Palace Station hotel room. It reads:

Perkins: This is great. Yeah. Uh, John said, he's like, yeah. California can't get him _____ now we'll be _____ got him.

(Laughing)

Grasso suggested that even with the court's "junky sound system," it can be heard that crime scene analyst Michael Perkins is actually saying, "California can't get it (expletive) done, now we'll get it done."

The defense said investigators had it in for Simpson and were determined to build the case against him.

Grasso believes the investigators were talking about Simpson's 1995 acquittal in relation to the murder of Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

Perkins later said, "Hey, if the glove don't fit, then you must acquit." Simpson's former defense attorney, Johnnie Cochran, first delivered the line 13 years ago during Simpson's murder trial.

The exchange is detailed on page 147 of the transcript. On the following sheet, Perkins is quoted saying, "We're just talkin' about Cochran and Shapiro a little while ago. I think he's gonna have to use Barry Schek (sp) for this one."

Later in the transcript, on page 148, Perkins and another investigator, Clint Nichols, talk about Simpson's imminent arrest.

Nichols: Uh, he's gonna get arrested.

Perkins: Who, who's gonna get arrested?

Nichols: O.J.

Perkins: Oh, good.

...

Nichols: ... Rod's already all over it at the night club watching him drink so, just waitin' for a phone call, we'll snatch him up.

Perkins: So then, they got a, an eyeball on him?

Nichols: Yeah, they're actually hanging out at the night club where's he's at...

Caldwell revealed last week that Metro placed Simpson under surveillance after the alleged robbery was reported. He was not arrested until three days after the incident, on Sept 16, 2007.

While the men on the transcript didn't know their words would be documented and dissected, they agreed their investigation would be called into question.

Nichols: There will be no good outcome for our agency on this no matter what we do.

(Laughing)

Unknown: Yeah.

Nichols: That's the unfortunate part ... because if we don't arrest him, you gave him preferential treatment, and when we do, they'll find so many holes is what we did.

[martin II]

Elsewhere, he Perkins heard agreeing after Nichols says, "He's a jackass, apparently," but it is not clear who Nichols is talking about. Perkins also calls someone "a dirt bag."

Using a large visual chart complete with photos, Caldwell charted the telephone correspondence between the accused and their alleged co-conspirators who have signed plea bargains with the defense. Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, is also on the chart, but the middleman who arranged the hotel room meeting, Thomas Riccio, is not.

Riccio made several calls to Simpson and others in the group, as well as to the two memorabilia dealers who said they were robbed during the raid, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley.

Fromong and Beardsley were also nowhere to be seen on the detective's poster board, even though Simpson called them over the phone just hours after the alleged robbery, and spoke to them during the days that followed, as well.

Personal identity information revealed at trial

Sensitive personal information was displayed this morning for all to see as prosecutors built their case against O.J. Simpson and his former golfing buddy, Clarence "C.J." Stewart.

Simpson and Stewart face a dozen robbery, kidnapping and weapons charges stemming from an altercation with two memorabilia dealers, Bruce Fromong and Alfred Beardsley, in a Palace Station hotel room last year.

Prosecutors this morning displayed cell phone records and invoices related to the case as they attempted to piece together a timeline of events that transpired on Sept 13, 2007.

The documents revealed sensitive information including names, addresses, phone numbers and Social Security Numbers.

Simpson's lawyer, Gabriel Grasso, first asked to have the phone numbers of individuals who are not connected to the case but are still listed on his client's phone records to be protected from public view. Judge Jackie Glass overruled his request.

Moments later, however, Stewart's lawyers objected and proceedings came to a screeching halt when prosecutors displayed Stewart's AT&T cell phone invoice, which clearly stated the defendant's Social Security Number and other personal information.

Identity thieves use Social Security Numbers, names and addresses to exploit victims' financial information and obtain fraudulent credit cards.

Identity theft is a growing concern in the U.S., with new victims targeted every two seconds, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center. Nevada is reported to have the third-highest incidence rate of identity theft in the nation per capita.

The phone records displayed in the courtroom today were part of prosecutors' ongoing efforts to establish a timeline of events before, during and after the alleged robbery.

One of the two victims, Alfred Beardsley, testified yesterday that the audio recordings that have been presented as evidence have been tampered with.

He called the recording, which was secretly taken by the middleman who arranged the meeting between Simpson and two memorabilia dealers last year, Thomas Riccio, "a work of art."

"There's all kind of dialogue missing," Beardsley charged.

Metro Police detective Andy Caldwell this morning was re-called to testify in the robbery/kidnapping trial to explain how investigators obtained and used evidence. He was the seventh witness called to the stand and first addressed the court last week.

Caldwell told the court how investigators contrasted phone records with Riccio's audio recordings to establish a timeline of events surrounding the alleged robbery.

"Even if Mr. Riccio's audio recording didn't have a time stamp on it you were able to match it up with specific phone call records that are time stamped and thereby able to put some time stamps to the recording of Mr. Riccio," Deputy District Attorney Christopher Owens summarized. Caldwell confirmed his observation.

The detective explained the phone recorders documented completed, billable calls, but did not reflect calls that were not completed.

Caldwell said he became concerned after reviewing phone records and listening to recorded calls Simpson made from the Clark County Detention Center after his Sept. 16, 2007, arrest.

"Mr. Simpson was attempting to contact victims and co-defendants prior to us being able to contact them," Caldwell said. The detective said it was a concern for him because he felt the records indicated Simpson "was trying to affect the outcome of the case."

Caldwell earlier this morning explained for the court how investigators recovered several items that had been taken from the Palace Station hotel room from the Las Vegas law offices of Stewart's lawyer, Robert Lucherini, and the attorney representing Charles Cashmore, who accompanied Simpson and the others on the hotel room raid.

Caldwell said Metro Police recovered Fromong's missing cell phone and box of Joe Montana lithographs from the officers of Cashmore's attorney.

The detective also said they found several of the footballs that were reported missing, as well as the pillowcases that were allegedly used to haul the memorabilia out of the hotel room during the raid, on a conference room table of Lucherini's office.

Caldwell noted both Stewart and his lawyer willfully led investigators to the items during a walk-though of the premises. Cashmore's lawyer also co-operated with investigators.

Caldwell noted, however, that several items Fromong and Beardsley said Simpson's entourage stole took have yet to be recovered.

He said 24 baseballs autographed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider, several hundred O.J. Simpson-autographed photos and a pair of turf-worn game shoes were never found.

Jurors on Thursday heard from Walter Alexander, who is one of the two men who brought a handgun into the hotel room that day. He said his friend, Michael McClinton, gave him a .22 Beretta after Simpson asked them to "bring some heat" to the confrontation.

Caldwell explained today how Alexander told detectives where in McClinton's home they could find the guns that he said were used in the raid.

"They were in the drawer of Mr. McClinton's bedroom," Caldwell said.

The court hopes to hear from McClinton this afternoon as the state nears the end of its list of witnesses.

Simpson and Stewart's criminal trial began on Sept 15 and is expected to last four to five weeks.

[weezer]

The previous criminal trial was about a black man accused of murdering a white woman and a white man.BIG DIFFERANCE.

therein lies our 'differance' martin. you can only see the murders in black and white.

[weezer]

I think it was Walter Alexander, one of the guys with a gun, testified at the hearing that he asked oj and the wedding groom (forgot his name) for money
and if it was received, he would slant his testimony in favor of oj. They refused his request so he testified for the prosecution.:cool:

martin, did orenthal scream 'no one leaves this room'? did orenthal tell his goons to take it all? did orenthal take fromong's cell phone? did orenthal return ANYTHING that he said wasn't his?

did orenthal report anything in that room as stolen at ANYTIME before the armed robbery?

IF the guys believed the stuff 'belonged' to orenthal, and they were angry that riccio set it up, why didn't one of them call orenthal and tell him that they had his 'sh*t'?

what do you think he wanted arnelle to talk to beardsley about?

[martin II]

martin, did orenthal scream 'no one leaves this room'? FROM THE TAPE YES did orenthal tell his goons to take it all?THAT IS NOT ON THE TAPE did orenthal take fromong's cell phone?NO WALTER ALEXANDER TOOK THE CELL PHONE did orenthal return ANYTHING that he said wasn't his?OJ TOOK NOTHING FROM THE ROOM EVERYTHING TAKEN WAS IN THE HANDS OF OTHERS WHEN GIVEN TO LE

did orenthal report anything in that room as stolen at ANYTIME before the armed robbery?NOT REQUIRED FOR THE GOODS TO BE HIS. SEE DETECTIVES TESTIMONY.

IF the guys believed the stuff 'belonged' to orenthal, and they were angry that riccio set it up, why didn't one of them call orenthal and tell him that they had his 'sh*t'? NO ONE KNEW RICCO SET THEM UP UNTIL AFTERWARDS, THEY INTENDED TO SELL THE STUFF UNTIL CAUGHT.

what do you think he wanted arnelle to talk to beardsley about?IF THIS HAPPENED YOU CAN GIVE A LINK TO IT


MARTIN ii:cool:

[martin II]

therein lies our 'differance' martin. you can only see the murders in black and white.

I have never indicated that we were alike in our ideas of that case.
The race of the victims was a big issue in the case even if you don't believe it was.So was wealth.

[weezer]

MARTIN ii:cool:

didn't you listen to the taped phone conversation between orenthal and arnelle? your hero told her to call beardsley. geez.

[martin II]

didn't you listen to the taped phone conversation between orenthal and arnelle? your hero told her to call beardsley. geez.

I did not hear that tape so why did he tell her to call Beadsley and when did he do this?:cool:

[weezer]

I have never indicated that we were alike in our ideas of that case.
The race of the victims was a big issue in the case even if you don't believe it was.So was wealth.

race was made an issue as a defense in lieu of credible proof of innocence.

[martin II]

The detective testified that there were deletions/files on the hotel room tape that he could not retreive.Beadsley testified that large portions/conversations on the tape were missing. Riccio sold the tape to several news organizations during the eight days he had it before giving it to le.:cool:

[martin II]

race was made an issue as a defense in lieu of credible proof of innocence.

Race was made a issue by the media and others.

[weezer]

The detective testified that there were deletions/files on the hotel room tape that he could not retreive.Beadsley testified that large portions/conversations on the tape were missing. Riccio sold the tape to several news organizations during the eight days he had it before giving it to le.:cool:

". . .He also confirmed two of Simpson's accomplices were armed. . ." Beardsley

[martin II]

". . .He also confirmed two of Simpson's accomplices were armed. . ." Beardsley

I believe that the two adults that brought guns to the room did so on their own unless there is testimony that oj or someone forced them to do so.
Walter Alexander testified that he brought his gun because he wanted to have protection for himself. That was his stated reason.

:cool:

[martin II]

". . .He also confirmed two of Simpson's accomplices were armed. . ." Beardsley

What do you believe was origionally recorded on the deleted parts/files of the tape that the detective could not retreive?

[William Anthony]

You meant it exactly as you stated it and Kate (and I) took it exactly the way you meant it. I'm sure Kate reflected more than a moment on your post. She doesn't strike me as someone who speaks before she thinks. If you're implying that I'm starting trouble then let me remind you that if you didn't want anyone to comment on what you said you shouldn't have said it. Try to remember that this is a message board, where many individuals are free to participate, not a platform for one person's inaccuracies to stand unchallenged.

Let me apologize for how you and Kate took what I meant. I have stated what I meant and meant what I stated. I am capable of discussing things with Kate and explaining myself to her. You are allowed to respond to any post. I am allowed to explain what I meant, without your assumption as to what I meant. It was meant as levity and I agree that many should comment on one particular poster's false posts as evidence by the posts from a recent return from an alleged hiatus, although I have not seen many comments on those false posts, other than my own. I guess this is fairness to some.

[William Anthony]

The difference being that she does not always share the same opinion as I, nor does she always speak to such, whereas your particular follower seems to not offer much more than secondhand opinions and crude comments.

Again, when you decide to be fair then by all means let me know.

Kate

I think that you and I are more aligned on the major issues than the poster to whom I believe you refer. The poster is a NG but I am a verdict supporter, as you are, despite your feelings that Simpson is guilty, correct? I have not determined whether or not Simpson was guilty, only that a jury found him not guilty and another jury found him liable for Ronald Goldman's wrongful death and the battery of Nicole Brown Simpson.

[William Anthony]

You are correct in your statement of how I viewed those particular comments, and I appreciate your postings on this since your name was directly involved.

Perhaps if someone does not want trouble, they should not post things that will clearly bring us down that road. And, you are more than expected to have a say on that post since, again, your name was mentioned.

Kate

I only made an observation and posed an inquiry on fairness and was not seeking to agitate anyone(body), as the question was a rhetorical attempt at humor.

[William Anthony]

An interesting link with interesting comments, imho.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/19/law-blog-crim-law-quiz-can-you-rob-something-thats-yours/

[martin II]

An interesting link with interesting comments, imho.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/19/law-blog-crim-law-quiz-can-you-rob-something-thats-yours/

Fumong and Beadsley have both testified that they were not afraid during the time that the group was in the room to get the goods.

[martin II]

What oj was in the room accusing Beadsley and Fumong of stealing his stuff
Fumong said 'i didn't take it oj Mike took it"

This sound like he was admitting that he knew the good he had were stolen yet he was not charged with posession of stolen goods by the prosecution.:cool:

[William Anthony]

An interesting link with interesting comments, imho.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/19/law-blog-crim-law-quiz-can-you-rob-something-thats-yours/

I agree with one of the posters, who mentioned intent. Without the intent to commit a crime, there can be no crime.

[martin II]

I agree with one of the posters, who mentioned intent. Without the intent to commit a crime, there can be no crime.

OJ has stated and witnesses have testified that the intent of going to the hotel was to retreive ojs personal items that the sellers had informed Riccio
they were bringing.All witnesses have testified that they went with the idea that they would simply get ojs stuff and leave. No one went with the intent to commit any crime.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

OJ has stated and witnesses have testified that the intent of going to the hotel was to retreive ojs personal items that the sellers had informed Riccio
they were bringing.All witnesses have testified that they went with the idea that they would simply get ojs stuff and leave. No one went with the intent to commit any crime.imo:cool:

I think this is where the lawyers' abilities to persuade will be crucial.

[tv]

Fumong and Beadsley have both testified that they were not afraid during the time that the group was in the room to get the goods.
Why did Beardsley call 911?

[tv]

What oj was in the room accusing Beadsley and Fumong of stealing his stuff
Fumong said 'i didn't take it oj Mike took it"

This sound like he was admitting that he knew the good he had were stolen yet he was not charged with posession of stolen goods by the prosecution.:cool:

'Took' and 'stole' don't necessarily mean the same thing.

[martin II]

'Took' and 'stole' don't necessarily mean the same thing.

tv
In this case they mean exactly the same.:cool:

[martin II]

Why did Beardsley call 911?

to report the incident.

[martin II]

Why did Beardsley call 911?

Fumong sat on the stand and said he was not afraid. Beadsley, wanted to give the stuff back when they werte in the room but became pissed when they had left imo

[William Anthony]

'Took' and 'stole' don't necessarily mean the same thing.

I think that I will agree with that in a general sense. However, when someone is accusing another of stealing his stuff and the other says Mike took it, I think that the inquirer would not be accusing the wrong person of stealing, if he knew who took his stuff. While absconding with a person's property may be seen as a taking, as with eminent domain where the law permits such taking, I think that in this case there was no legal basis for such taking or one had not yet bee established from the limited amount of the trial I was able to watch. I feel that the taking was tantamount to stealing/robbery. Since they have not been charged, I feel it is a moot point but the main point is Simpson's statement, showing an intent to recover his property that he believed was stolen. I agree with your general statement and I think that this may be a point of contention in the progression of the trial.

[William Anthony]

Imho, McClintock is not looking good under cross.

[William Anthony]

I think that I will agree with that in a general sense. However, when someone is accusing another of stealing his stuff and the other says Mike took it, I think that the inquirer would not be accusing the wrong person of stealing, if he knew who took his stuff. While absconding with a person's property may be seen as a taking, as with eminent domain where the law permits such taking, I think that in this case there was no legal basis for such taking or one had not yet bee established from the limited amount of the trial I was able to watch. I feel that the taking was tantamount to stealing/robbery. Since they have not been charged, I feel it is a moot point but the main point is Simpson's statement, showing an intent to recover his property that he believed was stolen. I agree with your general statement and I think that this may be a point of contention in the progression of the trial.

Correction-I think that in this case there was no legal basis for such taking or one had not yet been established...

[William Anthony]

Simpson has sat through a criminal trial and a civil one and is now sitting though another criminal trial. Should we pay deference to the verdicts of those jurors, who sat and listened to the testimony, sacrificing a portion of their lives in order to fulfill an obligation imposed on them, or are we allowed to disrespect those verdicts and consequently those jurors because we feel they have not earned our respect because they do not agree with us? Should we treat the verdict that will be rendered the same? Should we show more respect to a President with a low approval rating or to a Black man who earned the nomination for President of his party or, likewise, should we show more respect to those who have earned the opportunity to serve at a federal level, or to a woman, who had not served on a federal level, but has moved up the ladder and earned the position of Governor of a state, or to Justices of the Supreme Court, who had to go through a questioning process to earn their appointments?

I suppose I am asking at what level do we think that it is respectable to feel that we can say or show disrespect and what yardstick should we measure the ability to be respected or whether respect should be given until lost. I think that these questions will be instrumental in assessing the jurors and the verdict in the present trial.

[martin II]

Imho, McClintock is not looking good under cross.

The hugh task for the jury is to determine which of these state witnesses is telling the truth.

Walter Alexander testified in the hearing and in this trial a few days ago that he had a gun in his waistband BUT HE NEVER PULLED IT OUT.
Today Mcclintin testified that he gave Alexander the gun and HE PULLED IT OUT IN THE ROOM.IMO

[Redmama]

Simpson has sat through a criminal trial and a civil one and is now sitting though another criminal trial. Should we pay deference to the verdicts of those jurors, who sat and listened to the testimony, sacrificing a portion of their lives in order to fulfill an obligation imposed on them, or are we allowed to disrespect those verdicts and consequently those jurors because we feel they have not earned our respect because they do not agree with us? Should we treat the verdict that will be rendered the same? Should we show more respect to a President with a low approval rating or to a Black man who earned the nomination for President of his party or, likewise, should we show more respect to those who have earned the opportunity to serve at a federal level, or to a woman, who had not served on a federal level, but has moved up the ladder and earned the position of Governor of a state, or to Justices of the Supreme Court, who had to go through a questioning process to earn their appointments?

I suppose I am asking at what level do we think that it is respectable to feel that we can say or show disrespect and what yardstick should we measure the ability to be respected or whether respect should be given until lost. I think that these questions will be instrumental in assessing the jurors and the verdict in the present trial.


I wouldn't call it disrespecting jurors - I would call it just not agreeing with them.

I would say level has absolutely nothing to do with respect in my life. People I know either earn it or not. In my close circle of friends and family there are only two that I disrespect.

[William Anthony]

I wouldn't call it disrespecting jurors - I would call it just not agreeing with them.

I would say level has absolutely nothing to do with respect in my life. People I know either earn it or not. In my close circle of friends and family there are only two that I disrespect.

I do not know how long you have been lurking but there were several comments made about the civil jury like uneducated, ignorant and racially biased. I call that disrespect.

I know quite a few people and I respect all of them. When I loose respect for someone, I sever all ties with that person as they have done something so egregious imho as to not deserve respect. Until that point, I show them respect because as my equal as a human being they are worthy of respect. I would like to ask you, who deserves respect-the juries, the President, Obama or Palin and the reason why you feel they do.

[martin II]

I do not know how long you have been lurking but there were several comments made about the civil jury like uneducated, ignorant and racially biased. I call that disrespect.

I know quite a few people and I respect all of them. When I loose respect for someone, I sever all ties with that person as they have done something so egregious imho as to not deserve respect. Until that point, I show them respect because as my equal as a human being they are worthy of respect. I would like to ask you, who deserves respect-the juries, the President, Obama or Palin and the reason why you feel they do.

William i think you mean the criminal jury.

[martin II]

I wouldn't call it disrespecting jurors - I would call it just not agreeing with them.

I would say level has absolutely nothing to do with respect in my life. People I know either earn it or not. In my close circle of friends and family there are only two that I disrespect.

I don't know which post you have read and which you have not read during your long period of lurking. However no less than 3 regular posters here have described the criminal trial jury as Uneducated, stupid, ignorant and racially biased. I see that as dissrespectful to those average citizens that heard the case. imo

[Redmama]

I don't know which post you have read and which you have not read during your long period of lurking. However no less than 3 regular posters here have described the criminal trial jury as Uneducated, stupid, ignorant and racially biased. I see that as dissrespectful to those average citizens that heard the case. imo

I was speaking of only myself.

[martin II]

I was speaking of only myself.

So would i be correct in assumming that in your view the description used by some of the jury were not dissrespectful but only a statement of dissagreement with them?

[Redmama]

So would i be correct in assumming that in your view the description used by some of the jury were not dissrespectful but only a statement of dissagreement with them?

No, I can't speak for others, but I myself have not made any disrespectful comments about the jury - I don't disrespect them. I do, however, disagree with them.

[William Anthony]

William i think you mean the criminal jury.

You are correct, although I have heard similar comments made about the civil jury.

[William Anthony]

I think the jury may have trapped Spence. They asked if he ever pointed the gun in the room and he said he kept it in his vest. However, he testified that he had the gun drawn out in the hall. I don't think anyone puts a gun away under those circumstances. Falsus in onus, Falsus in omnibus.

[William Anthony]

No, I can't speak for others, but I myself have not made any disrespectful comments about the jury - I don't disrespect them. I do, however, disagree with them.

I have no problem with that being said. It is the other comments I find disrespectful and I have never heard you make those disrespectful comments.

[Redmama]

I have no problem with that being said. It is the other comments I find disrespectful and I have never heard you make those disrespectful comments.

Thanks William.

Redmama

[martin II]

No, I can't speak for others, but I myself have not made any disrespectful comments about the jury - I don't disrespect them. I do, however, disagree with them.

Thanks for the additional info.I have not seen you be disrespectful of any poster here or make disrespectful comments about the jury.

[tv]

tv
In this case they mean exactly the same.:cool:Who testified to that?

[martin II]

Who testified to that?

OJ; 'you think you can steal my S***

Beadsley: 'I didn't STEAL it oj MIKE TOOK IT"

What do you believe Beadsley was talking about. What did he mean mike took it?

[tv]

OJ; 'you think you can steal my S***

Beadsley: 'I didn't STEAL it oj MIKE TOOK IT"

What do you believe Beadsley was talking about. What did he mean mike took it?
He didn't say I didn't steal it, Mike STOLE it. He says "...Mike TOOK it." Then I believe OJS says "I know Mike TOOK it." I think Beardsley meant that Mike had it originally. Did Mike tell Beardsley he stole it from Simpson?