O.J. In The News Again

[martin II]

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?

OJ knew his stuff was stolen and that mike had stole his stuff but mike did not admit it. Beadsley knew mike stole it from ojs throphy room and that is what he meant when he told oj that mike took it. Fumong also knew the goods were stolen and that is why he asked Riccio several time if the buyer was oj. Mike Fumong nor Beadsley have been able to prove how they got the goods leagally.
Beadsley did not say Mike had anything originnally. Oj said you think you can steal my s *** Beadsley said oj i did not take it mike took it.

Riccio testified that before MCCLINTIN pulled out his gun Beadsley and Fumong were pushing the goods to oj saying here take it back.

[tv]

OJ knew his stuff was stolen and that mike had stole his stuff but mike did not admit it. Beadsley knew mike stole it from ojs throphy room and that is what he meant when he told oj that mike took it. Fumong also knew the goods were stolen and that is why he asked Riccio several time if the buyer was oj. Mike Fumong nor Beadsley have been able to prove how they got the goods leagally.
Beadsley did not say Mike had anything originnally. Oj said you think you can steal my s *** Beadsley said oj i did not take it mike took it.

Riccio testified that before MCCLINTIN pulled out his gun Beadsley and Fumong were pushing the goods to oj saying here take it back.

It depends who you believe. I believe Mike Gilbert. It was all part of Simpson's attempt to hide his stuff from Fred Goldman.

I guess I would push it at him too if I had a gun pointed at me.

[martin II]

It depends who you believe. I believe Mike Gilbert. It was all part of Simpson's attempt to hide his stuff from Fred Goldman.

I guess I would push it at him too if I had a gun pointed at me.

mike is the biggest crook of them all.He was the one responsible for the fake oj prono tape.
Fumong and beadsley both testified that they were not scared.Mcclinton testified today that he had his gun on his chest that he never waved it at anyone. hahaha

[martin II]

It depends who you believe. I believe Mike Gilbert. It was all part of Simpson's attempt to hide his stuff from Fred Goldman.

I guess I would push it at him too if I had a gun pointed at me.

The judge did not allow Mike to testify about any stuff taken to be hidden from fred.

[weezer]

mike is the biggest crook of them all.He was the one responsible for the fake oj prono tape.
Fumong and beadsley both testified that they were not scared.Mcclinton testified today that he had his gun on his chest that he never waved it at anyone. hahaha

everybody but orenthal -- LOL

the guys called 911 and fromong had a heart attack the next day -- sounds like someone was upset!

[martin II]

everybody but orenthal -- LOL

the guys called 911 and fromong had a heart attack the next day -- sounds like someone was upset!

Fumong has a history of having heart attacks. He thought he was having one on the stand last week until the medics checked him out and said he was ok.

[martin II]

everybody but orenthal -- LOL

the guys called 911 and fromong had a heart attack the next day -- sounds like someone was upset!

See fumong and Beadsley testimony.

2-3 witnesses testified that Mcclinton pulled out his gun and had it extended in front of him pointing it. He said he had his gun on his chest and never pointed it at anyone. So who is telling the truth?
Secrete: all are telling lies.
The judges instruction to the jury may inform them that if they find a witness lied in his testimony they can dissregard ALL of his testimony. hhhmmmm

[martin II]

Jury question to mcclinton today.

Mcclinton said he had on his jogging outfit when he met oj in his room and this is when he showed oj his gun permit.( the permit was the size of regular typing paper)
The jury member asked why would he have that piece of paper in his jogging outfit. He did not have his gun while jogging or meeting with oj.

[Redmama]

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

No problem - Thannk you!

[tv]

Fumong has a history of having heart attacks. He thought he was having one on the stand last week until the medics checked him out and said he was ok.

Does Beardsley have a history of calling 911?

[tv]

See fumong and Beadsley testimony.

2-3 witnesses testified that Mcclinton pulled out his gun and had it extended in front of him pointing it. He said he had his gun on his chest and never pointed it at anyone. So who is telling the truth?
Secrete: all are telling lies.
The judges instruction to the jury may inform them that if they find a witness lied in his testimony they can dissregard ALL of his testimony. hhhmmmm

Except for OJ, right? hahaha

[William Anthony]

Except for OJ, right? hahaha

The same instruction would apply to Simpson, if and when he testifies, but I think you know this.

[martin II]

Does Beardsley have a history of calling 911?

He has a history of erratic behavior stopovers in mental hospital and a scam artist.imo Anod oh yea selling stolen goods.hahaha

[martin II]

Walter Alexander, now a prosecution witness, discussed a plea with the prosecution, he then went to oj and and the groom and asked for money to hire and pay a lawyer in exchange for changing his testimony in favor of Oj.

They refused to pay so he went back to the prosecution and agreed to testify against oj. He admitted this in his testimony in the hearing and this was discussed in his testimony a few days ago.

I am wondering how the jury will see him as a witness that was willing to slant his testimony for money,and whether they will believe his current testinmony. Of all the witnesses he was the only one that tried to escape
vegas le when he was caught trying to leave at the airport.imo
martin II

[martin II]

The same instruction would apply to Simpson, if and when he testifies, but I think you know this.

Most all of these prosecution witnesses have been caught in conflicting testimony on material issues. So the judges instructions to the jury will be very important.The witnesses have not been able to agree on the order in which people came into the room, who was standing where and who did what.
Media reports had said that oj took Fumongs phone. Alexander testified that he took the phone from Fumong and from the room.Oj told him to give the guy his phone back, Alexander kept it and testified that he could not remember which room he had just exited.
imo

[weezer]

Walter Alexander, now a prosecution witness, discussed a plea with the prosecution, he then went to oj and and the groom and asked for money to hire and pay a lawyer in exchange for changing his testimony in favor of Oj.

They refused to pay so he went back to the prosecution and agreed to testify against oj. He admitted this in his testimony in the hearing and this was discussed in his testimony a few days ago.

I am wondering how the jury will see him as a witness that was willing to slant his testimony for money,and whether they will believe his current testinmony. Of all the witnesses he was the only one that tried to escape
vegas le when he was caught trying to leave at the airport.imo
martin II

the important thing to remember about Alexander's testimony is that when he 'went back' to the prosecution, his story didn't change.

[William Anthony]

It seems that Beardsley managed to testify that Simpson did not ask him to change his story.

[tv]

He has a history of erratic behavior stopovers in mental hospital and a scam artist.imo Anod oh yea selling stolen goods.hahahaDoes he have a history of calling 911 for no reason?

[martin II]

Does he have a history of calling 911 for no reason?

I don't know about that but
Beadsley testified a few days ago that he could not verify the room tape made by Rizzio because there was large chunks of talk that happened in the room that is not on the tape. The detective testified that there were some files that had been deleted on the tape that he was not able to retreive.

Beadsley believes Riccio deleted some conversation from the tape during the eight days he had it before he gave it to le.
imo

[martin II]

the important thing to remember about Alexander's testimony is that when he 'went back' to the prosecution, his story didn't change.

Nope, the important thing about Alexanders testimony is that he admited that he tried to sell his testimony.Or lie for money.

Alexander said he never pulled his gun out.
Mcclinton, yesterday, testified 2-3 times that Alexander did pull his gun out.

Mcclintin also testified that he and Alexander had a plan to tape oj and sell the tape to tabloids.

Alexander testified that oj asked him to bring a gun but then he also testified that the reason he brought a gun was for self protection in case he needed it.

My question is, who if anyone, forced these two adults to bring guns.Are they responsible for their own decisions?imo

[weezer]

SNIPPED** ". . .My question is, who if anyone, forced these two adults to bring guns.Are they responsible for their own decisions?imo

orenthal james simpson -- the person who invited the guys to rob the hotel room. There would have been no robbery except for the fact that orenthal james simpson arranged it. HE asked the guys to go with him. HE told them to bring guns. HE said 'no one leaves this room.' HE walked out of the room with the stuff. HE contacted and tried to contact victims/co-conspirators to change stories.

[tv]

I don't know about that but
Beadsley testified a few days ago that he could not verify the room tape made by Rizzio because there was large chunks of talk that happened in the room that is not on the tape. The detective testified that there were some files that had been deleted on the tape that he was not able to retreive.

Beadsley believes Riccio deleted some conversation from the tape during the eight days he had it before he gave it to le.
imo

So you believe a man that has been hospitalized for erratic behavior and in your words is a scam artist? Seems like you only find him credible when he supports Simpson's version of events.

[weezer]

So you believe a man that has been hospitalized for erratic behavior and in your words is a scam artist? Seems like you only find him credible when he supports Simpson's version of events.

LOL -- this is dejavu all over again! everyone else is lying and setting poor ole orenthal up.

[William Anthony]

Nope, the important thing about Alexanders testimony is that he admited that he tried to sell his testimony.Or lie for money.

Alexander said he never pulled his gun out.
Mcclinton, yesterday, testified 2-3 times that Alexander did pull his gun out.

Mcclintin also testified that he and Alexander had a plan to tape oj and sell the tape to tabloids.

Alexander testified that oj asked him to bring a gun but then he also testified that the reason he brought a gun was for self protection in case he needed it.

My question is, who if anyone, forced these two adults to bring guns.Are they responsible for their own decisions?imo

Reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

So you believe a man that has been hospitalized for erratic behavior and in your words is a scam artist? Seems like you only find him credible when he supports Simpson's version of events.

I have posted reports of testimony and what i have heard from trial broadcast. You are able to believe what sounds true to you. I have not said what i believe.

[tv]

I have posted reports of testimony and what i have heard from trial broadcast. You are able to believe what sounds true to you. I have not said what i believe.You said they were all lying. I thought that was your personal belief. I guess I misinterpreted. :shrug:

[martin II]

LOL -- this is dejavu all over again! everyone else is lying and setting poor ole orenthal up.

The testimony is what it is. The lying and conflicting testimony seems to be between the prosecutions witnesses.imo

[tv]

The testimony is what it is. The lying and conflicting testimony seems to be between the prosecutions witnesses.imo

Of course. :D

[martin II]

You said they were all lying. I thought that was your personal belief. I guess I misinterpreted. :shrug:

So far all have testified to certain events differently. What does this mean to you.

[William Anthony]

So far all have testified to certain events differently. What does this mean to you.

Reasonable doubt. :)

[martin II]

Does anyone believe that the prosecution, in their case has proven INTENT
on the part of the two defendants.

[William Anthony]

Does anyone believe that the prosecution, in their case has proven INTENT
on the part of the two defendants.

I think that the evidence favors Simpson's and his friends intent to recover his property. However, I anticipate the argument that Simpson used this as a ploy to deceive his co-conspirators.

[weezer]

The testimony is what it is. The lying and conflicting testimony seems to be between the prosecutions witnesses.imo

ahh but martin -- you are evidently choosing to ignore orenthal's statements about the 'piece', asking arnelle to call beardsley because if beardsley drops the charges 'that's half the case', orenthal screaming 'nobody leaves here', orenthal saying 'take it all', beardsley/fromong calling 911, fromong having a heart attack the day after. you choose to believe orenthal isn't capable of the things he has shown over and over again that he is and does.

[weezer]

Does anyone believe that the prosecution, in their case has proven INTENT
on the part of the two defendants.

I think orenthal arranging for friends and acquaintances to storm a hotel room to take stuff is shows more than INTENT -- it shows action.

[martin II]

ahh but martin -- you are evidently choosing to ignore orenthal's statements about the 'piece', asking arnelle to call beardsley because if beardsley drops the charges 'that's half the case', orenthal screaming 'nobody leaves here', orenthal saying 'take it all', beardsley/fromong calling 911, fromong having a heart attack the day after. you choose to believe orenthal isn't capable of the things he has shown over and over again that he is and does.

Have you ignored Riccio and other witnesses testimony that they only went to help oj retreive HIS personal property. Riccio testified that he told the seller not to bring any items that were not OJS PERSONAL PROPERTY. Did the prosecution in their case prove that there was INTENT to ROB people is my question. Oj was heard on the tape saying i DON'T WANT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE or DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE AND IF ANYTHING IS TAKEN THAT IS NOT MINE I WILL RETURN IT.IMO

I believe the person heard saying take it all was McClinton.

imo

[weezer]

Have you ignored Riccio and other witnesses testimony that they only went to help oj retreive HIS personal property. Riccio testified that he told the seller not to bring any items that were not OJS PERSONAL PROPERTY. Did the prosecution in their case prove that there was INTENT to ROB people is my question. Oj was heard on the tape saying i DON'T WANT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE or DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE AND IF ANYTHING IS TAKEN THAT IS NOT MINE I WILL RETURN IT.IMO

I believe the person heard saying take it all was McClinton.

imo

now riccio and the other witnesses are to be believed? LOL

did orenthal return anything that he didn't believe was his?

[William Anthony]

There has been some discussion of the meaning of the words steal, rob and take. I would like to add the word intent to those and ask, if a person tells another that he is going to leave the property at the desk, is that stealing, robbery or taking. I would also like to say that the law of robbery under the Nevada statute, IIRC, says with the purpose or intent to permanently depirve another of his/her property. It may be argued that Simpson was awaiting the arrival of others to help him recover his property.

[Redmama]

So I have a question. If I find out where some property is that was taken from me and I decide to go and take it back myself, is that robbery? Or would it only be robbery if I entered their house without permission? Or what if the person I went to get it from was not the person that took it from me, would that be robbery?

I have to say in any of the cases above, I would not go get it myself, but I do wonder what is right or wrong...

Not sure if any of that made sense...I'm having one of those days!

[weezer]

So I have a question. If I find out where some property is that was taken from me and I decide to go and take it back myself, is that robbery? Or would it only be robbery if I entered their house without permission? Or what if the person I went to get it from was not the person that took it from me, would that be robbery?

I have to say in any of the cases above, I would not go get it myself, but I do wonder what is right or wrong...

Not sure if any of that made sense...I'm having one of those days!

hmmm - that's a hard one. I do believe that if you burst into a room with six friends and two guns, and you take everything in the room including the occupants cell phone, it's robbery.

[William Anthony]

So I have a question. If I find out where some property is that was taken from me and I decide to go and take it back myself, is that robbery? Or would it only be robbery if I entered their house without permission? Or what if the person I went to get it from was not the person that took it from me, would that be robbery?

I have to say in any of the cases above, I would not go get it myself, but I do wonder what is right or wrong...

Not sure if any of that made sense...I'm having one of those days!

I have been wondering why you were silent and now I see why. Those are excellent questions:), . The law is somewhat rooted in right and wrong but more so in what is lawful or unlawful. I believe that the status of the law is that a property owner has the right to recover his property wherever he discovers its location. I do not think that entering without permission is an element of robbery, although it may be used to sustain a robbery charge. I think it would be another charge such as trespassing or breaking and entering. The last question, according to my understanding of the Nevada statute, is that it would not be robbery, because you did not deprive that person of his/her property. The Nevada statute has several elements that must be proven to prove robbery. I posted it some time ago but cannot remember the exact elements. My answer is from memory. Good to see you posting.

[weezer]

So I have a question. If I find out where some property is that was taken from me and I decide to go and take it back myself, is that robbery? Or would it only be robbery if I entered their house without permission? Or what if the person I went to get it from was not the person that took it from me, would that be robbery?

I have to say in any of the cases above, I would not go get it myself, but I do wonder what is right or wrong...

Not sure if any of that made sense...I'm having one of those days!

Here's the pertinent part of the Nevada robbery statute: Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery.

[Redmama]

I have been wondering why you were silent and now I see why. Those are excellent questions:), . The law is somewhat rooted in right and wrong but more so in what is lawful or unlawful. I believe that the status of the law is that a property owner has the right to recover his property wherever he discovers its location. I do not think that entering without permission is an element of robbery, although it may be used to sustain a robbery charge. I think it would be another charge such as trespassing or breaking and entering. The last question, according to my understanding of the Nevada statute, is that it would not be robbery, because you did not deprive that person of his/her property. The Nevada statute has several elements that must be proven to prove robbery. I posted it some time ago but cannot remember the exact elements. My answer is from memory. Good to see you posting.

I seriously have been working 10-12 hour days and have a friend in the hospital so my life has been "interesting." I'm glad to see I was missed though. About the time I feel like I'm going to "lose it" at work I take a few minutes to look in here and am always glad there is something new to read.

Thanks for your answers - I have thought about this for about a week and kept telling myself it was a stupid question, but I really wanted to know!

[William Anthony]

I seriously have been working 10-12 hour days and have a friend in the hospital so my life has been "interesting." I'm glad to see I was missed though. About the time I feel like I'm going to "lose it" at work I take a few minutes to look in here and am always glad there is something new to read.

Thanks for your answers - I have thought about this for about a week and kept telling myself it was a stupid question, but I really wanted to know!

Your questions were not stupid at all. I remember doing some research on the common law decisions and do not know whether or not I did it on California case law or Nevada. I will have to do some further research, as there was a time that I confused where the case was taking place. In any event, here is the statute and I did find one case where general intent applies, or in other words intent could be inferred from the circumstances. It also appears that ownership may not be an issue from the way the statute is written. However, I will try to do some research on the common law on that issue. Here is the statute and I will enumerate what I think are the elements to be proven.

NEVADA REVISED STATUTES SECTION 200.380 - CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

DEFINITION; PENALTY.

1. ROBBERY IS THE UNLAWFUL TAKING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM THE PERSON OF ANOTHER, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, AGAINST HIS WILL, BY MEANS OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR FEAR OF INJURY, IMMEDIATE OR FUTURE, TO HIS PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY, OR OF ANYONE IN HIS COMPANY AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY. A TAKING IS BY MEANS OF FORCE OR FEAR IF FORCE OR FEAR IS USED TO:

(A) OBTAIN OR RETAIN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY;

(B) PREVENT OR OVERCOME RESISTANCE TO THE TAKING; OR

(C) FACILITATE ESCAPE.

1. An unlawful taking (I will look that up)
2. of personal property
3. someone has to be present
4. the taking must be involuntary
5. there must be a use of force
6. fear of injury present or future
7. against the person, the property, the person's family or property or anyone present at the time


Ê THE DEGREE OF FORCE USED IS IMMATERIAL IF IT IS USED TO COMPEL ACQUIESCENCE TO THE TAKING OF OR ESCAPING WITH THE PROPERTY. A TAKING CONSTITUTES ROBBERY WHENEVER IT APPEARS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE TAKING WAS FULLY COMPLETED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM TAKEN, SUCH KNOWLEDGE WAS PREVENTED BY THE USE OF FORCE OR FEAR.

2. A PERSON WHO COMMITS ROBBERY IS GUILTY OF A CATEGORY B FELONY AND SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE STATE PRISON FOR A MINIMUM TERM OF NOT LESS THAN 2 YEARS AND A MAXIMUM TERM OF NOT MORE THAN 15 YEARS.

I think the vagueness of the statute requires research. I hope your friend recovers completely.

[Redmama]

Your questions were not stupid at all. I remember doing some research on the common law decisions and do not know whether or not I did it on California case law or Nevada. I will have to do some further research, as there was a time that I confused where the case was taking place. In any event, here is the statute and I did find one case where general intent applies, or in other words intent could be inferred from the circumstances. It also appears that ownership may not be an issue from the way the statute is written. However, I will try to do some research on the common law on that issue. Here is the statute and I will enumerate what I think are the elements to be proven.

NEVADA REVISED STATUTES SECTION 200.380 - CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

DEFINITION; PENALTY.

1. ROBBERY IS THE UNLAWFUL TAKING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM THE PERSON OF ANOTHER, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, AGAINST HIS WILL, BY MEANS OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR FEAR OF INJURY, IMMEDIATE OR FUTURE, TO HIS PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY, OR OF ANYONE IN HIS COMPANY AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY. A TAKING IS BY MEANS OF FORCE OR FEAR IF FORCE OR FEAR IS USED TO:

(A) OBTAIN OR RETAIN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY;

(B) PREVENT OR OVERCOME RESISTANCE TO THE TAKING; OR

(C) FACILITATE ESCAPE.

1. An unlawful taking (I will look that up)
2. of personal property
3. someone has to be present
4. the taking must be involuntary
5. there must be a use of force
6. fear of injury present or future
7. against the person, the property, the person's family or property or anyone present at the time


Ê THE DEGREE OF FORCE USED IS IMMATERIAL IF IT IS USED TO COMPEL ACQUIESCENCE TO THE TAKING OF OR ESCAPING WITH THE PROPERTY. A TAKING CONSTITUTES ROBBERY WHENEVER IT APPEARS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE TAKING WAS FULLY COMPLETED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM TAKEN, SUCH KNOWLEDGE WAS PREVENTED BY THE USE OF FORCE OR FEAR.

2. A PERSON WHO COMMITS ROBBERY IS GUILTY OF A CATEGORY B FELONY AND SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE STATE PRISON FOR A MINIMUM TERM OF NOT LESS THAN 2 YEARS AND A MAXIMUM TERM OF NOT MORE THAN 15 YEARS.

I think the vagueness of the statute requires research. I hope your friend recovers completely.

Thanks William - I do appreciate this and the kind words for my friend - I'm sure she will be just fine!

[martin II]

Tape transcript problems.


McClinton acknowledged differences in the two transcripts and at one point said laughter that had been attributed to him was someone else's.

"There are numerous deletions and additions that you agreed that are not on the transcript," Grasso said after hours of replaying audio clips.

"Yes," McClinton responded.

Prosecutors had used the tape to bolster McClinton's testimony.

"This ain't no major crime," Simpson is heard saying on the tape.

[martin II]

Here's the pertinent part of the Nevada robbery statute: Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery.

I think that referrs to the taking of propertry owned by a victim.

I am interestred in the law as it relates to a person going to a public place to retreive his own or property stolen from him.
I am interested if the prosecution did prove INTENT to rob the victim of victims property as opposed to retreiving his own property in their case.

[William Anthony]

I think that referrs to the taking of propertry owned by a victim.

I am interestred in the law as it relates to a person going to a public place to retreive his own or property stolen from him.
I am interested if the prosecution did prove INTENT to rob the victim of victims property as opposed to retreiving his own property in their case.

I think the question is in regard to what constitutes a lawful taking.

[William Anthony]

Thanks William - I do appreciate this and the kind words for my friend - I'm sure she will be just fine!

I am glad to hear that and you are welcome.

[William Anthony]

Redmama,

I found this link and I think it will explain what I was trying to say as to the element of unlawful taking.

http://www.slate.com/id/2174296/

[martin II]

If oj was assured at his request to Riccio that only his personal items would be in the room, and if he went to the room to retreive only his personal items
without force commited by him, then he may have had a legal right to retreive his items.

No force was used by oj. if mcclinton and Alexander decided on their own as adults to bring guns to the room is oj resonsible for their actions.

If others by mistake took items not belonging to oj, is oj responsible for their actions of taking these items , especially since he said to the victime "any items taken not mine will be returned"
oj did not physically take any items from the room. So who were the robbers?

[tv]

If oj was assured at his request to Riccio that only his personal items would be in the room, and if he went to the room to retreive only his personal items
without force commited by him, then he may have had a legal right to retreive his items.

No force was used by oj. if mcclinton and Alexander decided on their own as adults to bring guns to the room is oj resonsible for their actions.

If others by mistake took items not belonging to oj, is oj responsible for their actions of taking these items , especially since he said to the victime "any items taken not mine will be returned"
oj did not physically take any items from the room. So who were the robbers?

How nice of him. Does that mean that if I go to Walmart and steal something it's okay as long as I say I'll return it?

[martin II]

How nice of him. Does that mean that if I go to Walmart and steal something it's okay as long as I say I'll return it?

tv

I think if you went into Walmart with the INTENT to steal NO.In this case i think the prosecution had to prove INTENT TO STEAL.IMO

[William Anthony]

tv

I think if you went into Walmart with the INTENT to steal NO.In this case i think the prosecution had to prove INTENT TO STEAL.IMO

"This "claim of right" defense provides that you can't be found to have the intent necessary to steal if you have a good faith belief that the property you take belongs to you, even if that belief is mistaken. Simply put, without intent there can be no crime.

It's unclear, however, whether this common-law tradition applies in the state of Nevada. Its law doesn't appear to spell out whether claim of right is available to those charged with crimes. But local lawmakers seem to have incorporated it into their burglary statute. That crime is defined as the theft under specific circumstances of personal goods or property "owned by another person." If the memorabilia that Simpson took did, in fact, belong to him, he may well have a solid defense, since he would not have taken anything owned by another person. Having done so while in the possession of a deadly weapon, however, may complicate the matter."

I think this says it all and may do much in resolving the issue of armed robbery. If the defense of claim of right is applicable to burglary I think a solid argument can be made that it should extend to robbery. If successfully argued, then I think this, "if you have a good faith belief that the property you take belongs to you, even if that belief is mistaken. Simply put, without intent there can be no crime" will become a very relevant point.

[tv]

You think Simpson had a "mistaken belief" that the stuff was his? If Mike Gilbert "took" this stuff all those years ago why did it take OJ Simpson so long to try to get it back? He said he knew Mike took it so why not try to get it back from the person he says got it in the first place?

I was watching Mike Gilbert and the Goldmans on Dr. Phil yesterday and it seems like there are a few storage units with Fred Goldman's property in them. I think he mentioned Persian rugs and Tiffany lamps. No matter what you think of Mike Gilbert's character he has no reason to lie at this point. There was some talk about charging MG with fraud for diverting money that Simpson earned. You would think that Simpson would be eligible for the same charge.

[Redmama]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9127247]You think Simpson had a "mistaken belief" that the stuff was his? If Mike Gilbert "took" this stuff all those years ago why did it take OJ Simpson so long to try to get it back? He said he knew Mike took it so why not try to get it back from the person he says got it in the first place?

I was watching Mike Gilbert and the Goldmans on Dr. Phil yesterday and it seems like there are a few storage units with Fred Goldman's property in them. I think he mentioned Persian rugs and Tiffany lamps. No matter what you think of Mike Gilbert's character he has no reason to lie at this point. There was some talk about charging MG with fraud for diverting money that Simpson earned. You would think that Simpson would be eligible for the same charge.[/QUOTE

I watched Dr. Phil also yesterday, I was a bit tired, but, I thought it very interesting that Mike Gilbert has put himself in the position of being charged with diverting money, etc. I am a believer in people, and I want to believe his sincerity - it seemed pretty real. But, I don't know.

[William Anthony]

You think Simpson had a "mistaken belief" that the stuff was his? If Mike Gilbert "took" this stuff all those years ago why did it take OJ Simpson so long to try to get it back? He said he knew Mike took it so why not try to get it back from the person he says got it in the first place?

I was watching Mike Gilbert and the Goldmans on Dr. Phil yesterday and it seems like there are a few storage units with Fred Goldman's property in them. I think he mentioned Persian rugs and Tiffany lamps. No matter what you think of Mike Gilbert's character he has no reason to lie at this point. There was some talk about charging MG with fraud for diverting money that Simpson earned. You would think that Simpson would be eligible for the same charge.

I will respond directly to this because it brings up an interesting point and I hope that you don't mind. There is nothing wrong with a person holding on to property that belongs to another. However, if that property was left in someone's safe keeping and the are trying clandestinely to sell it, then they are attempting to steal that property. If someone believes that his property is in safe keeping in storage by someone else and then finds that the other is trying to sell that property, this is where the alarm bells are sounded and the realization is that the property has been stolen. There is a subtle difference in what the law says and how it may be interpreted. I understand that you take it as meaning that he was mistaken in believing the property belonged to him. However, it could be not that he was mistaken in believing that but that his belief in and of itself was mistaken. Thus, the subject of true ownership is not instrumental in proving the crime but the subject of what one believed, even if that belief in and of itself was mistaken, becomes crucial. I hope that I explained my point well and wish that I could do it better.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9127247]You think Simpson had a "mistaken belief" that the stuff was his? If Mike Gilbert "took" this stuff all those years ago why did it take OJ Simpson so long to try to get it back? He said he knew Mike took it so why not try to get it back from the person he says got it in the first place?

I was watching Mike Gilbert and the Goldmans on Dr. Phil yesterday and it seems like there are a few storage units with Fred Goldman's property in them. I think he mentioned Persian rugs and Tiffany lamps. No matter what you think of Mike Gilbert's character he has no reason to lie at this point. There was some talk about charging MG with fraud for diverting money that Simpson earned. You would think that Simpson would be eligible for the same charge.[/QUOTE

I watched Dr. Phil also yesterday, I was a bit tired, but, I thought it very interesting that Mike Gilbert has put himself in the position of being charged with diverting money, etc. I am a believer in people, and I want to believe his sincerity - it seemed pretty real. But, I don't know.

I think there may be a deal offered and we may see Simpson in another trial. :)

[Redmama]

[QUOTE=Redmama;9127248]

I think there may be a deal offered and we may see Simpson in another trial. :)


Yeah - I think you are right. I'm not studied in the law, so I'm trying to understand your post a couple above. If this Mike was being in paid in lieu of paying OJ - what does that mean? The specific instance he discussed was when OJ was paid 50,000 for an appearance, the money was paid to...flowed thru Mike. He said his take on everything was 20% - so I'm not sure if they could make the point that this is how they handle their books. I don't know what is legal, or for that fact, normal.

Thanks,

Redmama

[weezer]

You think Simpson had a "mistaken belief" that the stuff was his? If Mike Gilbert "took" this stuff all those years ago why did it take OJ Simpson so long to try to get it back? He said he knew Mike took it so why not try to get it back from the person he says got it in the first place?

I was watching Mike Gilbert and the Goldmans on Dr. Phil yesterday and it seems like there are a few storage units with Fred Goldman's property in them. I think he mentioned Persian rugs and Tiffany lamps. No matter what you think of Mike Gilbert's character he has no reason to lie at this point. There was some talk about charging MG with fraud for diverting money that Simpson earned. You would think that Simpson would be eligible for the same charge.

gilbert does not come across as being untruthful about his dealings with orenthal. it seems gilbert got stuck with paying IRS on the money orenthal was getting under the table for selling his 'stolen sh*t'! this may well be one of the cases where the addage "You lie down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas" applies.

orenthal has proved himself to be a thug and a bully so I again question the 13 year hiatus to go after his 'sh*t' -- especially when he says "I know Mike took it."

[martin II]

You think Simpson had a "mistaken belief" that the stuff was his? If Mike Gilbert "took" this stuff all those years ago why did it take OJ Simpson so long to try to get it back? He said he knew Mike took it so why not try to get it back from the person he says got it in the first place?

I was watching Mike Gilbert and the Goldmans on Dr. Phil yesterday and it seems like there are a few storage units with Fred Goldman's property in them. I think he mentioned Persian rugs and Tiffany lamps. No matter what you think of Mike Gilbert's character he has no reason to lie at this point. There was some talk about charging MG with fraud for diverting money that Simpson earned. You would think that Simpson would be eligible for the same charge.

I think oj tried to get his stuff from mike but mike said he did not have it.I think mike gave it to Fumong to sell.

If there are some storage units with stuff in them i believe freds lawyers would have jacked mike up for the adress.
I have little faith in what Dr Phil puts on his show, remember N Hallaway case.

[martin II]

Of all of the people involved Mike is the last one to be believed imo

[martin II]

Mike says that at a meeting with oj in jail, oj was signing these autographs or pictures ans mike then left and sold them for 3 milion.
I guess the jail guards must have been a party to this signing or got some kind of kickback for allowing this activity.

[weezer]

Mike says that at a meeting with oj in jail, oj was signing these autographs or pictures ans mike then left and sold them for 3 milion.
I guess the jail guards must have been a party to this signing or got some kind of kickback for allowing this activity.

martin, even orenthal admits to signing stuff during his time in jail! geez

[martin II]

tv

Gilbert says he helped oj get away with murder by telling him to stop taking his meds for his hands so they would swell and not fit the gloves. He says he told oj to do this before the trial started.
How did mike know oj would try on the gloves before the trial started?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9127251]


Yeah - I think you are right. I'm not studied in the law, so I'm trying to understand your post a couple above. If this Mike was being in paid in lieu of paying OJ - what does that mean? The specific instance he discussed was when OJ was paid 50,000 for an appearance, the money was paid to...flowed thru Mike. He said his take on everything was 20% - so I'm not sure if they could make the point that this is how they handle their books. I don't know what is legal, or for that fact, normal.

Thanks,

Redmama

Let me try to explain more clearly what I was saying, if I can. The point that Simpson believed this was his property is what is germane, not whether or not he actually owned the property or whether he mistakenly believed this. Therefore, the actual ownership is irrelevant. What becomes relevant is what Simpson believed at the time, which would negate the intent, or mens rea, if you will.

Two parties can form a valid contract to do anything that is legal, providing they are competent to do so and the contract is not unconsciounable (legal jargon meaning fair and that is the short version of the requirements). The point is that it was not illegal for Mike to have collected the fees and taken a cut for his services. The illegal part may come in, if he knew that at the time, that the money was earmarked or legally belonged to another party. It may, which I doubt, provide a legal loophole for Simpson, because technically he was not paid for the appearance and a rather not so strong an argument could be made that this was a gratuitous offering on Mike's part for allowing him to make some money. I think it is very weak to argue something of this nature. There may be some other laws that I am not aware of that cover that contingency of which Simpson may be able to avail himself. You may be causing me to do more research than my school.:)

[weezer]

tv

Gilbert says he helped oj get away with murder by telling him to stop taking his meds for his hands so they would swell and not fit the gloves. He says he told oj to do this before the trial started.
How did mike know oj would try on the gloves before the trial started?

it wasn't before the trial started! geez

scotto looks doped

[martin II]

martin, even orenthal admits to signing stuff during his time in jail! geez

3 Million $ worth of autographs right. hahaha

[William Anthony]

I think oj tried to get his stuff from mike but mike said he did not have it.I think mike gave it to Fumong to sell.

If there are some storage units with stuff in them i believe freds lawyers would have jacked mike up for the adress.
I have little faith in what Dr Phil puts on his show, remember N Hallaway case.

Money is always a motivation for some to lie.

[martin II]

weezer

Report on quotes from mikes book

Note BEFORE THE TRIAL

“I’ve talked to O.J. about it,” said Galanter, who refused to allow Simpson to comment directly because of his upcoming robbery trial in Las Vegas. “This stuff not only didn’t occur but it’s not factually supported by the evidence.”

Gilbert says that it’s true about owing the IRS but he’s not a drug addict.

Gilbert says that he told Simpson to stop his arthritis medicine before the trial so his hands would swell and not be able to fit the gloves that were a key part of the evidence. He also said that he wasn’t the only one that helped Simpson get an innocent ruling.

It seems with the crowd that Simpson hang around when they get down on their luck they use the connection to the man and write a book. Who really knows if its a work of fiction or the true story.

[William Anthony]

Enter the N word.

[weezer]

3 Million $ worth of autographs right. hahaha

yeah -- that's what I would have thought but then that was before the verdict

I bet orenthal looks back on those as the good ole days! hahahahahahaha

[Redmama]

I think oj tried to get his stuff from mike but mike said he did not have it.I think mike gave it to Fumong to sell.

If there are some storage units with stuff in them i believe freds lawyers would have jacked mike up for the adress.
I have little faith in what Dr Phil puts on his show, remember N Hallaway case.

Everyone makes mistakes - I don't believe everything Dr. Phil says, but he is a very educated man with A LOT of experience, especially in this area - remember the Oprah case? If you watched yesterday's show, I believe, the high levels of true emotions that were displayed were real and couldn't be missed or scripted.

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** ". . .“I’ve talked to O.J. about it,” said Galanter, who refused to allow Simpson to comment directly because of his upcoming robbery trial in Las Vegas. “This stuff not only didn’t occur but it’s not factually supported by the evidence. . . ."

LOL -- the same galanter that said there wasn't a book? that galanter? hahahahahaha

[martin II]

yeah -- that's what I would have thought but then that was before the verdict

I bet orenthal looks back on those as the good ole days! hahahahahahaha

pure nonsesns

[William Anthony]

I have never heard of so many alleged criminals contacting the police. Perhaps, when I pass the bar, I should set up practice in Nevada and buy pastries and coffee for the police. :)

[Redmama]

[QUOTE=Redmama;9127252]

Let me try to explain more clearly what I was saying, if I can. The point that Simpson believed this was his property is what is germane, not whether or not he actually owned the property or whether he mistakenly believed this. Therefore, the actual ownership is irrelevant. What becomes relevant is what Simpson believed at the time, which would negate the intent, or mens rea, if you will.

Two parties can form a valid contract to do anything that is legal, providing they are competent to do so and the contract is not unconsciounable (legal jargon meaning fair and that is the short version of the requirements). The point is that it was not illegal for Mike to have collected the fees and taken a cut for his services. The illegal part may come in, if he knew that at the time, that the money was earmarked or legally belonged to another party. It may, which I doubt, provide a legal loophole for Simpson, because technically he was not paid for the appearance and a rather not so strong an argument could be made that this was a gratuitous offering on Mike's part for allowing him to make some money. I think it is very weak to argue something of this nature. There may be some other laws that I am not aware of that cover that contingency of which Simpson may be able to avail himself. You may be causing me to do more research than my school.:)

Thanks William for taking the time to explain - that is very clear. I do agree it would be a bit hard to swallow to hear someone say that they didn't know they would be getting money out of something from the get-go.

Thanks again,

Redmama

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9127269]

Thanks William for taking the time to explain - that is very clear. I do agree it would be a bit hard to swallow to hear someone say that they didn't know they would be getting money out of something from the get-go.

Thanks again,

Redmama

You are welcome and I do not think that this cast of characters, no matter how stupid some believe them to be, were stupid enough to place anything in writing and the controversy, if pursued, will probably come down to a he said he said over whether or not there was a verbal contract. At least Simpson and his cohorts keep our interest. :)

[martin II]

LOL -- the same galanter that said there wasn't a book? that galanter? hahahahahaha

You did see where Mike is quoted as saying BEFORE THE TRIAL, RIGHT.

[weezer]

they need to keep this guy on the stand until his drugs wear off --- :D

[martin II]

Everyone makes mistakes - I don't believe everything Dr. Phil says, but he is a very educated man with A LOT of experience, especially in this area - remember the Oprah case? If you watched yesterday's show, I believe, the high levels of true emotions that were displayed were real and couldn't be missed or scripted.

Dr Phil was sanctioned by his professioanl organization for giving advice out side of this lisence and the lisence he had held had expired.Is this correct?

[William Anthony]

Scotto is coming across as truthful, imho.

[weezer]

Dr Phil was sanctioned by his professioanl organization for giving advice out side of this lisence and the lisence he had held had expired.Is this correct?

and? he's a tv host for goodness sakes -- not unlike oprah

[Redmama]

Dr Phil was sanctioned by his professioanl organization for giving advice out side of this lisence and the lisence he had held had expired.Is this correct?

Don't know, don't care. If I decided that anyone out there was accused of something (true or untrue), was not reliable, there wouldn't be many people left...including myself...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Redmama]

Totally off topic question, but what makes the smiley show up next to a thread? I'm just curious...

[William Anthony]

Can I take from that you believe in the presumption of innocence?

[weezer]

Totally off topic question, but what makes the smiley show up next to a thread? I'm just curious...

selecting it from the Post Icons below the message box.

[weezer]

wonder what the deal scotto testifying arnelle was with him but he was calling her?

[weezer]

LOL -- so scotto tried to sell a book idea (to include participation by orenthal) -- LOL

[William Anthony]

He testified that he did not say that Simpson was going to participate. He testified that no one was interested in a "good" book about Simpson.

[Redmama]

Can I take from that you believe in the presumption of innocence?

I'm assuming that question was directed to me - if not, just ignore me!

In the pure sense of the legal ideal, I definately do. I think as much as I would try to just leave at that and not have other emotional reactions about those accused, it is impossible as far as I'm concerned not to have some other doubts and feelings. I try really hard every single day to look past other's opinions (of others) and try no matter what I have heard to come to my own conclusions and decide for myself. That means all the incomings and outgoings (TV, life, my past, etc.) all roll up and they have to land somewhere in my head. I've been through some interesting things in my life - some not good - but I know that I try my best to keep my own reality in the moment and try my best to stay in that very moment when deciding how I feel about someone. I also strive to not judge anyone for someone elses mistakes.

[martin II]

LOL -- so scotto tried to sell a book idea (to include participation by orenthal) -- LOL

I think he corrected the prosecution when he said he never promised ojs participation.
he also said he did not or will write a book because no one was interested in a positive book about oj.

[William Anthony]

I'm assuming that question was directed to me - if not, just ignore me!

In the pure sense of the legal ideal, I definately do. I think as much as I would try to just leave at that and not have other emotional reactions about those accused, it is impossible as far as I'm concerned not to have some other doubts and feelings. I try really hard every single day to look past other's opinions (of others) and try no matter what I have heard to come to my own conclusions and decide for myself. That means all the incomings and outgoings (TV, life, my past, etc.) all roll up and they have to land somewhere in my head. I've been through some interesting things in my life - some not good - but I know that I try my best to keep my own reality in the moment and try my best to stay in that very moment when deciding how I feel about someone. I also strive to not judge anyone for someone elses mistakes.

It was directed to you and from your answer I would think that you may have a lucrative career as a politician or lawyer, :). I guess what I was saying is that, because you do not decide that others are unreliable based on charges, whether untrue or true, you would wait to you hear all the evidence to form a conclusion, despite your innate feelings about someone.

[weezer]

I think he corrected the prosecution when he said he never promised ojs participation.
he also said he did not or will write a book because no one was interested in a positive book about oj.

LOL -- of course.

anyone know what ole scotto does for money since everyone seems to want in his wallet?

[Redmama]

It was directed to you and from your answer I would think that you may have a lucrative career as a politician or lawyer, :). I guess what I was saying is that, because you do not decide that others are unreliable based on charges, whether untrue or true, you would wait to you hear all the evidence to form a conclusion, despite your innate feelings about someone.

Ha - politics - if I only had the time to explain to you how funny that is - I literally LOL. My husband can't even get me to watch a debate with him. It makes me feel bad for whoever is losing. Same thing with sports. This will give him a chuckle, no doubt. But, thank you for the compliment!

You are correct about what you believed I was stating - If I don't know all the details, I don't feel like I have the right to state a final opinion. I am almost always looking for the good - even when my insides are telling me different. Doesn't mean I don't share those innate feelings with people who know me, but I try not to ever state those feelings to or about someone that it might directly or indirectly impact in a negative way.

[martin II]

wonder what the deal scotto testifying arnelle was with him but he was calling her?

He has stated many many times that the times he gave the investigator were estimated times, could be 15 20 minutes either way, yet the prosecution is trying to ignoret this and hold him to the times the investigator put down.

maby his cell works somewhat like mine. i can sometimes hit a button by mistake and the phone will call that number without my knowledge

[martin II]

LOL -- of course.

anyone know what ole scotto does for money since everyone seems to want in his wallet?

Successful busines man in Florida

[William Anthony]

Ha - politics - if I only had the time to explain to you how funny that is - I literally LOL. My husband can't even get me to watch a debate with him. It makes me feel bad for whoever is losing. Same thing with sports. This will give him a chuckle, no doubt. But, thank you for the compliment!

You are correct about what you believed I was stating - If I don't know all the details, I don't feel like I have the right to state a final opinion. I am almost always looking for the good - even when my insides are telling me different. Doesn't mean I don't share those innate feelings with people who know me, but I try not to ever state those feelings to or about someone that it might directly or indirectly impact in a negative way.

I understand and admire your honesty. I think you have chosen a correct choice of action-not sure about politics or the sports thing. :)

[William Anthony]

Here is a link on the element of possessing a weapon in connection with an armed robbery under Nevada law.

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/advOpinions/124NevAdvOpNo19.html

[weezer]

He has stated many many times that the times he gave the investigator were estimated times, could be 15 20 minutes either way, yet the prosecution is trying to ignoret this and hold him to the times the investigator put down.

maby his cell works somewhat like mine. i can sometimes hit a button by mistake and the phone will call that number without my knowledge

I'm guessing if that happened, they would have laughed out loud since they were together and according to scotto -- inside the SUV.

I'm afraid scotto needs a fix of some kind. he's looking a little peeked.

[weezer]

Successful busines man in Florida

okay -- anyone know what kind of successful business man in Florida scotto is?

[William Anthony]

I don't think Stewart or Simpson will take the stand.

[William Anthony]

Scotto appears to be a White, middle aged, well-dressed. calm and truthful businessman, imho.

[martin II]

So Scotto did make a tape of Alexander trying to stick him up for money to change his testimony in favor of OJ.

[martin II]

i'm guessing if that happened, they would have laughed out loud since they were together and according to scotto -- inside the suv.

I'm afraid scotto needs a fix of some kind. He's looking a little peeked.

not really

[martin II]

Add Mcclintin to the list of guys trying to stick up Scotto for money to change his testimony.

[martin II]

okay -- anyone know what kind of successful business man in Florida scotto is?

Why does it matter?

[weezer]

Why does it matter?

it doesn't -- I'm just curious. he can't be all that upstanding considering the people he associates with!

[William Anthony]

Guilt by association.

[martin II]

it doesn't -- I'm just curious. he can't be all that upstanding considering the people he associates with!

"He cain't" is maby your opinion based on how you judge people. Or maby because he is ojs friend.

[martin II]

In case some may have missed williams post.

PER CURIAM:

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury what it was required to find to subject an unarmed offender to the deadly weapon enhancement in accordance with Anderson v. State.[1] Although appellant Jamon Brooks’ proposed deadly weapon enhancement instruction was a correct statement of the law, we take this opportunity to clarify the test used to determine when an unarmed offender is subject to the deadly weapon enhancement because the test in Anderson is based on the elements of constructive possession rather than “use” of a deadly weapon as provided in NRS 193.165. Specifically, we conclude that the proper focus is on the unarmed offender’s knowledge of the use of the weapon brandished by another principal. Due to this and another instructional error in this case, we reverse Brooks’ judgment of conviction and remand this matter to the district court for a new trial.

[weezer]

"He cain't" is maby your opinion based on how you judge people. Or maby because he is ojs friend.

dude! he's the one talking about being threatened by his friends and acquaintances. . .

besides, after watching and listening, I'm not surprised he's orenthal's friend. ;) (snort, snort)

[weezer]

". . .Prosecutor David Roger accused Scotto of threatening to take out a contract on the life of one of the witnesses. Scotto called that "ridiculous."

The prosecutor briefly referred to allegations that Scotto, 46, a North Miami Beach, Florida, auto repair shop owner, told Simpson co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart in January that he wanted Alexander dead. But he was not permitted to dwell on the issue. . ."

[weezer]

". . .Stewart's lawyers said they expect to call several witnesses, including Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, 39. Arnelle Simpson was with O.J. Simpson when he met with Alexander and acknowledged gunman Michael McClinton in Simpson's room at the Palms resort before the alleged armed robbery at Palace Station, several miles away. . ."

[martin II]

". . .Prosecutor David Roger accused Scotto of threatening to take out a contract on the life of one of the witnesses. Scotto called that "ridiculous."

The prosecutor briefly referred to allegations that Scotto, 46, a North Miami Beach, Florida, auto repair shop owner, told Simpson co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart in January that he wanted Alexander dead. But he was not permitted to dwell on the issue. . ."

So your questions were another example of you BAITING POSTERS.

[martin II]

". . .Stewart's lawyers said they expect to call several witnesses, including Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, 39. Arnelle Simpson was with O.J. Simpson when he met with Alexander and acknowledged gunman Michael McClinton in Simpson's room at the Palms resort before the alleged armed robbery at Palace Station, several miles away. . ."

Who testified that Arnell was in the room with oj mccalinton and Alexander.
I think MCclinton said only oj Alexander and himself were in the room.

[William Anthony]

It appears that neither Stewart or Simpson will testify in the defenses' cases in chief. I wonder if their will be a rebuttal.

[William Anthony]

Is anyone able to watch the witnesses or the trial currently? I do not get video on the cnn feed.

[martin II]

After Scotto gave le the tape of Mcclinton and Alexander trying to shake him down and threaten him WHY IS IT THAT LE DID NOTHING ABOUT THIS THREAT.



Scotto was not with Simpson, Stewart, Alexander, McClinton and two other men when they allegedly robbed and held two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room September 13, 2007.

Scotto testified that McClinton "basically said that this is going bad, they're going to get in trouble, they're not going to go to jail, they're going to do whatever they have to do to get out of this trouble, and in order for them to do that, either from me or from O.J., we better come up with $50,000 or else."

Scotto also testified, "Michael McClinton said, 'You know me, Tom, but you don't know me that well. I'm a street (expletive) and I'll shoot everybody up."'

Scotto said that Alexander left a telephone voicemail months later for him saying, "Pay me, I'll help our friend," and "I can do quite a bit." By that point Alexander already had testified against Simpson at a preliminary hearing.

Scotto said neither he nor Simpson paid McClinton or Alexander any money.

Jurors heard the voicemail message, which Scotto said he turned over to Las Vegas police several days after he received it. But under questioning by Clark County District Attorney David Roger, he acknowledged that he didn't tell police detectives about the alleged shake-down at the barbecue. He blamed investigators for not calling him about it.

[martin II]

Is anyone able to watch the witnesses or the trial currently? I do not get video on the cnn feed.

For some reason cnn is not showing video now wonder why.

[William Anthony]

For some reason cnn is not showing video now wonder why.

It is back up and it seems the prosecution is playing a little loose with the discovery rules. I am sure that they are aware that opposing counsel should be allowed the opportunity to review any exhibit prior to its use.

[martin II]

oh my ,Detective lied . mistrial?

[martin II]

The judge cannot unring the bell of what the detective said to the jury.imo

[William Anthony]

oh my ,Detective lied . mistrial?

I had to run out for a second-WTH is going on?

[William Anthony]

The judge cannot unring the bell of what the detective said to the jury.imo

What did he say?

[William Anthony]

I am waiting to hear exactly what was said but it appears to me that the prosecution, from the smirk and the line of questioning, wants a mistrial.

[martin II]

What did he say?

The detective said that the judge in the hearing tossed Mr Scotto out of the court room.Now it came out that the detective was not in the courtroom and tht the judge did not toss Scotto out.
defense went nuts and asked for a mistrial. judge refused and told the jury
to forget the detetives statement. judge rapped on the detective about his statement, prosecution continued to ask leading questions and objections were made and sustained by the judge.
defense wants to call the other judge to aske if he tossed Grasso. Judge does not want them to do that.

Bias against the defense main witness is the issue

[martin II]

The judge seems to lost control of the prosecution.

[William Anthony]

I caught all of that but Galantar said the detective said he was not kicked out for witness tampering and the prosecution said something about Scotto's antics and that he was kicked out. I see the bias issue. The question is whether it was more probative than prejudicial and since the judge has ordered it to be disregarded then I think it must be more prejudicial and, as such, did it rise to the level of such an inflammatory comment that the defendants could not receive a fair trial. I think the detectives exact statement will determine what will be done.

[William Anthony]

The judge seems to lost control of the prosecution.

The prosecution does not want to be controlled or wants to appear out of order for some reason.

[William Anthony]

It appears to be all about nothing, although the argument can be made that it was prejudicial because his wife was not a witness but the guilt through association will inure to the detriment of the defendant's-a weak one I think.

[martin II]

no one was kicked out for witness tampering as the detective said,

[martin II]

with 12 charges each, argument will not be easy for either side.imo

[martin II]

". . .Prosecutor David Roger accused Scotto of threatening to take out a contract on the life of one of the witnesses. Scotto called that "ridiculous."

The prosecutor briefly referred to allegations that Scotto, 46, a North Miami Beach, Florida, auto repair shop owner, told Simpson co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart in January that he wanted Alexander dead. But he was not permitted to dwell on the issue. . ."

We know that Mcclinton threatened Grasso with harm if he did not give him money to slant his testinmony in favor of oj. Grasso refused so Mcclintin and Alexander agreed to say what the prosecution needed to support thair case.
I am wondering what the jury will think about their testimony.imo

[martin II]

The judge, prosecution and all defense lawyers thought the detective said MR Grasso was tossed from court for witness tampering.
After recieve of his statement it was learned that he said Mrs Grasso was tossed for witness tampering.
The problem is No one was tossed for witness tampering by the presiding judge and the detective was not in the courtroom in that procedure.
So the question is why did the detective blurt out this statement when he was not asked a question that would cause him to give that respopnse.
Seems he just decided to say it on his own.imo

[martin II]

You think Simpson had a "mistaken belief" that the stuff was his? If Mike Gilbert "took" this stuff all those years ago why did it take OJ Simpson so long to try to get it back? He said he knew Mike took it so why not try to get it back from the person he says got it in the first place?

I was watching Mike Gilbert and the Goldmans on Dr. Phil yesterday and it seems like there are a few storage units with Fred Goldman's property in them. I think he mentioned Persian rugs and Tiffany lamps. No matter what you think of Mike Gilbert's character he has no reason to lie at this point. There was some talk about charging MG with fraud for diverting money that Simpson earned. You would think that Simpson would be eligible for the same charge.


tv

I don't believe it matters how long the stuff was missing.

Beadsley gave Riccio a list of items he had for sale. Riccio told him more than once that the 'BUYER' was only interested in Ojs PERSONAL PROPERTY.Riccio gave this list to OJ.

oJ recognized his personal items from the list and planned to retreive them.Having said 'I only want my stuff' and 'take only my stuff' on the tape, indicfates to me that HIS intent was to retreive HIS stuff.

Since oj did not remove ANY items from the hotel, i am wondering how the jury will view this issue. Since INTENT is the issue of robbery.imo

Example

If you and i go into Walmart and when we leave security catch up with us in the parking lot and find $200.00 of unpaind goods in YOUR bag and nothing in mine, who gets charged?
imo

[tv]

tv

I don't believe it matters how long the stuff was missing.

Beadsley gave Riccio a list of items he had for sale. Riccio told him more than once that the 'BUYER' was only interested in Ojs PERSONAL PROPERTY.Riccio gave this list to OJ.

oJ recognized his personal items from the list and planned to retreive them.Having said 'I only want my stuff' and 'take only my stuff' on the tape, indicfates to me that HIS intent was to retreive HIS stuff.

Since oj did not remove ANY items from the hotel, i am wondering how the jury will view this issue. Since INTENT is the issue of robbery.imo

Example

If you and i go into Walmart and when we leave security catch up with us in the parking lot and find $200.00 of unpaind goods in YOUR bag and nothing in mine, who gets charged?
imo

We might both be charged if there is evidence of a conspiracy.

[William Anthony]

I think the jury instructions will play a very important part in the trial.

[weezer]

We know that Mcclinton threatened Grasso with harm if he did not give him money to slant his testinmony in favor of oj. Grasso refused so Mcclintin and Alexander agreed to say what the prosecution needed to support thair case.
I am wondering what the jury will think about their testimony.imo

the point you are missing is that mcclintin was willing to change his testimony in favor of orenthal.

[martin II]

the point you are missing is that mcclintin was willing to change his testimony in favor of orenthal.

Nope

I think mcclinton put his testimony up for sale.The prosecution was the highest bidder (no jail time) and he decided to testify in a manner to help the prosecutions case. So did Alexander.

The prosecution put great pressure on all the people by overcharging everyone to force plea barganing. Problem is all have given conflicting testimony to the jury.

[martin II]

I think there were 6 people including oj that were charged with several crimes each, including the two adults that decided to bring guns to the room
on their own.
Four have been given the chance for probation to testify against the prosecutions main target OJ SIMPSON. So the idea is that these crimes will be overlooked if these 5 can help the prosecution get a conviction of simpson.

[martin II]

We might both be charged if there is evidence of a conspiracy.

A southern saying is 'OLD MAN IF DIED STIFF"

[weezer]

I think there were 6 people including oj that were charged with several crimes each, including the two adults that decided to bring guns to the room
on their own.
Four have been given the chance for probation to testify against the prosecutions main target OJ SIMPSON. So the idea is that these crimes will be overlooked if these 5 can help the prosecution get a conviction of simpson.

the two 'adults' were invited by orenthal to participate in the armed robbery.

LOL -- you make me laugh out loud everytime you try to make orenthal the victim.

[martin II]

is the trial on today.cnn is not offering the feed so far

[weezer]

A southern saying is 'OLD MAN IF DIED STIFF"

never heard of this 'southern saying' -- and, it makes no sense.:(

[martin II]

the point you are missing is that mcclintin was willing to change his testimony in favor of orenthal.


The defense introduced a voicemail recording of former co-defendant turned prosecution witness Walter Alexander offering to tailor his testimony to benefit Simpson if he was paid enough.

"If I get some help, I'll do whatever I can," said Alexander, whose message was played in a hushed courtroom.
"I can do quite a bit," said Alexander, one of four former co-defendants who pleaded guilty to reduced charges in return for their testimony against Simpson.

Simpson's close friend, Thomas Scotto, whose impending wedding brought Simpson and others to the Palace Station casino hotel room in Las Vegas last year, was asked what he thought after hearing the message.

"Basically, he was selling his testimony," Scotto said.

[tv]

A southern saying is 'OLD MAN IF DIED STIFF"

I don't know Old Man If but I'm sorry he's dead. ;)

[martin II]

the two 'adults' were invited by orenthal to participate in the armed robbery.

LOL -- you make me laugh out loud everytime you try to make orenthal the victim.

Alexander testified a few days ago that he brought HIS gun because HE decided that HE wanted protection for himself.

[martin II]

I don't know Old Man If but I'm sorry he's dead. ;)

This was popular in the State of Georgia and may still be.

It is not wise to base things on IF

[martin II]

never heard of this 'southern saying' -- and, it makes no sense.:(
I would suggest that there may be many things that you have not heard.

[martin II]

I think the jury instructions will play a very important part in the trial.

I agree and will be listening to see if the judge give the jury instrucitons about
how they can view testinmony from witnesses they believe lied on the stand and the issue of Intent.

[weezer]

I agree and will be listening to see if the judge give the jury instrucitons about
how they can view testinmony from witnesses they believe lied on the stand and the issue of Intent.

what else would the judge say except the jury can believe all, none or some of the testimony of any witness?

[tv]

This was popular in the State of Georgia and may still be.

It is not wise to base things on IFYour entire theory of OJ Simpson's innocence in the murders is based on IF. "IF" Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, "IF" Vannatter tampered with evidence, "IF" drug dealers were after Nicole,"IF" someone was crouching by the bushes two hours before the murders, "IF" the entire LAPD lied...if, if, if...

[weezer]

Your entire theory of OJ Simpson's innocence in the murders is based on IF. "IF" Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, "IF" Vannatter tampered with evidence, "IF" drug dealers were after Nicole,"IF" someone was crouching by the bushes two hours before the murders, "IF" the entire LAPD lied...if, if, if...

:beer::beer:

[martin II]

the two 'adults' were invited by orenthal to participate in the armed robbery.

LOL -- you make me laugh out loud everytime you try to make orenthal the victim.

Wrong

No one testified that they went to the hotel to participate in a armed robbery.So that must be your opinion not fact.

[martin II]

Your entire theory of OJ Simpson's innocence in the murders is based on IF. "IF" Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, "IF" Vannatter tampered with evidence, "IF" drug dealers were after Nicole,"IF" someone was crouching by the bushes two hours before the murders, "IF" the entire LAPD lied...if, if, if...

If the prosecution had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt oj would be in jail.
If oj had on gloves at bundy, he more than likely dropped one.If oj was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:40 then he must have been leavinf Bundy.
If oj did jump the fence them ghe must have dropped the love.
hahahaha

[Jayme K]

I think there were 6 people including oj that were charged with several crimes each, including the two adults that decided to bring guns to the room
on their own.
Four have been given the chance for probation to testify against the prosecutions main target OJ SIMPSON. So the idea is that these crimes will be overlooked if these 5 can help the prosecution get a conviction of simpson.

Awww, how sweet ... what a good little lackey you are.

[Jayme K]

If the prosecution had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt oj would be in jail.
If oj had on gloves at bundy, he more than likely dropped one.If oj was at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:40 then he must have been leavinf Bundy.
If oj did jump the fence them ghe must have dropped the love.
hahahaha

Then apparently you DO think it's wise to base things of "IF".

I'm not sure where Simpson dropped his "love", but I'm pretty darn sure he dropped his Glove at both Bundy and Rockingham. hahahaha

[William Anthony]

Then apparently you DO think it's wise to base things of "IF".

I'm not sure where Simpson dropped his "love", but I'm pretty darn sure he dropped his Glove at both Bundy and Rockingham. hahahaha

Why didn't the police find them? If it does not fit you must acquit. :)

[martin II]

Then apparently you DO think it's wise to base things of "IF".

I'm not sure where Simpson dropped his "love", but I'm pretty darn sure he dropped his Glove at both Bundy and Rockingham. hahahaha

Correction Glove.
It is quite ok to have opinions.The prosecution thought they were sure oj was in the south walkway and dropped the glove, But after witness testimony
they realized that they could not prove or did not prove it in court .imo

[martin II]

Awww, how sweet ... what a good little lackey you are.

Only a fool would ignore the facts of the case. So good luck to you.

[William Anthony]

Love is like a glove,
sometimes its too tight
and at other times
it fits just right.

[Jayme K]

Love is like a glove,
sometimes its too tight
and at other times
it fits just right.

Oh wow, I never thought I'd want to give you credit for anything but this is actually awesome.

[William Anthony]

Oh wow, I never thought I'd want to give you credit for anything but this is actually awesome.

Thank you. I don't know why you are reluctant to give me credit, :). We may disagree but that should not make us dislike each other. I appreciate the fact that you overcame your reluctance. If we find something more we can agree upon or disagree without negative feelings then that might really be awesome.

[weezer]

good close by prosecution -- very clear and precise

[William Anthony]

According to the prosecution claim of right is not a defense to robbery in Nevada.

[martin II]

If as the prosecution says all six were co-conspirators in the crime, why is it that only two are on trial.?

[Redmama]

According to the prosecution claim of right is not a defense to robbery in Nevada.

That really sounds like common sense to me.

[martin II]

Good defense closing.It went to several issues but a important one was intent. No witness testified that they went to the hotel with the intent to commit a crime.

[William Anthony]

That really sounds like common sense to me.

It sounds like a conflict of laws to me. How can it be a defense to burgulary in Nevada and not to robbery? If you burglarize a place, especially if it is a private residence, to get back property you thought was yours, then you should have the right to take back property that you thought was yours from the one's you believe to be in unlawful possession of said property.

However, I guess that is the state of the law in Nevada. I did not hear the defense closing due to school and only part of the prosecution's. I hope trutv will air portions tomorrow.

[Redmama]

It sounds like a conflict of laws to me. How can it be a defense to burgulary in Nevada and not to robbery? If you burglarize a place, especially if it is a private residence, to get back property you thought was yours, then you should have the right to take back property that you thought was yours from the one's you believe to be in unlawful possession of said property.

However, I guess that is the state of the law in Nevada. I did not hear the defense closing due to school and only part of the prosecution's. I hope trutv will air portions tomorrow.

I didn't really mean that the laws made sense - I meant that common sense would have told me not to do it...even if my neighbor had something of mine, I would call the police to get it back. I would have done the same thing in a hotel. Just me!

[socaldiva]

I didn't really mean that the laws made sense - I meant that common sense would have told me not to do it...even if my neighbor had something of mine, I would call the police to get it back. I would have done the same thing in a hotel. Just me!

Herein lies the problem. If OJ had called the Coppers, Fred Goldman might have gotten wind of it. ;)

[martin II]

I didn't really mean that the laws made sense - I meant that common sense would have told me not to do it...even if my neighbor had something of mine, I would call the police to get it back. I would have done the same thing in a hotel. Just me!

The FBI and le were called and met with but refused to give assistance because oj simpson was involved.

[William Anthony]

I didn't really mean that the laws made sense - I meant that common sense would have told me not to do it...even if my neighbor had something of mine, I would call the police to get it back. I would have done the same thing in a hotel. Just me!

I agree that the whole scenario makes little sense. There was testimony that the police and the FBI were contacted and refused to act. I did not hear the closing and wonder how emphatically this was stressed.

[martin II]

I agree that the whole scenario makes little sense. There was testimony that the police and the FBI were contacted and refused to act. I did not hear the closing and wonder how emphatically this was stressed.

It was discussed in detail
Stewarts lawyer attacked all the prosecution witnesses (messangers) by name, picture and action.

Ojs lawyer attacked the charges by offering the idea that oj only wanted to get his own stuff and no one testified that they planned to commit a crime.
He also attacked Mcclinton and Alexander as to how they got their deal and testified to stay out of jail.

[William Anthony]

It was discussed in detail
Stewarts lawyer attacked all the prosecution witnesses (messangers) by name, picture and action.

Ojs lawyer attacked the charges by offering the idea that oj only wanted to get his own stuff and no one testified that they planned to commit a crime.
He also attacked Mcclinton and Alexander as to how they got their deal and testified to stay out of jail.

I think that the idea of general intent may do much to eliminate the argument of Simpson not thinking the property was his when placed in context with the absence of a claim of right defense. I am watching the closings on trutv and will respond later after I have a chance to assess the closings.

[martin II]

With 12 charges against each defendant, i would not like to be on this jury.
Each charge is complicated based on the conflicting testimony of what each defendant is reported to have done. It may come down to which witness the jury believes. I guess.

[martin II]

I think that the idea of general intent may do much to eliminate the argument of Simpson not thinking the property was his when placed in context with the absence of a claim of right defense. I am watching the closings on trutv and will respond later after I have a chance to assess the closings.

All witnesses testified that they all only went to collect ojs personal items.
Riccio told Beadsley not to bring any items that were not ojs personal items.
Riccio told oj only his personal items would be brought to the room.
No witness testified that there was a plan by anyone to commit a crime.

What does this mean.

[William Anthony]

With 12 charges against each defendant, i would not like to be on this jury.
Each charge is complicated based on the conflicting testimony of what each defendant is reported to have done. It may come down to which witness the jury believes. I guess.

By charging them with burgulary they opened the door to the claim of right defense, which the jurors may rightly or wrongly apply to the robbery charge, imho.

[William Anthony]

All witnesses testified that they all only went to collect ojs personal items.
Riccio told Beadsley not to bring any items that were not ojs personal items.
Riccio told oj only his personal items would be brought to the room.
No witness testified that there was a plan by anyone to commit a crime.

What does this mean.

I am not quite sure due to the absence of the claim of right defense to robbery. I have not researched to see if burglary requires specific intent. I saw where the defense renewed its motion for a mistrial based on the admission of evidence about the civil court order.

[William Anthony]

Here is what I found on burglary. I think that the intent would be the same as the crime that the person intended to commit, i.e. there would only need to be a showing of general intent to commit robbery. I have not looked at the case law but I think that is a logical assumption.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/205.060.html

[Redmama]

I agree that the whole scenario makes little sense. There was testimony that the police and the FBI were contacted and refused to act. I did not hear the closing and wonder how emphatically this was stressed.

From my understanding, OJ didn't call the police or the FBI, although he was told they were not interested. He was the one stolen from. I understand there were reasons why he wouldn't want too - that, to me, would have given me pause to know what I was thinking of doing, just might be wrong.

[William Anthony]

From my understanding, OJ didn't call the police or the FBI, although he was told they were not interested. He was the one stolen from. I understand there were reasons why he wouldn't want too - that, to me, would have given me pause to know what I was thinking of doing, just might be wrong.

I don't think it mattered so much who called as it did that they were informed. The victim does not have to initiate the call informing the police of a crime, although it may be more influential had the victim did so. I will not say that what he did was right or wrong but I do thing right and wrong is not so much the question as is lawful or unlawful. I totally agree that the whole thing is stupid. For the most part, I am a loner. I do believe that I would have acted alone should I have decided to take that course of action. However, in this situation, with so many conflicting stories it may be to his benefit, which I doubt. I do not envy the lawyers having to defend the stupid Little Rascals. It was a comedy caper but was it unlawful. :)

[Redmama]

I don't think it mattered so much who called as it did that they were informed. The victim does not have to initiate the call informing the police of a crime, although it may be more influential had the victim did so. I will not say that what he did was right or wrong but I do thing right and wrong is not so much the question as is lawful or unlawful. I totally agree that the whole thing is stupid. For the most part, I am a loner. I do believe that I would have acted alone should I have decided to take that course of action. However, in this situation, with so many conflicting stories it may be to his benefit, which I doubt. I do not envy the lawyers having to defend the stupid Little Rascals. It was a comedy caper but was it unlawful. :)



I think it would matter who called. At least I hope it would. Your point of influence is why I believe that. I'm totally with you on the stupid part - if you have to know law to know if you are breaking it or not on something like this, I would choose to error on the safe side.

[William Anthony]

I think it would matter who called. At least I hope it would. Your point of influence is why I believe that. I'm totally with you on the stupid part - if you have to know law to know if you are breaking it or not on something like this, I would choose to error on the safe side.

I agree but I have a portrait of my father and I pity the fool, who would decide to take it but, since I am not famous, they probably wouldn't.

[martin II]

From my understanding, OJ didn't call the police or the FBI, although he was told they were not interested. He was the one stolen from. I understand there were reasons why he wouldn't want too - that, to me, would have given me pause to know what I was thinking of doing, just might be wrong.

Riccio testified that with ojs knowledge and agreement, in detail how he met with the fib and le and asked for assistance. Both responded they were not interested since oj was involved.IMO
maby if it had not been ojs stuff they may have acted on a report of a crime.

[Redmama]

I agree but I have a portrait of my father and I pity the fool, who would decide to take it but, since I am not famous, they probably wouldn't.

I'm with you on that!

[martin II]

I agree but I have a portrait of my father and I pity the fool, who would decide to take it but, since I am not famous, they probably wouldn't.

William
i will confess

Some time ago a person broke into my house and stole three fur coast and my stereo.

Someone tipped me as to who took the stuff. I went to his house to retreive my stuff. He gave no resistance as i went through his house looking for my stuff. i only found my stereo. Picked it up and left. I resolved the coats of the coats later.

martin II

[Redmama]

Riccio testified that with ojs knowledge and agreement, in detail how he met with the fib and le and asked for assistance. Both responded they were not interested since oj was involved.IMO
maby if it had not been ojs stuff they may have acted on a report of a crime.

The point is if I think I might be doing something wrong, I wouldn't trust anybody but myself to make sure I was doing the right thing. How would OJ know that Riccio was even telling the truth that he tried?

[martin II]

I agree but I have a portrait of my father and I pity the fool, who would decide to take it but, since I am not famous, they probably wouldn't.

I think Fumong and Beadsley got of easy based on what i think could have happened to them if the people in the room had been some REAL tough guys.
Not guys pretending to be tough.imo

[Redmama]

I think Fumong and Beadsley got of easy based on what i think could have happened to them if the people in the room had been some REAL tough guys.
Not guys pretending to be tough.imo

Lucky them.

[martin II]

The point is if I think I might be doing something wrong, I wouldn't trust anybody but myself to make sure I was doing the right thing. How would OJ know that Riccio was even telling the truth that he tried?

I have wondered why as you say the two adult men that left home with their guns did not think they may be doing something wrong by bringing guns. This was their personal decision.

[martin II]

Lucky them.

Mc clinton told both that 'IF THEY WERE IN LA THEY WOULD ALREADY BE ON THE FLOOR"

[Redmama]

Mc clinton told both that 'IF THEY WERE IN LA THEY WOULD ALREADY BE ON THE FLOOR"

Isn't that like saying you are lucky I didn't punch you instead of just slap you?

[martin II]

The point is if I think I might be doing something wrong, I wouldn't trust anybody but myself to make sure I was doing the right thing. How would OJ know that Riccio was even telling the truth that he tried?

The Fbi took Riccios statemet on the issue as they interviewed him on Anna Nicole issue.

[martin II]

Isn't that like saying you are lucky I didn't punch you instead of just slap you?

More like you keep running your mouth and you will be on the floor.

[Redmama]

The Fbi took Riccios statemet on the issue as they interviewed him on Anna Nicole issue.

I don't follow your reasoning. I think I'll stick with mine - it has kept me out of trouble for my whole life - and we all already know I'm older than dirt:D

[Redmama]

More like you keep running your mouth and you will be on the floor.

wow - that is really a terrible thought to even have.

[martin II]

wow - that is really a terrible thought to even have.

you may have missed this
I have wondered why as you say the two adult men that left home with their guns did not think they may be doing something wrong by bringing guns. This was their personal decision.

[Redmama]

you may have missed this
I have wondered why as you say the two adult men that left home with their guns did not think they may be doing something wrong by bringing guns. This was their personal decision.

I didn't miss anything - yikesola

[martin II]

I don't follow your reasoning. I think I'll stick with mine - it has kept me out of trouble for my whole life - and we all already know I'm older than dirt:D

You suggested that oj did not know if Riccio reported it to the fbi and i just said a report was made to prove that he did.

[William Anthony]

The point is if I think I might be doing something wrong, I wouldn't trust anybody but myself to make sure I was doing the right thing. How would OJ know that Riccio was even telling the truth that he tried?

I understand your point and that would make Ricco more culpable if he hadn't. However, the evidence is that he did and I think there is some responsibility for this that is attributable to law enforcement.

[Redmama]

You suggested that oj did not know if Riccio reported it to the fbi and i just said a report was made to prove that he did.

I did not mean it did not occur, I meant that I would not have trusted anyone but myself to make that report. I would worry about what if it turned out that it had not.

[Redmama]

I understand your point and that would make Ricco more culpable if he hadn't. However, the evidence is that he did and I think there is some responsibility for this that is attributable to law enforcement.

I totally get that. That is where the law and my thought process divide. If I'm not doing something wrong to begin with...none of this would have happened. It is the Mom in me - it makes me think of my daughter telling me it isn't her fault because somebody should have stopped her.

Off Topic, but happy Friday everyone - it is finally here!!

[martin II]

I did not mean it did not occur, I meant that I would not have trusted anyone but myself to make that report. I would worry about what if it turned out that it had not.

OJ was in Florida, Riccio was in La and had a appointment with the FbI on The anna Nicole issue and it was riccio that knew who had the good so it is reasonable that he calls le.imo

[Redmama]

OJ was in Florida, Riccio was in La and had a appointment with the FbI on The anna Nicole issue and it was riccio that knew who had the good so it is reasonable that he calls le.imo

You've been talking to one of my kids.

[martin II]

Mcclinton and Alexander purchased a video and recorder to support their sceme to tape oj talking and sell it to the tabloids for money. When they could not get the video to work, they called The Groom and tried to extort $50,000 from him and oj for their testimony. When that did not work they went to the prosecution and exchanged their testimont for reduced sentances.
Mcclinton was asked on the stand why he did not tell le that oj asked him to bring a gun in his first interviews and is only saying this now,he simple said i did not remember.

[martin II]

You've been talking to one of my kids.

I don't understand your post so i will just stick with the testimony as posted.:cool:

[Redmama]

I don't understand your post so i will just stick with the testimony as posted.:cool:

Cool - I hope you find something.

There must be something wrong with a little humor around here - oh well, I tried.

[William Anthony]

I totally get that. That is where the law and my thought process divide. If I'm not doing something wrong to begin with...none of this would have happened. It is the Mom in me - it makes me think of my daughter telling me it isn't her fault because somebody should have stopped her.

Off Topic, but happy Friday everyone - it is finally here!!

I think it was Fredrick Dougglas, who said that law without enforcement is a mockery. I don't think Riccio or Simpson was seeking the law to stop them but to assist them. TGIF.

[martin II]

Cool - I hope you find something.

There must be something wrong with a little humor around here - oh well, I tried.

Actually i am not looking for anything. Just posting testimony and facts of the case.

[tv]

Cool - I hope you find something.

There must be something wrong with a little humor around here - oh well, I tried.

Redmama, martin doesn't do humor except for an occasional hahaha when he mistakenly thinks he's proven a point about OJ Simpson being an innocent victim in whatever crime he's involved in at the moment. I think humor helps a lot but I've given up with some people on this forum. :)

[William Anthony]

Redmama, martin doesn't do humor except for an occasional hahaha when he mistakenly thinks he's proven a point about OJ Simpson being an innocent victim in whatever crime he's involved in at the moment. I think humor helps a lot but I've given up with some people on this forum. :)

Let's live, love laugh and be happy.

[Redmama]

Redmama, martin doesn't do humor except for an occasional hahaha when he mistakenly thinks he's proven a point about OJ Simpson being an innocent victim in whatever crime he's involved in at the moment. I think humor helps a lot but I've given up with some people on this forum. :)

Thanks tvdinner - I'll stay away from trying humor with the wrong folks - I hate a wasted laugh.

[William Anthony]

Thanks tvdinner - I'll stay away from trying humor with the wrong folks - I hate a wasted laugh.

Waste not, want not.:)

[weezer]

Cool - I hope you find something.

There must be something wrong with a little humor around here - oh well, I tried.

I thought it was funny -- made me think of my own kids!:D

[tv]

Thanks tvdinner - I'll stay away from trying humor with the wrong folks - I hate a wasted laugh. No problem, I love a little humor...you can almost always get me to laugh. :D

[tv]

I thought it was funny -- made me think of my own kids!:D
Me too!

[martin II]

Redmama, martin doesn't do humor except for an occasional hahaha when he mistakenly thinks he's proven a point about OJ Simpson being an innocent victim in whatever crime he's involved in at the moment. I think humor helps a lot but I've given up with some people on this forum. :)

Now thats humor for sure. hahaha

[weezer]

anyone know if the jury is still deliberating?

[martin II]

anyone know if the jury is still deliberating?

What i am looking at is "jury deliberating " not sure if it is accurate.

[weezer]

What i am looking at is "jury deliberating " not sure if it is accurate.

thanks -- that's what I saw but thought maybe it was old news.

[William Anthony]

The verdict is in and I think the jury rendered the correct verdict in line with the state of the law in Nevada.

[martin II]

The verdict is in and I think the jury rendered the correct verdict in line with the state of the law in Nevada.
I was surprised at the verdict for Stewart.

[weezer]

I was surprised at the verdict for Stewart.

Really? Even after hearing him on the tapes?

[William Anthony]

I was surprised at the verdict for Stewart.

He may have a chance on appeal as it relates to the denial of the motion for severance. However, there was evidence on which the jury could convict.

[weezer]

Anyone read the audio transcript from September 13th? Looks like we might just know one of the ways orenthal was paying yale.

[martin II]

He may have a chance on appeal as it relates to the denial of the motion for severance. However, there was evidence on which the jury could convict.

Stewart always seemed to be on the outer edges of this situation but Nevada law allowed for the conviction.
I think that when Riccio first called oj about that stuff, he was walking oj to where this case ended yesterday,oj just did not know it.imo

[martin II]

Really? Even after hearing him on the tapes?

Based on the testimony and the tapse i never heard Stewart being involved directly but he did carry some of the goods out of the room. But so did Alexander and Mcclinton.

[martin II]

Really? Even after hearing him on the tapes?

What did he say on the tapes?

[weezer]

Based on the testimony and the tapse i never heard Stewart being involved directly but he did carry some of the goods out of the room. But so did Alexander and Mcclinton.

you need to take the time to read the tape transcripts before you defend stewart.

[weezer]

What did he say on the tapes?

give me a few minutes -- I don't want to misquote him.

[martin II]

you need to take the time to read the tape transcripts before you defend stewart.

The transcriopt of the tape was done a cop and was proven not to be completely accurate. I listed to testimony.

[weezer]

The transcriopt of the tape was done a cop and was proven not to be completely accurate. I listed to testimony.

let me suggest that you print out the transcripts and read them as you listen to the tapes.

[martin II]

let me suggest that you print out the transcripts and read them as you listen to the tapes.

which transcript

the transcripts were not entered as evidence right.because they could not be verified by two fbi agents There was a problen verifying who was speaking.

[weezer]

which transcript

the transcripts were not entered as evidence right.because they could not be verified by two fbi agents There was a problen verifying who was speaking.

the transcripts from the 13th before and after

[martin II]

the transcripts from the 13th before and after

I don't have the 13th transcript. The detective a non expert transcribed/ assigned some voices to his transcript wrong.I also heard mentioon of a defense transcript .


"Claim of right" is a legal defense in New Jersey and many other states but not in vegas.

[weezer]

I don't have the 13th transcript. The detective a non expert transcribed/ assigned some voices to his transcript wrong.I also heard mentioon of a defense transcript .


"Claim of right" is a legal defense in New Jersey and many other states but not in vegas.

the transcripts are on line -- I recommend you print them and read along as you listen to the audio tapes. that's what I did. you will find that the differences pointed out by the defense were a lot of noise about nothing. so who cares that the wrong person was identified that laughed at whatever point? the transcripts and audio clearly implicate orenthal and stewart -- in their own words -- straight from them.

so next time you go looking for your coat and/or equipment, don't do it in vegas. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

In the end, O.J. Simpson comes up a loser in Vegas
In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser - and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

O.J. Simpson is handcuffed after a verdict of guilty on all counts was read following his trial at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas on Friday.

LAS VEGAS —
In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser - and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial.

[martin II]

In the end, O.J. Simpson comes up a loser in Vegas
In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser - and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

O.J. Simpson is handcuffed after a verdict of guilty on all counts was read following his trial at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas on Friday.

LAS VEGAS —
In a city where luck means everything, O.J. Simpson came out the big loser - and his unlucky number in a case full of bizarre twists was 13.

He was convicted of an armed robbery that happened on Sept. 13 and was found guilty on the 13th anniversary of his Los Angeles murder acquittal. The Las Vegas jury deliberated for 13 hours after a 13-day trial.

Sounds well cordinated.

[weezer]

Sounds well cordinated.

LOL -- or karma at its best! ;)

[martin II]

the transcripts are on line -- I recommend you print them and read along as you listen to the audio tapes. that's what I did. you will find that the differences pointed out by the defense were a lot of noise about nothing. so who cares that the wrong person was identified that laughed at whatever point? the transcripts and audio clearly implicate orenthal and stewart -- in their own words -- straight from them.

so next time you go looking for your coat and/or equipment, don't do it in vegas. :rolleyes:


It was not about laughs.

The person saying "tell the truth don't lie" was attributed to mcclinton by le
but mcclinton said it was in fact oj telling them not to lie.
We will have to see what sentance the judge decides to give each but i am thinking it will be the max and what the results of a appeal will be if there is one.
i don't think he can get bail waiting sentance in nevada as he could get in some other states.

[William Anthony]

Stewart always seemed to be on the outer edges of this situation but Nevada law allowed for the conviction.
I think that when Riccio first called oj about that stuff, he was walking oj to where this case ended yesterday,oj just did not know it.imo

After rethinking my position due to the post of another poster, I don't think it much matters who lead him to the water, he decided to drink. I am not saying that he was right or wrong in his decision, as I have no idea what the stuff meant to him. I am saying that he should have been prepared to face any consequences having decided to drink.

[weezer]

It was not about laughs.

The person saying "tell the truth don't lie" was attributed to mcclinton by le
but mcclinton said it was in fact oj telling them not to lie.

but you did hear orenthal planning and perpetrating the crime, right?

and you did hear stewart threaten and laugh about scaring the victims, right?

[martin II]

After rethinking my position due to the post of another poster, I don't think it much matters who lead him to the water, he decided to drink. I am not saying that he was right or wrong in his decision, as I have no idea what the stuff meant to him. I am saying that he should have been prepared to face any consequences having decided to drink.

Agreed.

At his hotel another lawyer friend told him oj don't go to that hotel.That is the advice he should have taken. But we all make bad decisions from time to time.imo

[martin II]

but you did hear orenthal planning and perpetrating the crime, right?

and you did hear stewart threaten and laugh about scaring the victims, right?

NO

I heard Riccio testify that everyting was going quite well in the room and were offering oj to take HIS stuff. until knuckleheads mcclinton and Alexander pulled out those guns and started ordering everyone around.That is what turned the case.imo

[William Anthony]

Agreed.

At his hotel another lawyer friend told him oj don't go to that hotel.That is the advice he should have taken. But we all make bad decisions from time to time.imo

I saw him almost cry when the verdict was rendered and I saw him look away when the jury announced he was guilty of the first charge. I don't think he was crying because he was going to jail. He had done that before. I think it was from his firm belief that he had done nothing wrong, or that the jury would nullify his conduct because he was attempting to get his property. He should have listened to that lawyer and he should have thought about who he was and what obligations he had.

[martin II]

NO

I heard Riccio testify that everyting was going quite well in the room and were offering oj to take HIS stuff. until knuckleheads mcclinton and Alexander pulled out those guns and started ordering everyone around.That is what turned the case.imo

correction: fumong and beadsly started offering

[martin II]

I saw him almost cry when the verdict was rendered and I saw him look away when the jury announced he was guilty of the first charge. I don't think he was crying because he was going to jail. He had done that before. I think it was from his firm belief that he had done nothing wrong, or that the jury would nullify his conduct because he was attempting to get his property. He should have listened to that lawyer and he should have thought about who he was and what obligations he had.

Agreed
I will add that he made some bad choices as to how and who he asked to help him.

[William Anthony]

Agreed
I will add that he made some bad choices as to how and who he asked to help him.

It seemed that they thought the were the Temptations and began singing like there shoes were on too tight. Trouble sure permits a test of friendship.

[weezer]

Agreed
I will add that he made some bad choices as to how and who he asked to help him.

I hope I live long enough to see you say orenthal james simpson is responsible for the bad things he does --

martin, what are your thoughts on why orenthal would care if LE was called while he was there to get his stuff?