O.J. In The News Again

[William Anthony]

Corrections-Don't know what was on my mind when I made this post-It seemed that they thought they were the Temptations and began singing like their shoes were on too tight. Trouble sure permits a test of friendship.

[weezer]

What will happen at Simpson's sentencing on December 5?

Even if she opts to impose the most lenient possible sentence under discretion, Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass will sentence Simpson to at least 15 years in prison. His conviction alone of first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon carries a minimum sentence of 15 years, with the possibility of parole after five years, and a maximum sentence of life of prison with the chance of parole. Judge Glass could run the sentences for each of the 12 charges concurrently or consecutively, the latter of which would be disastrous for Simpson, as he would then serve time for each sentence, one-after-the-other.

Working in Simpson's favor is that judges normally refrain from imposing the maximum possible sentence for first-time offenders and, despite the many controversies surrounding him over the last two decades, Simpson has not previously been convicted of a crime (though he did plead no contest in 1989 to a spousal abuse charge, meaning he neither contested the charge nor admitted guilt). Then again, at age 61, there is a strong probability that, absent a successful appeal and regardless of Judge Glass' leniency, Simpson will spend the remainder of his life in prison.

Michael McCann > SPORTS LAW

Answering the five key questions after Simpson's guilty verdict

[weezer]

Simpson's in-laws: Verdict brings "mixed emotions"
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 10/04/2008 03:26:18 PM PDT


DANA POINT, Calif.—Family members of O.J. Simpson's slain ex-wife say they wish to remain private as they "work through many mixed emotions" in the wake of the former football star's conviction on kidnapping and armed robbery in an unrelated case in Las Vegas.
The family of Nicole Brown Simpson said in a short statement issued Saturday that they are primarily concerned about the two children from the marriage. They said they "deeply love and cherish" the two, Sydney and Justin.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted of brutally murdering his ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman after a sensational yearlong trial in 1995.

In a separate case, a jury convicted him late Friday of holding up two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a bid to reclaim his football mementoes.

[weezer]

Fred Goldman pleased with Simpson verdict

Saturday, October 4, 2008

10-04) 14:39 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

The father of the man O.J. Simpson was accused of murdering along with his ex-wife says he's pleased that the one-time football hero could end up spending the rest of his life in jail.

Fred Goldman, the father of Ronald Goldman, told CNN Saturday that his family is "thrilled to see the potential that he could serve the rest of his life in jail where the scumbag belongs."

Simpson was convicted late Friday on a dozen charges related to the armed robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room last year.

He was taken into custody shortly after the charges were read against him and is due to be sentenced on Dec. 5.

The verdict came 13 years to the day after Simpson was cleared of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, her friend.

Associated Press

[martin II]

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?


Sorry weezer we just happen to use different words to express ourselves.

I think if le had gotten involved when their assistance was requested by Rizzio/OJ, the retreival of ojs personal items would not have been as it was.
IMO

[martin II]

What will happen at Simpson's sentencing on December 5?

Even if she opts to impose the most lenient possible sentence under discretion, Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass will sentence Simpson to at least 15 years in prison. His conviction alone of first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon carries a minimum sentence of 15 years, with the possibility of parole after five years, and a maximum sentence of life of prison with the chance of parole. Judge Glass could run the sentences for each of the 12 charges concurrently or consecutively, the latter of which would be disastrous for Simpson, as he would then serve time for each sentence, one-after-the-other.

Working in Simpson's favor is that judges normally refrain from imposing the maximum possible sentence for first-time offenders and, despite the many controversies surrounding him over the last two decades, Simpson has not previously been convicted of a crime (though he did plead no contest in 1989 to a spousal abuse charge, meaning he neither contested the charge nor admitted guilt). Then again, at age 61, there is a strong probability that, absent a successful appeal and regardless of Judge Glass' leniency, Simpson will spend the remainder of his life in prison.

Michael McCann > SPORTS LAW

Answering the five key questions after Simpson's guilty verdict


It will be interesting to see if this judge will follow what is stated other judges have done in sentencing first time offenders.

[weezer]

Sorry weezer we just happen to use different words to express ourselves.

I think if le had gotten involved when their assistance was requested by Rizzio/OJ, the retreival of ojs personal items would not have been as it was.
IMO

but what do you think the reason was that orenthal cared if LE was called when he went to get his 'stuff'? I mean, when you went after your stuff, did you care if the guy called LE when you went there?

and martin, orenthal never reported anything stolen or that his stolen property was going to be sold. riccio -- during an interview about his involvement in another case -- threw out to whoever would listen that he knew orenthal's stolen stuff was going to be sold. no details because he and orenthal hadn't set it up yet.

[Reckless]

It will be interesting to see if this judge will follow what is stated other judges have done in sentencing first time offenders.Who is a first time offender?

[martin II]

Who is a first time offender?
Ask the flying monkies

[martin II]

5 jurors said they thought oj was guilty in previous murder case.

[Reckless]

5 jurors said they thought oj was guilty in previous murder case.This is true. However, there were more than 5 jurors which means they ALL agreed BARD and it was not based on payback.

[weezer]

This is true. However, there were more than 5 jurors which means they ALL agreed BARD and it was not based on payback.

I guess it also means that 7 other jurors either thought orenthal was innocent or didn't have an opinion in the first trial .

you know, for some orenthal's sordid life only works IF there is someone else to blame.

[martin II]

I guess it also means that 7 other jurors either thought orenthal was innocent or didn't have an opinion in the first trial .

you know, for some orenthal's sordid life only works IF there is someone else to blame.

I don't know what was in the minds of the jurors and i don't think anyone knows but the jurors, but they have decided that oj was guilty and that is final.

[weezer]

I don't know what was in the minds of the jurors and i don't think anyone knows but the jurors, but they have decided that oj was guilty and that is final.

you just said that last part to make me feel good didn't you!

[William Anthony]

I don't know what was in the minds of the jurors and i don't think anyone knows but the jurors, but they have decided that oj was guilty and that is final.

It may not be final but I think it is.

[Reckless]

It may not be final but I think it is.I hope it is. OJ was found guilty. Amen.

[martin II]

Galanter said he believes Simpson has a strong argument for reversal of his conviction because of legal errors made during the trial, beginning with the jury selection process.

He said issues to be raised on appeal will include the elimination of all African-Americans from the jury and the inclusion of jurors who believed that Simpson should have been convicted at trial in Los Angeles in 1995 of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.

ny times

[martin II]

you just said that last part to make me feel good didn't you!

Why would i do that?

[Zold1]

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

Totally uncalled for. People have sunk to a new low by attacking the children.

For Arnelle: :rose:

[Zold1]

5 jurors said they thought oj was guilty in previous murder case.

Uh.. which means they lied on their jury sheet in order to get on the panel. I think they should be held for perjury! I'm not so sure the Appeals Court won't ensure they are incarcerated for that. What good is the jury system if the people lie to attain their goals. Isn't that the same thing with Enron? The same thing with Congressional Bail Out B.S.?

That being the case who wants to even try being honest.

[William Anthony]

I hope it is. OJ was found guilty. Amen.

I hope that justice is administered fairly, regardless of the outcome during the appellate process. In that case, faith in our judicial system may be restored for those who seemed to have lost it.

[martin II]

The jurors said at an extraordinary news conference that they virtually discounted the witnesses against Simpson, whom they branded as unreliable crooks trying to save their own skins.

Juror Michelle Lyons, 41, said a key piece of evidence was a postrobbery recording made at a restaurant in which Simpson acknowledged his pal Michael McClinton was packing his "piece."



Without the tapes, jurors would have almost certainly acquitted Simps
they said.

"It would have been a very weak case," Pettit said. Juror David Wieberg, 51, chimed in, "Yes, a weak case," and other jurors nodded in agreement.

Asked why they convicted Stewart, 54, whom some observers pegged as a bit player, juror Teresa Owens said, "The thing that clinched it for me is he drove the car. ...He came out of that room with items that didn't belong to him."

Added juror Consuelo Saldivar: "He didn't leave. If he walked in and saw what was going on, he could have walked out."

The jury also emphatically denied that they convicted Simpson to make up for his controversial 1995 acquittal in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

In pretrial questionnaires, five of the 12 seated jurors admitted they disagreed with Simpson's 1995 acquittal.

"I think he did it," wrote juror Sheridan Eckart, 55, when asked her opinion on the murder trial. "But I wasn't there to hear the case, so I really can't say."

Still, all 12 said they could "set aside" personal feelings.

Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter vowed to appeal the verdict.

"We are going to fast-track it," Galanter said. "Our notice will be filed 30 seconds after he's sentenced."

[martin II]

Totally uncalled for. People have sunk to a new low by attacking the children.

For Arnelle: :rose:

Zold1

Weezers attack on ojs children especially Arnell is well known. I have always seen it as Jealusy on weezers part.imo

[martin II]

Who is a first time offender?

Do you know of any criminal conviction of oj before this latest verdict.?

[tv]

Zold1

Weezers attack on ojs children especially Arnell is well known. I have always seen it as Jealusy on weezers part.imo

First of all, Arnelle is 39 years old, she's not a child. Why do you defend Arnelle after she knocked down her father with him ending up with a cut on the back of the head and bleeding from his mouth because she was jealous of Christie Prody? Seems that daddy's girl was mad because he was giving money to Prody while her own mother has to work at Walmart to pay her bills. I wonder why the financially successful Arnelle isn't helping her mother? Could it be that she's not as successful as some people say she is or is she just stingy?

[William Anthony]

She is one of Simpson's adult "children".

[martin II]

First of all, Arnelle is 39 years old, she's not a child. Why do you defend Arnelle after she knocked down her father with him ending up with a cut on the back of the head and bleeding from his mouth because she was jealous of Christie Prody? Seems that daddy's girl was mad because he was giving money to Prody while her own mother has to work at Walmart to pay her bills. I wonder why the financially successful Arnelle isn't helping her mother? Could it be that she's not as successful as some people say she is or is she just stingy?

How am i to know what the true cause of some argument between two women was.:shrug:
I am not aware of all of the personal informaiton you seem to know about Arnell, oj and C. Prody and not in a position to make a lot of judgements about them. I think it was Prody, Arnell and ojs sisters at the trial togeather. These personal attacks on Arnell is as another poster posted Not called for. :cool:

[tv]

She is one of Simpson's adult "children".

But she is not a child. How long is she off-limits for her actions to be comment on?

[tv]

How am i to know what the true cause of some argument between two women was.:shrug:
I am not aware of all of the personal informaiton you seem to know about Arnell, oj and C. Prody and not in a position to make a lot of judgements about them. I think it was Prody, Arnell and ojs sisters at the trial togeather. These personal attacks on Arnell is as another poster posted Not called for. :cool:

It's not a personal attack. I read it in several news articles. Is this the first time you've heard this?

[William Anthony]

But she is not a child. How long is she off-limits for her actions to be comment on?

I do apologize for not being clearer. I did not mean to imply that comments could not be made on her actions and the only one I am aware of that has been reported as fact is the fight she was engaged in recently. My point was more to the age comment. After reaching twenty one and informing my mother that I was no longer a child, she informed me that I would always be her child. Who was I to dare to tell her she was wrong, :)?

[tv]

I do apologize for not being clearer. I did not mean to imply that comments could not be made on her actions and the only one I am aware of that has been reported as fact is the fight she was engaged in recently. My point was more to the age comment. After reaching twenty one and informing my mother that I was no longer a child, she informed me that I would always be her child. Who was I to dare to tell her she was wrong, :)?

Of course you are still your mother's child and always will be. There comes a time, however, when we have to be accountable for our own actions and take our lumps in the world. My children will always be my children but I hoped I've helped equip them to stand on their own.

[William Anthony]

Of course you are still your mother's child and always will be. There comes a time, however, when we have to be accountable for our own actions and take our lumps in the world. My children will always be my children but I hoped I've helped equip them to stand on their own.

Agreed and I was ready to take the worldly lumps but not the one she might offer if I challenged her assertion any further. :)

[martin II]

It's not a personal attack. I read it in several news articles. Is this the first time you've heard this?

when i read that oj had showed his face to the media saying he had no injuries,i dropped the incident as a fuss between women and conflicting other media reports which were not important for me.imo

[martin II]

First of all, Arnelle is 39 years old, she's not a child. Why do you defend Arnelle after she knocked down her father with him ending up with a cut on the back of the head and bleeding from his mouth because she was jealous of Christie Prody? Seems that daddy's girl was mad because he was giving money to Prody while her own mother has to work at Walmart to pay her bills. I wonder why the financially successful Arnelle isn't helping her mother? Could it be that she's not as successful as some people say she is or is she just stingy?

Sounds likie you are counting Arnells money.
From what i hear in the market she is doing well as a fashion consultant for firms such as Sean John and other fashion houses and WE don't know what she is doing with her mother or why her mother is working where you seem to know she is working. hahaha

[martin II]

First of all, Arnelle is 39 years old, she's not a child. Why do you defend Arnelle after she knocked down her father with him ending up with a cut on the back of the head and bleeding from his mouth because she was jealous of Christie Prody? Seems that daddy's girl was mad because he was giving money to Prody while her own mother has to work at Walmart to pay her bills. I wonder why the financially successful Arnelle isn't helping her mother? Could it be that she's not as successful as some people say she is or is she just stingy?

I guess you believe that since Arnell is 39 years old she should not have any
involvement with her father or her younger siblings.

[Jayme K]

Totally uncalled for. People have sunk to a new low by attacking the children.

For Arnelle: :rose:

The kicker ... a mere less than a month ago you posted this:

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

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

How unlucky for us that you think so greatly of us that you can't go till '09 without gracing us with your presence again.

I should think you'd heard by now that a jury of 12 peers said Simpson was guilty in Vegas and should be rotting nicely in a cell for the remainder of his years which, at this point, I hope are many many more.

[weezer]

Zold1

Weezers attack on ojs children especially Arnell is well known. I have always seen it as Jealusy on weezers part.imo

I don't attack the children -- to say I do is a lie. I do believe that arnelle was/is a co-conspirator with orenthal. first in the double murders and now this robbery.

to think that I'm jealous of arnelle simpson is laughable!!!!! she's middle-aged, unemployed, unemployable (as far as I can tell), living with daddy, living off daddy, coming up with schemes to write books about how her daddy murdered her step-mother. yep, a lot there to be jealous of --- NOT.

[weezer]

First of all, Arnelle is 39 years old, she's not a child. Why do you defend Arnelle after she knocked down her father with him ending up with a cut on the back of the head and bleeding from his mouth because she was jealous of Christie Prody? Seems that daddy's girl was mad because he was giving money to Prody while her own mother has to work at Walmart to pay her bills. I wonder why the financially successful Arnelle isn't helping her mother? Could it be that she's not as successful as some people say she is or is she just stingy?

I can see it now: maguerite moving into the florida 'mansion' with arnelle in charge. LOL --

watch out christie --

[tv]

when i read that oj had showed his face to the media saying he had no injuries,i dropped the incident as a fuss between women and conflicting other media reports which were not important for me.imo

So women's arguments aren't important to you? Why am I not surprised?

[tv]

Sounds likie you are counting Arnells money.
From what i hear in the market she is doing well as a fashion consultant for firms such as Sean John and other fashion houses and WE don't know what she is doing with her mother or why her mother is working where you seem to know she is working. hahaha

I'm not counting anything. You are the one that says she's doing so well. If that's true she should be helping her mother not asking her father to do it. You're the one who always seems to know what's going on with this family so I'm surprised you hadn't already heard that.

[tv]

I guess you believe that since Arnell is 39 years old she should not have any
involvement with her father or her younger siblings.

I guess you're wrong.

[martin II]

I'm not counting anything. You are the one that says she's doing so well. If that's true she should be helping her mother not asking her father to do it. You're the one who always seems to know what's going on with this family so I'm surprised you hadn't already heard that.

What i am surprised at is how much detail financial information you seem to have about the interaction between the members of the simpson family and money. And how you are able to instruct them as to how they should handle the money you think you know they have.imo:cool::cool:

[tv]

I can see it now: maguerite moving into the florida 'mansion' with arnelle in charge. LOL --

watch out christie --

Think Christie will wait for her man?

[tv]

What i am surprised at is how much detail financial information you seem to have about the interaction between the members of the simpson family and money. And how you are able to instruct them as to how they should handle the money you think you know they have.imo:cool::cool:

I'm going to tell you one more time that I got the information from a news report about the incident. I'm commenting on it. If you consider that instructing them how they should handle their money then you're wrong and you'll just have to get over it.

[martin II]

I don't attack the children -- to say I do is a lie. I do believe that arnelle was/is a co-conspirator with orenthal. first in the double murders and now this robbery.

to think that I'm jealous of arnelle simpson is laughable!!!!! she's middle-aged, unemployed, unemployable (as far as I can tell), living with daddy, living off daddy, coming up with schemes to write books about how her daddy murdered her step-mother. yep, a lot there to be jealous of --- NOT.

Pure jealousy of this woman.:cool::cool:

[martin II]

Think Christie will wait for her man?

Some women can really be vicious when the target is other women. hahahaha

[martin II]

I'm going to tell you one more time that I got the information from a news report about the incident. I'm commenting on it. If you consider that instructing them how they should handle their money then you're wrong and you'll just have to get over it.

tv

I don't have to get over anything as i don't give advice to others on how they should make or spend their money and i don't count others money.:cool:

[martin II]

The kicker ... a mere less than a month ago you posted this:

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

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

How unlucky for us that you think so greatly of us that you can't go till '09 without gracing us with your presence again.

I should think you'd heard by now that a jury of 12 peers said Simpson was guilty in Vegas and should be rotting nicely in a cell for the remainder of his years which, at this point, I hope are many many more.


Did the jury say how long oj should be rotting in jail? The judge instructed the jury not to concern themselves with penalty.I am surprised they would make that statement.

[tv]

tv

I don't have to get over anything as i don't give advice to others on how they should make or spend their money and i don't count others money.:cool:

You don't mind telling me what I can comment on. You're the one that's been talking about Arnelle's success since I've been on this forum.

The only money you count is Fred Goldman's. hahaha

[martin II]

You don't mind telling me what I can comment on. You're the one that's been talking about Arnelle's success since I've been on this forum.

The only money you count is Fred Goldman's. hahaha

Nope
I have posted that fred should be honest with the public about his motives for chasing the money.

[martin II]

TV
i am moving on. Too much time discussing Arnell a non issue in this trial.

[tv]

Nope
I have posted that fred should be honest with the public about his motives for chasing the money.

Oh that's right. I forgot about your theory that Mr. Goldman should forgive OJ Simpson for killing his son and just move on with his life.

[weezer]

Think Christie will wait for her man?

LOL -- not in florida -- arnelle and marguerite will be living in the 'mansion' and spending orenthal's 'pension' -- LOL

of course, she probably won't be making trips to the hospital either. . .

[weezer]

Pure jealousy of this woman.:cool::cool:

I can honestly say I've never been jealous of a sociopath in my life. :eek:

[William Anthony]

We really should be careful when we critique others so as not to appear to be on equal footing.

[Jayme K]

Did the jury say how long oj should be rotting in jail? The judge instructed the jury not to concern themselves with penalty.I am surprised they would make that statement.

They didn't say that, that was my own personal comment being thrown in there.

[Jayme K]

I can honestly say I've never been jealous of a sociopath in my life. :eek:

:beer:

[martin II]

They didn't say that, that was my own personal comment being thrown in there.

I just wanted to be sure i was reading your post correctly.

[Redmama]

Nope
I have posted that fred should be honest with the public about his motives for chasing the money.

Why - he doesn't owe any explanations to anybody as far as I'm concerned. He won it - it was giving to him, period. There was no attachment that said when you get it, please tell everyone why/what you are doing it with it.

[Redmama]

:beer:

I can honestly say I've never been jealous of a sociopath in my life. :eek:

I can too, except for the couple of months I was jeaolous of myself - hee hee.

[weezer]

I can too, except for the couple of months I was jeaolous of myself - hee hee.

ahhh -- well -- I didn't count myself! :eek:

[martin II]

Why - he doesn't owe any explanations to anybody as far as I'm concerned. He won it - it was giving to him, period. There was no attachment that said when you get it, please tell everyone why/what you are doing it with it.

To proclaim as fred did that his efforts against oj is NOT ABOUT MONEY but about justice, and then ask the public for money in his efforts to get more money,in addition to sending lawyers into courts to get money and publibhing a book for money seems liike a serious conflict. When they say it is not about money it usually is.imo

[weezer]

To proclaim as fred did that his efforts against oj is NOT ABOUT MONEY but about justice, and then ask the public for money in his efforts to get more money,in addition to sending lawyers into courts to get money and publibhing a book for money seems liike a serious conflict. When they say it is not about money it usually is.imo

you're right martin, it is all about the money. that's what got orenthal in this trouble -- his obession with keeping everyone and everything that HE believes belongs to him. the fact is that he was found liable for the death of Ron Goldman and the battery of Nicole Brown. the fact is he had a civil judgment against him. the fact is he wanted to keep it all himself. too bad. wonder if he has figured out it wasn't worth it.

[Redmama]

To proclaim as fred did that his efforts against oj is NOT ABOUT MONEY but about justice, and then ask the public for money in his efforts to get more money,in addition to sending lawyers into courts to get money and publibhing a book for money seems liike a serious conflict. When they say it is not about money it usually is.imo

Fred doesn't owe anybody anything...he has paid enough.

[William Anthony]

I can too, except for the couple of months I was jeaolous of myself - hee hee.

We really should be careful when we critique others so as not to appear to be on equal footing.

Thanks, :).

[weezer]

". . .Nevertheless, Dayvid Figler, a Las Vegas criminal defense lawyer, said the request for a new trial can be a prelude to sentencing and could include evidence of good deeds :eek: and character references :eek:, "basically to paint a picture of O.J. Simpson other than what we were left with. . ."

ROFLMAO................

[weezer]

". . .Simpson 'stupid' but no crook, says his lawyer. . ."

:D :D :biggrin:

[WarmNCozy]

To proclaim as fred did that his efforts against oj is NOT ABOUT MONEY but about justice, and then ask the public for money in his efforts to get more money,in addition to sending lawyers into courts to get money and publibhing a book for money seems liike a serious conflict. When they say it is not about money it usually is.imo
He speaks from both sides of his mouth! IMO

[weezer]

". . .But Simpson made his own bed — or cot, if you will — in gambling on this strong-arm scheme in Vegas and forgetting that a very significant segment of the population still wanted to see his behind in prison.

Simpson also apparently forgot that any memorabilia he reclaimed would technically be the possession of the Goldman family, which won a $33.5 million civil judgment against Simpson, but has yet to collect.

My childhood sports idol — The Juice — tainted a perfectly good surname. It is eerie that his conviction happened 13 years to the day of his acquittal. As the church folk say, you reap what you sow. Rodney King once asked America whether wecanall get along.

On rare occasions, Rodney — like this one.

Hey, Juice, goodbye. Good riddance. . ."

[William Anthony]

Every goodbye is not gone and every shut eye isn't sleep.

[Kate Sachel]

He speaks from both sides of his mouth! IMO

Why, because he has continued to pursue the only avenue available to him for hitting OJ Simpson where it hurts?

My goodness, you yourself have been dealt one of the harshest blows a person could be dealt; you lost a child at far too young an age. It will hurt you for the remainder of your years, and is something that I'm sure you think of on a daily basis.

Fred Goldman lost his son at the age of 25 to a brutal attack that is still labeled one of the most heinous crimes ever committed, following only behind the Manson murders. In the aftermath of his aquittal, what has OJ Simpson done? He has continued to mock the very murders he was accused of committing and then has the audacity to be offended when people don't like him.

Fred Goldman has been outraged. I have been outraged! It sickens me to have watched him say and do one distasteful thing after another regarding the murder of two human beings. If I have been outraged, and have no connection to any of the parties involved, I can only imagine the extent of desire Fred Goldman must feel in stalking this man for the rest of his life, and the only legal way for him to do so is in pursuing his monetary judgment.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

Why, because he has continued to pursue the only avenue available to him for hitting OJ Simpson where it hurts?

My goodness, you yourself have been dealt one of the harshest blows a person could be dealt; you lost a child at far too young an age. It will hurt you for the remainder of your years, and is something that I'm sure you think of on a daily basis.

Fred Goldman lost his son at the age of 25 to a brutal attack that is still labeled one of the most heinous crimes ever committed, following only behind the Manson murders. In the aftermath of his aquittal, what has OJ Simpson done? He has continued to mock the very murders he was accused of committing and then has the audacity to be offended when people don't like him.

Fred Goldman has been outraged. I have been outraged! It sickens me to have watched him say and do one distasteful thing after another regarding the murder of two human beings. If I have been outraged, and have no connection to any of the parties involved, I can only imagine the extent of desire Fred Goldman must feel in stalking this man for the rest of his life, and the only legal way for him to do so is in pursuing his monetary judgment.

Kate
To answer what I bolded of your post, and yes I will hurt for the rest of my life and not just on a daily basis, second by second. I could hold on to the people involved in what happened to my daughter and hate them. But it would eat me alive inside my head and heart forever and in the end, I would be the only one to suffer over it.

Fred Goldman has a right to be enraged, but not at OJ, but the murderers of his son. And still be looking for them.

[weezer]

To answer what I bolded of your post, and yes I will hurt for the rest of my life and not just on a daily basis, second by second. I could hold on to the people involved in what happened to my daughter and hate them. But it would eat me alive inside my head and heart forever and in the end, I would be the only to suffer over it.

Fred Goldman has a right to be enraged, but not at OJ, but the murderers of his son. And still be looking for them.

do you not think taking your own life is very different from being butchered by someone else? would you have continued to look for her murderer had it not been a suicide?

[WarmNCozy]

Every goodbye is not gone and every shut eye isn't sleep.

You never know the last time you hold your loved one, that it is the last time.

[weezer]

You never know the last time you hold your loved one, that it is the last time.

that's almost exactly what Fred Goldman said after the brutal murder of his son.

[Kate Sachel]

To answer what I bolded of your post, and yes I will hurt for the rest of my life and not just on a daily basis, second by second. I could hold on to the people involved in what happened to my daughter and hate them. But it would eat me alive inside my head and heart forever and in the end, I would be the only one to suffer over it.

Fred Goldman has a right to be enraged, but not at OJ, but the murderers of his son. And still be looking for them.

He believes that OJ Simpson murdered his son. So do I, in my opinion the evidence points only to OJ. And yes, I have read all of Wagner's site. Twice.

I understand your sentiments regarding hate, but maybe Fred Goldman feels that it would eat him alive to sit back and watch OJ Simpson living in peace.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

He believes that OJ Simpson murdered his son. So do I, in my opinion the evidence points only to OJ. And yes, I have read all of Wagner's site. Twice.

I understand your sentiments regarding hate, but maybe Fred Goldman feels that it would eat him alive to sit back and watch OJ Simpson living in peace.

Kate

I see where you are coming from. We are just on opposite sides of the fence.

[weezer]

I see where you are coming from. We are just on opposite sides of the fence.

fence? heck you aren't even in the same yard. LOL

[William Anthony]

I think that some would consider it an honor not to be in the same yard as at least one poster. I think that to say that one is on the opposite side of the fence speaks for itself and was done in a civil manner. I think the person to whom it was addressed understood this and the other poster who chimed in is simply doing, imho, their usual by trying to start trouble where there should be none.

[tv]

I think that some would consider it an honor not to be in the same yard as at least one poster. I think that to say that one is on the opposite side of the fence speaks for itself and was done in a civil manner. I think the person to whom it was addressed understood this and the other poster who chimed in is simply doing, imho, their usual by trying to start trouble where there should be none.

You're still the self-appointed monitor of this forum, I see. :D

[William Anthony]

You're still the self-appointed monitor of this forum, I see. :D

Perhaps, I should make my posts more clear. I am not the self-appointed monitor but I am trying to act as a statesman. I was very presumptuous, as I spoke for one poster, who is very capable of speaking for herself. The other poster has joined in our discussions and I simply wanted to alert her to things and tendencies I have seen. I apologize if you or anyone else took my post wrong. I hope this makes it clearer.

[tv]

Perhaps, I should make my posts more clear. I am not the self-appointed monitor but I am trying to act as a statesman. I was very presumptuous, as I spoke for one poster, who is very capable of speaking for herself. The other poster has joined in our discussions and I simply wanted to alert her to things and tendencies I have seen. I apologize if you or anyone else took my post wrong. I hope this makes it clearer.

A statesman? You're actually taking that remark to heart? Oh my goodness, I had no idea.

[William Anthony]

A statesman? You're actually taking that remark to heart? Oh my goodness, I had no idea.

I had no idea you thought otherwise with all the love you have shown me. :)

[SlowHandSam]

Hello there. LTNS. Post-Ike life has been hectic here in the South.

...

To flame someone for not being able to (or choosing to) forgive the person they believe murdered their child blows my mind. I think it is great, if that is your choice, to forgive those that you believe are responsible for the death of one's child. Some might say it takes a very strong person to do so. Some might say it's just a fool-hearted attempt. I won't pass that judgement because I've been fortunate enough to not have lost a child.

I will, however, say that I don't think one can compare apple to apple a child being viciously attacked and murdered to a child who choose to take his/her own life. They are both devastating, I do not doubt that. But I don't view them as being on equal lines.

I understand why Mr. Goldman is hanging on to his crusade. He, as do many others, believe that justice did not prevail. In the very pit of him, I presume, he feels OJ is who took his son's life.

OJ is an egomaniac who is and has always been focused on his monetary standing. Where else to knock someone down a peg or two than in the very place that rules his/her world?

You cannot, ever, convince me that you would not spend your life attempting to bring to justice, in some form, the murderer of your child!

[Kate Sachel]

I see where you are coming from. We are just on opposite sides of the fence.

I respect that.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Hello there. LTNS. Post-Ike life has been hectic here in the South.

...

To flame someone for not being able to (or choosing to) forgive the person they believe murdered their child blows my mind. I think it is great, if that is your choice, to forgive those that you believe are responsible for the death of one's child. Some might say it takes a very strong person to do so. Some might say it's just a fool-hearted attempt. I won't pass that judgement because I've been fortunate enough to not have lost a child.

I will, however, say that I don't think one can compare apple to apple a child being viciously attacked and murdered to a child who choose to take his/her own life. They are both devastating, I do not doubt that. But I don't view them as being on equal lines.

I understand why Mr. Goldman is hanging on to his crusade. He, as do many others, believe that justice did not prevail. In the very pit of him, I presume, he feels OJ is who took his son's life.

OJ is an egomaniac who is and has always been focused on his monetary standing. Where else to knock someone down a peg or two than in the very place that rules his/her world?

You cannot, ever, convince me that you would not spend your life attempting to bring to justice, in some form, the murderer of your child!

I enjoyed this post very much.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I respect that.

Kate

If I might, what do you call a woman who shows statesman like qualities other than a lady?

[WarmNCozy]

Hello there. LTNS. Post-Ike life has been hectic here in the South.

...

To flame someone for not being able to (or choosing to) forgive the person they believe murdered their child blows my mind. I think it is great, if that is your choice, to forgive those that you believe are responsible for the death of one's child. Some might say it takes a very strong person to do so. Some might say it's just a fool-hearted attempt. I won't pass that judgement because I've been fortunate enough to not have lost a child.

I will, however, say that I don't think one can compare apple to apple a child being viciously attacked and murdered to a child who choose to take his/her own life. They are both devastating, I do not doubt that. But I don't view them as being on equal lines.

I understand why Mr. Goldman is hanging on to his crusade. He, as do many others, believe that justice did not prevail. In the very pit of him, I presume, he feels OJ is who took his son's life.

OJ is an egomaniac who is and has always been focused on his monetary standing. Where else to knock someone down a peg or two than in the very place that rules his/her world?

You cannot, ever, convince me that you would not spend your life attempting to bring to justice, in some form, the murderer of your child!

Suicide with a gun to the head is murder. You don't know the reasons, the people involved, and the abuse taken for far too long to understand. And I share that information with very few people and certainly not on a public board.

[SlowHandSam]

Suicide with a gun to the head is murder. You don't know the reasons, the people involved, and the abuse taken for far too long to understand. And I share that information with very few people and certainly not on a public board.

I have an uncle who's son killed himself with a shotgun blast to the head. It was planned down to the T with how everything was put in order etc. It was his choice to end his life - for his reasons alone.

I have an uncle who's son was murdered with a shotgun blast to the head. This, too, was a planned event although murder. It was not his choice to have someone shoot him in the head and end his life. He was merely watching TV.

I mean you no disrespect, but I do not believe suicide is the same as murder.

Committing suicide is a choice.
Being murder is not.

[WarmNCozy]

I have an uncle who's son killed himself with a shotgun blast to the head. It was planned down to the T with how everything was put in order etc. It was his choice to end his life - for his reasons alone.

I have an uncle who's son was murdered with a shotgun blast to the head. This, too, was a planned event although murder. It was not his choice to have someone shoot him in the head and end his life. He was merely watching TV.

I mean you no disrespect, but I do not believe suicide is the same as murder.

Committing suicide is a choice.
Being murder is not.
This was not planned. She acted on an impulse of hopelessness with a permanent solution.

No disrespect taken!

[William Anthony]

I know that battered spouses stay in relationships. Perhaps, no choice is the only choice.

[WarmNCozy]

If I might, what do you call a woman who shows statesman like qualities other than a lady?
Why stateswoman of course.

I love this quote:

Winston Churchill -- "A politician thinks about the next elections - the stateman thinks about the next generations."

[William Anthony]

Why stateswoman of course.

I love this quote:

Winston Churchill -- "A politician thinks about the next elections - the stateman thinks about the next generations."

Without trying ot incur the wrath of others, then I would like to say that Kate, Redmama, Limakey and you are stateswomen, imho.

[WarmNCozy]

Without trying ot incur the wrath of others, then I would like to say that Kate, Redmama, Limakey and you are stateswomen, imho.

I am humbly thankful for your vote of confidence in me. I try to see both sides though I don't always agree and try not to be offensive in my responses. Thank you, William.

[William Anthony]

I am humbly thankful for your vote of confidence in me. I try to see both sides though I don't always agree and try not to be offensive in my responses. Thank you, William.

You are quite welcome and I think you have succeeded in your efforts.

[Kate Sachel]

Suicide with a gun to the head is murder. You don't know the reasons, the people involved, and the abuse taken for far too long to understand. And I share that information with very few people and certainly not on a public board.

With such little information provided, and I certainly understand your reasons for providing such little information, I may be far off base but you seem to allude that your daughter was in an abusive relationship. I do not expect you to confirm such to me as we are strangers other than two indivduals who happen to share our thoughts on the same public forum, but if that does happen to be the case I will say this ... a batterer's repeated assaults against his victim should lawfully be taken as intent to kill.

Kate

[martin II]

I am humbly thankful for your vote of confidence in me. I try to see both sides though I don't always agree and try not to be offensive in my responses. Thank you, William.

I think you are at the top of the list of kind,resoursful and thoughful female posters on this forum.So please continue to post your opinions and ignore the attacks. I enjoy them a lot.
Martin II

I might add Limakey and tv.

[WarmNCozy]

I think you are at the top of the list of kind,resoursful and thoughful female posters on this forum.So please continue to post your opinions and ignore the attacks. I enjoy them a lot.
Martin II

is on ignore, so I can handle anyone else.:D

[martin II]

fence? heck you aren't even in the same yard. LOL

'There you go again"

[WarmNCozy]

'There you go again"

Martin, even though the feet is on ignore, when you quote them, I can read the quote. My reaction to it is this:http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Funny/doglaugh.gif

[William Anthony]

Martin, even though the feet is on ignore, when you quote them, I can read the quote. My reaction to it is this:http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Funny/doglaugh.gif

I like all your posts with the dogs. The Bible also says to separate the wheat from the chaff. To them that have ears, let them hear.

[Kate Sachel]

Martin, even though the feet is on ignore, when you quote them, I can read the quote. My reaction to it is this:http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Funny/doglaugh.gif

And the elementary schoolyard games begin.

Kate

[weezer]

is on ignore, so I can handle anyone else.:D

Ahhh - now I'm hurt. :biggrin:

[WarmNCozy]

And the elementary schoolyard games begin.

Kate
Not really. I found his remarks laughable.

[William Anthony]

Not really. I found his remarks laughable.

Don't let the toes fool you as to gender. :)

[William Anthony]

You never know the last time you hold your loved one, that it is the last time.

I am sorry to have overlooked this. That is very true. It is also paramount, imho, to watch what we say to people as we may not have the opportunity to personally ask their forgiveness.

[tv]

Not really. I found his remarks laughable.

I'm sure you'll put me on ignore when I tell you that your posts from last year on this forum and your recent posts have at times made me laugh out loud. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be so opinionated about a case they know so little about.

Did it ever occur to you that fbgweezer's avatar photo might be something special to her and that using it to make fun of her is extremely rude and immature?

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you'll put me on ignore when I tell you that your posts from last year on this forum and your recent posts have at times made me laugh out loud. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be so opinionated about a case they know so little about.

Did it ever occur to you that fbgweezer's avatar photo might be something special to her and that using it to make fun of her is extremely rude and immature?

Did it ever occur to you that a poster may find another poster's posts, rude and offensive and just not want to acknowledge that poster by name. IIRC, you voiced opinions stating that you knew very little about the case, when you started posting. There have been other posts made about the avatar and never was there expressed a sentiment that the avatar was of sentimental value. There have been remarks about other avatars and it seems that some find offense in the oddest of places, depending on who makes the comment. I remember when one poster said that a pair of lips in an avatar were beautiful and when I said the same thing and added that I liked what came out of them, IIRC, it became quite an offensive remark to some. Perhaps, some should be more selective in their avatars if they do not want them commented on or explain to all that might find the avatar curious that the avatar is off limit for comment.

I truly believe that you may have some knowledge that other posters do not about the avatar and this was in no way meant to criticize your post. It was meant to say that I think it is unfair to criticize someone, who has shared the sentimental value of her avatar with posters, for referring to an avatar that no one had previously explained, other than, IIRC, they thought little kids toes were cute, which I really thought were adult toes.

[tv]

I have absolutely no knowledge of what weezer's avatar means or who it is a photo of but I like to be careful when commenting on a personal choice such as that. People are known to have avatars that reflect something special to them. In your case, you are a fan of TOMBSTONE and Doc Holliday. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be cruel to you or make fun of you about that.

I found it very rude for her to go so far as to post a graphic to make fun of someone else and refer to that person as "the feet" and then just as rude for others to think it's funny.

[William Anthony]

I have absolutely no knowledge of what weezer's avatar means or who it is a photo of but I like to be careful when commenting on a personal choice such as that. People are known to have avatars that reflect something special to them. In your case, you are a fan of TOMBSTONE and Doc Holliday. I don't think I've ever seen anyone be cruel to you or make fun of you about that.

I found it very rude for her to go so far as to post a graphic to make fun of someone else and refer to that person as "the feet" and then just as rude for others to think it's funny.

I understand but there were some prior remarks about the toes and no one said they had sentimental value of should have been laughed at. No one has criticized the particular avatar I have chosen. They have criticized other avatars. I guess its a matter of taste, as I found the laughing dog cute. I love dogs and there was no cartoon of a dog biting toes.:) Avatars are not off limit to my understanding and, If anyone makes fun of Tombstone and Doc, they will find that I am their huckleberry. :) I just remembered a male poster, who, imho, made a remark about martin's avatar and invited him to a duet to see what music they might make together and I was the only one to find that remark, or at least, to publicly comment on it as offensive. I guess its just a matter of taste.

[tv]

By the way, William, in response to your statement that I said I knew little about the case when I first joined this forum. Wrong...I knew a lot about the case but have learned much more since I've been posting here. One thing I don't do is insist I'm right when I haven't researched what I'm talking about. I use a variety of sources to come to a conclusion. I certainly don't base everything on a single source, such as Wagner, to the exclusion of everything else.

[tv]

I understand but there were some prior remarks about the toes and no one said they had sentimental value of should have been laughed at. No one has criticized the particular avatar I have chosen. They have criticized other avatars. I guess its a matter of taste, as I found the laughing dog cute. I love dogs and there was no cartoon of a dog biting toes.:) Avatars are not off limit to my understanding and, If anyone makes fun of Tombstone and Doc, they will find that I am their huckleberry. :)

I've also never read anything about weezer's avatar having sentimental value. My point is that you never know so it's best to not step over the line into making fun of someone. I also love dogs but I don't think it's funny when they're used in this way, no matter how cute.

Enough said -- weezer is more than capable of speaking for herself.

[William Anthony]

By the way, William, in response to your statement that I said I knew little about the case when I first joined this forum. Wrong...I knew a lot about the case but have learned much more since I've been posting here. One thing I don't do is insist I'm right when I haven't researched what I'm talking about. I use a variety of sources to come to a conclusion. I certainly don't base everything on a single source, such as Wagner, to the exclusion of everything else.

Then I stand corrected and realize that is not enough to say for you, so I apologize if you knew more about the case than I thought you did or, IIRI, your statement. I do not remember the poster, saying she based everything on Wagner. As I recall, she said that she thought Simpson was guilty and, IIRC, said she watched some of the trial, but changed her mind after reading Wagner's investigation.

[William Anthony]

I've also never read anything about weezer's avatar having sentimental value. My point is that you never know so it's best to not step over the line into making fun of someone. I also love dogs but I don't think it's funny to when they're used in this way no matter how cute.

Enough said -- weezer is more than capable of speaking for herself.

Would that same line hold true for telling someone they are not in the same yard, when the poster simply said she was on the other side of the fence as another poster? Would that same line hold true for mentioning the broken promise of 40 acres and a mule to Simpson's, as yet, unbroken promise not to pay the civil damage award?

[tv]

Then I stand corrected and realize that is not enough to say for you, so I apologize if you knew more about the case than I thought you did or, IIRI, your statement. I do not remember the poster, saying she based everything on Wagner. As I recall, she said that she thought Simpson was guilty and, IIRC, said she watched some of the trial, but changed her mind after reading Wagner's investigation.

It's not necessary for you to apologize as I was just setting the record straight. I think this case is so complex that there's always more to learn about it.

I could be mistaken about her relying only on Wagner. I really don't pay that much attention to all of her posts.

[William Anthony]

It's not necessary for you to apologize as I was just setting the record straight. I think this case is so complex that there's always more to learn about it.

I could be mistaken about her relying only on Wagner. I really don't pay that much attention to all of her posts.

Just the ones with dogs in them.:) Careful, I am thinking about adding you to the list of stateswomen and, if you keep disagreeing in this fashion, you will be added very quickly. :)

[tv]

Would that same line hold true for telling someone they are not in the same yard, when the poster simply said she was on the other side of the fence as another poster? Would that same line hold true for mentioning the broken promise of 40 acres and a mule to Simpson's, as yet, unbroken promise not to pay the civil damage award?

William, you're dragging this out unnecessarily. The yard remark was just a casual remark. She was making it in reference to Kate as much as WNC. At least that's the way I took it. She didn't post a picture of a laughing dog and say WNC's post were laughable and then call her a snide name instead of her user name.

I said it was enough before and this time I mean it. :)

[tv]

Just the ones with dogs in them.:) Careful, I am thinking about adding you to the list of stateswomen and, if you keep disagreeing in this fashion, you will be added very quickly. :)

I appreciate that but I think I'll just stay on martin's short list. ;)

[William Anthony]

William, you're dragging this out unnecessarily. The yard remark was just a casual remark. She was making it in reference to Kate as much as WNC. At least that's the way I took it. She didn't post a picture of a laughing dog and say WNC's post were laughable and then call her a snide name instead of her user name.

I said it was enough before and this time I mean it. :)

Kate, responded that she respected the poster's post. You did not answer the question about the line and the 40 acres and a mule comment but I will not place you on the spot by continuing to ask. :)

[William Anthony]

I appreciate that but I think I'll just stay on martin's short list. ;)

Martin Short. It's not a choice, since, according to you, I am the self-appointed moderator. :)

[tv]

Kate, responded that she respected the poster's post. You did not answer the question about the line and the 40 acres and a mule comment but I will not place you on the spot by continuing to ask. :)

I'm not getting into the mule and 40 acres with you. I'd rather not have you start speculating about what I would wear to a festival again because this time I don't think I would take it so well.

[tv]

Martin Short. It's not a choice, since, according to you, I am the self-appointed moderator. :)

No, you're the self-appointed monitor. See the difference?

[William Anthony]

I'm not getting into the mule and 40 acres with you. I'd rather not have you start speculating about what I would wear to a festival again because this time I don't think I would take it so well.

I think I understand. It's okay for you to joke about me but not for me to do the same about you. :)

[William Anthony]

No, you're the self-appointed monitor. See the difference?

Yes, I do. Do you? You were the one to claim I was the self-appointed moderator. Do you see that I cannot be since you made the claim? It would mean that I would have to make the claim.:)

[WarmNCozy]

I see where you are coming from. We are just on opposite sides of the fence.

fence? heck you aren't even in the same yard. LOL

I took fbg off my ignore list to see why Martin was chastising her. Is that an insult? I take it to be, so much so that I find it laughable.

[WarmNCozy]

I'm sure you'll put me on ignore when I tell you that your posts from last year on this forum and your recent posts have at times made me laugh out loud. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be so opinionated about a case they know so little about.

Did it ever occur to you that fbgweezer's avatar photo might be something special to her and that using it to make fun of her is extremely rude and immature?

Really, tv, I stopped posting on this board last year because of all the insults back and forth. And how is it you know what I know about this case? And you are not opinionated about this case?

You can say "laugh out loud" and my using an image conveying the same thing is wrong because WHY?

I would like to hear about fbg's avatar and how special it is to her. I wasn't aware I was being rude and immature -- enlighten me!

[WarmNCozy]

William, you're dragging this out unnecessarily. The yard remark was just a casual remark. She was making it in reference to Kate as much as WNC. At least that's the way I took it. She didn't post a picture of a laughing dog and say WNC's post were laughable and then call her a snide name instead of her user name.

I said it was enough before and this time I mean it. :)


Hold it there, I wasn't even in the yard let alone on the other side of the fence according to Weezer.

[weezer]

Hold it there, I wasn't even in the yard let alone on the other side of the fence according to Weezer.

hold it there -- you are waaaaay over the top on this. I'm not quite sure how or why you would have taken that comment as offensive. But okay. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kate Sachel View Post
He believes that OJ Simpson murdered his son. So do I, in my opinion the evidence points only to OJ. And yes, I have read all of Wagner's site. Twice.

I understand your sentiments regarding hate, but maybe Fred Goldman feels that it would eat him alive to sit back and watch OJ Simpson living in peace.

Kate

I see where you are coming from. We are just on opposite sides of the fence.
__________________
Allison Catherine Miraglia-Willson
May 19, 1970 - December 20, 2007

Tara Grinstead missing since October 2005
You will always be in my prayers

RIP Faye Grinstead - December 14, 1943 - June 7, 2008
May you finally have peace
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
WarmNCozy


Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarmNCozy View Post
I see where you are coming from. We are just on opposite sides of the fence.

fence? heck you aren't even in the same yard. LOL

[martin II]

I've also never read anything about weezer's avatar having sentimental value. My point is that you never know so it's best to not step over the line into making fun of someone. I also love dogs but I don't think it's funny when they're used in this way, no matter how cute.

Enough said -- weezer is more than capable of speaking for herself.

tv
SHS made comments about the sentimental value of the toes avatar that she was aware of.But she never explained. Other posters have asked me what those toes represent.imo

[martin II]

I'm sure you'll put me on ignore when I tell you that your posts from last year on this forum and your recent posts have at times made me laugh out loud. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be so opinionated about a case they know so little about.

Did it ever occur to you that fbgweezer's avatar photo might be something special to her and that using it to make fun of her is extremely rude and immature?

tv

look. previously weezer asked me who the overweight man was in my avatar.
Do you consider that to be rude.I bet not.

[martin II]

hold it there -- you are waaaaay over the top on this. I'm not quite sure how or why you would have taken that comment as offensive. But okay. :seeya:

Weezer

considering many if your previous post, I took your post to be as rude as many others have been. Just like you interjected the 40 acres and a mule
and your previous post calling two adult black men BOY.
You make these comments and then run to say 'Oh i did not mean any harm"
"whats wrong"

[William Anthony]

tv

SHS made comments about the sentimental value of the toes avatar that she was aware of.But she never explained. Other posters have asked me what those toes represent.imo

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

The toes represent or stand for what?

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

This is what I found.

[martin II]

I'm not getting into the mule and 40 acres with you. I'd rather not have you start speculating about what I would wear to a festival again because this time I don't think I would take it so well.

TV
When the referance to slavery 40 acres and a mule comment was made by weezer, I expected to see you at least post OT.But that did not happen.

[martin II]

Really, tv, I stopped posting on this board last year because of all the insults back and forth. And how is it you know what I know about this case? And you are not opinionated about this case?

You can say "laugh out loud" and my using an image conveying the same thing is wrong because WHY?

I would like to hear about fbg's avatar and how special it is to her. I wasn't aware I was being rude and immature -- enlighten me!

Thank for that.

[WarmNCozy]

This is what I found.

I didn't think they were little kids feet????????

[martin II]

I didn't think they were little kids feet????????

At first i thought they may have belonged to Tom Sawyer.

[weezer]

and this is what I found -- follow closely:

8/4/2008 11:00a Originally Posted by William Anthony
For you blatantly false accusation. Might I suggest that you raise your head so that you can look over those big toes and see who brought the porn to the board.

8/4/2008 12:09p Originally Posted by William Anthony
Not as bad as those feet, I hope.

8/4/2008 12:35p Originally Posted by martin II
The fat toes represents what.

8/4/2008 12:37p Originally Posted by fbgweezer
OT --

8/4/2008 4:45p Originally Posted by martin II
Previously others had asked me if i knew the meaning of the fat toes.
Having no answer i asked you.imo

8/4/2008 5:24p Originally posted by fbgweezer
gosh that's pretty silly -- I guess it has the same meaning as the fat man in your avatar.

08-04-2008, 06:51 PM Originally Posted by martin II
Nope not the same at all. The man in my avatar is Mr Charlie Mingus a world famous musician. Now . what does those fat toes represent.

8/4/2008 6:51p Originally Posted by fbgweezer
never heard of him but I suppose you have him as your avatar because you want to. the same goes for the toes -- I want to.

8/4/2008 7:36p Originally Posted by martin II
Nope. I have him as a avatar because Charles was a respected world wide musician and a loved living hero to music lovers most every where. It is in memory of him and his music.imo It has nothing to do with fat toes.believe me.

8/4/2008 7:46p Originally Posted by fbgweezer
the point is martin you have a picture of a fat guy because you want to and I have a picture of fat toes because I want to.

8/4/2008 9:02p Originally Posted by martin II
Fact is that Charles lifted weights. So he was more muscle than fat.But since you never heard of him you would not know that.imo I think there would be many reasons why you would like those kind of toes.imo

8/6/2008 8:06a Originally Posted by William Anthony
Those toes seem to lift a lot of weight, imho.

[martin II]

and this is what I found -- follow closely:

8/4/2008 11:00a Originally Posted by William Anthony
For you blatantly false accusation. Might I suggest that you raise your head so that you can look over those big toes and see who brought the porn to the board.

8/4/2008 12:09p Originally Posted by William Anthony
Not as bad as those feet, I hope.

8/4/2008 12:35p Originally Posted by martin II
The fat toes represents what.

8/4/2008 12:37p Originally Posted by fbgweezer
OT --

8/4/2008 4:45p Originally Posted by martin II
Previously others had asked me if i knew the meaning of the fat toes.
Having no answer i asked you.imo

8/4/2008 5:24p Originally posted by fbgweezer
gosh that's pretty silly -- I guess it has the same meaning as the fat man in your avatar.

08-04-2008, 06:51 PM Originally Posted by martin II
Nope not the same at all. The man in my avatar is Mr Charlie Mingus a world famous musician. Now . what does those fat toes represent.

8/4/2008 6:51p Originally Posted by fbgweezer
never heard of him but I suppose you have him as your avatar because you want to. the same goes for the toes -- I want to.

8/4/2008 7:36p Originally Posted by martin II
Nope. I have him as a avatar because Charles was a respected world wide musician and a loved living hero to music lovers most every where. It is in memory of him and his music.imo It has nothing to do with fat toes.believe me.

8/4/2008 7:46p Originally Posted by fbgweezer
the point is martin you have a picture of a fat guy because you want to and I have a picture of fat toes because I want to.

8/4/2008 9:02p Originally Posted by martin II
Fact is that Charles lifted weights. So he was more muscle than fat.But since you never heard of him you would not know that.imo I think there would be many reasons why you would like those kind of toes.imo

8/6/2008 8:06a Originally Posted by William Anthony
Those toes seem to lift a lot of weight, imho.


Weezer
You should have posted all comments to be accurate.

So what does the fat toes represent ????

[William Anthony]

Weezer
You should have posted all comments to be accurate.

So what does the fat toes represent ????

Some prefer insult over accuracy, imho.

[tv]

tv

look. previously weezer asked me who the overweight man was in my avatar.
Do you consider that to be rude.I bet not.

martin, I don't recall being on the board for that remark just as I don't recall being around for the lips comment that William talks about. It wasn't so much a comment being made about weezer's avatar it was the childish way in which it was done.

[tv]

Really, tv, I stopped posting on this board last year because of all the insults back and forth. And how is it you know what I know about this case? And you are not opinionated about this case?

You can say "laugh out loud" and my using an image conveying the same thing is wrong because WHY?

I would like to hear about fbg's avatar and how special it is to her. I wasn't aware I was being rude and immature -- enlighten me!

I have no information with which to enlighten you. You've made the statement that the details of your personal tragedy are off-limits so perhaps the reason behind weezer's avatar is also.

I remember when you were posting here last year -- you gave as many insults as you received. I think your presence here now is to stir the pot but that's merely my opinion.

[tv]

TV
When the referance to slavery 40 acres and a mule comment was made by weezer, I expected to see you at least post OT.But that did not happen.

If I recall correctly, I didn't comment when you and William were on the toe bashing with weezer's avatar before either.

[WarmNCozy]

martin, I don't recall being on the board for that remark just as I don't recall being around for the lips comment that William talks about. It wasn't so much a comment being made about weezer's avatar it was the childish way in which it was done.

Amnesia for yourself, all others need to be PERFECT! If this nit picking continues, I for one will find another board to discuss this case or if I choose, read and not participate.

[martin II]

If I recall correctly, I didn't comment when you and William were on the toe bashing with weezer's avatar before either.

So, is it accurate that you thought weezers comment , "40 acres and a mule" associated with slavery was appropiate.

[tv]

Amnesia for yourself, all others need to be PERFECT! If this nit picking continues, I for one will find another board to discuss this case or if I choose, read and not participate.Wherever you go, I hope you find a way to mature.

[tv]

So, is it accurate that you thought weezers comment , "40 acres and a mule" associated with slavery was appropiate.

martin, please stop trying to drag me into discussions about race.

[martin II]

Wherever you go, I hope you find a way to mature.

It is my hope that Warmn cozy continues to give us adult contribution in this discussion. You can just say i dissagree.

[martin II]

martin, please stop trying to drag me into discussions about race.

Well then i will ask weezer to stop trying to drag the thread into discussions about race unless she is really interested in having one on the subject.

[martin II]

One of the jurors stated that the most difficult charge they dealth with was the conspiracy. It was the prosecutions claim that the consipracy was very evident based on the conversations between the group.Wonder why the jury had difficulty with it.

[WarmNCozy]

Wherever you go, I hope you find a way to mature.

This is not an insult? And all your insults instead of focusing on the case and the issues makes me immature!

Another insult!

That's all you and your OJ guilty posters can do! Drive people away! When the Jury rendered it's verdict NOT QUILTY!

How can I drive that point any further, the man did not kill Nicole and Ron.


I will get by the pettiness and I AM HERE FOR THE LONG HAUL! AND WILL CALL EVERYONE WHO IS PETTY AND HAS NOTHING TO ADD INTEllIGENTLY TO THIS CASE!

Foots, 40 mules, fat people, feet, fences, forget it all!

Let's talk about the case!

I'm not going away because of the personal fights which do not create an amicable debate!

[WarmNCozy]

Wherever you go, I hope you find a way to mature.

I'm here for the long haul to get off this board people like you who insult rather than contribute to this discussion. Your lousy comment made me rethink leaving this thread and all other threads related to OJ! Thank you for that, because I was quite frankly disgusted with the banter rather than the facts!

And I will use images rather than LOL and all the other things you use on this board, because that is my personality! Want to fight me over that?

[weezer]

One of the jurors stated that the most difficult charge they dealth with was the conspiracy. It was the prosecutions claim that the consipracy was very evident based on the conversations between the group.Wonder why the jury had difficulty with it.

difficulty with conspiracy charge for orenthal or stewart? I can see where with stewart but the tapes clearly show orenthal conspired.

[William Anthony]

If I recall correctly, I didn't comment when you and William were on the toe bashing with weezer's avatar before either.

I think you are right, which is why I thought that you had some new information about the sentimental value of the avatar. You didn't say anything, IIRC, when she falsely accused me of bringing porn to the board.

[William Anthony]

This is not an insult? And all your insults instead of focusing on the case and the issues makes me immature!

Another insult!

That's all you and your OJ guilty posters can do! Drive people away! When the Jury rendered it's verdict NOT QUILTY!

How can I drive that point any further, the man did not kill Nicole and Ron.


I will get by the pettiness and I AM HERE FOR THE LONG HAUL! AND WILL CALL EVERYONE WHO IS PETTY AND HAS NOTHING TO ADD INTEllIGENTLY TO THIS CASE!

Foots, 40 mules, fat people, feet, fences, forget it all!

Let's talk about the case!

I'm not going away because of the personal fights which do not create an amicable debate!

I second that emotion.

[martin II]

difficulty with conspiracy charge for orenthal or stewart? I can see where with stewart but the tapes clearly show orenthal conspired.

For both.


The conspiracy charge was the most difficult of all charges for them to prove
for both. If they had not convicted Stewart on conspiracy,they could not have convicted oj of conspiracy.

A juror stated that stewart was guilty of all charges because he carried a box of the stuff out of the hotel and away in his suv.That amounted to the 12 charges for him.

[weezer]

For both.


The conspiracy charge was the most difficult of all charges for them to prove
for both. If they had not convicted Stewart on conspiracy,they could not have convicted oj of conspiracy.

A juror stated that stewart was guilty of all charges because he carried a box of the stuff out of the hotel and away in his suv.That amounted to the 12 charges for him.

now that I think about it, I don't know why there would be trouble about the conspiracy part. on the tape before the robbery, orenthal makes the statement that 'he told CJ to get the boys together' and sure enough CJ did. I guess that's pretty much conspiracy.

[martin II]

1. The prosecution gave the other four guys probation to
get them to support their claims against oj and stewart.

2. The jury stated that they did not beleive any of those witnesses and their
testimony was not used to convict.

3 So the prosecution did not give the people of Nevada justice as far as the
four they let go is oncerned.

[William Anthony]

For both.


The conspiracy charge was the most difficult of all charges for them to prove
for both. If they had not convicted Stewart on conspiracy,they could not have convicted oj of conspiracy.

A juror stated that stewart was guilty of all charges because he carried a box of the stuff out of the hotel and away in his suv.That amounted to the 12 charges for him.

I think that you are correct in a general sense or in a sense as it applies to this case. I don't know the law in Nevada on conspiracy but in my state it takes two or more to conspire to commit a crime. Given the number of people charged, it is possible that Simpson could have conspired with another defendant and Stewart with another. I don't know, if there was a grand conspiracy and I know many find the idea of a grand conspiracy to be far fetched in some situations. I was not simply speaking of trials but the overall feeling that grand conspiracies are highly unlikely.

[martin II]

now that I think about it, I don't know why there would be trouble about the conspiracy part. on the tape before the robbery, orenthal makes the statement that 'he told CJ to get the boys together' and sure enough CJ did. I guess that's pretty much conspiracy.

Well that may just be because what you think you heard on the tapes was not given the same weight by the jury as you gave it. I think the two white guys and stewart were brought togeather by oj and stewart not CJ.
imo

[weezer]

1. The prosecution gave the other four guys probation to
get them to support their claims against oj and stewart.

2. The jury stated that they did not beleive any of those witnesses and their
testimony was not used to convict.

3 So the prosecution did not give the people of Nevada justice as far as the
four they let go is oncerned.

so there you have it. orenthal testified on tape and convicted himself. :shrug:

[weezer]

Well that may just be because what you think you heard on the tapes was not given the same weight by the jury as you gave it. I think the two white guys and stewart were brought togeather by oj and stewart not CJ.
imo

so you're thinking stewart and CJ aren't the same person?

[martin II]

I think that you are correct in a general sense or in a sense as it applies to this case. I don't know the law in Nevada on conspiracy but in my state it takes two or more to conspire to commit a crime. Given the number of people charged, it is possible that Simpson could have conspired with another defendant and Stewart with another. I don't know, if there was a grand conspiracy and I know many find the idea of a grand conspiracy to be far fetched in some situations. I was not simply speaking of trials but the overall feeling that grand conspiracies are highly unlikely.

We know oj talked to riccio, cj and alexander and stewart were friends with the two white guys.The conspiracy to commit armed robbery fell on everyone that was in the room when cj pulled the gun. everyone but Riccio as he sold the tape for his freedom.

[William Anthony]

The issue still remains as to whether or not those tapes were sufficiently authenticated for the purposes of admission. I think that may be the basis for the appeal on insufficient evidence. If the tapes were improperly admitted and the jury relied solely on them, then there is good grounds for a new trial, imho.

[martin II]

The issue still remains as to whether or not those tapes were sufficiently authenticated for the purposes of admission. I think that may be the basis for the appeal on insufficient evidence. If the tapes were improperly admitted and the jury relied solely on them, then there is good grounds for a new trial, imho.

Most jury members stated that they convicted based on the tapes.
They must have big ears based on the gobble gobble gobble i heard on the tapes. Both FBI agentes stated they could not confirm the authenticity of the tapes.The le detective stated that he was not able to recover three of the five deleted files on the hotel tape.

[William Anthony]

Most jury members stated that they convicted based on the tapes.
They must have big ears based on the gobble gobble gobble i heard on the tapes. Both FBI agentes stated they could not confirm the authenticity of the tapes.The le detective stated that he was not able to recover three of the five deleted files on the hotel tape.

They were determined. I tried listening to them and began reading until after they finished playing.

[martin II]

so you're thinking stewart and CJ aren't the same person?

Sorry i mean mcclinton in place of cj.

[weezer]

Most jury members stated that they convicted based on the tapes.
They must have big ears based on the gobble gobble gobble i heard on the tapes. Both FBI agentes stated they could not confirm the authenticity of the tapes.The le detective stated that he was not able to recover three of the five deleted files on the hotel tape.

well it looks like you and your co-hort are smarter than orenthal's and stewart's attorneys because they are citing the tapes in the appeal.

[martin II]

They were determined. I tried listening to them and began reading until after they finished playing.

Was the detective able to recover all of the riccio deleted files??

[martin II]

well it looks like you and your co-hort are smarter than orenthal's and stewart's attorneys because they are citing the tapes in the appeal.

Who would my co-hort be Weezer?

[William Anthony]

Was the detective able to recover all of the riccio deleted files??

I doubt it, if they were deleted. There are those who never seem to understand. The tapes may have be argued to have been inadmissible and the argument would then be, even if they were admissible, parts of them were insufficient to prove guilt. I guess that's just the lawyer in me.

[weezer]

Who would my co-hort be Weezer?

oh you know what? after reading my post in yours, I realize I had a typo. It should have read:

well it looks like you and your co-hort are smarter than orenthal's and stewart's attorneys because they aren't citing the tapes in the appeal.

[William Anthony]

Who would my co-hort be Weezer?

"Those who do not take the bait live longer"-posted by fbgweezer.

[weezer]

Was the detective able to recover all of the riccio deleted files??

I can hear orenthal saying "That's the only break I got in this whole thing!" :D

[martin II]

oh you know what? after reading my post in yours, I realize I had a typo. It should have read:

well it looks like you and your co-hort are smarter than orenthal's and stewart's attorneys because they aren't citing the tapes in the appeal.

Weezer
who would my co-hort be??

[William Anthony]

I don't know where some get their information but Stewart's lawyer said that the tapes were part of the reason for his motion for severance and that Galantar did not object to their admission. I do not see how you can appeal without citiing the severance issue. I would certainly like to see the appeal. Maybe, someone would be so kind as to post it for all the viewers or is this just a motion for a NEW TRIAL. Some may not understand the difference or the different statute of limitations that may apply to them.

[slipnslide]

I don't know where some get their information but Stewart's lawyer said that the tapes were part of the reason for his motion for severance and that Galantar did not object to their admission. I do not see how you can appeal without citiing the severance issue. I would certainly like to see the appeal. Maybe, someone would be so kind as to post it for all the viewers or is this just a motion for a NEW TRIAL. Some may not understand the difference or the different statute of limitations that may apply to them.

It sounds like you know the difference, perhaps you could inform us?

[William Anthony]

It sounds like you know the difference, perhaps you could inform us?

I am unfamiliar with Nevada law. However, in the general sense, there are times limits in which to file an appeal and times limits to file an appeal and there may be time limits related to the basis for the new trial. Other than that I cannot be more specific without researching the issue. Others can research it, if they would like.

[martin II]

William i found this.

(LAS VEGAS) O.J. Simpson's lawyers cited judicial errors and insufficient evidence Friday in seeking a new trial for the former football star, who was convicted of kidnapping and robbing two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a casino hotel room.

"Simpson should be granted a new trial," attorney Gabriel Grasso wrote in a motion faulting Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass' decisions during jury selection, her limitations on cross-examination of witnesses during trial and her instructions to jurors before deliberations.

In a separate filing, a lawyer for co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart said Stewart suffered from being tried with Simpson, who was acquitted more than a decade ago of killing his ex-wife and her friend. Attorney Brent Bryson also alleged misconduct by the jury foreman, whom he quoted as saying he thought Simpson should have been given a life sentence for murder.



If the foreman "believes that Mr. Simpson is a murderer, and that Mr. Stewart is associated with Mr. Simpson, that bias would spill over" and affect the juror's ability to be impartial, Bryson wrote.

Jury foreman Paul Connelly has made remarks disputing such an interpretation of his post-verdict comments.

In documents filed with Glass, Grasso and Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter also protested that the judge refused to grant enough time to fully review transcripts and videotapes of the trial, which led to guilty verdicts against Simpson and Stewart on Oct. 3.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/149768

[socaldiva]

This is also from Martin's link, I wonder why he didn't include this in his post?:

Simpson's motion for a new trial alleges Glass improperly allowed prosecutors to use pre-emptory challenges to remove two prospective black jurors before the final jury was seated.

[William Anthony]

William i found this.

(LAS VEGAS) O.J. Simpson's lawyers cited judicial errors and insufficient evidence Friday in seeking a new trial for the former football star, who was convicted of kidnapping and robbing two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a casino hotel room.

"Simpson should be granted a new trial," attorney Gabriel Grasso wrote in a motion faulting Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass' decisions during jury selection, her limitations on cross-examination of witnesses during trial and her instructions to jurors before deliberations.

In a separate filing, a lawyer for co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart said Stewart suffered from being tried with Simpson, who was acquitted more than a decade ago of killing his ex-wife and her friend. Attorney Brent Bryson also alleged misconduct by the jury foreman, whom he quoted as saying he thought Simpson should have been given a life sentence for murder.



If the foreman "believes that Mr. Simpson is a murderer, and that Mr. Stewart is associated with Mr. Simpson, that bias would spill over" and affect the juror's ability to be impartial, Bryson wrote.

Jury foreman Paul Connelly has made remarks disputing such an interpretation of his post-verdict comments.

In documents filed with Glass, Grasso and Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter also protested that the judge refused to grant enough time to fully review transcripts and videotapes of the trial, which led to guilty verdicts against Simpson and Stewart on Oct. 3.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/149768

Thanks. I read my above post and the second time I said time to file an appeal should have said motion for a new trial. I heard Galanter say that his appeal would happen 30 seconds after sentencing, which is what confused me. Perhaps, there has only been filed a request (pracipie, sp.) for a new trial filed at this point, which would simply state the general basis and later the more specific basis would be filed in the actual motion.

[martin II]

Thanks. I read my above post and the second time I said time to file an appeal should have said motion for a new trial. I heard Galanter say that his appeal would happen 30 seconds after sentencing, which is what confused me. Perhaps, there has only been filed a request (pracipie, sp.) for a new trial filed at this point, which would simply state the general basis and later the more specific basis would be filed in the actual motion.

I remember the comment about filing seconds after sentencing. Yesterday he also said he would file more specific charges later.

[William Anthony]

It sounds like you know the difference, perhaps you could inform us?

I have no actual experience in criminal law but do have it in civil suits. The only time that a motion for a new trial concerned me was in a federal discrimination cause of action. I do not recall the actual statute of limitations but I do recall that, IIRC, there was a year time limit for filing a motion for a new trial based on new found evidence, which included evidence that couldn't reasonably found during the trial. I have heard of cases in which convicts were granted new trials years later but I do think they were granted the new trial on appeal. I might be wrong and some states may allow for a motion for a new trial years later on some grounds. As I have said, I am unfamiliar with Nevada law. I was surprised to see the time constraint under Nevada law and the judge's refusal to allow some latitude on the time to file. I don't think Galanter would have asked, if the judge did not have discretion to allow the expansion. However, I may be wrong on that.

[William Anthony]

I have found this link in my research as to the questions posed to me. It states the grounds for a motion for new trial and an appeal. Additionally, what I found interesting was what was listed under accomplice witness testimony as to the sufficiency of collaborative evidence. Perhaps, the defense will raise this issue.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lkA4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=ground+for+a+motion+for+a+criminal+new+trial+un der+nevada+law&source=web&ots=tv12KHP3hi&sig=TwZi5VOXNnfsjfIE12ATQiYh14o#PPA855,M1

[martin II]

I have no actual experience in criminal law but do have it in civil suits. The only time that a motion for a new trial concerned me was in a federal discrimination cause of action. I do not recall the actual statute of limitations but I do recall that, IIRC, there was a year time limit for filing a motion for a new trial based on new found evidence, which included evidence that couldn't reasonably found during the trial. I have heard of cases in which convicts were granted new trials years later but I do think they were granted the new trial on appeal. I might be wrong and some states may allow for a motion for a new trial years later on some grounds. As I have said, I am unfamiliar with Nevada law. I was surprised to see the time constraint under Nevada law and the judge's refusal to allow some latitude on the time to file. I don't think Galanter would have asked, if the judge did not have discretion to allow the expansion. However, I may be wrong on that.

Why would the judge limit the time for a motion for a new trial to 7 days.
Is this the normal time for the defense to review all trial records?

[tv]

This is not an insult? And all your insults instead of focusing on the case and the issues makes me immature!

Another insult!

That's all you and your OJ guilty posters can do! Drive people away! When the Jury rendered it's verdict NOT QUILTY!

How can I drive that point any further, the man did not kill Nicole and Ron.


I will get by the pettiness and I AM HERE FOR THE LONG HAUL! AND WILL CALL EVERYONE WHO IS PETTY AND HAS NOTHING TO ADD INTEllIGENTLY TO THIS CASE!

Foots, 40 mules, fat people, feet, fences, forget it all!

Let's talk about the case!

I'm not going away because of the personal fights which do not create an amicable debate!

Whatever you want to do is fine with me. I haven't really seen you debate anything concerning this case. Mostly you just say OJ Simpson is innocent and don't add much else except to defend martin. Whatever your true agenda is here don't expect me to let your nonsense go unchallenged. It's been my experience that not all trolls are passing through -- some stay around for the long haul when they see they're making progress. You stated in another post that you were here to drive people like me off the board -- be advised that it's not going to happen. :)

Back to the case. Do you think OJ Simpson should have had any charges brought against him or do you think what happened was an acceptable way to retrieve the items in question?

[William Anthony]

Why would the judge limit the time for a motion for a new trial to 7 days.
Is this the normal time for the defense to review all trial records?

I think form what the article stated that was the law.

[William Anthony]

Whatever you want to do is fine with me. I haven't really seen you debate anything concerning this case. Mostly you just say OJ Simpson is innocent and don't add much else except to defend martin. Whatever your true agenda is here don't expect me to let your nonsense go unchallenged. It's been my experience that not all trolls are passing through -- some stay around for the long haul when they see they're making progress. You stated in another post that you were here to drive people like me off the board -- be advised that it's not going to happen. :)

Back to the case. Do you think OJ Simpson should have had any charges brought against him or do you think what happened was an acceptable way to retrieve the items in question?

I do not think that is was acceptable and based on the state of the law in Nevada, as I understand it, it was not lawful. However, the issues remain as to the caliber of the evidence admitted and were his due process rights abridged.

[tv]

I do not think that is was acceptable and based on the state of the law in Nevada, as I understand it, it was not lawful. However, the issues remain as to the caliber of the evidence admitted and were his due process rights abridged.

What do you mean by caliber of the evidence? Are you referring to the tapes and whether or not they should have come into evidence?

[William Anthony]

What do you mean by caliber of the evidence? Are you referring to the tapes and whether or not they should have come into evidence?

Yes, that is one of the issues surrounding the tapes. The other is the jury's statement that they relied solely on the tapes and dismissed the witnesses testimony. In doing research to answer the questions posted to me, the tapes must have undoubtedly been used as collaborative evidence of the witnesses testimonies, which under my understanding of Nevada law, could not be used to show the commission of a crime or the circumstances involved in the crime. I foresee an argument that the tapes were evidence in and of themselves and were not collaborative of the witnesses testimonies and were used for impeachment. However, the statements of the jurors loom large as they relied on what they heard on the tapes. It should be an interesting exercise of the law, if my understanding is correct.

[martin II]

Yes, that is one of the issues surrounding the tapes. The other is the jury's statement that they relied solely on the tapes and dismissed the witnesses testimony. In doing research to answer the questions posted to me, the tapes must have undoubtedly been used as collaborative evidence of the witnesses testimonies, which under my understanding of Nevada law, could not be used to show the commission of a crime or the circumstances involved in the crime. I foresee an argument that the tapes were evidence in and of themselves and were not collaborative of the witnesses testimonies and were used for impeachment. However, the statements of the jurors loom large as they relied on what they heard on the tapes. It should be an interesting exercise of the law, if my understanding is correct.

In the vegas trial the prosecution played various parts of the tapes for their witnesses to support the testimony of their witness. This was done in a effort to support the testimony of the witnesses on specific issues for the jury. It was like my witness is telling the truth because you hear what he is explaining on the tapes. However some witnesses made correcitons in who the prosecution said was talking that were not accurate.imo

[weezer]

What do you mean by caliber of the evidence? Are you referring to the tapes and whether or not they should have come into evidence?

I'm finding the discussion of the robbery evidence and this jury interesting. It seems that the ONLY trial where the jury was allowed to decide who and what they believed to come to their conclusion was the criminal trial -- not the civil trial and not this trial.

[tv]

In the vegas trial the prosecution played various parts of the tapes for their witnesses to support the testimony of their witness. This was done in a effort to support the testimony of the witnesses on specific issues for the jury. It was like my witness is telling the truth because you hear what he is explaining on the tapes. However some witnesses made correcitons in who the prosecution said was talking that were not accurate.imo

Tapes used as evidence can be very misleading, wouldn't you agree? :)

[martin II]

What do you mean by caliber of the evidence? Are you referring to the tapes and whether or not they should have come into evidence?

I think the caliber and quality of the tapes were such as to make it difficult to understand what was said and who said it. There is also the issue of what was origionally recorded on the portions of the tape (3-4 files) that had been deleted by someone.(Riccios tapes)
IMO

[tv]

I'm finding the discussion of the robbery evidence and this jury interesting. It seems that the ONLY trial where the jury was allowed to decide who and what they believed to come to their conclusion was the criminal trial -- not the civil trial and not this trial.

I've noticed that. For some reason, this all white jury is considered to be biased against the defendant by people that think Simpson committed no crime. I wonder why?

[weezer]

In the vegas trial the prosecution played various parts of the tapes for their witnesses to support the testimony of their witness. This was done in a effort to support the testimony of the witnesses on specific issues for the jury. It was like my witness is telling the truth because you hear what he is explaining on the tapes. However some witnesses made correcitons in who the prosecution said was talking that were not accurate.imo

ahhh but no one had to guess when it was orenthal speaking did they? and the defense also played the tapes to try to support their arguments/witnesses. the fact is, the jury (rightfully so) found orenthal james simpson GUILTY on all 12 counts.

[William Anthony]

In the vegas trial the prosecution played various parts of the tapes for their witnesses to support the testimony of their witness. This was done in a effort to support the testimony of the witnesses on specific issues for the jury. It was like my witness is telling the truth because you hear what he is explaining on the tapes. However some witnesses made correcitons in who the prosecution said was talking that were not accurate.imo

A very astute observation on your part, in which I did not know if others wanted to engage. That would be the counter argument that the prosecution used the tapes as conditional evidence in opening, not as a source of impeachment. There are theories that the case is won in opening and a counter theory that it is won in closing. The idea of primacy versus recentcy. I do not know which side of the concepts I favor but I do believe that first impressions may be the lasting one. The fact that the tapes were used in both ways may contribute to making the arguments more interesting.

[tv]

I think the caliber and quality of the tapes were such as to make it difficult to understand what was said and who said it. There is also the issue of what was origionally recorded on the portions of the tape (3-4 files) that had been deleted by someone.(Riccios tapes)
IMO

Was there any testimony that the tapes had been altered? I didn't see every minute of the trial.

[William Anthony]

I've noticed that. For some reason, this all white jury is considered to be biased against the defendant by people that think Simpson committed no crime. I wonder why?

I have not noticed that particular idea in any post but I could be wrong. I think that the idea that the exclusion of Blacks from the jury, was in regard to the historical analysis of the Batson challenge. I have stated that the jury verdict was correct based on the evidence admitted, imho. I would be interested in seeing the post or post, to which you refer.

[tv]

I have not noticed that particular idea in any post but I could be wrong. I think that the idea that the exclusion of Blacks from the jury, was in regard to the historical analysis of the Batson challenge. I have stated that the jury verdict was correct based on the evidence admitted, imho. I would be interested in seeing the post or post, to which you refer.

It wasn't any particular post just the impression I got. What I get that you're saying is that because blacks weren't on the jury he may not have gotten a fair trial. Isn't that the same thing as saying that an all white jury caused him to have an unfair trial?

[William Anthony]

Was there any testimony that the tapes had been altered? I didn't see every minute of the trial.

I am not sure but, during the parts I saw, I do not think they were properly authenticated. Another issue remains as to who wears the burden of proof as it relates to the tapes being altered, which I am not familiar with Nevada law.

[martin II]

Tapes used as evidence can be very misleading, wouldn't you agree? :)

That is what i am puzzeled by. The tapes, although not authenticated by the prosecutions FBI agent experts were entered/allowed into evidence by the judge.Correct?

If the jury used this tape as evidence to determine guilt, if they were misleading or not understandable/misleading, what does this mean.

When, say a picture is entered into evidence it must be autenticated as authentic by the side requesting that it be entered.Right.
Is there a differenct in the authentication requirement for a tape?
imo

[tv]

That is what i am puzzeled by. The tapes, although not authenticated by the prosecutions FBI agent experts were entered/allowed into evidence by the judge.Correct?

If the jury used this tape as evidence to determine guilt, if they were misleading or not understandable/misleading, what does this mean.

When, say a picture is entered into evidence it must be autenticated as authentic by the side requesting that it be entered.Right.
Is there a differenct in the authentication requirement for a tape?
imo

I don't know the answer to that but it's a good question. I think the tapes are genuine and complete without any alterations but that's my personal opinion.

Someone mentioned before that the defense also used the tapes. If they didn't think they were an accurate recording of everything that happened why did they use them? By using them they implied they felt they were valid, at least that's the way it appeared to me.

[weezer]

That is what i am puzzeled by. The tapes, although not authenticated by the prosecutions FBI agent experts were entered/allowed into evidence by the judge.Correct?

If the jury used this tape as evidence to determine guilt, if they were misleading or not understandable/misleading, what does this mean.

When, say a picture is entered into evidence it must be autenticated as authentic by the side requesting that it be entered.Right.
Is there a differenct in the authentication requirement for a tape?
imo

the tapes were accepted by the defense -- guess they didn't have a problem. or do you believe that the 12 jurors weren't capable of listening to the tapes and drawing their own references? just trying to understand your position -- not arguing with you.

[William Anthony]

It wasn't any particular post just the impression I got. What I get that you're saying is that because blacks weren't on the jury he may not have gotten a fair trial. Isn't that the same thing as saying that an all white jury caused him to have an unfair trial?

No, that is not what I was saying but I see how it might be interpreted that way. What I am saying relates to the concept of a jury of his peers and a feeling that Black jurors would tend to acquit Black defendant's simply because or their race, which led to the Batson challenge on the systematic exclusion of Blacks from juries. It is inherently unfair to make such an assumption and that only Whites are capable of administering justice against defendants. I think it has to do more with Black enfranchisement and due process as opposed to a prejudice against all White juries.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
Tapes used as evidence can be very misleading, wouldn't you agree?

Not, if they were properly authenticated, as was the case with the MF tapes. :)

[William Anthony]

I think the issues on these tapes will be whether or not they were properly admitted and whether or not they were used as collaborative evidence.

[martin II]

It wasn't any particular post just the impression I got. What I get that you're saying is that because blacks weren't on the jury he may not have gotten a fair trial. Isn't that the same thing as saying that an all white jury caused him to have an unfair trial?

I think the issue may be the way that the judge allowed the prosecution to toss the two black women from the jury.

Here is another issue that bothers me.

5 people but one man in particular shouted out some negative comments about oj as it related to being found not guilty.He was not answering the direct question put to him he just decided to shout this out in front of the other accpted jurors and they all hear his outburst. The defense requested that all had been effected by this, carry over effect, and asked for a new jury. the judge ruled against this request.

Next 5 jurors when along and not facing open court stated that they believe oj was murderer. got off etc in the criminal trial. This was when they were along filling out the jury form and imo more likely to give their true feelings

When in court in front of people and confronted with their statements,
the jusge simply asked can you put those opinions aside, they simply said yes
and the judge accepted them.
I think each should have been dismissed and other potential jurors brought in.
I think people are more likely to express their true feeling in private.

[tv]

No, that is not what I was saying but I see how it might be interpreted that way. What I am saying relates to the concept of a jury of his peers and a feeling that Black jurors would tend to acquit Black defendant's simply because or their race, which led to the Batson challenge on the systematic exclusion of Blacks from juries. It is inherently unfair to make such an assumption and that only Whites are capable of administering justice against defendants. I think it has to do more with Black enfranchisement and due process as opposed to a prejudice against all White juries.

William, as you know, I prefer not to wander down the road to racial issues but I will say that I don't think the two blacks were excluded for race. If race was the only reason I don't think just the two blacks would have made much of a difference. After all, that left 10 other non-black jurors. I'm trying to make sense and hope that I have.

[William Anthony]

I don't know the answer to that but it's a good question. I think the tapes are genuine and complete without any alterations but that's my personal opinion.

Someone mentioned before that the defense also used the tapes. If they didn't think they were an accurate recording of everything that happened why did they use them? By using them they implied they felt they were valid, at least that's the way it appeared to me.

I see your point but only one defense attorney did not object to their use.

[tv]

Not, if they were properly authenticated, as was the case with the MF tapes. :)

If the Vegas tapes weren't challenged in court by the defense I don't see how they can be used now for appeal. Now, William, why did you mention Detective Fuhrman?

[tv]

I see your point but only one defense attorney did not object to their use.

But why did they then use them?

[William Anthony]

William, as you know, I prefer not to wander down the road to racial issues but I will say that I don't think the two blacks were excluded for race. If race was the only reason I don't think just the two blacks would have made much of a difference. After all, that left 10 other non-black jurors. I'm trying to make sense and hope that I have.

I think that the prosecution will be allowed to argue the reason for the exclusion and the reason why the jury pool did not reflect the population. I think that Blacks on that jury would have reached the same verdict based on the law, which bolsters the argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial based on a jury of their peers and, as such, their due process rights were violated. Of course, there will be a counter argument. Which argument will be sustained remains to be seen. The point I am trying to make is not whether or not the two Blacks would have made a difference, which it does require a unanimous verdict for conviction, but whether or not they were given a chance to make a difference and whether this exclusion was fair in regard to the defenddants' rights to receive a fair trial.

[weezer]

I think the issue may be the way that the judge allowed the prosecution to toss the two black women from the jury.

Here is another issue that bothers me.

5 people but one man in particular shouted out some negative comments about oj as it related to being found not guilty.He was not answering the direct question put to him he just decided to shout this out in front of the other accpted jurors and they all hear his outburst. The defense requested that all had been effected by this, carry over effect, and asked for a new jury. the judge ruled against this request.

Next 5 jurors when along and not facing open court stated that they believe oj was murderer. got off etc in the criminal trial. This was when they were along filling out the jury form and imo more likely to give their true feelings

When in court in front of people and confronted with their statements,
the jusge simply asked can you put those opinions aside, they simply said yes
and the judge accepted them.
I think each should have been dismissed and other potential jurors brought in.
I think people are more likely to express their true feeling in private.

all of the potential jurors answered the questions and both sides then went through them.

I don't remember this but does anyone know if there was any such incidents with the criminal jurors? I mean, was anyone asked if they thought orenthal was guilty/not guilty of the murders?

[William Anthony]

But why did they then use them?

Because the judge admitted them into evidence. The issue was preserved on appeal. It is in the best interest of the client to point to evidence, within evidence admitted, that you think favors your client whether or not you think it should have been admitted. It is like saying that the defense should not have tested the evidence of spousal abuse, because they believed it should not have been admitted.

[tv]

I think that the prosecution will be allowed to argue the reason for the exclusion and the reason why the jury pool did not reflect the population. I think that Blacks on that jury would have reached the same verdict based on the law, which bolsters the argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial based on a jury of their peers and, as such, their due process rights were violated. Of course, there will be a counter argument. Which argument will be sustained remains to be seen. The point I am trying to make is not whether or not the two Blacks would have made a difference, which it does require a unanimous verdict for conviction, but whether or not they were given a chance to make a difference and whether this exclusion was fair in regard to the defenddants' rights to receive a fair trial.

Do you think they should have been included based on race alone?

[martin II]

the tapes were accepted by the defense -- guess they didn't have a problem. or do you believe that the 12 jurors weren't capable of listening to the tapes and drawing their own references? just trying to understand your position -- not arguing with you.

What i do remember is that when the prosecution played the tapes to support their witness on the stand both defense lawyers objected to the use of the tapes to do so.The judge overuled them on all instances.

So i am not sure the defense accepted the tapes being used in that manner.

The judge said the jury could draw their own conclusion of what was on the tapes, but the fbi experts could not authenticate the accuracy of the tapes.

The prosecution tried to use the detective to authenticate the Rizzio tapes
but even he admitted under cross that he was not a expert in this area and he admitted that the tapes had been altered/ 4 files deletred and he could not retrieve the deleted info.

So my question is, was the jury allowed to use unauthenticated tapes
to come to their conclusion?

[William Anthony]

I think that, if we are referring to the criminal trial, then it would have necessitated a question of whether or not they thought Simpson committed the murders and, if they could set their personal feelings aside and listen to the evidence. I accept the verdict in the armed robbery trial but do not understand why some cannot accept the verdict in the murder trial.

[weezer]

What i do remember is that when the prosecution played the tapes to support their witness on the stand both defense lawyers objected to the use of the tapes to do so.The judge overuled them on all instances.

So i am not sure the defense accepted the tapes being used in that manner.

The judge said the jury could draw their own conclusion of what was on the tapes, but the fbi experts could not authenticate the accuracy of the tapes.

The prosecution tried to use the detective to authenticate the Rizzio tapes
but even he admitted under cross that he was not a expert in this area and he admitted that the tapes had been altered/ 4 files deletred and he could not retrieve the deleted info.

So my question is, was the jury allowed to use unauthenticated tapes
to come to their conclusion?

is it your understanding that there were deleted portions on the tapes that were admitted?

[William Anthony]

Do you think they should have been included based on race alone?

I have posted on what I could find as the reasons articulated by the prosecution for their exclusion. The issue is not whether they should have been included because of their race. The issue is whether they were excluded, because of their race and whether the reasons articulated by the prosecution were sufficient to survive a Batson challenge.

[tv]

Because the judge admitted them into evidence. The issue was preserved on appeal. It is in the best interest of the client to point to evidence, within evidence admitted, that you think favors your client whether or not you think it should have been admitted. It is like saying that the defense should not have tested the evidence of spousal abuse, because they believed it should not have been admitted.I don't know -- to me it seems like if you use a piece of evidence you consider it to be authentic.

[weezer]

What i do remember is that when the prosecution played the tapes to support their witness on the stand both defense lawyers objected to the use of the tapes to do so.The judge overuled them on all instances.

So i am not sure the defense accepted the tapes being used in that manner.

The judge said the jury could draw their own conclusion of what was on the tapes, but the fbi experts could not authenticate the accuracy of the tapes.

The prosecution tried to use the detective to authenticate the Rizzio tapes
but even he admitted under cross that he was not a expert in this area and he admitted that the tapes had been altered/ 4 files deletred and he could not retrieve the deleted info.

So my question is, was the jury allowed to use unauthenticated tapes
to come to their conclusion?

I'm not sure how you are using the term "unauthenticated." the tapes were 'authenticated' by the person who made the tapes (riccio) -- so does that mean you question whether or not the tapes were doctored?

[tv]

I think that, if we are referring to the criminal trial, then it would have necessitated a question of whether or not they thought Simpson committed the murders and, if they could set their personal feelings aside and listen to the evidence. I accept the verdict in the armed robbery trial but do not understand why some cannot accept the verdict in the murder trial.I accept it -- I just don't agree with it.

[tv]

What i do remember is that when the prosecution played the tapes to support their witness on the stand both defense lawyers objected to the use of the tapes to do so.The judge overuled them on all instances.

So i am not sure the defense accepted the tapes being used in that manner.

The judge said the jury could draw their own conclusion of what was on the tapes, but the fbi experts could not authenticate the accuracy of the tapes.

The prosecution tried to use the detective to authenticate the Rizzio tapes
but even he admitted under cross that he was not a expert in this area and he admitted that the tapes had been altered/ 4 files deletred and he could not retrieve the deleted info.

So my question is, was the jury allowed to use unauthenticated tapes
to come to their conclusion?

The defense used them. If they didn't feel the jurors should consider them why use them?

[martin II]

Do you think they should have been included based on race alone?

I am not sure what the Baston sp requirements are on this issue but believe that it does go to the issue of nondiscrimination against jurors/defendants based on race and that the court should not allow unfair challanges to blacks based on their race. I also beleive that it requires that the judge do what is reasonable to insure a mixed jury when practical.

I take the position that it was unfair or illegal to reject the two black women because the prosecution thought they were too religious. How is the prosecution to determine who is too religious. would a fire and brimstone believer be too religious.What about a Budist or a Muslim that believes the sahira laws.

I also take the position that if the city clerk calls out people to serve on a jury, the respondants will be representative of the people in the zip code the mailing was sent to.

Example there were 500 potential jurors called of which only 50 were black.
So were there equal request sent to black and hispanic areas as to white?

imo

[susie31023]

No, that is not what I was saying but I see how it might be interpreted that way. What I am saying relates to the concept of a jury of his peers and a feeling that Black jurors would tend to acquit Black defendant's simply because or their race, which led to the Batson challenge on the systematic exclusion of Blacks from juries. It is inherently unfair to make such an assumption and that only Whites are capable of administering justice against defendants. I think it has to do more with Black enfranchisement and due process as opposed to a prejudice against all White juries.

William I am using your post to make one simple point, if I may. So please realize I am in no way arguing with you or anyone else. This is just an observation...When it's stated that a "jury of his peers", in my opinion it brings about one point. OJ is and was living a very affluent lifestyle. So in essence a jury of his peers to me means that said jurors should be in the same social status as OJ. Whether they be black, white or any other race. In the criminal trial I feel there was not the "jury of his peers". Whether you believe he is/was guilty or not. This goes for all trials not just OJ"s.

This post is only my opinion, right or wrong as to what a "jury of his peers" means..It is NOT meant to argue, incite, inflame or insult anyone on this board~Suz

[tv]

I have posted on what I could find as the reasons articulated by the prosecution for their exclusion. The issue is not whether they should have been included because of their race. The issue is whether they were excluded, because of their race and whether the reasons articulated by the prosecution were sufficient to survive a Batson challenge.

William, there were many other people excluded as jurors who were not black. I don't see any objections to their exclusion.

[tv]

I am not sure what the Baston sp requirements are on this issue but believe that it does go to the issue of nondiscrimination against jurors/defendants based on race and that the court should not allow unfair challanges to blacks based on their race. I also beleive that it requires that the judge do what is reasonable to insure a mixed jury when practical.

I take the position that it was unfair or illegal to reject the two black women because the prosecution thought they were too religious. How is the prosecution to determine who is too religious. would a fire and brimstone believer be too religious.What about a Budist or a Muslim that believes the sahira laws.

I also take the position that if the city clerk calls out people to serve on a jury, the respondants will be representative of the people in the zip code the mailing was sent to.

Example there were 500 potential jurors called of which only 50 were black.
So were there equal request sent to black and hispanic areas as to white?

imo

martin, I think jury selection is completely random but I'm not sure how they're selected in Nevada. I know both of my younger sons have been called more than once for jury duty and I never get called. That seems very random to me.

Also, do you know all the reasons white potential jurors were excluded? Is there a list somewhere I can look at?

[martin II]

The defense used them. If they didn't feel the jurors should consider them why use them?

The defense used them to impeach the prosecution witness to show that the prosecution transcript and witnesses was not accurate. i tihnk that may be a differance based on that i read in william link on navada law.

EXAMPLE; in one instance the prosecution transcript attributed a comment/tape voice 'Tell the truth don't lie to mcclinton.' undercross when mclinton listened to the tap he admitted that the voice was not his but ojs.
This to me means that the prosecution was trying to take this positive comment away from oj because it was helpful to him.imo

[William Anthony]

William I am using your post to make one simple point, if I may. So please realize I am in no way arguing with you or anyone else. This is just an observation...When it's stated that a "jury of his peers", in my opinion it brings about one point. OJ is and was living a very affluent lifestyle. So in essence a jury of his peers to me means that said jurors should be in the same social status as OJ. Whether they be black, white or any other race. In the criminal trial I feel there was not the "jury of his peers". Whether you believe he is/was guilty or not. This goes for all trials not just OJ"s.

This post is only my opinion, right or wrong as to what a "jury of his peers" means..It is NOT meant to argue, incite, inflame or insult anyone on this board~Suz

You broke your agreement-you are apologizing before making four other posts. :) I think that, if you were a Supreme Court judge, you would be a strict constructionist. I do not think that a jury of one's peers should be such a stringent standard. I think that it is to be reflective of the general populace of the venue in which the trial is held. I take no offense and am glad to see you posting. I understand what you are saying as to Black and White. Unfortunately, the law had to intercede in an attempt to eradicate the common misconception about Blacks as jurors. I understand your point but in choosing the jury it is the jurisdiction of the location of the trial that controls the selection of the jury, if I am making myself clear.

[martin II]

all of the potential jurors answered the questions and both sides then went through them.

I don't remember this but does anyone know if there was any such incidents with the criminal jurors? I mean, was anyone asked if they thought orenthal was guilty/not guilty of the murders?

I don't think the criminal jurors would have been asked that question as oj had not been found guilty in any trial.
I think the question would have been based on what you may have heard in the media can you only listen to this evisdence etc etc.

[William Anthony]

William, there were many other people excluded as jurors who were not black. I don't see any objections to their exclusion.

I will try to answer you with out involving race. White men have always been enfranchised in the jury selection process. The Batson challenge was put in place to ensure equal participation in trials and to ensure that Black defendants were not deprived of due process by having a jury of their peers.

[tv]

I will try to answer you with out involving race. White men have always been enfranchised in the jury selection process. The Batson challenge was put in place to ensure equal participation in trials and to ensure that Black defendants were not deprived of due process by having a jury of their peers.

I understand the Batson challenge. My question is if any of the white potential jurors were excluded for the same or similar reasons given for the exclusion of the two black women.

[susie31023]

You broke your agreement-you are apologizing before making four other posts. :) I think that, if you were a Supreme Court judge, you would be a strict constructionist. I do not think that a jury of one's peers should be such a stringent standard. I think that it is to be reflective of the general populace of the venue in which the trial is held. I take no offense and am glad to see you posting. I understand what you are saying as to Black and White. Unfortunately, the law had to intercede in an attempt to eradicate the common misconception about Blacks as jurors. I understand your point but in choosing the jury it is the jurisdiction of the location of the trial that controls the selection of the jury, if I am making myself clear.


:)Not apologizing just trying to make clear I wasn't attacking anyone, LOL...Now I do understand what you're saying about jurisdiction, but my point is that some in those jurisdiction"s may not have the knowledge of a particular area. For instance, Say a man or woman is on trial for domestic abuse. Now in some areas as hard as it is to believe that is a normal occurrence, so those persons selected may see nothing wrong in what the defendant did. Even though the laws are very clear on what constitutes abuse..Hence the verdict would not necessarily be a just one. If I am making myself clear, LOL...That was my point, hope I am making sense:D, it has been a long night , LOL

[martin II]

William I am using your post to make one simple point, if I may. So please realize I am in no way arguing with you or anyone else. This is just an observation...When it's stated that a "jury of his peers", in my opinion it brings about one point. OJ is and was living a very affluent lifestyle. So in essence a jury of his peers to me means that said jurors should be in the same social status as OJ. Whether they be black, white or any other race. In the criminal trial I feel there was not the "jury of his peers". Whether you believe he is/was guilty or not. This goes for all trials not just OJ"s.

This post is only my opinion, right or wrong as to what a "jury of his peers" means..It is NOT meant to argue, incite, inflame or insult anyone on this board~Suz

I would be illegal and very unpractical to choose jurors based only on education, financial, social status, and work.

Courts consider that a blind mailing to a number of normal people where the crime was commited, is the most accurate way to give the comminity a opportunity to judge the defendant as the objective is to get the opinion of a cross seciton of normal citizens.

I think the idea is that since the defendant lived amongst these citizens they are his peers.Brentwood is a part of la and i beleive jury request were sent to that area also.
If the court stuck to some strick measure, how would they have selected a jury of Charles Mansons peers. Or George Bush.

[tv]

I would be illegal and very unpractical to choose jurors based only on education, financial, social status, and work.

Courts consider that a blind mailing to a number of normal people where the crime was commited, is the most accurate way to give the comminity a opportunity to judge the defendant as the objective is to get the opinion of a cross seciton of normal citizens.

I think the idea is that since the defendant lived amongst these citizens they are his peers.Brentwood is a part of la and i beleive jury request were sent to that area also.
If the court stuck to some strick measure, how would they have selected a jury of Charles Mansons peers. Or George Bush.

martin, you're mistaken about jury requests to Brentwood. Brentwood is part of the Santa Monica district but this case was filed in downtown LA which doesn't include Brentwood. The case could have been tried downtown with a Santa Monica jury pool but this wasn't done because Gil Garcetti didn't do his homework and find out it was possible. OJ Simpson did not live among the jurors of the criminal trial -- so much for that objective.

[martin II]

:)Not apologizing just trying to make clear I wasn't attacking anyone, LOL...Now I do understand what you're saying about jurisdiction, but my point is that some in those jurisdiction"s may not have the knowledge of a particular area. For instance, Say a man or woman is on trial for domestic abuse. Now in some areas as hard as it is to believe that is a normal occurrence, so those persons selected may see nothing wrong in what the defendant did. Even though the laws are very clear on what constitutes abuse..Hence the verdict would not necessarily be a just one. If I am making myself clear, LOL...That was my point, hope I am making sense:D, it has been a long night , LOL

The court believe that if a defendant commited a crime in say zip codes 10002-10003 -10004. this crime was commited in these areas that contained a cross section of doctors,lawers indian chiefs , poor and rich.
The idea is that this cross section of people have had all kind of life experiences and the jury is asked to use their common sense or experiences in determining the truth.
And they are being to bring all of their life expernences in being jurors. not just people with one or tow type of experiences.
Abuse does not just happen in poor or rich communities.

I agree with this as i don't think something like abuse can be confined to any one or two zip codes.

If ojs jury had been made up of retired NFL rich Football players, living in a $2,000,000 house in brentwood and black, the possibility of them identifying with oj because of these like factors would have been great.
imo

[martin II]

William, there were many other people excluded as jurors who were not black. I don't see any objections to their exclusion.

TV

I think that the prosecution has to give a reason that meets the Baston requirements about race. If the prosecutions reason was that these two ladies were too religious and they happened to be black, this is nonsense
and is how blacks have been rejected by some judges in the past and is how and why the Baston requirement became in law.

[tv]

TV

I think that the prosecution has to give a reason that meets the Baston requirements about race. If the prosecutions reason was that these two ladies were too religious and they happened to be black, this is nonsense
and is how blacks have been rejected by some judges in the past and is how and why the Baston requirement became in law.

Are you saying that if a white woman and a black woman are both turned down for being too religious the prosecution has to prove they didn't exclude the black woman because of race?

[WarmNCozy]

The issue still remains as to whether or not those tapes were sufficiently authenticated for the purposes of admission. I think that may be the basis for the appeal on insufficient evidence. If the tapes were improperly admitted and the jury relied solely on them, then there is good grounds for a new trial, imho.

OJ's Alleged Robbery Audio

http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/18/o-j-s-alleged-robbery-audio/

[martin II]

martin, you're mistaken about jury requests to Brentwood. Brentwood is part of the Santa Monica district but this case was filed in downtown LA which doesn't include Brentwood. The case could have been tried downtown with a Santa Monica jury pool but this wasn't done because Gil Garcetti didn't do his homework and find out it was possible. OJ Simpson did not live among the jurors of the criminal trial -- so much for that objective.

OK
I was wrong if you say so.But i will check it.

Gill Garcetti knew quite well what could be done in Santa Monica.

It is my understanding that Garcetti moved the case to la because, a decision was made that the santa Monica court house was under construction/repair and would not be able to physically handle large crowds expected for the case and that the administrative support for the prosecutiion could be better handeled from the la office.

Also that the prosecution decided to go the gran jury routh to get a GJ indictment against oj and this was not avaliable in Santa Monica.

Actually i agree with the trial being held in la because la has a more diverse population and cross section of people where Santa Monica is made up on about 80% whites with a certain life style. LA would give a wider cross section of people with different life experiences and that is what is saught in most cases.

Example; The drunk cops that shot unarmed Mr Bell 50 times did so in Queens, one of the most diverse communities in America. Rather than be judges by their peers there they opted for a trial by judge. The judge acquitted all of them.

Three cops shot Dlabilo 40 times as he stood on his stoop. this happend in the Bronx where the population is tiled a little in favor of minorities but very diverse also. the cops got the trial moved to upstate to a mostly white commuinity and they were found not guilty.

[WarmNCozy]

The Movable Buffet: Dispatches from Las Vegas by Richard Abowitz

Could O.J. Simpson tapes be faked?
09:33 AM PT, Sep 18 2008
Today I am heading to the O.J. Simpson trial for the first time this week. I have seen a lot of the trial on television, as it is being covered in its entirety on cable in the Vegas area. I was especially interested in the testimony regarding the security cameras at the Palms, and how those "thousands" of cameras can follow a guest from the moment he enters the front door up until he enters his room. Also, there were some brief mentions of face-recognition software. But I did not catch them going into any details on this amazing technique and how it works. Attorneys on both sides offered that they wished to respect the Palms security protocols.

The other testimony that interested me was from the FBI audio experts (one in previously recorded video testimony) on the digital voice recorder used in the case to secretly tape the events that transpired. You can hear for yourself the evidence dubbed the Riccio tapes along with other evidence available on the Clark County site.

Anyway, Riccio and I both use an Olympus Digital Voice Recorder model VN -4100PC. As designed it is absolutely impossible to place altered recordings (or any recordings) back onto the recorder from a computer. You can only move them as recorded from the machine to a computer. But under questioning from experts, there seemed to be some confusion over whether some software (not supplied by Olympus) could be used or designed to allow this reverse process to happen. The attempt by the defense was to raise doubt about the authenticity of the tapes with the jurors. In fact, one defense lawyer challenged the authenticity of the tapes, claiming to detect manipulation. But a step has been skipped. So, I am curious if anyone reading this knows a way to place files from a computer back onto a VN-4100PC? I spent a few hours on the riddle yesterday and had no success. It will be interesting if the defense can go further and offer the jury someone connected with the case who could have had the computer know-how and the opportunity to alter the seven digital files in question. That could change the entire nature of the case.

http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2008/09/could-o-j-simps.html

[WarmNCozy]

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson/Simpson.html

Under Documents are the transcripts of the Riccio tapes.

[tv]

OK
I was wrong if you say so.But i will check it.

Gill Garcetti knew quite well what could be done in Santa Monica.

It is my understanding that Garcetti moved the case to la because, a decision was made that the santa Monica court house was under construction/repair and would not be able to physically handle large crowds expected for the case and that the administrative support for the prosecutiion could be better handeled from the la office.

Also that the prosecution decided to go the gran jury routh to get a GJ indictment against oj and this was not avaliable in Santa Monica.

Actually i agree with the trial being held in la because la has a more diverse population and cross section of people where Santa Monica is made up on about 80% whites with a certain life style. LA would give a wider cross section of people with different life experiences and that is what is saught in most cases.

Example; The drunk cops that shot unarmed Mr Bell 50 times did so in Queens, one of the most diverse communities in America. Rather than be judges by their peers there they opted for a trial by judge. The judge acquitted all of them.

Three cops shot Dlabilo 40 times as he stood on his stoop. this happend in the Bronx where the population is tiled a little in favor of minorities but very diverse also. the cops got the trial moved to upstate to a mostly white commuinity and they were found not guilty.

I don't know if Gil Garcetti really didn't know he could have a Santa Monica jury pool in downtown LA but he could. Your critical of GG so you should be able to believe he doesn't know everything.

The cases you described were unfair if they are as you stated them but I don't think having a jury pool from the district that OJ Simpson actually lived in would have been unfair. It's your opinion that a mostly white jury found the three cops not guilty because they're white but if that's so then wouldn't you agree that it works both ways?

[martin II]

Are you saying that if a white woman and a black woman are both turned down for being too religious the prosecution has to prove they didn't exclude the black woman because of race?

No i don't think that either should be turned down because of religion.
Was this the case.
Read the Baston Rule.

[martin II]

I don't know if Gil Garcetti really didn't know he could have a Santa Monica jury pool in downtown LA but he could. Your critical of GG so you should be able to believe he doesn't know everything.

The cases you described were unfair if they are as you stated them but I don't think having a jury pool from the district that OJ Simpson actually lived in would have been unfair. It's your opinion that a mostly white jury found the three cops not guilty because they're white but if that's so then wouldn't you agree that it works both ways?

Im my post i did not add , the trial was moved up state to what has been knows as a police favorable white conservative community. And that all acquitted. The civil trial was held in the bronk where the crime was commited and they all lost.

[martin II]

I don't know if Gil Garcetti really didn't know he could have a Santa Monica jury pool in downtown LA but he could. Your critical of GG so you should be able to believe he doesn't know everything.

The cases you described were unfair if they are as you stated them but I don't think having a jury pool from the district that OJ Simpson actually lived in would have been unfair. It's your opinion that a mostly white jury found the three cops not guilty because they're white but if that's so then wouldn't you agree that it works both ways?


Are you saying that when the case was moved to la, the jury could have been brought from another county to hear the case in LA.

[socaldiva]

Are you saying that when the case was moved to la, the jury could have been brought from another county to hear the case in LA.


I believe Santa Monica is in Los Angeles county.

[tv]

Are you saying that when the case was moved to la, the jury could have been brought from another county to hear the case in LA.

Santa Monica is the judicial district where the murders occurred. Gil Garcetti filed the case downtown for the reasons you stated. Gil Garcetti said he thought that once the grand jury heard the case downtown that it had to stay there. He was mistaken. The case could have been tried in the Santa Monica where the murders occurred. I misstated what I meant about the jury pool. I meant that a jury from the SM district could have been seated in SM even though the grand jury was held downtown. (sorry, I need sleep)

The potential Simpson jurors were selected using the Bullseye system which is a computer program used by LA County for all cases. It calculates the distance that jurors live from the courthouse and those living more than 20 miles from the courthouse are not contacted. They can live in a surrounding district as long as it's not more than 20 miles from the courthouse. I don't know if that system is still used but that's what was used at that time.

[tv]

I believe Santa Monica is in Los Angeles county.

Hi Diva! I researched it and it is. Santa Monica is in LA county but is a different judicial district than downtown LA. Nice to see you. :)