O.J. In The News Again

[weezer]

I'm waiting to see how orenthal's 'take it all' -- including cell phone and sunglasses -- can be transformed into a right of claim defense.

[weezer]

I guess I understand the idea of people being able to take back their own possessions, the whole idea that we let everyone decide how to go about getting it back scares me to death. I mean if someone in my house steals something and then I am home alone when the owner comes to get it - that is just scary. I would rather see an officer knock on my door in order to retrieve whatever was taken.

I'm with you! I don't see us going back to a time when we ruled by vigilante justice. Besides, isn't that what civil court is about?

[William Anthony]

I guess I understand the idea of people being able to take back their own possessions, the whole idea that we let everyone decide how to go about getting it back scares me to death. I mean if someone in my house steals something and then I am home alone when the owner comes to get it - that is just scary. I would rather see an officer knock on my door in order to retrieve whatever was taken.

I understand your point and that is what should happen in a perfect world, irrespective of the owner of the property, if LE does their job. However, in this case, the police and FBI, if we believe Riccio, failed to get involved, because the property allegedly belonged to Simpson. "Law without enforcement is a mockery."

[Redmama]

I understand your point and that is what should happen in a perfect world, irrespective of the owner of the property, if LE does their job. However, in this case, the police and FBI, if we believe Riccio, failed to get involved, because the property allegedly belonged to Simpson. "Law without enforcement is a mockery."

I understand, but people have to try a little harder to get them engaged than ask a friend mention it during a meting about another subject. Pick up the phone!

[William Anthony]

I think that Simpson could be heard saying to give back the cell phone and that he would leave the property that was not his at the front desk. The argument is therefore that he was trying to leave the room in order to deescalate
the situation and that there was no intent on his part to take any property that he reasonably believed was not his.

[Redmama]

I think that Simpson could be heard saying to give back the cell phone and that he would leave the property that was not his at the front desk. The argument is therefore that he was trying to leave the room in order to deescalate
the situation and that there was no intent on his part to take any property that he reasonably believed was not his.

Not sure if that was directed at me but pick up the phone meant pick up the phone and call LE yourself (OJ).

[William Anthony]

I understand, but people have to try a little harder to get them engaged than ask a friend mention it during a meting about another subject. Pick up the phone!

Under the claim of right defense, there was no legal requirement for him to pick up the phone. It may have been what we think is morally right to have been done. However, we do not make the laws-our legislatures do. That is an issue for the legislature and our expressing our collective opinions to them. This is why the law interests me, because until something strikes our interest, we are unaware of the great power the legislatures and the courts have.

[William Anthony]

Not sure if that was directed at me but pick up the phone meant pick up the phone and call LE yourself (OJ).

It was addressed to no one poster but it did not deal with your pick up the phone comment. My next post did. When I reread this it seemed harsh and was not intended to be. I should have said that I addressed your sentiments in the next post. Working on another midterm exam, smile.

[WarmNCozy]

You don't have to answer this publicly, you can pm me. What would you do if you were OJ? Appeal or request a new trial?

[William Anthony]

You don't have to answer this publicly, you can pm me. What would you do if you were OJ? Appeal or request a new trial?

Both and pray that they be granted

[William Anthony]

Interestingly, I have been asked to answer the question whether the Court addressed the ethical merits of homosexuals in the case of Desantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 608 F. 2d 327. I have to give a four page answer, when the answer is obvious, :).

[Redmama]

Under the claim of right defense, there was no legal requirement for him to pick up the phone. It may have been what we think is morally right to have been done. However, we do not make the laws-our legislatures do. That is an issue for the legislature and our expressing our collective opinions to them. This is why the law interests me, because until something strikes our interest, we are unaware of the great power the legislatures and the courts have.

Well if I have a vote - then it should be a legal requirement.

[William Anthony]

Well if I have a vote - then it should be a legal requirement.

I would vote with you but I don't think our two votes are enough and add to the bill that, once LE receives a report of illegal activity, they are not authorized to ignore the report, regardless of who sent it or who was allegedly involved in the illegal activity.

[weezer]

claim of right was not a defense to robbery in Nevada -- sounds to me like a moot issue when it comes to orenthal's armed robbery. I, for one, am perfectl willing to wait the time it takes for this (manufactured) defense to wind its way through the courts --- as long as orenthal sits in jail while it does. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

I see it as a travesty of justice to deprive anyone of their Constitutional rights, irrespective of my personal opinion of the incarcerated, because the same may one day happen to someone I believe should not be there.

[weezer]

there is no travesty of justice and orenthal certainly hasn't been deprived of anything. you have been touting this defense based on your interpretation of the case. If I understand the case correctly, the slaves were treated differently because they had been kidnapped. (not bought from another memorabilia dealer. not received in lieu of payment) THEY (the slaves) established claim of rights on themselves based on no one showing ownership.

[martin II]

I am quoting your post William I hope you don't mind..The question I asked wasn't so much a moral one but a legal one. IF the courts decide this law is unconsttutional then my point is that ALL of the criminals in prison who are there because of Burglary charges or armed robbery are entitled to a new trial..Simply because all they have to say is they believed the property they took was theirs.

That is the point I am making. Legally we are more advanced than some of the old laws. There was a time in our history that we did have vigilante justice but it has since been replaced by stricter laws. When you said If the items I took were yours then yes you would call the police that was what I was getting at. We can't have it both ways. Either it is against the law to commit these types of crimes or it isn't, we can not pick and choose when we think the laws are unconstitutional.

No one as far as I know thinks it is legal to go into anothers home/apartment/hotel room etc and force the persons there to remain while the robbers take what they deem as theirs. If they do then I am sorry to say that they will soon end up in prison for burglary/armed robbery.

As for the items I believe most would fall under the possession of the Goldman's because of the judgement they acquired against OJ. So therefore this should be a moot point since he in no way could believe most of the itema were his.

Would it have been ok for Mr. Glodman to enter the hotel room force everyone there to remain while he went through everything in the room to retrieve the items that were given under such a judgement? I believe the few here who think it was alright for OJ would not think it was alright for Mr. Goldman. Of course that is just my opinion and I am in no way inferring that you feel it was ok for anyone to act in this manner..JMO~Suz


Susie hi

Two issues

1. The items in question do not automatically belong to the Goldsmans. WHY.
Because when fred went to the CA judge requesting those items, The
judge ruled against him.The judge instructed freds lawyers that they had
to bring each item they were requesting and he would make a decision on
which one if any he would award to fred.Since the vegas Da was holding
the items for trial,fred has not been able to get his hands on the items as
yet. An example of the judges ruling is that fred requested that oj give
him that Roles watch.The judge ordered oj to bering the watch to
court.The judge examined it and sent the watch back to oj.

2. Many times states enact laws that they use to convict various defendants.
Many times when defendants appeal to the U.S. Supreme court, the court
has and does in some instances rule the state law unconctitutional for
various constitutional reasons.This causes the state legislature to rewrite
or ammend that law.This also happens with laws that congress writes.

So just because a state has a law, does not mean that it can always
stand up to constitutional challanges.

Some states, not nevada do recognize 'Right of Claim" as a defense.
imo

[martin II]

claim of right was not a defense to robbery in Nevada -- sounds to me like a moot issue when it comes to orenthal's armed robbery. I, for one, am perfectl willing to wait the time it takes for this (manufactured) defense to wind its way through the courts --- as long as orenthal sits in jail while it does. :tongue:

The constitution requires that bail be allowed for one reason. To ensure that defendant presents himself in court. This requires that defendant have acceptable roots in his community.
I see no reason why oj as others, should not be able to get bail waiting his appeal.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, there is some misunderstanding as to the ownership issue under the claim of right defense. True ownership does not have to be proven. What allows the defense, if successful, is that the person reasonably believed he had the right to retrieve his property and to use force is so doing. The slaves on the Amistad reasonably believed they had the right to act in the manner they did in order to return to their home land, property and live as free men. The slave owner reasonably believed, that he had the right to acquire assistance and use force in acquiring his property and the United States Supreme Court said he did. The Constitution says that all citizens are have the same fundamental/Constitutional rights that cannot be abridged without due process of law. Therefore, the question is whether there is precedent that Simpson's due process was violated, since the Story opinion said the slave owner's right was a fundamental one and that the slave was the same as any other merchandise, without due process, by not allowing the claim of right defense. I have provided another more current link from California. Any time any citizen is possibly deprived of his Constitutional rights, I consider that to be a travesty of justice. As it regards the murder of the kidnappers aboard the Amistad, there is the issue of jurisdiction as to where the murders were committed. That is for another discussion. The point is that there is precedent that Simpson's Constitutional rights might have been violated and it is an interesting discussion, imho and have found that some are willing to consider and discuss the issue.

[martin II]

Both and pray that they be granted

Gallanter must be able to get the appeal heard by the full court. Not the first one or first three.
I forgot the name for less than full court.

[William Anthony]

The constitution requires that bail be allowed for one reason. To ensure that defendant presents himself in court. This requires that defendant have acceptable roots in his community.
I see no reason why oj as others, should not be able to get bail waiting his appeal.

Additionally, he is one of the most recognizable figures in the world. Escape would be very unlikely.

[William Anthony]

Gallanter must be able to get the appeal heard by the full court. Not the first one or first three.
I forgot the name for less than full court.

I think the name of a less than full court is a tribunal. I am not sure what you mean by the first one or first three. The first appeal will probably occur in state court. However, if the should decided to use the Constitutional argument I have put forth, they could go straight to the Supreme Court asking them to grant a writ of Certiorari on the Constitutional question, IIRC.

[weezer]

Gallanter must be able to get the appeal heard by the full court. Not the first one or first three.
I forgot the name for less than full court.

half court? :tongue:

[weezer]

The constitution requires that bail be allowed for one reason. To ensure that defendant presents himself in court. This requires that defendant have acceptable roots in his community.
I see no reason why oj as others, should not be able to get bail waiting his appeal.

LOL -- and what acceptable roots do you believe orenthal has in nevada?

[William Anthony]

We've got a basketball player. Hope they don't like to shoot.:)

[William Anthony]

Does anyone think that LE had a ethical/moral/legal duty to investigate after receiving Riccio's report? I know the state and Government normally enjoys immunity from prosecution.

[Redmama]

Does anyone think that LE had a ethical/moral/legal duty to investigate after receiving Riccio's report? I know the state and Government normally enjoys immunity from prosecution.

Question - Did Riccio just ask or was there something more than that? I do totally believe that LE has a responsibility to investigate...so I'm not trying to bait, I just can't understand why OJ wouldn't have called himself even after Riccio told him they refused. Seems to me that is putting yourself in a very vulnerable position.

Another thought I had was isn't it legal to defend yourself if someone tresspasses on your property? I've heard of stories of people shooting someone breaking in their house and not being held responsible for murder. Just makes me think what would happen if people feeling they have the right to retrieve their property end up being shot by the owner.

If the law is that anyone can come into my home if they believe I have something that belongs to them, I'm buying a gun - and I'm actually pretty anti-guns - not for others, they just scare me to death - I've actually never even touched one.

[martin II]

half court? :tongue:


nope

[martin II]

Question - Did Riccio just ask or was there something more than that? I do totally believe that LE has a responsibility to investigate...so I'm not trying to bait, I just can't understand why OJ wouldn't have called himself even after Riccio told him they refused. Seems to me that is putting yourself in a very vulnerable position.

Another thought I had was isn't it legal to defend yourself if someone tresspasses on your property? I've heard of stories of people shooting someone breaking in their house and not being held responsible for murder. Just makes me think what would happen if people feeling they have the right to retrieve their property end up being shot by the owner.

If the law is that anyone can come into my home if they believe I have something that belongs to them, I'm buying a gun - and I'm actually pretty anti-guns - not for others, they just scare me to death - I've actually never even touched one.


bringing a gun into your house is a good way to get shot.

le

[martin II]

LOL -- and what acceptable roots do you believe orenthal has in nevada?

where he lives i believe is the standard BUT
He must meet the qualifications for Nevada as he was already granted bail before . Right.

[martin II]

Question - Did Riccio just ask or was there something more than that? I do totally believe that LE has a responsibility to investigate...so I'm not trying to bait, I just can't understand why OJ wouldn't have called himself even after Riccio told him they refused. Seems to me that is putting yourself in a very vulnerable position.

Another thought I had was isn't it legal to defend yourself if someone tresspasses on your property? I've heard of stories of people shooting someone breaking in their house and not being held responsible for murder. Just makes me think what would happen if people feeling they have the right to retrieve their property end up being shot by the owner.

If the law is that anyone can come into my home if they believe I have something that belongs to them, I'm buying a gun - and I'm actually pretty anti-guns - not for others, they just scare me to death - I've actually never even touched one.


i posted the details of Riccios meeting with the FBI on the issue.

[martin II]

half court? :tongue:

i think the term is IN BARD

if this is not correct i can look through some papers. later.

[martin II]

there is no travesty of justice and orenthal certainly hasn't been deprived of anything. you have been touting this defense based on your interpretation of the case. If I understand the case correctly, the slaves were treated differently because they had been kidnapped. (not bought from another memorabilia dealer. not received in lieu of payment) THEY (the slaves) established claim of rights on themselves based on no one showing ownership.

You sound like some people talking at the office water jug.
Court laws are much more complicated and can mean something totally different unless one is a lawyer.

[susie31023]

Does anyone happen to know when the items OJ thought were his were in actuality stolen? I appreciate everyone really trying to discuss the merits of this case without all of the insults I was reading for a while here. May I take a moment to personally thank each and every one of you for the rspect shown to each other over the last few days? It truly has been a pleasure posting with yall. Thank you all so very much~Suz

[weezer]

Does anyone happen to know when the items OJ thought were his were in actuality stolen? I appreciate everyone really trying to discuss the merits of this case without all of the insults I was reading for a while here. May I take a moment to personally thank each and every one of you for the rspect shown to each other over the last few days? It truly has been a pleasure posting with yall. Thank you all so very much~Suz

IIRC, orenthal was warned the night before that the stuff was going to be taken by court order. On the vegas tapes, fromong and orenthal actually talk (not on the same tape) about the night that they were ransacking Rockingham and taking it to friends, family, and storerooms in order to keep it out of the hands of the Goldmans. There has been a statement that one of the lawyers took the bentley as partial payment.

[susie31023]

IIRC, orenthal was warned the night before that the stuff was going to be taken by court order. On the vegas tapes, fromong and orenthal actually talk (not on the same tape) about the night that they were ransacking Rockingham and taking it to friends, family, and storerooms in order to keep it out of the hands of the Goldmans. There has been a statement that one of the lawyers took the bentley as partial payment.

Thank you FBG, So in essence it was never really "stolen" from OJ. Just taken and hidden from the courts who were overseeing the possessions which the Gldman's were asking for? Then it seems to me if it were never really stolen then the whole issue we have been discussing would be a moot point because it would seem as if the items at least needed to be stolen from someone in order to fall under the laws we have been debating as possibly unconstitutional. If my post doesn't make sense please forgive me have been at the docs all day and am just exhausted. ~Suz

[martin II]

IIRC, orenthal was warned the night before that the stuff was going to be taken by court order. On the vegas tapes, fromong and orenthal actually talk (not on the same tape) about the night that they were ransacking Rockingham and taking it to friends, family, and storerooms in order to keep it out of the hands of the Goldmans. There has been a statement that one of the lawyers took the bentley as partial payment.

To Be accurate. Not everything in ojs house was on the list complied by the judge and given to the Marshall. Items that had high monetary value were listed.I think it was about $400,000 worth of valuable that were taken.imo

[martin II]

Thank you FBG, So in essence it was never really "stolen" from OJ. Just taken and hidden from the courts who were overseeing the possessions which the Gldman's were asking for? Then it seems to me if it were never really stolen then the whole issue we have been discussing would be a moot point because it would seem as if the items at least needed to be stolen from someone in order to fall under the laws we have been debating as possibly unconstitutional. If my post doesn't make sense please forgive me have been at the docs all day and am just exhausted. ~Suz

Fumong and Besdsley testified that Mike stole the items in the room from ojs trophy room. So i am not sure it is correct to conclude they there were not
stolen.So the issue is not mute.imo

[susie31023]

Fumong and Besdsley testified that Mike stole the items in the room from ojs trophy room. So i am not sure it is correct to conclude they there were not
stolen.So the issue is not mute.imo

Thank you Martin. Do you know when they were stolen" and where the actual trophy room was? I am just wondering if there was ever a police report file anywhere on these stolen items. If so then yes I could see a reasonable defense for an appeal, if they weren't and it had been many many years since they were stolen then in my opinion the appeal doesn't stand much of a chance. just my opinion though~Suz

[tv]

Fumong and Besdsley testified that Mike stole the items in the room from ojs trophy room. So i am not sure it is correct to conclude they there were not
stolen.So the issue is not mute.imo

Where was Simpson when all this stealing was going on? As controlling and meticulous as he was about his house I can't see anything going on he didn't know about. On top of that, he trusted Mike Gilbert enough to let him take a lot of things away to keep it from getting confiscated. Mike Gilbert stated on Dr. Phil that there are still storage units full of stuff. Did Fromong and Beardsley testify they witnessed Mike Gilbert taking the things from the trophy room without Simpson's permission? As I said before, I missed some parts of the trial.

[tv]

bringing a gun into your house is a good way to get shot.

le

Someone else bringing a gun into your house to look for their 'stuff' is a good way to get shot too.

[tv]

Does anyone happen to know when the items OJ thought were his were in actuality stolen? I appreciate everyone really trying to discuss the merits of this case without all of the insults I was reading for a while here. May I take a moment to personally thank each and every one of you for the rspect shown to each other over the last few days? It truly has been a pleasure posting with yall. Thank you all so very much~Suz
Thank you for your comments, Susie. As weezer has said before -- we are a dysfunctional bunch. :tongue: I think everyone realized it was time to take a breath. :)

[Redmama]

i posted the details of Riccios meeting with the FBI on the issue.

I knew I'd finally get one of these emails telling me to refer back to something - I think that makes me a REAL poster - how cool!

[Redmama]

Thank you Martin. Do you know when they were stolen" and where the actual trophy room was? I am just wondering if there was ever a police report file anywhere on these stolen items. If so then yes I could see a reasonable defense for an appeal, if they weren't and it had been many many years since they were stolen then in my opinion the appeal doesn't stand much of a chance. just my opinion though~Suz

Really great question susie = you think like i do - or the other way around....

[Redmama]

Someone else bringing a gun into your house to look for their 'stuff' is a good way to get shot too.

Thank you tvdinner - nice to know somebody thinks like me!

[tv]

I knew I'd finally get one of these emails telling me to refer back to something - I think that makes me a REAL poster - how cool!Redmama -- you've been a real poster since you first joined us but be careful -- it can be very addicting! :D

[susie31023]

Thank you tvdinner - nice to know somebody thinks like me!

I think we all three think alike, hehehehe~Suz

[William Anthony]

Question - Did Riccio just ask or was there something more than that? I do totally believe that LE has a responsibility to investigate...so I'm not trying to bait, I just can't understand why OJ wouldn't have called himself even after Riccio told him they refused. Seems to me that is putting yourself in a very vulnerable position.

Another thought I had was isn't it legal to defend yourself if someone tresspasses on your property? I've heard of stories of people shooting someone breaking in their house and not being held responsible for murder. Just makes me think what would happen if people feeling they have the right to retrieve their property end up being shot by the owner.

If the law is that anyone can come into my home if they believe I have something that belongs to them, I'm buying a gun - and I'm actually pretty anti-guns - not for others, they just scare me to death - I've actually never even touched one.

Yes, the law is conflicting and confusing, which adds to the adversarial nature of trials, not to mention some of the rulings, :).

[William Anthony]

i think the term is IN BARD

if this is not correct i can look through some papers. later.

En Banc means all the judges.

[William Anthony]

Thank you FBG, So in essence it was never really "stolen" from OJ. Just taken and hidden from the courts who were overseeing the possessions which the Gldman's were asking for? Then it seems to me if it were never really stolen then the whole issue we have been discussing would be a moot point because it would seem as if the items at least needed to be stolen from someone in order to fall under the laws we have been debating as possibly unconstitutional. If my post doesn't make sense please forgive me have been at the docs all day and am just exhausted. ~Suz

You think too pragmatically to be a lawyer.:) The issue would not be moot, because Simpson was denied the opportunity to show that he reasonably believed, which according to the law could have been a mistaken belief, the property was his and did this denial deprive him of his Constitutional right. The question then of the credibility of his defense should have been considered by the jury. Under the claim of right defense, it does not matter if the property was actually stolen, only that the person reasonably believed the property was his. Thanks for your interest in the topic as well as keeping discussions civil. I think this is an excellent opportunity for all of us to learn.

[martin II]

En Banc means all the judges.

Thanks william
this is what oj needs.imo

[William Anthony]

Thanks william
this is what oj needs.imo

I think he needs more than that.

[martin II]

Thank you Martin. Do you know when they were stolen" and where the actual trophy room was? I am just wondering if there was ever a police report file anywhere on these stolen items. If so then yes I could see a reasonable defense for an appeal, if they weren't and it had been many many years since they were stolen then in my opinion the appeal doesn't stand much of a chance. just my opinion though~Suz

The thrpohy room was in the area of the back office and the living room.Mike had eccess to ojs house when he was in jail and other times
i have no idea as to when items were stolen and it does not matter if they were reported stolen at that time.
Since no one has been able to show proof that they baught the items, then it is reasonabls to believe that oj is the only owner. I don't know what the appeal will be based on.But do not believe it will be only on the issue of oj ownership.

Please note that although from one time or another Fromong said mike too i and i baught it he was never able to show any receipt of having done so.

[Kate Sachel]

Does anyone think that LE had a ethical/moral/legal duty to investigate after receiving Riccio's report? I know the state and Government normally enjoys immunity from prosecution.

I do, yes.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Thank you Martin. Do you know when they were stolen" and where the actual trophy room was? I am just wondering if there was ever a police report file anywhere on these stolen items. If so then yes I could see a reasonable defense for an appeal, if they weren't and it had been many many years since they were stolen then in my opinion the appeal doesn't stand much of a chance. just my opinion though~Suz

I found this. It seems that Riccio had a history or dealing in stolen property and the jury could take this into consideration, if a new trial should be given, as to why the alleged dealers contacted him and why Simpson could have reasonably believed the property was his. A report could not have been filed by Simpson until he had the knowledge that his property was stolen. Riccio allegedly made that report. I understand what you are saying. However, there are several arguments that could have been made each way. It's just that darn lawyer striving to get out thing, smile.

http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=53&id=42724

[William Anthony]

I do, yes.

Kate

Thank you. In the event that they had done their duty, then this whole situation may not have occurred as it did. This is not to excuse or explain Simpson's conduct. I just think that their inaction should be considered as a mitigating circumstance and maybe considered in the sentencing phase.

[martin II]

Thank you. In the event that they had done their duty, then this whole situation may not have occurred as it did. This is not to excuse or explain Simpson's conduct. I just think that their inaction should be considered as a mitigating circumstance and maybe considered in the sentencing phase.

That is if the judge allowed the jury to do this and the jury were willing to consider something that could be in ojs favor.

[martin II]

I found this. It seems that Riccio had a history or dealing in stolen property and the jury could take this into consideration, if a new trial should be given, as to why the alleged dealers contacted him and why Simpson could have reasonably believed the property was his. A report could not have been filed by Simpson until he had the knowledge that his property was stolen. Riccio allegedly made that report. I understand what you are saying. However, there are several arguments that could have been made each way. It's just that darn lawyer striving to get out thing, smile.

http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=53&id=42724

Beadsley contacted Rizzio to inform him that he had ojs goods for sale.Beadsley constantly informed Rizzio that he did not want oj to be informed. This was enough to tell Rizzio that somethig was not Kosher with this proposed transaction. my opinion is that Rizzio having been involved in stolen goods before, thought he would try to play it straight this time.This led him to inform the FBI about the stolen goods.

[tv]

Thank you. In the event that they had done their duty, then this whole situation may not have occurred as it did. This is not to excuse or explain Simpson's conduct. I just think that their inaction should be considered as a mitigating circumstance and maybe considered in the sentencing phase.

There's always someone else to blame when OJ Simpson screws up. This time it's LE. He is a grown man -- if LE didn't respond to Riccio then he should have contacted them himself. I also hear that IF Nicole hadn't come to the door with a knife she'd still be alive. Poor OJ is never left with a choice, is he?

[William Anthony]

There's always someone else to blame when OJ Simpson screws up. This time it's LE. He is a grown man -- if LE didn't respond to Riccio then he should have contacted them himself. I also hear that IF Nicole hadn't come to the door with a knife she'd still be alive. Poor OJ is never left with a choice, is he?

I will assume that I failed to make myself clear. I did not absolve Simpson from his conduct. I do not think that who made the call makes the difference as to LE's ethical/moral/legal duty. My point is that it should be considered in the sentencing phase and, in the unlikely event of a new trial, it should be stressed. It would appear that the brotherhood has a nationwide membership and negative feelings after California LE were placed on trial entered into the decision not to investigate, because it was Simpson

[William Anthony]

Beadsley contacted Rizzio to inform him that he had ojs goods for sale.Beadsley constantly informed Rizzio that he did not want oj to be informed. This was enough to tell Rizzio that somethig was not Kosher with this proposed transaction. my opinion is that Rizzio having been involved in stolen goods before, thought he would try to play it straight this time.This led him to inform the FBI about the stolen goods.

I think a reasonable inference can be drawn that Riccio was not penitentiary material, by his escape, which lends credibility to your opinion.

[tv]

I will assume that I failed to make myself clear. I did not absolve Simpson from his conduct. I do not think that who made the call makes the difference as to LE's ethical/moral/legal duty. My point is that it should be considered in the sentencing phase and, in the unlikely event of a new trial, it should be stressed. It would appear that the brotherhood has a nationwide membership and negative feelings after California LE were placed on trial entered into the decision not to investigate, because it was Simpson

What brotherhood are you referring to? Please be clear.

[William Anthony]

What brotherhood are you referring to? Please be clear.

The Fraternal Order of Police.

[tv]

How true. All these situations happen around Simpson that he has no control over.:rolleyes: He just happens to be in the middle.:rolleyes: Like LV. WHERE HE WAS CONVICTED.

Exactly, JB. The poor guy is just reacting to the bad things that happen to him. Who can really blame him for anything?

[martin II]

There's always someone else to blame when OJ Simpson screws up. This time it's LE. He is a grown man -- if LE didn't respond to Riccio then he should have contacted them himself. I also hear that IF Nicole hadn't come to the door with a knife she'd still be alive. Poor OJ is never left with a choice, is he?

Riccio testified that he informed the Fbi because he had a scheduled meeting with them and it was done with oj approval.Riccio was the one that knew who had the goods not oj.

If there is blame to be put on others then it should be done. Oj was not the only one with bad behavior in this issue unless you prefer to continue to wear those blinders. hahaha:cool:

[William Anthony]

Exactly, JB. The poor guy is just reacting to the bad things that happen to him. Who can really blame him for anything?

I am not saying that his conduct was legally, morally or ethically correct. what I am saying is that I do not believe LE's was either. I believe that, if LE had taken on their responsibility, the situation would not have transpired as it did. Setting all that aside, under Nevada law simpsons committed a crime, a verdict of guilty was rendered. Now, the questions remain are whether or not his Constitutional rights were violated during the process of trial and were there any clearly erroneous harmful errors of law committed in the trial.

[tv]

I am not saying that his conduct was legally, morally or ethically correct. what I am saying is that I do not believe LE's was either. I believe that, if LE had taken on their responsibility, the situation would not have transpired as it did. Setting all that aside, under Nevada law simpsons committed a crime, a verdict of guilty was rendered. Now, the questions remain are whether or not his Constitutional rights were violated during the process of trial and were there any clearly erroneous harmful errors of law committed in the trial.

And I'm still saying there is always someone else to blame. Why can't he just be guilty of committing a crime or of bad behavior without someone always saying he's guilty BUT...

[martin II]

Exactly, JB. The poor guy is just reacting to the bad things that happen to him. Who can really blame him for anything?

Well with some it may be that le and the da is always 100% correct and defendants are always 100% guilty as charged.

[William Anthony]

And I'm still saying there is always someone else to blame. Why can't he just be guilty of committing a crime or of bad behavior without someone always saying he's guilty BUT...

No one is saying he's not. I choose to look at the overall picture rather than the snap shot. There is no exception to his guilt. There are mitigating and aggravating circumstances that the law allows in courts. I am simply saying that should the Court decide his Constitutional rights were violated and a new trial ordered that those mitigating circumstances should be stressed.

[tv]

Well with some it may be that le and the da is always 100% correct and defendants are always 100% guilty as charged.
Of course I don't think 100% of defendants are guilty as charged. The problem with Simpson is that the evidence was there in both cases so the only way for his supporters to explain away what the evidence shows is to blame LE for some grand conspiracy. It's business as usual except this time there are no Faye Resnicks or Jason Simpson's to blame. I'm sure the defense will be looking hard for a Mark Fuhrman though.

[William Anthony]

Of course I don't think 100% of defendants are guilty as charged. The problem with Simpson is that the evidence was there in both cases so the only way for his supporters to explain away what the evidence shows is to blame LE for some grand conspiracy. It's business as usual except this time there are no Faye Resnicks or Jason Simpson's to blame. I'm sure the defense will be looking hard for a Mark Fuhrman though.

I think they have asserted there was a MF in this trial.

[tv]

Riccio testified that he informed the Fbi because he had a scheduled meeting with them and it was done with oj approval.Riccio was the one that knew who had the goods not oj.

If there is blame to be put on others then it should be done. Oj was not the only one with bad behavior in this issue unless you prefer to continue to wear those blinders. hahaha:cool:

You're the one wearing blinders. He is the leader of this fiasco but you refuse to see that he's incapable of functioning in a normal society without committing criminal acts. If Riccio reported it to the FBI with Simpson's approval then why are you so down on Riccio? Not that it matters since he can't be touched. hahaha

[tv]

I think they have asserted there was a MF in this trial.Of course.

[tv]

Oh yeah. Life for Simspon can be such a BIT**. At least, let's hope he finally receives justice from Nevada. No golf. Poor OJ. All these years since his wife was murdered he's been able to golf. Poor OJ.

You're bringing me to tears, JB. :o

[William Anthony]

You're the one wearing blinders. He is the leader of this fiasco but you refuse to see that he's incapable of functioning in a normal society without committing criminal acts. If Riccio reported it to the FBI with Simpson's approval then why are you so down on Riccio? Not that it matters since he can't be touched. hahaha

Yes, Riccio is free to traffic in more stolen property. Let's hope he doesn't do it with property that belongs to those we know or love. We may look at things differently if that was to happen.

[tv]

The Fraternal Order of Police.

Thank you.

[William Anthony]

Thank you.

You are very welcome.

[martin II]

Of course I don't think 100% of defendants are guilty as charged. The problem with Simpson is that the evidence was there in both cases so the only way for his supporters to explain away what the evidence shows is to blame LE for some grand conspiracy. It's business as usual except this time there are no Faye Resnicks or Jason Simpson's to blame. I'm sure the defense will be looking hard for a Mark Fuhrman though.


After the criminal trial Cochran was tied with the prosecution as the ones most responsible for the not guilty verdict.

I guess some believe the jury should have just ignoed the prosecutions failures and found oj guilty as that is what the public wanted.
martin II

[tv]

After the criminal trial Cochran was tied with the prosecution as the ones most responsible for the not guilty verdict.

I guess some believe the jury should have just ignoed the prosecutions failures and found oj guilty as that is what the public wanted.
martin II

And some believe he should be able to do anything he wants without consequences. Up until now that's worked for him but all good things must come to an end.

[tv]

It's such a sad situation isn't it. poor OJ. All those golf courses out there. Never to know his brilliance.They'll probably let him play it on X-box. ;)

[martin II]

You're the one wearing blinders. He is the leader of this fiasco but you refuse to see that he's incapable of functioning in a normal society without committing criminal acts. If Riccio reported it to the FBI with Simpson's approval then why are you so down on Riccio? Not that it matters since he can't be touched. hahaha

I am not down on Riccio just reporting on what he did.Riccio was the master conspiritor of the whole event. He created interest by both parties in the stuff, made the arrangements for both parties to come togeather. Rented the room where the crime took place and physically brought both parties togeateher. He may have made illegal tapes but the prosecution is not concerned with this issue as they have their target in jail.

After learing that oj was the real target of the DA, he gave up his tapes and escaped any charges for any of his actions.

Question;
if the jury stated they did not find any of the prosecutions witnesses truthful
as tryers of the facts, will the judge consider the jurors opinions when it comes time to issue sentence those prosecution witnesses. Will she ignore the opinions of the jury and give them probation or will she give them sentances as provided by law?

[William Anthony]

And some believe he should be able to do anything he wants without consequences. Up until now that's worked for him but all good things must come to an end.

I think that issue will be decided upon the exhaustion of his appellate process. Every goodbye is not gone. :)

[tv]

It's an interesting thought. I am OJ Simpson. Who? It's my turn. Who? I am OJ Simpson. It's my turn. Who?

Yep, I'm picturing it. :D

[William Anthony]

I am not down on Riccio just reporting on what he did.Riccio was the master conspiritor of the whole event. He created interest by both parties in the stuff, made the arrangements for both parties to come togeather. Rented the room where the crime took place and physically brought both parties togeateher. He may have made illegal tapes but the prosecution is not concerned with this issue as they have their target in jail.

After learing that oj was the real target of the DA, he gave up his tapes and escaped any charges for any of his actions.

Question;
if the jury stated they did not find any of the prosecutions witnesses truthful
as tryers of the facts, will the judge consider the jurors opinions when it comes time to issue sentence those prosecution witnesses. Will she ignore the opinions of the jury and give them probation or will she give them sentances as provided by law?

While the issue of credibility may be linked to veracity, it is not the same and I do not think that will enter into the judge's decision as to the plea bargain arrangements. Excellent question!

[tv]

I think that issue will be decided upon the exhaustion of his appellate process. Every goodbye is not gone. :)I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him walk free. It's make no difference to me because I don't think he's going to receive justice for killing Ron and Nicole until he exits this life.

[William Anthony]

Yep, I'm picturing it. :D

Have you started the party without me, drinking that light colored rum? :)

[William Anthony]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him walk free. It's make no difference to me because I don't think he's going to receive justice for killing Ron and Nicole until he exits this life.

I can not judge him innocent or guilty and only God now can, imho. In the chance that he is innocent, may he find solace in the scripture that says God will put no more upon us than we can bear.

[tv]

Have you started the party without me, drinking that light colored rum? :)

Of course not, but the party's on the other thread. :)

[tv]

I can not judge him innocent or guilty and only God now can, imho. In the chance that he is innocent, may he find solace in the scripture that says God will put no more upon us than we can bear.

You don't say but I feel that you know that chance is slim to none.

[William Anthony]

You don't say but I feel that you know that chance is slim to none.

That is because I am not God.

[martin II]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him walk free. It's make no difference to me because I don't think he's going to receive justice for killing Ron and Nicole until he exits this life.

very very unlikely.But we never know.

[William Anthony]

I am Simpson
set me free
they may do to you
what they did to me.

[William Anthony]

I found this interesting.

http://www.mywire.com/a/AP/OJ-Simpson-seeks-new-robbery/7795439

"Galanter said he and Simpson believe that jury foreman, Paul Connelly, intimated that he thought Simpson should have been imprisoned 13 years ago in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.
"He should not have been on that jury," said Galanter, who also cited the foreman's comment that he kept jurors deliberating for 13 hours into the night because he feared one of them might suffer some mishap on the way home and be unable to return. "

[WarmNCozy]

I am Simpson
set me free
they may do to you
what they did to me.
Ahmen!

[WarmNCozy]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Good%20Night/thSweetDreamPup-1.gif

I'm indulging in my present to my self tonight, the "Sex and the City Complete Series", and going nightly thru at least one or two episodes. Truly a drastic and complete change of reading and viewing material. But it's like when I worked on Wall Street and went to Battery Park at lunch and had a hot dog with sauerkraut, and orange soda, and hid a copy of National Enquirer behind a copy of the Wall Street Journal!

What will happen to Carrie tonight?

[William Anthony]

Ahmen!

I wonder if the jury foreman put all the jurors up in hotel rooms or did his concern for them wane after they provided the verdict.

[weezer]

Goldman wins court order on O.J. Simpson NFL ring

"Ronald Slates, the attorney who has represented Simpson in his battles with Goldman, told Rosenberg he has no idea where the ring is. He asked that he not be held responsible if Simpson does dispose of it, saying he is no longer in touch with him."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/17/america/NA-US-OJ-Simpson-Ring.php

LOL

[weezer]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/15/oj.simpson/index.html?iref=newssearch

Simpson says he and alleged victim agree incident overblown

notice the date of the article

[William Anthony]

I think the jury foreman's actions, if the statements are true, may be another reason for granting a mistrial. The argument is that he was predisposed, because he felt Simpson guilty of murder, and, therefore, used pressure on the that particular jury to reach a verdict he favored, as he was afraid of what an alternate juror may think in the event a juror had to be replaced and was worried about, which of the alternates may be selected and placed on the jury. I saw the portion of the interview, when he was asked why he was selected and he said that he was the only one who remained standing. I think there have been some studies as to the perception of those in a conversation, who are seated, while talking to someone who is standing.

[weezer]

orenthal's attorneys did not object to the tapes -- don't know how they could appeal on that now. stewart's lawyer did object.

[weezer]

46 minute jury press conference

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9127650#

very different when you hear the whole thing and is obvious that the juror was not giving his opinion on the criminal trial.

[martin II]

46 minute jury press conference

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9127650#

very different when you hear the whole thing and is obvious that the juror was not giving his opinion on the criminal trial.


He gave it during jury questions.

[weezer]

He gave it during jury questions.

the question was whether or not the juror made statements AFTER the trial that proved him predisposed to find orenthal guilty. the audio of the interview proves that he was being honest and there was nothing in what he said to show otherwise.

[William Anthony]

The questions are did the statement evidence bias and was there evidence to reasonably infer that the bias influenced the jury.

[martin II]

the question was whether or not the juror made statements AFTER the trial that proved him predisposed to find orenthal guilty. the audio of the interview proves that he was being honest and there was nothing in what he said to show otherwise.

The question is did he ever state bias against oj , the answer is YES. 4 others did also.

[weezer]

The question is did he ever state bias against oj , the answer is YES. 4 others did also.

didn't happen.

[William Anthony]

The question is did he ever state bias against oj , the answer is YES. 4 others did also.

I wonder what the burden of proof will be on the jury issues.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link I found that states that on objection the party objecting must specifically state the words due process to preserve the objection for federal review. if true, I find this particularly alarming for all citizens. It seems to me to be saying that your Constitutional rights may be violated simply because your lawyer failed to assert the specific words even though he objected. I don't remember if any lawyer in the Simpson case, other than the issue of the jurors excluded, ever raised a due process argument, or, if they did, said the words due process. I see this as a not so subtle way of taking away a fundamental right. Regardless of how you feel about Simpson, I wonder how you feel about the ruling, if true?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4073646/Mantra-Motion

[William Anthony]

In researching Duncan v. Henry, I found this.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/765/case.html

I think it becomes hard to justify a Batson challenge given this ruling. How does one determine, if the reason given for the exclusion is, pretextual or genuine, if you can't focus on the reasonableness of the reason given?

[William Anthony]

I also found this link sustaining the Duncan ruling.

http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Howell.htm#Introduction

It would seem that, if Simpson's defense failed to raise the issue of the claim of right defense not allowed as unconstitutional and a violation of due process, they have lost that opportunity on appeal. I am interested in knowing if a due process objection was raised during the trial.

[William Anthony]

I also found this case, with these words.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=01a0026p

"This case is governed by provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (April 24, 1996), since Simpson filed his habeas petition after the effective date of AEDPA. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27, 337 (1997). The relevant provisions of AEDPA state:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. � 2254(d) (1996).

Courts have differed as to their interpretation of "unreasonable application" as it appears in � 2254(d)(1). Put simply, federal courts are bound by a state court's determination of a petitioner's claims, unless the decision by the state court involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Franklin v. Francis, 144 F.3d 429, 433 (6th Cir. 1998). Various courts disagreed as to the standard to apply to determine whether a state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. In Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000), the Supreme Court resolved this conflict. The Court stated that "a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable." Ibid. Stated differently, "a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id. at 1523. The Court noted that the term "unreasonable" is "no doubt difficult to define," but the Court did not expound on the word's meaning in this context, instead stating that "it is a common term in the legal world, and, accordingly, federal judges are familiar with its meaning." Id. at 1522.

I think the argument can be made on that basis. However, since reasonableness has never been defined, it would be hard to determine how the justices might decide.

[martin II]

Dr Phil was accused of the same thing in the N Hollaway case show.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/22/dr.phil.sued.ap/index.html

[tv]

Dr Phil was accused of the same thing in the N Hollaway case show.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/22/dr.phil.sued.ap/index.html
martin, are you defending Riccio?

[martin II]

martin, are you defending Riccio?

Nope just posting what Riccio has accused Phil of is the same thing phil was accused of in the Hollaway case. Altering interview tapes.You do remember that claim made by the guy that made that tape. right?

[tv]

Nope just posting what Riccio has accused Phil of is the same thing phil was accused of in the Hollaway case. Altering interview tapes.You do remember that claim made by the guy that made that tape. right?

Yes I do. I like Dr. Phil but I think Riccio may be right. We know where he stands on what happened in Vegas so it's not likely he would change his story for the show.

[martin II]

Yes I do. I like Dr. Phil but I think Riccio may be right. We know where he stands on what happened in Vegas so it's not likely he would change his story for the show.

Riccio is saying that Phil changed the words Ricci said to phil when they taped the show and the on air show was different.

[Redmama]

Riccio is saying that Phil changed the words Ricci said to phil when they taped the show and the on air show was different.

I believe that thing can be cut out of a show or put in a diffeent order to make it out of context, which could be very misleading...but changing someone's actual words, I don't think so.

[martin II]

The lawsuit claims defamation, fraud, emotional distress and being portrayed in a false light.

Riccio said that on the show he was referred to as "the shady deal maker," "a puppet master who would sell his soul for a coin" and "the ring leader of this crime."

He said that during the show, McGraw falsely claimed that Riccio "set O.J. Simpson up and told people to bring guns into the room."

Riccio said his denial of those statements and his claim that he is anti-gun were edited out and replaced with a shot of him nodding his head as if in agreement with the host.


"Had plaintiff been aware of defendants' intent and their intended actions, he would not have agreed to do the interview," the lawsuit stated.

[William Anthony]

The lawsuit claims defamation, fraud, emotional distress and being portrayed in a false light.

Riccio said that on the show he was referred to as "the shady deal maker," "a puppet master who would sell his soul for a coin" and "the ring leader of this crime."

He said that during the show, McGraw falsely claimed that Riccio "set O.J. Simpson up and told people to bring guns into the room."

Riccio said his denial of those statements and his claim that he is anti-gun were edited out and replaced with a shot of him nodding his head as if in agreement with the host.


"Had plaintiff been aware of defendants' intent and their intended actions, he would not have agreed to do the interview," the lawsuit stated.

I can understand why, in his line of work, he would be anti-gun.

[weezer]

Goldman Wins Court Order on O.J. Simpson NFL Ring

October 17, 2008

SANTA MONICA -- O.J. Simpson lost another court battle while sitting in a Nevada jail.

Attorneys for Fred Goldman were in a California court Friday to try to retrieve an NFL Hall of Fame ring they believe is worth as much as $50,000.

Goldman's attorneys believe the ring was given by Simpson to one of the memorabilia dealers he was convicted of robbing at a Las Vegas hotel.

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart were convicted Oct. 3 of 12 charges, including armed robbery and kidnapping, after a hotel room confrontation last year with memorabilia dealers. They face up to life in prison at sentencing Dec. 5.

On Friday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg ordered Simpson not to dispose of the ring until they can find it.

Rosenberg also ordered memorabilia dealer Alfred Beardsley to appear on Nov. 19 and produce the ring.

Goldman is the father of Ron Goldman, who was slain with Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in 1994.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but the Goldman family won a multimillion-dollar civil wrongful death judgment against him. Most of it remains unpaid.

[Kate Sachel]

Goldman Wins Court Order on O.J. Simpson NFL Ring

October 17, 2008

SANTA MONICA -- O.J. Simpson lost another court battle while sitting in a Nevada jail.

Attorneys for Fred Goldman were in a California court Friday to try to retrieve an NFL Hall of Fame ring they believe is worth as much as $50,000.

Goldman's attorneys believe the ring was given by Simpson to one of the memorabilia dealers he was convicted of robbing at a Las Vegas hotel.

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart were convicted Oct. 3 of 12 charges, including armed robbery and kidnapping, after a hotel room confrontation last year with memorabilia dealers. They face up to life in prison at sentencing Dec. 5.

On Friday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg ordered Simpson not to dispose of the ring until they can find it.

Rosenberg also ordered memorabilia dealer Alfred Beardsley to appear on Nov. 19 and produce the ring.

Goldman is the father of Ron Goldman, who was slain with Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in 1994.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but the Goldman family won a multimillion-dollar civil wrongful death judgment against him. Most of it remains unpaid.

I very much doubt that the ring will ever be produced.

Kate

[weezer]

I very much doubt that the ring will ever be produced.

Kate

me either but I do believe his freedom would be worth the price of the ring to him.

there was discussion on the conversation between arnelle and orenthal from jail when he tells her that he's talked to beardsley and that beardsley agrees with orenthal's version of what happened and that if beardsley changes his story, then that would be half of the charges dropped. he then instructs arnelle to get in touch with beardsley. tells her to get something from the drawer of the nightstand and if it's not there, to ask christy because christy knows where 'it' is.

[weezer]

excellent link to article on the leading up to and publishing of the confession book.

http://www.confessionsofthekiller.com/interception.html

you know, of course, this is one of my favorite parts:

". . . LBA eventually received $663,000 in advance payments for “If I Did It.” Of this sum, $630,000 went to Simpson. Most of the remainder, only about $33,000, was used to pay Starke, and it was also used to purchase a Lincoln Navigator for Simpson’s daughter from a prior marriage, Arnelle Simpson, who was the ostensible president of LBA. Arnelle later testified that the Navigator had been leased by O.J. When the lease expired, they decided to buy it for Arnelle, using LBA’s funds. Some of LBA’s money was also used to pay Arnelle’s cell phone bills. When LBA finally filed for bankruptcy, it only had about $300.

[William Anthony]

I think Simpson may have been looking for the match to that magical sock. :)

[tv]

Goldman Wins Court Order on O.J. Simpson NFL Ring

October 17, 2008

SANTA MONICA -- O.J. Simpson lost another court battle while sitting in a Nevada jail.

Attorneys for Fred Goldman were in a California court Friday to try to retrieve an NFL Hall of Fame ring they believe is worth as much as $50,000.

Goldman's attorneys believe the ring was given by Simpson to one of the memorabilia dealers he was convicted of robbing at a Las Vegas hotel.

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart were convicted Oct. 3 of 12 charges, including armed robbery and kidnapping, after a hotel room confrontation last year with memorabilia dealers. They face up to life in prison at sentencing Dec. 5.

On Friday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg ordered Simpson not to dispose of the ring until they can find it.

Rosenberg also ordered memorabilia dealer Alfred Beardsley to appear on Nov. 19 and produce the ring.

Goldman is the father of Ron Goldman, who was slain with Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in 1994.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but the Goldman family won a multimillion-dollar civil wrongful death judgment against him. Most of it remains unpaid.

When Mike Gilbert was on Dr. Phil with the Goldman's he said he knew what Simpson was looking for in the Vegas incident but he never said what it was. I thought it might be the ring but if he gave the ring to Beardsley in exchange for him changing his story then Simpson must have had the ring all the time. Wonder what MG was referring to?

[martin II]

When Mike Gilbert was on Dr. Phil with the Goldman's he said he knew what Simpson was looking for in the Vegas incident but he never said what it was. I thought it might be the ring but if he gave the ring to Beardsley in exchange for him changing his story then Simpson must have had the ring all the time. Wonder what MG was referring to?

A carton of cigaretts? As far as we know.

[William Anthony]

A carton of cigaretts? As far as we know.

Rum, bourbon balls, pineapple upside down cake, sweet potato souffle, pecan pie or cheesecake.

[tv]

A carton of cigaretts? As far as we know.

I didn't know OJ Simpson smoked cigarettes.

[tv]

Rum, bourbon balls, pineapple upside down cake, sweet potato souffle, pecan pie or cheesecake.

Then he was looking in the wrong place.

[weezer]

When Mike Gilbert was on Dr. Phil with the Goldman's he said he knew what Simpson was looking for in the Vegas incident but he never said what it was. I thought it might be the ring but if he gave the ring to Beardsley in exchange for him changing his story then Simpson must have had the ring all the time. Wonder what MG was referring to?

I don't think he had it with him but I do think he sent someone to get it and take it to vegas to beardsley. the fact that beardsley hung around vegas after the robbery when he knew he wasn't suppose to be there and was in jeopardy of being in real trouble with LE could only mean that he was waiting around for something. imo

[William Anthony]

Who would want to remain in Vegas with all that rum, bourbon balls, pineapple upside down cake, sweet potato souffle, pecan pie or cheesecake?

[tv]

I don't think he had it with him but I do think he sent someone to get it and take it to vegas to beardsley. the fact that beardsley hung around vegas after the robbery when he knew he wasn't suppose to be there and was in jeopardy of being in real trouble with LE could only mean that he was waiting around for something. imoI think you might be right -- I hadn't thought of that. I have believed all along that there is more to this story.

[wind149]

Iwas whooping for joy when I heard the verdicts! The jury had a task at hand and no matter what spin his lawyers tried, they found him guilty of the Vegas charges which was what they were supposed to do, Now, we don't know what was going through their minds, I would guess they were thinking of Nicole and Ron's decapitated bodies, they are human, but they concentrated on the kidnap and robbery charges, they heard all of the evidence, and what sunk OJ's boat is his big mouth! We all know damm well he was not going to try to buy back his stuff as he claims it was stolen from him, he was going there to rip those guys off and they had the presence of mind, they knew who they were dealing with, a double murderer to tape record the whole ordeal and we all clearly heard him on those tapes and had they not done that, there would have been no case, so it was himself that put his sorry azz in prison and it will be a substantial sentence, the judge was clearly not impressed with him!

I whooped when she remanded him, probably thinking about the "famous Bronco chase" that he would bolt, and on December 5th I will actually drink a cocktail and watch him go down in flames. I would imagine Fred Goldman will have a smile on his face for the first time in 14 years, they did not get him for his son's murder, but I think that as long as OJ goes away for at least 20 years, the man will finally have some peace and closure and he surely deserves it and the Browns can also have some kind of closure as well. People have been sick to death of this total asswipe, instead of fading away out of the spotlight after he gets aquitted, he runs his mouth about "finding the real killer" to that book, I have never read it, but my sister did and she said she actually had to look under her bed to see if OJ was under it, it scared the piss right out of her, she said it was a confession if she ever heard one! I also was pleased to see his lawyers look like they got hit hard in the guts, I think they thought they were gonna ride the gravy train through the streets of Vegas, bragging on they were the second set of lawyers to get OJ off, and there was no celebration at the Venitan that night, OJ was put back in jail and they sit with the wind right out of their sails, probably wishing they had not taken the case because they too, looked like total fools and watch OJ not pay them because they did not get him off, he is that sleazy.

And his sister's little act did nothing to impress anyone either. I know his lawyers are gonna appeal, but I asked a lawyer I know if he stood a chance on an appeal and his answer was, not a chance. The jury has spoken and on December 5th, the judge will represent the people and hand down the sentence. And lastly, why did I not know that race was gonna be brought into this? It always seems to with this scumbag, the jury was white, big deal, if "Hector Sanchez" was facing the same fate, would his lawyer try to seat an all Hispanic jury? NO! And of course the payback thing, I knew that was coming before the trial started and it is pathetic at best. OJ is finally going to face reality, I would imagine that in prison as to a county jail, he will not be well liked by anyone except for maybe some low-life black dudes, he will have to face white gang members who will really hate him, he murdered two white people and tried to harm some white men, he will have to sleep with one eye open or face life in PC. He will not be catered to like he was in the LA County jail, he will not be able to have meals sent in, he will have to eat the same slop everyone else has to, he will not have a TV in his cell, he will have to go to the rec room like everyone else, he will have to abide by the same rules and why do I think he is gonna be a pain in the azz to the CO's?? He will try to run his usual cocky attitude and CO"S will not tolerate it, he will try to run "Hey I am the Juice" and he will be taken down in spades. I will look forward to hearing him whine and snivel, his money will mean nothing, he has no prestige now, he will be just another piece of dog crap in a cage.

[William Anthony]

It seems that, after our recent attempts at cordiality and civility, some are moving to curtail our efforts with verbose posts full of hatred and racial overtones that are applauded. I think the rather loquacious post speaking of low life black dudes, being the only one to befriend Simpson and mixing in events pertaining to the murder trial does more to give credibility to the payback theory and diminish the armed robbery verdict that could be stated in an appeal.

If we take a look at the races of all, who were involved in the Vegas incident, I think that we will find that Simpson did not use race as a factor in determining his relationships. Personally, I do not like the words low life. I will say people that have no respect for the law. Given this clarification, it seems clear to me that Simpson had associations with both Blacks and Whites who had no respect for the law, or at least until they were caught breaking it. I feel that some, who have been incarcerated, be they Black or White, will form associations with him. He certainly formed associations with Whites, while he was free. I refuse to take the cynical and stereotypical view that the only reasons Whites associated with him were due to his fame and fortune. I rely on the fact that many have said he was charming and personable. I feel that less hatred and more RAPP is called for. I think I will look for some sweets as the above two posts have left a sour taste in my mouth.

[William Anthony]

Simpson was found guilty and he is in jail. We would not want our hatreds and biases cause us to make irrational statements, imho. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Careful, hatred and bias may make us appear childish, fanatical, irrational and unwise. ;):cool:

[tv]

Careful, hatred and bias may make us appear childish, fanatical, irrational and unwise. ;):cool:Perhaps this will apply the next time Detective Fuhrman is mentioned. :);)

[William Anthony]

Perhaps this will apply the next time Detective Fuhrman is mentioned. :);)

I have no problem with MF being given his proper labels, as supported by the evidence, convicted perjurer, admitted racist and evidence planter/manipulator/fabricator/interracial couple hater and corrupt officer, just as I have no problem with Simpson receiving his proper labels, he has been found liable for causing the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and battery upon Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and he has been found guilty of armed robbery and is in jail. I think it is one thing to speak the truth as supported by the evidence and quite another to distort it by saying Simpson is going to jail, when he is already there. I think it would be accurate to say that Simpson will be going to the penitentiary, as supported by the evidence. My point is that when you speak accurately, as supported by the evidence, it is hard for one to conclude that you are biased or irrational or acting childish. It is when you distort what is supported by the evidence that you may appear childish, irrational and fanatical. ;):cool: Sometimes hatred and bias may cause someone not to see the obvious, smile.

[William Anthony]

I am happy to see that a poster has amended his complaint to state that Simpson has been found guilty. However, that is not the portion that needed revision. To say that one was found guilty means they are guilty. To say that one is going to jail when they are in jail distorts the facts, imho, and may show a fanatical, childish and irrational view that might be caused by bias and hatred, imho.

[tv]

I am happy to see that a poster has amended his complaint to state that Simpson has been found guilty. However, that is not the portion that needed revision. To say that one was found guilty means they are guilty. To say that one is going to jail when they are in jail distorts the facts, imho, and may show a fanatical, childish and irrational view that might be caused by bias and hatred, imho.

I think it's clear what JB meant and you must remember we live in different countries and our word usage is not always the same. Just yesterday I had to ask him about the conversion of stones to pounds. I see no reason for JB to revise his post.

BTW, you left out convicted wife batterer when you were listing Simpson's rap sheet.

[William Anthony]

I think it's clear what JB meant and you must remember we live in different countries and our word usage is not always the same. Just yesterday I had to ask him about the conversion of stones to pounds. I see no reason for JB to revise his post.

BTW, you left out convicted wife batterer when you were listing Simpson's rap sheet.

Let me be quick to add convicted wife batterer. I don't think that the definition for the words, is and penitentiary, are any different in Australia than in America, although I could be wrong. Let me reiterate that bias and hatred may cause you to overlook the obvious. With that said, I think it is time for me to check out the RAPP. ;):cool:

[tv]

Let me be quick to add convicted wife batterer. I don't think that the definition for the words, is and penitentiary, are any different in Australia than in America, although I could be wrong. Let me reiterate that bias and hatred may cause you to overlook the obvious. With that said, I think it is time for me to check out the RAPP. ;):cool:

William, if the only thing you can find wrong with JB's post is that he said jail instead of prison or penitentiary then please enjoy yourself in the RAPP thread. I think you may be suffering from low blood sugar this morning.

[William Anthony]

William, if the only thing you can find wrong with JB's post is that he said jail instead of prison or penitentiary then please enjoy yourself in the RAPP thread. I think you may be suffering from low blood sugar this morning.

Let me reiterate that what I took umbrage with was the approval that Simpson would only be befriended by "low life black dudes". I pointed to the part of the post saying Simpson "was going to jail" as to the accuracy of the statement and considered the possibility that the inaccuracy may have been motivated by bias and hatred. The continued posting of the inaccuracy only caused me to issue an advisement that it may make the poster seem irrational, childish and fanatical. I can understand, if you do not agree with my caution. I simply think posts need to be as accurate as possible and need not contain any sentiments that might be misconstrued as being racially discriminatory. I hope you will agree.

[tv]

Let me reiterate that what I took umbrage with was the approval that Simpson would only be befriended by "low life black dudes". I pointed to the part of the post saying Simpson "was going to jail" as to the accuracy of the statement and considered the possibility that the inaccuracy may have been motivated by bias and hatred. The continued posting of the inaccuracy only caused me to issue an advisement that it may make the poster seem irrational, childish and fanatical. I can understand, if you do not agree with my caution. I simply think posts need to be as accurate as possible and need not contain any sentiments that might be misconstrued as being racially discriminatory. I hope you will agree.

I'm not going to answer this post the way I really want to. I would remind you that people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Have a lovely day. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I'm not going to answer this post the way I really want to. I would remind you that people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Have a lovely day. :seeya:

Lift up your windows and blinds and speak plainly. ;):cool: Once the sun shines through the windows, my days are always lovely as I hope yours are.

[weezer]

tv you need to empty your PM box -- both received and sent

[tv]

tv you need to empty your PM box -- both received and sent

Thanks, weezer...I'm falling down on the job. :)

[martin II]

Iwas whooping for joy when I heard the verdicts! The jury had a task at hand and no matter what spin his lawyers tried, they found him guilty of the Vegas charges which was what they were supposed to do, Now, we don't know what was going through their minds, I would guess they were thinking of Nicole and Ron's decapitated bodies, they are human, but they concentrated on the kidnap and robbery charges, they heard all of the evidence, and what sunk OJ's boat is his big mouth! We all know damm well he was not going to try to buy back his stuff as he claims it was stolen from him, he was going there to rip those guys off and they had the presence of mind, they knew who they were dealing with, a double murderer to tape record the whole ordeal and we all clearly heard him on those tapes and had they not done that, there would have been no case, so it was himself that put his sorry azz in prison and it will be a substantial sentence, the judge was clearly not impressed with him!

I whooped when she remanded him, probably thinking about the "famous Bronco chase" that he would bolt, and on December 5th I will actually drink a cocktail and watch him go down in flames. I would imagine Fred Goldman will have a smile on his face for the first time in 14 years, they did not get him for his son's murder, but I think that as long as OJ goes away for at least 20 years, the man will finally have some peace and closure and he surely deserves it and the Browns can also have some kind of closure as well. People have been sick to death of this total asswipe, instead of fading away out of the spotlight after he gets aquitted, he runs his mouth about "finding the real killer" to that book, I have never read it, but my sister did and she said she actually had to look under her bed to see if OJ was under it, it scared the piss right out of her, she said it was a confession if she ever heard one! I also was pleased to see his lawyers look like they got hit hard in the guts, I think they thought they were gonna ride the gravy train through the streets of Vegas, bragging on they were the second set of lawyers to get OJ off, and there was no celebration at the Venitan that night, OJ was put back in jail and they sit with the wind right out of their sails, probably wishing they had not taken the case because they too, looked like total fools and watch OJ not pay them because they did not get him off, he is that sleazy.

And his sister's little act did nothing to impress anyone either. I know his lawyers are gonna appeal, but I asked a lawyer I know if he stood a chance on an appeal and his answer was, not a chance. The jury has spoken and on December 5th, the judge will represent the people and hand down the sentence. And lastly, why did I not know that race was gonna be brought into this? It always seems to with this scumbag, the jury was white, big deal, if "Hector Sanchez" was facing the same fate, would his lawyer try to seat an all Hispanic jury? NO! And of course the payback thing, I knew that was coming before the trial started and it is pathetic at best. OJ is finally going to face reality, I would imagine that in prison as to a county jail, he will not be well liked by anyone except for maybe some low-life black dudes, he will have to face white gang members who will really hate him, he murdered two white people and tried to harm some white men, he will have to sleep with one eye open or face life in PC. He will not be catered to like he was in the LA County jail, he will not be able to have meals sent in, he will have to eat the same slop everyone else has to, he will not have a TV in his cell, he will have to go to the rec room like everyone else, he will have to abide by the same rules and why do I think he is gonna be a pain in the azz to the CO's?? He will try to run his usual cocky attitude and CO"S will not tolerate it, he will try to run "Hey I am the Juice" and he will be taken down in spades. I will look forward to hearing him whine and snivel, his money will mean nothing, he has no prestige now, he will be just another piece of dog crap in a cage.


Anything else that you KNOW to be the truth?

[martin II]

I think it's clear what JB meant and you must remember we live in different countries and our word usage is not always the same. Just yesterday I had to ask him about the conversion of stones to pounds. I see no reason for JB to revise his post.

BTW, you left out convicted wife batterer when you were listing Simpson's rap sheet.

TV
Does your post now mean that you are a supporter of JB as you call him?

[martin II]

I didn't know OJ Simpson smoked cigarettes.

Cigaretts was as good a guess as what weezer thinks she knows.hahahaha

[William Anthony]

Anything else that you KNOW to be the truth?


This alleged statement of truth I found most revealing and wondered why anyone would applaud it or uphold anyone else that did.

"I would imagine that in prison as to a county jail, he will not be well liked by anyone except for maybe some low-life black dudes, he will have to face white gang members who will really hate him, he murdered two white people and tried to harm some white men, he will have to sleep with one eye open or face life in PC."

I do respect the poster for openly voicing what many would not. It is a sad day when America is reduced to these feelings. I think it goes a long way to ridicule those posters, who have said that the race of the victims did not matter. I think that the race of the victims or the accused should not matter. However, it appears that it still does in America. We on this board have a chance to change that. Let not the voices of a few control the actions of the many. There is nothing in the post that promotes healing, imho, and should not be applauded or a defense made for those that do. Let's try to move beyond this and see it for what it is. Thanks.

[tv]

TV
Does your post now mean that you are a supporter of JB as you call him?

I was calling William out on his nitpicking. If you want to call that support so be it.

[William Anthony]

I was calling William out on his nitpicking. If you want to call that support so be it.

Very interesting. You were calling me out on my alleged nitpicking, when I explained the reasons why an obviously racial post should not have been posted, which you did not call out, or applauded, which you also did not call out, or why a post was inaccurate and possible reasons behind its inaccuracy, which you chose to defend. Of course, it is your right to defend and support whatever you choose and to think that posts opposing racially offensive posts and those posts that defend it are a form of nitpicking.

[tv]

Very interesting. You were calling me out on my alleged nitpicking, when I explained the reasons why an obviously racial post should not have been posted, which you did not call out, or applauded, which you also did not call out, or why a post was inaccurate and possible reasons behind its inaccuracy, which you chose to defend. Of course, it is your right to defend and support whatever you choose and to think that posts opposing racially offensive posts and those posts that defend it are a form of nitpicking.I didn't comment either way on wind149's post. I can recall a poster telling me that their reason for being on this forum was to get me off this board. You nor martin made a peep. So now I'm peepless.

[tv]

Very interesting. You were calling me out on my alleged nitpicking, when I explained the reasons why an obviously racial post should not have been posted, which you did not call out, or applauded, which you also did not call out, or why a post was inaccurate and possible reasons behind its inaccuracy, which you chose to defend. Of course, it is your right to defend and support whatever you choose and to think that posts opposing racially offensive posts and those posts that defend it are a form of nitpicking.I didn't applaud a racial post. I made no comment on it at all.

[William Anthony]

I didn't comment either way on wind149's post. I can recall a poster telling me that their reason for being on this forum was to get me off this board. You nor martin made a peep. So now I'm peepless.

I will take the liberty of speaking for martin and say that neither of us commented, meaning that we did not applaud or defend the post, if any applauding it. However, you chose to remain silent on a post with racially offensive content and defend a post applauding it, while calling my posts opposing both types of those posts nitpicking. I never said that you were being childish or defended the other poster's remarks. I hope you can see and appreciate the difference. IIRC, that poster apologized to you for possibly misunderstanding your post to her.

[William Anthony]

I didn't applaud a racial post. I made no comment on it at all.

I never said you did or intended to say you did. You made no comment on it but defended a post that applauded it, calling it a "great post."

[tv]

I never said you did or intended to say you did. You made no comment on it but defended a post that applauded it, calling it a "great post."I defended Joseph Bell using the word 'jail' instead of 'penitentiary'. I also commented that you were accusing him of doing the same thing that you do whenever Detective Fuhrman is mentioned. Those weren't my exact words but that was my meaning. If you can find anything I said to be racially motivated that's your problem. I'm finished arguing with you and I'm moving on.

[William Anthony]

These are the posts that started the discussions

Originally Posted by wind149 View Post
Iwas whooping for joy when I heard the verdicts! The jury had a task at hand and no matter what spin his lawyers tried, they found him guilty of the Vegas charges which was what they were supposed to do, Now, we don't know what was going through their minds, I would guess they were thinking of Nicole and Ron's decapitated bodies, they are human, but they concentrated on the kidnap and robbery charges, they heard all of the evidence, and what sunk OJ's boat is his big mouth! We all know damm well he was not going to try to buy back his stuff as he claims it was stolen from him, he was going there to rip those guys off and they had the presence of mind, they knew who they were dealing with, a double murderer to tape record the whole ordeal and we all clearly heard him on those tapes and had they not done that, there would have been no case, so it was himself that put his sorry azz in prison and it will be a substantial sentence, the judge was clearly not impressed with him!

I whooped when she remanded him, probably thinking about the "famous Bronco chase" that he would bolt, and on December 5th I will actually drink a cocktail and watch him go down in flames. I would imagine Fred Goldman will have a smile on his face for the first time in 14 years, they did not get him for his son's murder, but I think that as long as OJ goes away for at least 20 years, the man will finally have some peace and closure and he surely deserves it and the Browns can also have some kind of closure as well. People have been sick to death of this total asswipe, instead of fading away out of the spotlight after he gets aquitted, he runs his mouth about "finding the real killer" to that book, I have never read it, but my sister did and she said she actually had to look under her bed to see if OJ was under it, it scared the piss right out of her, she said it was a confession if she ever heard one! I also was pleased to see his lawyers look like they got hit hard in the guts, I think they thought they were gonna ride the gravy train through the streets of Vegas, bragging on they were the second set of lawyers to get OJ off, and there was no celebration at the Venitan that night, OJ was put back in jail and they sit with the wind right out of their sails, probably wishing they had not taken the case because they too, looked like total fools and watch OJ not pay them because they did not get him off, he is that sleazy.

And his sister's little act did nothing to impress anyone either. I know his lawyers are gonna appeal, but I asked a lawyer I know if he stood a chance on an appeal and his answer was, not a chance. The jury has spoken and on December 5th, the judge will represent the people and hand down the sentence. And lastly, why did I not know that race was gonna be brought into this? It always seems to with this scumbag, the jury was white, big deal, if "Hector Sanchez" was facing the same fate, would his lawyer try to seat an all Hispanic jury? NO! And of course the payback thing, I knew that was coming before the trial started and it is pathetic at best. OJ is finally going to face reality, I would imagine that in prison as to a county jail, he will not be well liked by anyone except for maybe some low-life black dudes, he will have to face white gang members who will really hate him, he murdered two white people and tried to harm some white men, he will have to sleep with one eye open or face life in PC. He will not be catered to like he was in the LA County jail, he will not be able to have meals sent in, he will have to eat the same slop everyone else has to, he will not have a TV in his cell, he will have to go to the rec room like everyone else, he will have to abide by the same rules and why do I think he is gonna be a pain in the azz to the CO's?? He will try to run his usual cocky attitude and CO"S will not tolerate it, he will try to run "Hey I am the Juice" and he will be taken down in spades. I will look forward to hearing him whine and snivel, his money will mean nothing, he has no prestige now, he will be just another piece of dog crap in a cage.

This is such a great post I just had to quote the whole message. I know there are a LOT of people who did a happy dance when Simpson was finally found GUILTY!!! Yes, it's great to say it. I'll say it again. Simpson is GUILTY and he's going to jail!!

The facts are you defended a post, which was revised from is guilty to found guilty, that repeatedly called a racially offensive post great and called my opposition to the posts nitpicking. I do not see why your protest so much. That my friend is your right and will not affect, on my part, our friendship.

[tv]

These are the posts that started the discussions





The facts are you defended a post that called a racially offensive post great and called my opposition to the posts nitpicking. I do not see why your protest so much. That my friend is your right and will not affect our friendship.

William, I have stated to you what I was responding to and you have picked it apart to the nth degree. I know what I said and why I said it and I've explained it to you. I refuse to be put on the defensive over such a small matter. Let it go.

[William Anthony]

William, I have stated to you what I was responding to and you have picked it apart to the nth degree. I know what I said and why I said it and I've explained it to you. I refuse to be put on the defensive over such a small matter. Let it go.

If that is the case, then all you have to do is say that the post to which JB responded was a racially offensive post that you did not find great.

[tv]

If that is the case, then all you have to do is say that the post to which JB responded was a racially offensive post that you did not find great.I'm under no obligation to comment on a post to make you happy.

[William Anthony]

I'm under no obligation to comment on a post to make you happy.

I will take that to mean that you do not disagree with the fact that a racially offensive post is great. It would make me happy to have all members deny the greatness of a racially offensive post or to admit that they did not find it offensive. I am not happy to see them dodge the issue, since I can read between lines very effectively, imho. "If you are not part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem", smile.

[tv]

I will take that to mean that you do not disagree with the fact that a racially offensive post is great. It would make me happy to have all members deny the greatness of a racially offensive post or to admit that they did not find it offensive. I am not happy to see them dodge the issue, since I can read between lines very effectively, imho. "If you are not part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem", smile.

Take it to mean whatever you want. You're not going to harass me into posting what you want me to. Why aren't you badgering the original poster instead of me? Don't you have a party thread to preside over?

[William Anthony]

Take it to mean whatever you want. You're not going to harass me into posting what you want me to. Why aren't you badgering the original poster instead of me? Don't you have a party thread to preside over?

I have a party thread that I am a member of, in which the posters post happily, civilly and without racial posts. The original poster did not call my posts nitpicking while defending a post that called a post, defending the racially offensive one, "a great post" . Do you understand? Thank you for acknowledging my prowess to read between the lines. :)

[tv]

I have a party thread that I am a member of, in which the posters post happily, civilly and without racial posts. The original poster did not call my posts nitpicking while defending a post that called a post, defending the racially offensive one, "a great post" . Do you understand? Thank you for acknowledging my prowess to read between the lines. :)

I'm acknowledging nothing. Your paranoia is getting out of control.

[William Anthony]

I'm acknowledging nothing. Your paranoia is getting out of control.

I am on my medication thanks-sweets, rum and bourbon balls. I think they keep me calm and not aggressive. Would you like me to send you some?

[tv]

I am on my medication thanks-sweets, rum and bourbon balls. I think they keep me calm and not aggressive. Would you like me to send you some?Only if you send a taste taster along with it. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Only if you send a taste taster along with it. :seeya:

I'd be happy to make a nomination for taste tester. :)

[tv]

The praising of such obvious racial posts and the defending of posts praising them is more than just a molehill to me. If it was not your intention to praise the post or defend the post praising it, then all you need to do is say that you do not agree with them. However, you have chosen to remain silent on that issue but chose to defend the post praising the racial one. Do you understand my need for clarification. If it was unintentional on your part to agree with the praise of a racial post, then I think it would be easily stated.If you're too stubborn to see that I was talking about the difference between using the word 'jail' and 'penitentiary' and comparing what you called childishness to the rants you are always going on about Detective Fuhrman then I can't help you. Don't you have someone else to annoy today?

[William Anthony]

No, I'm not okay. I'm tired of being harassed on this board and words put into my mouth. I'm tired of someone dropping in here after a year and declaring they're going to get rid of me and now accuse me of racial rants. Please direct me to a racial rant posted by me. I'm here to discuss the OJ Simpson case and all related topics not to indulge anyone by posting what they want me to post. This has been so blown out of proportion that I don't even remember what we were originally discussing. So, no, I'm not okay.

I truly believed you were duped. It all began with an obvious racial post, followed by a post saying that one was great. I will try to answer both your posts in one. You then jumped into the conversation, which you have accused another poster of doing the same, which did not concern you, indicating that that my posts about MF were in some manner comparable to the posts being made and defended the post, calling a racial post great. After some discussion, you then compared martin and my inaction to your action on posts that are rude. You in fact brought up the other poster in reference. You then said I was nitpicking and mentioned that you thought I was paranoid. I asked you to state that you did not agree with the racial post or that portion of the post referring to it as a great post, which you have refused to do and I defended your right to do so. I understand that you are becoming annoyed but I must say you and your feet stepped into the bait. Any annoyance that you are experiencing is at your own doing and I cannot understand your reluctance to participate on a thread where there is cordial and respectful communication but, again that is your right, which I will also defend.

[tv]

There is no need to bow or scrape to me, just as there is no need to post such a long post indicating your reluctance to condemn the racial post or the one defending it. What I have posted about MF was supported by the evidence, depending on how one chooses to view it. What the original post with racial connotations that was subsequently called great, which you defended that post that said it was great, was supported by nothing except what the poster thought and called Black inmates low life dudes and referred to White inmates only as white gang members. I was only correcting the record and assuring you that I had not mentioned you or posted to you directly until you posted to me. Let me also say that the picture is not one I would enjoy as I see no need for anyone to bow or scrape to another and it goes against all I stand for.I'm not sure what all you've just said but as I said a page ago I'm finished with this. I'm not going to engage in a discussion with you about whether or not Detective Fuhrman is a racist. I was talking about your inappropriate tongue and buttock remarks in case you need to be reminded about them.

[tv]

There is no need to bow or scrape to me, just as there is no need to post such a long post indicating your reluctance to condemn the racial post or the one defending it. What I have posted about MF was supported by the evidence, depending on how one chooses to view it. What the original post with racial connotations that was subsequently called great, which you defended that post that said it was great, was supported by nothing except what the poster thought and called Black inmates low life dudes and referred to White inmates only as white gang members. I was only correcting the record and assuring you that I had not mentioned you or posted to you directly until you posted to me. Let me also say that the picture is not one I would enjoy as I see no need for anyone to bow or scrape to another and it goes against all I stand for.I appreciate your sentiments but that wasn't a serious comment on my part. Sorry you took it as such.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what all you've just said but as I said a page ago I'm finished with this. I'm not going to engage in a discussion with you about whether or not Detective Fuhrman is a racist. I was talking about your inappropriate tongue and buttock remarks in case you need to be reminded about them.

Oh, if that is what you are referring to, it was a picturesque description that befitted the brilliant Bailey's cross examination of the soon to be convicted perjurer. This is what MF should have done to Bailey,

[tv]

Oh, if that is what you are referring to, it was a picturesque description that befitted the brilliant Bailey's cross examination of the soon to be convicted perjurer. This is what MF should have done to Bailey,
ha ha.

[William Anthony]

I appreciate your sentiments but that wasn't a serious comment on my part. Sorry you took it as such.

I truly doubted that you meant it. However, I did not want to have others think that was my character, which is the subject of our discussion-equality not racial stereotypes that promote discrimination. I am as good as any person and better than none. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

ha ha.

Glad to see you laughing. I think that it may be misplaced. However, the fact that you are able to see humor warms the cockles of my heart.

[tv]

Glad to see you laughing. I think that it may be misplaced. However, the fact that you are able to see humor warms the cockles of my heart.I'm glad your heart is warmed. Now can we drop this subject? It's gone on ridiculously long.

[wind149]

Will. I can appreciate how you feel, you clearly like the man and maybe my comment about low life black dudes was a tad wrong, but in the first trial who made it a race issue? His lawyer Johnny Cockroach, screamed racism from the minute the trial started and that was his whole focus, that Furhman planted evidence and what makes it totally assinine, is he did not have a clue who was murdered till he got to the scene and explain to me how, when the Bronco was not at Nicole's, Ron and Nicole's blood was found in it? And the "smoking gun". The bloody glove! Oh yeah, sure he picked it up at the scene and threw in the backyard, and what boggled my mind is how Cockroach was able to lay the it doesn't fit when leather shrinks when wet? Your pal, was the murderer of those two people and you can stand behind him, we can't stop you, but before your critize me, you have to know that I am not a racist, on of my dearest friends is black, I have black cousins, and I stand up all the time for racial harmony, I have supported gays and lesbians for years, they should be able to live their lives they way they want. When I was about 7, Martin Luther King was speaking at a rally in Newark NJ, it was 1965ish, and my grandfather and I had gone into the city to do errands and my grandfather was curious so we went to the rally and as he was speaking, my gradfather looked at him in awe and said that there is a great man who was going to change the world. And this is a city that at that time had signs on doors that said whites only, I can still remember that and I do think that MLK was one of the greatest men that ever lived for the reason being is he wanted racial harmony for ALL!

So before you think I am just some redneck.. I just loathe OJ for OJ, his skin color matters none, he is a cold blooded murderer, he thought he was above the law and Will, prison life is not a pretty picture and they have race wars behind bars as well as the streets and I am just calling it, he will not be well accepted behind bars and especially if he tries to throw his weight around and if he plays the race card, he could lose big time and the CO's are not gonna give a rip who he is, and I see long stints in PC in his future, his own big mouth will surely get him into trouble because he does not know how to shut it, reality is gonna bite him in the azz and I am glad that he will be locked up, he deserved the DP for what he did in 1994 and I am pleaed this jury did not have stars in their eyes, they saw him for who he really is, a low-life, a man who has mocked the law, has beaten women, and for people like this, prison is the only answer.

[William Anthony]

Will. I can appreciate how you feel, you clearly like the man and maybe my comment about low life black dudes was a tad wrong, but in the first trial who made it a race issue? His lawyer Johnny Cockroach, screamed racism from the minute the trial started and that was his whole focus, that Furhman planted evidence and what makes it totally assinine, is he did not have a clue who was murdered till he got to the scene and explain to me how, when the Bronco was not at Nicole's, Ron and Nicole's blood was found in it? And the "smoking gun". The bloody glove! Oh yeah, sure he picked it up at the scene and threw in the backyard, and what boggled my mind is how Cockroach was able to lay the it doesn't fit when leather shrinks when wet? Your pal, was the murderer of those two people and you can stand behind him, we can't stop you, but before your critize me, you have to know that I am not a racist, on of my dearest friends is black, I have black cousins, and I stand up all the time for racial harmony, I have supported gays and lesbians for years, they should be able to live their lives they way they want. When I was about 7, Martin Luther King was speaking at a rally in Newark NJ, it was 1965ish, and my grandfather and I had gone into the city to do errands and my grandfather was curious so we went to the rally and as he was speaking, my gradfather looked at him in awe and said that there is a great man who was going to change the world. And this is a city that at that time had signs on doors that said whites only, I can still remember that and I do think that MLK was one of the greatest men that ever lived for the reason being is he wanted racial harmony for ALL!

So before you think I am just some redneck.. I just loathe OJ for OJ, his skin color matters none, he is a cold blooded murderer, he thought he was above the law and Will, prison life is not a pretty picture and they have race wars behind bars as well as the streets and I am just calling it, he will not be well accepted behind bars and especially if he tries to throw his weight around and if he plays the race card, he could lose big time and the CO's are not gonna give a rip who he is, and I see long stints in PC in his future, his own big mouth will surely get him into trouble because he does not know how to shut it, reality is gonna bite him in the azz and I am glad that he will be locked up, he deserved the DP for what he did in 1994 and I am pleaed this jury did not have stars in their eyes, they saw him for who he really is, a low-life, a man who has mocked the law, has beaten women, and for people like this, prison is the only answer.

No, you do not know how I feel. I neither like nor dislike Simpson. I don't agree with much of what he has done and find some of them reprehensible. I do not know him well enough to like or dislike him. I find some of the things he has done to be stupid, criminal, and utterly distasteful. To call anyone a low life is more than a tad bit wrong and especially egregious when you place that nomenclature on a particular race but do not do the same to those similarly situated of another race. I watched and taped the entire trial. The magnificent one's focus was to destroy as much of the evidence that was presented against his client, which he did very successfully. Let me say that I concur with WarmNCozy that this is not the proper thread for a discussion of the criminal trial. Aside from the fact that I have answered most of your questions, if not all, on that thread, your bringing of the information about the trial to this thread and your feelings on the racial issues, does much to increase the argument of payback and decrease the validity of the verdict, which I believe was correct under Nevada law. The magnificent one did not create MF or the attitude of people toward LA LE. He exposed them for what they were. There is a tendency to place far too great an emphasis on the race issue and to ignore the skill of the lawyers on the dream team in destroying the evidence.

I agree with your comments on MLK. I neither feel that you are a redneck or a racist and do not think I said that. What I did say is that racially offensive comments permeated your post. It is hard for many of us to acknowledge our racial prejudices and often point to our friends and family members to say that we are not. The children are not yours and association can often be confused with friendship. I do not know what associations he will forge as a result of his incarceration. Nor do I know the conditions that he will undergo while incarcerated. There may be race wars in prison but, as of yet, we don't have one on the streets. It is posts, like yours, that might be an auxiliary to the start of one. I wouldn't take pride in being announced as someone's token friend, because I am Black. I think the same would hold true for homosexuals. I think that I would simply appreciate someone saying this is my friend, because we have a mutual trust and respect.

Thank you for taking the time to attempt to explain and to share you feeling that you think Simpson like the other Black dudes is a low-life.

[William Anthony]

DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Dylan Thomas Page

Thank you. I seemed to have mixed things for some reason, dealing with feet.

[Big Ben]

Simpson has been found guilty. Simpson is going to jail. It still sounds so good. I'll say it again. Simpson has been found guilty. Simpson is going to jail.
Maybe I'll make this my new mantra. Just on this thread. Simpson has been found guil...

What an aberration this trial turned out to be. It's almost like some hypnotic force directed this Simple Simon, O.J. Simpson, to go down to Las Vegas and do something real stupid so that they can placate a blood thirsty public herd. Although I knew better, I was still shocked at this jury's decision to find these two defendants guilty of all of these grossly inflated charges. I thought at least they would have some level of civilized decorum to challenge the court. But I guess not.

I feel sorry for old C.J. Stewart, as he stoically stood silent, undoubtedly telling himself, "Don't buckle, stand straight, and be a man", while this court steadies its aim at sending him to prison for life behind some b.s. charges! I speculate that he sits in a gen-pop cell being told by other inmates that under normal circumstances, with other regular Joe Does, his case would have amounted to no more than a year, two at the most, behind bars and some supervised probation. Due to guilt by association C.J. Stewart must now satisfy the blood thirst of this media driven beast, the biased American public just singing a happy tune.

Though I don't see any strong basis for appeal, something inherently suggests to me that any appeal on Simpson's behalf should inclusively argue that Simpson could never receive a fair trial in America with the psychic effect of the first trial driven into the minds of the American public. Whether a potential juror admits to it or not their mind was tainted by that first trial, and the comprehensive guilty verdicts in this Las Vegas trial is indicative to me of how deep the psychological effect has penetrated the minds of the American public.

[WarmNCozy]

What an aberration this trial turned out to be. It's almost like some hypnotic force directed this Simple Simon, O.J. Simpson, to go down to Las Vegas and do something real stupid so that they can placate a blood thirsty public herd. Although I knew better, I was still shocked at this jury's decision to find these two defendants guilty of all of these grossly inflated charges. I thought at least they would have some level of civilized decorum to challenge the court. But I guess not.

I feel sorry for old C.J. Stewart, as he stoically stood silent, undoubtedly telling himself, "Don't buckle, stand straight, and be a man", while this court steadies its aim at sending him to prison for life behind some b.s. charges! I speculate that he sits in a gen-pop cell being told by other inmates that under normal circumstances, with other regular Joe Does, his case would have amounted to no more than a year, two at the most, behind bars and some supervised probation. Due to guilt by association C.J. Stewart must now satisfy the blood thirst of this media driven beast, the biased American public just singing a happy tune.

Though I don't see any strong basis for appeal, something inherently suggests to me that any appeal on Simpson's behalf should inclusively argue that Simpson could never receive a fair trial in America with the psychic effect of the first trial driven into the minds of the American public. Whether a potential juror admits to it or not their mind was tainted by that first trial, and the comprehensive guilty verdicts in this Las Vegas trial is indicative to me of how deep the psychological effect has penetrated the minds of the American public.
Well said!

[martin II]

Well said!

Big Ben
Thanks for your post.
Two people going to jail for life for a simple robbery is unfair to the defendants and to the people of Nevada especially when neither of the two
had guns and the prosecution let those that did, go free for testifying in a way they needed them to, to get convictions of the two targets.

[Redmama]

What an aberration this trial turned out to be. It's almost like some hypnotic force directed this Simple Simon, O.J. Simpson, to go down to Las Vegas and do something real stupid so that they can placate a blood thirsty public herd. Although I knew better, I was still shocked at this jury's decision to find these two defendants guilty of all of these grossly inflated charges. I thought at least they would have some level of civilized decorum to challenge the court. But I guess not.

I feel sorry for old C.J. Stewart, as he stoically stood silent, undoubtedly telling himself, "Don't buckle, stand straight, and be a man", while this court steadies its aim at sending him to prison for life behind some b.s. charges! I speculate that he sits in a gen-pop cell being told by other inmates that under normal circumstances, with other regular Joe Does, his case would have amounted to no more than a year, two at the most, behind bars andsome supervised probation. Due to guilt by association C.J. Stewart must now satisfy the blood thirst of this media driven beast, the biased American public just singing a happy tune.

Though I don't see any strong basis for appeal, something inherently suggests to me that any appeal on Simpson's behalf should inclusively argue that Simpson could never receive a fair trial in America with the psychic effect of the first trial driven into the minds of the American public. Whether a potential juror admits to it or not their mind was tainted by that first trial, and the comprehensive guilty verdicts in this Las Vegas trial is indicative to me of how deep the psychological effect has penetrated the minds of the American public.

Hmmm - I've ever done anything like this - not even close - and wow - I've never been to court...never been arrested, put in jail, never been on probation...maybe some need to just stay away from trouble - what a novel idea. My motto is - stay away from stupid.

[tv]

Hmmm - I've ever done anything like this - not even close - and wow - I've never been to court...never been arrested, put in jail, never been on probation...maybe some need to just stay away from trouble - what a novel idea. My motto is - stay away from stupid.

Very well said, Redmama. :)

[Redmama]

Very well said, Redmama. :)

Thank you TV!

[William Anthony]

Hmmm - I've ever done anything like this - not even close - and wow - I've never been to court...never been arrested, put in jail, never been on probation...maybe some need to just stay away from trouble - what a novel idea. My motto is - stay away from stupid.

Was there ever a report made of someone trying to sell property that belonged to you and LE refused to investigate, because the property involved you? :)

[Redmama]

Was there ever a report made of someone trying to sell property that belonged to you and LE refused to investigate, because the property involved you? :)

No it has not happened ti ne - but then again, I stay away from stupid.

I'm still not convinced that is what happened to OJ - I believe Riccio as far as I can throw him - It was OJ's responsibility to do that.

[weezer]

No it has not happened ti ne - but then again, I stay away from stupid.

I'm still not convinced that is what happened to OJ - I believe Riccio as far as I can throw him - It was OJ's responsibility to do that.

I think it's pretty obvious from listening to the tapes that riccio was a bit player in all of this.

[William Anthony]

No it has not happened ti ne - but then again, I stay away from stupid.

I'm still not convinced that is what happened to OJ - I believe Riccio as far as I can throw him - It was OJ's responsibility to do that.

So, if you see a crime being committed or know of one, then you have no responsibility to report it and LE should tell you let the victim call us and we will get involved, if we choose, depending on whether or not we like the victim, Correct? If you are saying that you would not report because LE acted stupidly, then I understand. :)

[Kate Sachel]

I'm under no obligation to comment on a post to make you happy.

I am glad that you are standing firm on this.

I understood what you meant in the first place and agree that you are not required to comment on the original post in question.

Kate

[Redmama]

So, if you see a crime being committed or know of one, then you have no responsibility to report it and LE should tell you let the victim call us and we will get involved, if we choose, depending on whether or not we like the victim, Correct? If you are saying that you would not report because LE acted stupidly, then I understand. :)

No - that is not what I said - everyone should report a crime being committed in the moment. In this specific situation, Simpson should have called to get his own possessions returned to him using the law, not force.

[Kate Sachel]

I will take that to mean that you do not disagree with the fact that a racially offensive post is great. It would make me happy to have all members deny the greatness of a racially offensive post or to admit that they did not find it offensive. I am not happy to see them dodge the issue, since I can read between lines very effectively, imho. "If you are not part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem", smile.

Really? That's a bit of a leap in my opinion. I would really think that it would be either the original poster or Joseph Bell who would be under fire on this issue considering that one posted the offending comments and the latter responded to those offending comments by calling them "great".

Kate

[tv]

I am glad that you are standing firm on this.

I understood what you meant in the first place and agree that you are not required to comment on the original post in question.

KateThank you, Kate. Unfortunately I spent too much time that day lending validation to these accusations by responding both on this forum and in PM. I've decided to chalk it up to a lesson learned instead of a total waste.

It's wonderful to see you back with us. I've thought of you often in the last few days and kept you in my prayers. :)

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you, Kate. Unfortunately I spent too much time that day lending validation to these accusations by responding both on this forum and in PM. I've decided to chalk it up to a lesson learned instead of a total waste.

It's wonderful to see you back with us. I've thought of you often in the last few days and kept you in my prayers. :)

For which I am wholly appreciative; thank you for caring about me.

I do wish that you would not feel the need to defend yourself so greatly in the face of a scenario such as this.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Really? That's a bit of a leap in my opinion. I would really think that it would be either the original poster or Joseph Bell who would be under fire on this issue considering that one posted the offending comments and the latter responded to those offending comments by calling them "great".

Kate

I know that you are not privileged to the full extent of the conversations between us. The conversation was between Joseph Bell and me, when the other poster decided to attack me. I think that everyone knows my feelings toward Joe. The other poster told me that she had not read the original post and why. I understood that and offered a chance to disagree with the post calling the racially offensive post great, which the poster never did but continued to defend the JB's post. There have been some things that have transpired during your absence that I will not rehash. Suffice it to say that I truly believe some true colors have been illuminated on the board.

The original poster late tried to explain the post. I responded to that explanation. I really think that posters want to disagree with me, without realizing what they are agreeing with, and when it is pointed out they still refuse to deny the racial posts and continue to battle with me. This is in no means meant to pertain to you, because you have shown yourself willing to understand and to answer honestly. I know that you do not know the full extent of what happened while you were gone and I really think that it is best that you do not know. Trust me on that.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, Kate. Unfortunately I spent too much time that day lending validation to these accusations by responding both on this forum and in PM. I've decided to chalk it up to a lesson learned instead of a total waste.

It's wonderful to see you back with us. I've thought of you often in the last few days and kept you in my prayers. :)

There were never accusations lodged at you and I Initially asked you if you agreed with the post stating that the racially offensive one was great, after you accused me of nitpicking.

[William Anthony]

No - that is not what I said - everyone should report a crime being committed in the moment. In this specific situation, Simpson should have called to get his own possessions returned to him using the law, not force.

You had not mentioned in your prior post that a allegedly a report had been made to LE and they refused to act. If you believe that it doesn't matter, who made the report, I have a hard time understanding why you feel that Simpson should have made the report. Under Nevada law, the court has ruled that what Simpson did was criminal. I accept the verdict and believe it was the correct one. I just believe that, if we are to speak on the facts, that all should be mentioned.

[weezer]

I am glad that you are standing firm on this.

I understood what you meant in the first place and agree that you are not required to comment on the original post in question.

Kate

welcome back Kate -- :rose:

[William Anthony]

For which I am wholly appreciative; thank you for caring about me.

I do wish that you would not feel the need to defend yourself so greatly in the face of a scenario such as this.

Kate

The scenario was caused by the need to feel that I should be attacked and a poster, who chose to call a racially offensive post, great. I did not think I had to defend my protest over the racially offensive post and the one calling it great to the extent that I did. However, it soon became apparent to me that the poster was not interested in the truth and admitted she had not read the first post but was determined, for whatever reason (and I think I know why) to attack me.

While I understand that a poster has the right to comment or remain silent on any post, once they decide to attack another poster, then they open themselves up to questions about that choice, imho. The poster did not and refused to comment on the racially offensive post. That was the poster's choice and it was my choice to form an opinion of that poster, who first attacked me.

[Kate Sachel]

I know that you are not privileged to the full extent of the conversations between us. The conversation was between Joseph Bell and me, when the other poster decided to attack me. I think that everyone knows my feelings toward Joe. The other poster told me that she had not read the original post and why. I understood that and offered a chance to disagree with the post calling the racially offensive post great, which the poster never did but continued to defend the JB's post. There have been some things that have transpired during your absence that I will not rehash. Suffice it to say that I truly believe some true colors have been illuminated on the board.

The original poster late tried to explain the post. I responded to that explanation. I really think that posters want to disagree with me, without realizing what they are agreeing with, and when it is pointed out they still refuse to deny the racial posts and continue to battle with me. This is in no means meant to pertain to you, because you have shown yourself willing to understand and to answer honestly. I know that you do not know the full extent of what happened while you were gone and I really think that it is best that you do not know. Trust me on that.

I can only respond accordingly to what is seen on this forum in public postings, and if further conversations transpired via the privacy of PMs then I obviously am not privy to those, nor do I need to be unless someone involved decides that they would like for me to be privy to those conversations.

In responding to the posts available to me, it seems that she explained appropriately her defense of Joseph Bell's post. I think it is possible to defend a portion of a posting without defending its entire content, which was how I saw her response.

I have yet myself to publicly respond to the original post in question, but my silence at this point in no way indicates an agreement with it.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

welcome back Kate -- :rose:

Thank you!

Kate

[William Anthony]

I can only respond accordingly to what is seen on this forum in public postings, and if further conversations transpired via the privacy of PMs then I obviously am not privy to those, nor do I need to be unless someone involved decides that they would like for me to be privy to those conversations.

In responding to the posts available to me, it seems that she explained appropriately her defense of Joseph Bell's post. I think it is possible to defend a portion of a posting without defending its entire content, which was how I saw her response.

I have yet myself to publicly respond to the original post in question, but my silence at this point in no way indicates an agreement with it.

Kate

Let me first extend to you the sentiments to say that it is glad to see you back. I don't think that it is proper to share all that was said in pms. I understand your posts and what is only apparent on the board. The point is that I asked for a clarification and for the poster to say that she did not agree with the portion of the post, calling the racially offensive one great, which she repeatedly chose not to do. I think that, if you are going to limit your agreement of a part of the post, then when asked you should say that you do not agree with specific other portions.

[Kate Sachel]

The scenario was caused by the need to feel that I should be attacked and a poster, who chose to call a racially offensive post, great. I did not think I had to defend my protest over the racially offensive post and the one calling it great to the extent that I did. However, it soon became apparent to me that the poster was not interested in the truth and admitted she had not read the first post but was determined, for whatever reason (and I think I know why) to attack me.

While I understand that a poster has the right to comment or remain silent on any post, once they decide to attack another poster, then they open themselves up to questions about that choice, imho. The poster did not and refused to comment on the racially offensive post. That was the poster's choice and it was my choice to form an opinion of that poster, who first attacked me.

Nor do I believe you should have to defend your position that the original post was offensive or your distaste at seeing another individual state that the original post was great.

The majority of people that I speak with use the terminology of Simpson "is" going to "jail". I have yet to hear an individual say that Simpson is going to the penitentiary. People use "jail" as a general term for anyone behind bars. As a matter of fact, penitentiary is a synonym for jail. So it appears that the only inaccuracy is with the use of the word "is", which I cannot assume means that someone is distorting the facts or being childish or biased.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Nor do I believe you should have to defend your position that the original post was offensive or your distaste at seeing another individual state that the original post was great.

The majority of people that I speak with use the terminology of Simpson "is" going to "jail". I have yet to hear an individual say that Simpson is going to the penitentiary. People use "jail" as a general term for anyone behind bars. As a matter of fact, penitentiary is a synonym for jail. So it appears that the only inaccuracy is with the use of the word "is", which I cannot assume means that someone is distorting the facts or being childish or biased.

Kate

The repetition of the post and the continued inaccuracy of the word is, whether or not the poster, was aware of the difference between the institution was what I called childish. Perhaps, many people use the words interchangeably but that in no means mean they use it correctly. The fact that it was repeated and called the racially offensive post is what I called biased. Perhaps, my use of the word childish was not quite accurate and, when some one has pointed out your mistake and you continue to make it-perhaps, I should have said obstinate and unthoughtful.

[William Anthony]

The repetition of the post and the continued inaccuracy of the word is, whether or not the poster, was aware of the difference between the institution was what I called childish. Perhaps, many people use the words interchangeably but that in no means mean they use it correctly. The fact that it was repeated and called the racially offensive post is what I called biased. Perhaps, my use of the word childish was not quite accurate and, when some one has pointed out your mistake and you continue to make it-perhaps, I should have said obstinate and unthoughtful.

multiple corrections-The repetition of the post and the continued inaccuracy of the word is, whether or not the poster was aware of the difference between the institutions, was what I called childish. Perhaps, many people use the words interchangeably but that in no means mean they use it correctly. The fact that it was repeated and called the racially offensive post great is what I called biased. Perhaps, my use of the word childish was not quite accurate and, but when some one has pointed out your mistake and you continue to make it-perhaps, I should have said obstinate and unthoughtful

[SlowHandSam]

I think this offense has taken hold of the board unnecessarily.

What one might find offensive is not necessarily offensive to all. Some, in fact, may not see or look for an offensive tone or message in every post. I think that given the history of some individuals to comment, regularly, that posts ore offensive when the nature of the message is not cannot be managed or avoided by others.

It is no one's responsibility to defend or admonish another on this forum if a post is said to be offensive to one. This is especially so if one does not, or did not, read the post as being offensive.

It seems really silly, IMO, to spend so much energy on a semantics issue regarding the use of jail versus penitentiary. The use is not wrong. The bottom line is that both are buildings used for confinement for criminals. To say that someone using the words interchangeably is offensive and wrong is just silly and, IMO, grasping at a reason to engage in an argument.

[William Anthony]

I think this offense has taken hold of the board unnecessarily.

What one might find offensive is not necessarily offensive to all. Some, in fact, may not see or look for an offensive tone or message in every post. I think that given the history of some individuals to comment, regularly, that posts ore offensive when the nature of the message is not cannot be managed or avoided by others.

It is no one's responsibility to defend or admonish another on this forum if a post is said to be offensive to one. This is especially so if one does not, or did not, read the post as being offensive.

It seems really silly, IMO, to spend so much energy on a semantics issue regarding the use of jail versus penitentiary. The use is not wrong. The bottom line is that both are buildings used for confinement for criminals. To say that someone using the words interchangeably is offensive and wrong is just silly and, IMO, grasping at a reason to engage in an argument.

I respect your opinion, even if I do not agree with it. I will take for granted that you read the post I consider to be racially offensive, since you are commenting on it. The part that was most racially offensive was that Simpson would be only befriended by "low-life black dudes"/inmates and that "white gang members"/inmates (who were not referred to as low-life) would try to kill him because Simpson "murdered two whites and attempt to harm white men." I have no problem with people not speaking out against those posts but I do have a problem when people attack me for speaking out against those posts and any post that would call the post "great" which was place in bold, imho, for emphasis.

whether or not you consider the use to be a wrong semantic use or not is irrelevant, since I know it is. A person is normally placed in jail awaiting trial and sentencing. Depending on the length of sentence, the person is then sent to jail or the penitentiary. There are no county penitentiaries that I know of. I know that there are county jails and penitentiaries are state facilities. The problem is that when one defends a post and has not read the preceding posts that led to the discussion, then they have an ill formed basis to attack any side. When they are informed of all the reasons for the protestation and asked would they then condemn the original post and refuse to do so, it is very apparent that they are not interested in finding the truth so much so as attacking, imho.

To continue to post inaccurate information, after being told that the information is inaccurate, is just to be inflammatory, "silly and, IMO, grasping at a reason to engage in an argument." If you researched the posts, you will see that I ignored the last post by the poster repeating his inaccuracies, because I did not want to take the bait and engage in an argument, because it was readily apparent that he wanted to inflame. He did have the decency not to post that part of his original post, calling the racially offensive one, "great", which I realized and chose to ignore the rest of his inaccurate post, as I saw he did not want to correct it. I think that, if a poster does not want to address all the posts, pertaining to a subject they should hold tight to their opinion that any other poster's post is "silly and, IMO, grasping at a reason to engage in an argument." Thanks.

[Redmama]

You had not mentioned in your prior post that a allegedly a report had been made to LE and they refused to act. If you believe that it doesn't matter, who made the report, I have a hard time understanding why you feel that Simpson should have made the report. Under Nevada law, the court has ruled that what Simpson did was criminal. I accept the verdict and believe it was the correct one. I just believe that, if we are to speak on the facts, that all should be mentioned.

I have mentioned in at least a few of my responses that if I were in Simpson's spot, I would have contacted LE myself - not just leave it up to somebody else. I figured that was a given since I said I didn't trust Riccio.

[William Anthony]

I have mentioned in at least a few of my responses that if I were in Simpson's spot, I would have contacted LE myself - not just leave it up to somebody else. I figured that was a given since I said I didn't trust Riccio.

I do understand what you are saying, but hindsight is 20/20. It was stupid of Simpson to trust Riccio as we all know now or any of the rest of them. Trust is something that can often be misplaced, especially in times of distress. However, that was not the point I was trying to make. My point dealt more with the evidence that the crime of attempting to sell stolen property was received and reportedly ignored by LE. I am in no manner excusing Simpson's behavior and readily admit that what he did was both stupid and criminal. However, I do think that there may be some mitigating circumstances to be considered during sentencing. I was not disagreeing with you-just saying that the totality of the incident should be considered.

[weezer]

I have mentioned in at least a few of my responses that if I were in Simpson's spot, I would have contacted LE myself - not just leave it up to somebody else. I figured that was a given since I said I didn't trust Riccio.

I've never understood what anyone thought LE was suppose to do with the info anyway. Riccio was there being interviewed about a different matter altogether -- he mentioned the simpson stuff -- nothing was set up then -- so now what?

I think we can see by what was said on the mcclinton tape about keeping it away from the Goldmans that he didn't believe it was stolen and he obviously didn't want it.

[William Anthony]

Has anyone ever heard up an investigation? Has anyone ever heard of following up on a report? Has anyone ever heard of questioning a witness to see what knowledge they hold? Has anyone ever heard, other than this case, that LE refused to investigate because of the victim?

[William Anthony]

Has anyone ever heard up an investigation? Has anyone ever heard of following up on a report? Has anyone ever heard of questioning a witness to see what knowledge they hold? Has anyone ever heard, other than this case, that LE refused to investigate because of the victim?

correction-Has anyone ever heard of an investigation?

[Notknowingall]

Has anyone ever heard up an investigation? Has anyone ever heard of following up on a report? Has anyone ever heard of questioning a witness to see what knowledge they hold? Has anyone ever heard, other than this case, that LE refused to investigate because of the victim?

Actually William it does happen elsewhere. In our small town our neighborhood "troublemaker" supposedly had some items stolen from his garage. He called LE and the response he got was that he should try being more nice to people and maybe that kind of thing wouldn't happen. No report or follow up. I have heard other claims in the news around the country too about complaints of crimes not being handled by LE because of the complaintant. I'm not in anyway saying it is right just that it does happen.

[William Anthony]

Actually William it does happen elsewhere. In our small town our neighborhood "troublemaker" supposedly had some items stolen from his garage. He called LE and the response he got was that he should try being more nice to people and maybe that kind of thing wouldn't happen. No report or follow up. I have heard other claims in the news around the country too about complaints of crimes not being handled by LE because of the complaintant. I'm not in anyway saying it is right just that it does happen.

I understand what you are saying, although I guess the troublemaker was probably reporting items that would expose his identity, otherwise I probably would not fault LE in that case, smile. Assuming there were documents exposing his identity, there is no right of LE not to investigate, because he was not nice to people. I do not think there is a law saying you give up your rights for being not nice. I have heard of LE failing to investigate but not because of the identity of the victim but I believe that you are correct. "Law without enforcement is a mockery." All too often women and children have had and still have their complaints not investigated. There was a report in my home town of a shooting involving many people shooting, The police said to call them when it was over. While riding in my car, I saw a fight starting downtown-one person had a knife and the other one broke a bottle. I saw a policeman come out of a theater and told him what I saw. He looked up in the air and asked me which way the went. I told him not in the sky and he turned and walked back into the theater. After parking the car, my friends and I were able to talk sense into the guys fighting before anyone got hurt or killed, because we knew them. LE often justify their inaction but this is the first time I ever heard them blatantly say it was because of the person. I think we all know what LE should do when they receive a report.

[weezer]

Actually William it does happen elsewhere. In our small town our neighborhood "troublemaker" supposedly had some items stolen from his garage. He called LE and the response he got was that he should try being more nice to people and maybe that kind of thing wouldn't happen. No report or follow up. I have heard other claims in the news around the country too about complaints of crimes not being handled by LE because of the complaintant. I'm not in anyway saying it is right just that it does happen.

Even if 13 years later no one ever reported anything stolen? do you think orenthal should have reported items stolen when he, family and friends emptied rockingham in order to keep it away from the Goldmans?

[Notknowingall]

Even if 13 years later no one ever reported anything stolen? do you think orenthal should have reported items stolen when he, family and friends emptied rockingham in order to keep it away from the Goldmans?

Any item that he himself did not take or "give away" yes, he shoud have as soon as he knew they were missing/stolen.

[William Anthony]

Any item that he himself did not take or "give away" yes, he shoud have as soon as he knew they were missing/stolen.

Excellent post, and will only add, or he could have had someone else make the report, who arguably may have had more knowledge of the whereabouts of the property and would have been in a better position to assist LE should they have decided to investigate.

[weezer]

Any item that he himself did not take or "give away" yes, he shoud have as soon as he knew they were missing/stolen.

I'm going to assume you know the stories told by orenthal and others about the night they ransacked rockingham and hid stuff out in storage, friends, sisters, etc. Well, if he didn't think he was stealing from the Courts/Goldmans/Browns, why do you think he felt it was necessary to ransack and hide the stuff in the middle of the night? Because the guy is a slime ball and thought he was going to get away with it. As I saw on another thread, it looks like he's ran out of juice.

[martin II]

Any item that he himself did not take or "give away" yes, he shoud have as soon as he knew they were missing/stolen.

I think that it is possible that Oj always knew that one or the other of the guys took his stuff but not exactly who and that sooner or later the person
would be exposed trying to sell the stuff.Having other issues of immediate issues of concern i think he just waited.

Riccios meeting with the FBI was at their request concerning some Nicole, the model, merchandise he was offering for sale and they wanted to know how he got title.Ojs goods was on the same type issue so it was appropriate
to discuss ojs goods for sale with them in his meeting. They just refused to follow up on it because it was Simpsons goods.

Since Fumong and Beadsley admited in the hotel room that "Mike took it", i am not sure it matters that oj did not make a report 13 years earlier.imo

[martin II]

I am pleased that that post on that sensitive issue was deleted by the mod.

[weezer]

as I understand it, there is a list of items that other people have. It will be interesting to see who is declared the rightful owner(s). I don't believe it will be orenthal.

[Notknowingall]

Excellent post, and will only add, or he could have had someone else make the report, who arguably may have had more knowledge of the whereabouts of the property and would have been in a better position to assist LE should they have decided to investigate.

I am not sure that LE will let someone else report another's property stolen. Possibly to attest that it was in fact stolen. If the property wasn't reported stolen prior to Riccio speaking to LE and he mentions it, my opinion is that LE had the duty to at least contact Simpson to validate the claim.

[martin II]

I'm going to assume you know the stories told by orenthal and others about the night they ransacked rockingham and hid stuff out in storage, friends, sisters, etc. Well, if he didn't think he was stealing from the Courts/Goldmans/Browns, why do you think he felt it was necessary to ransack and hide the stuff in the middle of the night? Because the guy is a slime ball and thought he was going to get away with it. As I saw on another thread, it looks like he's ran out of juice.

The personal items taken from the hotel and presented in court had never been awarded to fred by any judge so oj had no reason to hide them from fred.

[weezer]

The personal items taken from the hotel and presented in court had never been awarded to fred by any judge so oj had no reason to hide them from fred.

you're right about the personal items. now what about all of the other stuff he took?

[weezer]

I am not sure that LE will let someone else report another's property stolen. Possibly to attest that it was in fact stolen. If the property wasn't reported stolen prior to Riccio speaking to LE and he mentions it, my opinion is that LE had the duty to at least contact Simpson to validate the claim.

I would have paid money to be a fly on the wall when orenthal got that call! orenthal had 13 years to report those items stolen -- he didn't.

[martin II]

I am not sure that LE will let someone else report another's property stolen. Possibly to attest that it was in fact stolen. If the property wasn't reported stolen prior to Riccio speaking to LE and he mentions it, my opinion is that LE had the duty to at least contact Simpson to validate the claim.

Any citizen can report a crime such as the holder of stolen goods.

[William Anthony]

I am not sure that LE will let someone else report another's property stolen. Possibly to attest that it was in fact stolen. If the property wasn't reported stolen prior to Riccio speaking to LE and he mentions it, my opinion is that LE had the duty to at least contact Simpson to validate the claim.

I am sure that LE will in fact take a report of stolen property from someone other than the owner. For instance, if a store was broken into and someone tried to sell you stolen property or informed you they had the property for sale, then you could report it. I think LE had a duty to contact Simpson to see if he had received a report of his stolen property but they chose not to. The most important part of your prior post, imho, was when Simpson gained knowledge that his property, or the property he believed was his, was stolen. I think in his position the report would have been better received coming from a third party. I would like to add another example. If you were on vacation and it was known to your neighbor and the neighbor saw someone coming from your house at night with your property, I don't think LE would hesitate, unless you were Simpson. Law without enforcement is a mockery.

[tv]

The personal items taken from the hotel and presented in court had never been awarded to fred by any judge so oj had no reason to hide them from fred.
Then why is Simpson on the McClinton saying that the gave 'it' to the lawyers to keep the Goldman's from getting it? Those are his own words.

[William Anthony]

The personal items taken from the hotel and presented in court had never been awarded to fred by any judge so oj had no reason to hide them from fred.

I think anyone would take precautions, if able, to avoid having property they believed belonged to him tied up in a courtroom battle over title and, maybe, having a judge make a wrong ruling, giving the property to someone else and having to file an appeal only to find that the property was destroyed. I do not know whether the court could have retained the property until the matter was legally decided with finality. I believe if it could have been that would have been the preferable manner to handle the property but we all know that Simpson did not always exercise the most intelligent judgment. There was also an argument made in court over what memorabilia meant by the court order.

[tv]

I would have paid money to be a fly on the wall when orenthal got that call! orenthal had 13 years to report those items stolen -- he didn't.
My opinion is that it was Simpson's responsibilty to report the items stolen. I bet if I reported my neighbor's lawn mower was stolen 13 years ago LE would tell me to have the neighbor report it. Aside from that, isn't there a statute of limitations on everything except murder? I'm not sure they could be prosecuted for theft after all that time. Not that I'm convinced there was a theft -- I just don't see control freak OJ not knowing what's going on in his own house. Besides, if Mike Gilbert stole from him why did he stay friends with him for so many years?

[martin II]

Then why is Simpson on the McClinton saying that the gave 'it' to the lawyers to keep the Goldman's from getting it? Those are his own words.

Well since you do not know what the 'IT' was i will suggest "it" was a 'X BOX'

[martin II]

My opinion is that it was Simpson's responsibilty to report the items stolen. I bet if I reported my neighbor's lawn mower was stolen 13 years ago LE would tell me to have the neighbor report it. Aside from that, isn't there a statute of limitations on everything except murder? I'm not sure they could be prosecuted for theft after all that time. Not that I'm convinced there was a theft -- I just don't see control freak OJ not knowing what's going on in his own house. Besides, if Mike Gilbert stole from him why did he stay friends with him for so many years?

'IF' oj did not report the items stolen and i don't know that he didn't, does that mean that the goods were less stolen? Fumong confirmed that the goods were stolen from Oj trouphy room.imo

[tv]

'IF' oj did not report the items stolen and i don't know that he didn't, does that mean that the goods were less stolen? Fumong confirmed that the goods were stolen from Oj trouphy room.imo Fromong said a lot of things.

[tv]

Well since you do not know what the 'IT' was i will suggest "it" was a 'X BOX' Whatever 'it' was Simpson didn't want Fred Goldman to get his hands on it. It was taken from the room. Are you suggesting that Simpson gave items belonging to Beardsley and Fromong to his lawyers to keep Mr. Goldman from getting them?

[William Anthony]

'IF' oj did not report the items stolen and i don't know that he didn't, does that mean that the goods were less stolen? Fumong confirmed that the goods were stolen from Oj trouphy room.imo

Possession of stolen property is different from theft and you have the concept of interstate transportation of stolen property.

[martin II]

Whatever 'it' was Simpson didn't want Fred Goldman to get his hands on it. It was taken from the room. Are you suggesting that Simpson gave items belonging to Beardsley and Fromong to his lawyers to keep Mr. Goldman from getting them?

What is strange is that you seem to have been coached into such a long conversation about something you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. 'IT'

[Big Ben]

I have heard other claims in the news around the country too about complaints of crimes not being handled by LE because of the complaintant. I'm not in anyway saying it is right just that it does happen.

Yeah, that's the problem! They let their human nature supercede their duty as sworn officers of the court to uphold the rights of every citizen under the Constitution. But we don't care about a little thing like that, now, do we?

In this case, because it's Simpson, the psychic impact of the one sided media saturation, their lack of due diligence, and their general bias has over flowed onto LE on a grandiose scale nationwide. So who can fault them for being or acting ignorant.

Who could O.J. Simpson realistically turn to for help after 1995? If by chance he didn't commit these murders, how do you and others compensate this man if the evidence does surface clearing him of these murders? How does he find relief, if he didn't do it, from this purgatory that many of you have placed him in?

[William Anthony]

Yeah, that's the problem! They let their human nature supercede their duty as sworn officers of the court to uphold the rights of every citizen under the Constitution. But we don't care about a little thing like that, now, do we?

In this case, because it's Simpson, the psychic impact of the one sided media saturation, their lack of due diligence, and their general bias has over flowed onto LE on a grandiose scale nationwide. So who can fault them for being or acting ignorant.

Who could O.J. Simpson realistically turn to for help after 1995? If by chance he didn't commit these murders, how do you and others compensate this man if the evidence does surface clearing him of these murders? How does he find relief, if he didn't do it, from this purgatory that many of you have placed him in?

I understand what you are saying and agree with most of what you are saying. However, I cannot agree that Simpson acted in a manner that would negate his conduct. The criminal trial verdict seems to enter into any discussion about Simpson. Underlying the verdict there are feelings of hatred and happiness, depending on how one sees the verdict. The verdict seemed to have caused feelings of hatred between individuals involved in the trial, which became contagious to the public. We have recently seen displays of hatred on this board that did not involve anyone who was involved in the trial, to my knowledge. There is no way to excuse the conduct that Simpson recently engaged in, because he allowed his hatred to get the best of him. There is no way to excuse LE's recent actions, if true, because they let their hatred of Simpson prevent them from doing their sworn duty. The only purgatory that Simpson or anyone else places themselves in comes from the inablility to rise above the hatred. The happiness that some felt over the verdict often turns to anger and in some cases hatred when others express their feelings that the murder verdict was incorrect and vice versa. We recently started a thread attempting to allow some of those feelings to dissipate. It was obvious to me that some resented that thread so much that they allowed their hatred to spew onto another thread in the most vile, callous and insensitive manner that I have ever seen displayed on this board. That caused one member to rise above it by leaving the community. This did not seem to satisfy the hatred as another thread was started, which save one post, was pure speculation that degraded into bashing. I was happy to see that others did not buy into that thread and displeased to see that the thread somehow found "it's" place here.

I understand that you feel passionately about some things and it was not my intent to discourage you in any manner. That is why I agree with your post in the most part but expounded on it by seeing the under-belly of hatred that has ruined the lives of so many, caused sworn officials not to do their duty and have caused some to respond in unimaginable and unintelligent, imho, manners. I think it is a shame to allow hatred to run one's life and this is not meant to mean you. I am simply saying that the cause of LE's and Simpson's actions was hatred due to feelings that emerged after the murder verdict and which has infected so many in public and some on this board. I ask that we rise above that, if possible. I have not wanted to say some of the things I have said in this post. However, when I see so obvious a hatred and a lack of true understanding, I can no longer stand idly by and let efforts to conceal those vile acts of hatred and sway others go unmentioned. I am not nor do I mean to accuse you of such hatred. I took your post as an opportunity to address the hatred, not because you post spoke hatred, but because it tangentially spoke of the hatred caused by the murder verdict. I hope you understand.

Perhaps, the saddest part of the whole thing is that the one of the members, who caused me to rethink my position if someone had stolen my father's portrait, has let hatred drive them from the community. In that rethinking I found what some may never understand the fortitude to forgive and forget another poster who said something to me that went against the very fiber of my being. It is with the greatest despair that I must respect that poster's choice to move away from the community, because of the hatred displayed to her and, albeit seemingly unintentional, the callousness displayed to another. At martin and my request the posts were deleted and I would like to take this opportunity to thank any others who requested the deletions. Although they were deleted, their sentiments remain and will always scar the heart of the poster, who left. Let me say that, before the input of some on this board that caused me to rethink, I would not have been so nice as Simpson, if someone had stolen the portrait and I found who had taken it. Let me thank them for taking me back to the location I needed to be-love everlasting.

[Kate Sachel]

Yeah, that's the problem! They let their human nature supercede their duty as sworn officers of the court to uphold the rights of every citizen under the Constitution. But we don't care about a little thing like that, now, do we?

In this case, because it's Simpson, the psychic impact of the one sided media saturation, their lack of due diligence, and their general bias has over flowed onto LE on a grandiose scale nationwide. So who can fault them for being or acting ignorant.

Who could O.J. Simpson realistically turn to for help after 1995? If by chance he didn't commit these murders, how do you and others compensate this man if the evidence does surface clearing him of these murders? How does he find relief, if he didn't do it, from this purgatory that many of you have placed him in?

I don't feel sorry for him. If, after his aquittal, he had decided to live his life and raise his children and evidence came to light proving his innocence then I would sympathize. But OJ Simpson has well earned all of his ridicule and purgatory by the manner in which he's chosen to conduct himself. You appear well versed in his history so I will assume that you are aware of the seemingly endless things I'm referring to. If not, let me know and I'll be more than happy to give you a crash course.

The only exception I will allow is that of conduct of LE, who are in fact officers sworn in to uphold the rights of all citizens and, believe it or not, some of us do take that seriously; even individuals such as myself who believe him to be a murderer.

Kate

[weezer]

I don't feel sorry for him. If, after his aquittal, he had decided to live his life and raise his children and evidence came to light proving his innocence then I would sympathize. But OJ Simpson has well earned all of his ridicule and purgatory by the manner in which he's chosen to conduct himself. You appear well versed in his history so I will assume that you are aware of the seemingly endless things I'm referring to. If not, let me know and I'll be more than happy to give you a crash course.

The only exception I will allow is that of conduct of LE, who are in fact officers sworn in to uphold the rights of all citizens and, believe it or not, some of us do take that seriously; even individuals such as myself who believe him to be a murderer.

Kate

I still don't get it. LE was told that stuff had been stolen from orenthal 13 years before. orenthal never reported it or even made accusations. he remained friends with the people he claims took the stuff. those same people signed affidavits that they didn't have any of his stuff and didn't know where his stuff was that was missing from rockingham. orenthal laughs on the tapes that they were hauling stuff out of rockingham that night to keep it away from the Goldmans. where was LE suppose to come in on this? does anyone know the timeline that the contact with LE by riccio happened, riccio's contact with orenthal, and the armed robbery occurred?

[William Anthony]

I don't feel sorry for him. If, after his aquittal, he had decided to live his life and raise his children and evidence came to light proving his innocence then I would sympathize. But OJ Simpson has well earned all of his ridicule and purgatory by the manner in which he's chosen to conduct himself. You appear well versed in his history so I will assume that you are aware of the seemingly endless things I'm referring to. If not, let me know and I'll be more than happy to give you a crash course.

The only exception I will allow is that of conduct of LE, who are in fact officers sworn in to uphold the rights of all citizens and, believe it or not, some of us do take that seriously; even individuals such as myself who believe him to be a murderer.

Kate

Agreed. I think the most important part is that there was a report that someone was trying to sell property that had been stolen from Simpson. It is interesting to me to see and I tried to look to find the statute of limitations for possession of stolen property and interstate transportation of stolen property. I do believe that they would have fallen within the statutes based on those charges, meaning LE should have investigated.

[tv]

What is strange is that you seem to have been coached into such a long conversation about something you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. 'IT'I'm responding to what I've seen posted on this forum about 'it'. What long conversation are you talking about?

[Kate Sachel]

I still don't get it. LE was told that stuff had been stolen from orenthal 13 years before. orenthal never reported it or even made accusations. he remained friends with the people he claims took the stuff. those same people signed affidavits that they didn't have any of his stuff and didn't know where his stuff was that was missing from rockingham. orenthal laughs on the tapes that they were hauling stuff out of rockingham that night to keep it away from the Goldmans. where was LE suppose to come in on this? does anyone know the timeline that the contact with LE by riccio happened, riccio's contact with orenthal, and the armed robbery occurred?

That was not my point. I am referring, in general, to the manner in which LE should be required to conduct themselves with all citizens. Meaning if OJ Simpson were to call and file a complaint, report items stolen or whatnot, then LE would have a responsibility to take that seriously and investigate any and all complaints.

Kate

[SlowHandSam]

I've wondered why he didn't report it 13 years ago too. Or 10 years ago. Or 7 years ago ... even 5 years.

My personal take on it is that, in his exercise to empty his house to keep the Goldmans from obtaining his belongings, these items were removed by OJ and/or his "friends" that evening.

I think it only became an issue when the items came up for sale and he realized someone would make a profit. He didn't want the Goldmans to profit from it and I doubt he'd want any other person to profit from it.

Had these items not been readied for sale - I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

IMHO, of course.

[tv]

I've wondered why he didn't report it 13 years ago too. Or 10 years ago. Or 7 years ago ... even 5 years.

My personal take on it is that, in his exercise to empty his house to keep the Goldmans from obtaining his belongings, these items were removed by OJ and/or his "friends" that evening.

I think it only became an issue when the items came up for sale and he realized someone would make a profit. He didn't want the Goldmans to profit from it and I doubt he'd want any other person to profit from it.

Had these items not been readied for sale - I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

IMHO, of course.Yes, after 13 years they suddenly became 'stolen'. I still think the fact the Simpson said Mike 'took' the stuff instead of saying he 'stole' the stuff makes a difference. I agree that it was the selling of the stuff he objected to. Mike Gilbert says there are storage units full of his things. I think he was upset to find out that those things weren't in storage with everything else and someone was going to make a profit.

[William Anthony]

I've wondered why he didn't report it 13 years ago too. Or 10 years ago. Or 7 years ago ... even 5 years.

My personal take on it is that, in his exercise to empty his house to keep the Goldmans from obtaining his belongings, these items were removed by OJ and/or his "friends" that evening.

I think it only became an issue when the items came up for sale and he realized someone would make a profit. He didn't want the Goldmans to profit from it and I doubt he'd want any other person to profit from it.

Had these items not been readied for sale - I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

IMHO, of course.

I think that there may be an assumption that he knew that the property had been stolen years ago, which may not be the case. The physical possession of the property may well have been relinqushed when he asked some to move it and believed they would retain control of it. However, when he learned that they were not retaining control but trying to sell the property would be the time that he became aware it was stolen, as he had not authorized the sale. It may well be that the intended sale and the alerting of Riccio to the sale was what caused him to realize the property was stolen and what caused Riccio to inform LE. Once they received said report, they had the duty to take action, all of this is my opinion.

[Redmama]

I think that there may be an assumption that he knew that the property had been stolen years ago, which may not be the case. The physical possession of the property may well have been relinqushed when he asked some to move it and believed they would retain control of it. However, when he learned that they were not retaining control but trying to sell the property would be the time that he became aware it was stolen, as he had not authorized the sale. It may well be that the intended sale and the alerting of Riccio to the sale was what caused him to realize the property was stolen and what caused Riccio to inform LE. Once they received said report, they had the duty to take action, all of this is my opinion.

Did LE ever have to answer why they did not take action?

[William Anthony]

Did LE ever have to answer why they did not take action?

Yes, according to Riccio they said that they weren't interested if it involved Simpson.