O.J. In The News Again

[tv]

Yes, according to Riccio they said that they weren't interested if it involved Simpson.That's according to Riccio but did they ever have to answer an official inquiry?

[weezer]

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

I agree completely.

[Redmama]

That's according to Riccio but did they ever have to answer an official inquiry?

Yes - that is exactly what I'm wanting to know -

[weezer]

I continue to ask the question: why didn't orenthal report the stuff stolen when riccio told him there was stuff of his for sale?

and if anyone has a link to riccio's statement that LE told him they wren't interested in investigating the stolen stuff because it was orenthal -- it needs to be posted.

[tv]

I continue to ask the question: why didn't orenthal report the stuff stolen when riccio told him there was stuff of his for sale?

and if anyone has a link to riccio's statement that LE told him they wren't interested in investigating the stolen stuff because it was orenthal -- it needs to be posted.
I'd also like to see that. If Simpson had really wanted his 'stuff' back and LE wouldn't help he could have taken it public. He would have gotten his investigation.

[SlowHandSam]

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.

So it was okay for OJ to hide property that was legally no longer his? Perhaps LE had an obligation to regain possession of said property and relinquish to the Goldmans.

What he did was shady and it came back to bite him. IMO.

[Kate Sachel]

So it was okay for OJ to hide property that was legally no longer his? Perhaps LE had an obligation to regain possession of said property and relinquish to the Goldmans.

What he did was shady and it came back to bite him. IMO.

That is the beauty of karma; continue to do things in an effort to hurt other people and eventually you are going to take a hit of your own.

As I stated previously, he has well earned his ridicule and purgatory.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Yes - that is exactly what I'm wanting to know -

I think that is self explanatory, unless we believe that LE can arbitrarily decide what reports of crime they want to investigate and should that be part of their oath-we will investigate crimes unless so and so(s) are victims. :)

[William Anthony]

So it was okay for OJ to hide property that was legally no longer his? Perhaps LE had an obligation to regain possession of said property and relinquish to the Goldmans.

What he did was shady and it came back to bite him. IMO.

I have not said that it was okay for him to hide stuff and have said that he needed to pay the damage award. However, that does not release LE from doing their duty and perhaps, if they did, then there would not have been taxpayer dollars spent on the trial.

[William Anthony]

That is the beauty of karma; continue to do things in an effort to hurt other people and eventually you are going to take a hit of your own.

As I stated previously, he has well earned his ridicule and purgatory.

Kate

Let all that have ears, hear.

[Redmama]

I think that is self explanatory, unless we believe that LE can arbitrarily decide what reports of crime they want to investigate and should that be part of their oath-we will investigate crimes unless so and so(s) are victims. :)

What is self explanatory? My question is did we here anything from LE as to why they said they were not interested or have we actually heard that LE was not interested from anybody except for Riccio?

[Big Ben]

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.
Kate

Kate, with both you and WM, I reluctantly must agree because in my heart and with common sense I believe that you are right about Simpson's post-trial conduct, and have been angered and disheartened by his post trial behavior for a very long time myself.

You can believe this if you want, but I was there on a conference call in the conference room of Doc Johnson's office in 1998 when Doc Johnson was telling Simpson of the irregularities in the autopsy reports concerning the knife exit wounds in the autopsy reports of Ron and Nicole and the evidence removed surreptitiously from Simpson's case file by prosecutors.

I was right there when Doc's brother recommended to Simpson that he present a more humble appearance and allow the OMIG investigatative team to take the lead and make his public case for exoneration before the public.

I heard what Simpson said to Doc Johnson's brother when he recommended to O.J. that it was not good for Simpson's image in America to open the Rockingham gate to allow this Nicole look-alike, Christy Prody, into his highly publicized life at the time. He told Simpson that his head was still in the lion's mouth and that Simpson couldn't just jerk it out, that it called for patience.

O.J. Simpson's adamant response to Doc's brother was "I'm not guilty of anything and I'm not going to stop living the life that I'm used to living just to placate public appearance!" As much as I disagreed with his adamant stance, given the lifestyle of this son of golden California, turned prince, I understood his feelings. However, maybe now his time of penitence will unfortunately allow him to comprehend why Doc's brother was suggesting a more humble approach.

Since then we have uncovered much more evidence concerning those associated with this sordid episode in America's history but none of that may matter now. There is no cause of action relative to Nevada that I can forsee that it could be used for. It appears that Simpson's post-trial conduct may have given the lion the last word.

[William Anthony]

What is self explanatory? My question is did we here anything from LE as to why they said they were not interested or have we actually heard that LE was not interested from anybody except for Riccio?

That was the testimony that was not refuted.

[tv]

What is self explanatory? My question is did we here anything from LE as to why they said they were not interested or have we actually heard that LE was not interested from anybody except for Riccio?

I found this. Riccio says LE said they didn't want to get involved in another weird celebrity case so it appears that they didn't say they didn't want to get involved because of OJ Simpson.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/10993046.html

[William Anthony]

Kate, with both you and WM, I reluctantly must agree because in my heart and with common sense I believe that you are right about Simpson's post-trial conduct, and have been angered and disheartened by his post trial behavior for a very long time myself.

You can believe this if you want, but I was there on a conference call in the conference room of Doc Johnson's office in 1998 when Doc Johnson was telling Simpson of the irregularities in the autopsy reports concerning the knife exit wounds in the autopsy reports of Ron and Nicole and the evidence removed surreptitiously from Simpson's case file by prosecutors.

I was right there when Doc's brother recommended to Simpson that he present a more humble appearance and allow the OMIG investigatative team to take the lead and make his public case for exoneration before the public.

I heard what Simpson said to Doc Johnson's brother when he recommended to O.J. that it was not good for Simpson's image in America to open the Rockingham gate to allow this Nicole look-alike, Christy Prody, into his highly publicized life at the time. He told Simpson that his head was still in the lion's mouth and that Simpson couldn't just jerk it out, that it called for patience.

O.J. Simpson's adamant response to Doc's brother was "I'm not guilty of anything and I'm not going to stop living the life that I'm used to living just to placate public appearance!" As much as I disagreed with his adamant stance, given the lifestyle of this son of golden California, turned prince, I understood his feelings. However, maybe now his time of penitence will unfortunately allow him to comprehend why Doc's brother was suggesting a more humble approach.

Since then we have uncovered much more evidence concerning those associated with this sordid episode in America's history but none of that may matter now. There is no cause of action relative to Nevada that I can forsee that it could be used for. It appears that Simpson's post-trial conduct may have given the lion the last word.

I have no reason to not believe you. I have no problem with Simpson's choice of female companionship or his desire to live his life as he chose. However, with that came some responsibility and a willingness to accept what society had to say due to that choice. He may well have taken a lesson from MLK, since he was recently mentioned on this thread. There is a way to rebel, within the confines of the law and within what is acceptable in society, speaking of the book. Much to my dismay, he made some very inappropriate choices. I do not think he necessarily had to humble himself but I think that I understand what was said to him. I think he could have lived his life without humbling himself or flaunting himself in front of the public. With all that said, I do not think the public would have let him rest but he did not need to add fuel to the fire.

[William Anthony]

I found this. Riccio says LE said they didn't want to get involved in another weird celebrity case so it appears that they didn't say they didn't want to get involved because of OJ Simpson.


http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ukNfDpwFenoJ:www.lvrj.com/news/10993046.html+did+riccio+report+simpson's+items+to +law+enforcement%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Okay, we will use the words "weird celebrity" but that in no way justifies, imho, their duty to follow up on a report of a crime. If this is allowed, what class of people will be next for them to refuse to investigate crimes against, because they did not want to get involved-women, children, Blacks, whites, homosexuals, heterosexuals, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, poor Americans, rich Americans or middle-class Americans? Where will the line be drawn? I guess they could have decided not to investigate the accusations made against Phil Spector or Robert Blake or Michael Vick, because they considered them "weird Celebrities". I do apologize as I had no intention of making you think I responded to you directly. I truly thought that it was Redmama's post.

[tv]

I believe the word weird referred to the case not the celebrity.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/10993046.html

[William Anthony]

I do not think it matters whether it pertained to celebrity or case. I do not think LE has the right to determine whether or not to respond to reports of crime, because the case was weird and involved a celebrity and my questions as to the class of cases they should decide that they want to respond to still applies. I don't think there was a case at the point they received the report. Perhaps, they realized one was to come and decided to let taxpayer dollars pay for their refusal to do their duty.

[weezer]

"According to the FBI, Riccio was advised to contact a lawyer before taking any action and was warned that alerting the agency would not absolve him of any potential crime.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said Riccio did not indicate a crime would be committed.

"I went along with O.J.'s plan," Riccio said. "It was a self-organized sting operation. Except for the final result, with him bringing people who had guns. I knew nothing about that."

tvdinner's link to riccio article

[William Anthony]

Very telling.

"Riccio was advised to contact a lawyer before taking any action."

Therefore the FBI knew of the report and that a crime was reported and "action" was to be taken to retrieve the property but did not want to get involved with "weird celebrity cases" and, instead of "taking any action", warned Riccio to contact a lawyer. Things that make you go uhm.

[tv]

It's very telling that the focus of this thread has turned away from the actions of OJ Simpson and toward blaming LE. Same old story, different crime.

[weezer]

"According to the FBI, Riccio was advised to contact a lawyer before taking any action and was warned that alerting the agency would not absolve him of any potential crime.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said Riccio did not indicate a crime would be committed.

"I went along with O.J.'s plan," Riccio said. "It was a self-organized sting operation. Except for the final result, with him bringing people who had guns. I knew nothing about that."

tvdinner's link to riccio article

[weezer]

It's very telling that the focus of this thread has turned away from the actions of OJ Simpson and toward blaming LE. Same old story, different crime.

and just as telling is riccio's statement: "I went along with the plan. . . ." wonder why part of the plan wasn't for orenthal to report it?

[tv]

and just as telling is riccio's statement: "I went along with the plan. . . ." wonder why part of the plan wasn't for orenthal to report it?

Remember shortly after the crime OJ Simpson was asked why he didn't report it to LE and he said something about LE not working out of him in the past. It seemed to me that he didn't know Riccio had mentioned it to the FBI at that time.

[William Anthony]

The focus of this thread was OJ In the News Again. I have not heard anyone not blame Simpson. The question was whether or not LE had the duty to take action-follow up on, investigate, a report of a crime or could they arbitrarily decide not to. That obviously led to the question as to whether or not their inaction failed to prevent a crime. No one is blaming LE for anything other than possibly failing to do their duty. Simpson was responsible for the actions he took. Could the crime have been prevented, if LE did their job?

[William Anthony]

The question was did Riccio alert them to the fact that a crime had been committed and there was a potential crime being contemplated and why would they tell him to consult a lawyer before taking action.

[Kate Sachel]

The question was did Riccio alert them to the fact that a crime had been committed and there was a potential crime being contemplated and why would they tell him to consult a lawyer before taking action.

I suppose it would depend on how he presented it to authorities.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

The focus of this thread was OJ In the News Again. I have not heard anyone not blame Simpson. The question was whether or not LE had the duty to take action-follow up on, investigate, a report of a crime or could they arbitrarily decide not to. That obviously led to the question as to whether or not their inaction failed to prevent a crime. No one is blaming LE for anything other than possibly failing to do their duty. Simpson was responsible for the actions he took. Could the crime have been prevented, if LE did their job?

Could the crime have been prevented had OJ simply done what he was supposed to do years before?

Kate

[William Anthony]

There was no need to report when he had been told that LE refused to get involved with any weird celebrity case.

[weezer]

"According to the FBI, Riccio was advised to contact a lawyer before taking any action and was warned that alerting the agency would not absolve him of any potential crime.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said Riccio did not indicate a crime would be committed.

"I went along with O.J.'s plan," Riccio said. "It was a self-organized sting operation. Except for the final result, with him bringing people who had guns. I knew nothing about that."

tvdinner's link to riccio article

[William Anthony]

Could the crime have been prevented had OJ simply done what he was supposed to do years before?

Kate

Why do people think that anyone is negating Simpson's conduct. I have said he should have paid the damage award. Does the fact that he did not negate LE's duty? Do two wrongs make a right?

[tv]

Perhaps Riccio was advised to consult a lawyer because LE felt that strealing items that don't belong to you is a crime.

[William Anthony]

I suppose it would depend on how he presented it to authorities.

Kate

I think LE's answer shows how he reported it.

[William Anthony]

That would mean that they told him to consult an attorney because they were refusing to get involved with a report of the sell of stolen property, because it involved a weird celebrity case. It would also indicate they were aware of a conspiracy to commit a crime and took no action.

[weezer]

Perhaps Riccio was advised to consult a lawyer because LE felt that strealing items that don't belong to you is a crime.

maybe it was a civil matter? you know -- like the judgment! :D :eek:

wouldn't you report it to local authorities WHEN/IF you ever figured out who had the stuff and when/where the armed robbery was going to take place.

[Kate Sachel]

Why do people think that anyone is negating Simpson's conduct. I have said he should have paid the damage award. Does the fact that he did not negate LE's duty? Do two wrongs make a right?

First of all, I don't appreciate the "tone" you seem to be using. Secondly, I've already responded more than once reagrding LE's duty.

Kate

[weezer]

". . .After discussing Smith, FBI agents gave Riccio about 15 minutes to discuss Simpson, but they expressed little interfest, he said.

Riccio said he contacted the Los Angeles Police Department, where he said he was switched from department to department before finally being told to file a civil complaint.

"No one seemed to be concerned about it," Riccio said. . ."

[William Anthony]

First of all, I don't appreciate the "tone" you seem to be using. Secondly, I've already responded more than once reagrding LE's duty.

Kate

I don't know how you interpreted a tone. I reminded people that I have said that he should have paid the damages, the verdict was wrong and his conduct was criminal and stupid. I understood your position on LE's duty but you seemed to indicate that I was in some way trying to justify Simpson's conduct. I think we may have a misunderstanding and there was no reason for you to think that my tone meant anything other than a polite, courteous, honest, respectful and civil response.

[William Anthony]

The last I knew the possession of stolen property was a criminal charge and not a civil matter. I guess Riccio was right. LE was not interested.

[tv]

If you allow someone to take your property for safekeeping then when you want it back and you feel that it was unjustly kept or disposed of that's a civil matter.

I don't believe anything was stolen from OJ Simpson's house. I think he trusted some people to keep his property from being taken by Fred Goldman. He had 13 years to report it which he didn't do. He certainly showed no sense of urgency where the items were concerned. I wonder if he would have done it if he hadn't been in Vegas anyway? Would he have travelled there for just that purpose?

[William Anthony]

If you have an agreement with the person that they are only to retain possession of your property and they take that property out of state with the intent of selling it, or sell it without your approval, then the property was stolen. The only one that would have had a right to a civil suit, providing that he could produce a title in fee simple to the property would have been Fumong against MG. This in no way diminishes LE's duty to investigate a report of the crime and they could have and then said that Fumong had title to the property and it is consequently a civil matter. I think I already spoke on the issue of mistrust and how one can be duped by trusting those who are not worthy of her trust.

[weezer]

"According to the FBI, Riccio was advised to contact a lawyer before taking any action and was warned that alerting the agency would not absolve him of any potential crime.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said Riccio did not indicate a crime would be committed

[William Anthony]

Did Riccio indicate a crime had been committed?

[weezer]

If you allow someone to take your property for safekeeping then when you want it back and you feel that it was unjustly kept or disposed of that's a civil matter.

I don't believe anything was stolen from OJ Simpson's house. I think he trusted some people to keep his property from being taken by Fred Goldman. He had 13 years to report it which he didn't do. He certainly showed no sense of urgency where the items were concerned. I wonder if he would have done it if he hadn't been in Vegas anyway? Would he have travelled there for just that purpose?

Here's some interesting info:

Guess who owns Public Storage? none other than Mr. Wayne Hughes

Guess who the children's attorney was that sued the Browns on their behalf? none other than Mr. Wayne Hughes

Guess who was mentioned and thanked for being such a good friend in orenthal's 'goodbye' letter? none other than Mr. Wayne Hughes.

[William Anthony]

At the time of the letter, I don't think he had any reason to know how the events would turn out. I guess he was just thanking someone he could trust. What a novel idea. He found someone he could trust and seemed to have stuck by him without being calloused. I understand why some would wonder about this.

[weezer]

you don't suppose the storage units where orenthal laughed about hiding the staff belonged to Mr. Hughes do you?

[tv]

Here's some interesting info:

Guess who owns Public Storage? none other than Mr. Wayne Hughes

Guess who the children's attorney was that sued the Browns on their behalf? none other than Mr. Wayne Hughes

Guess who was mentioned and thanked for being such a good friend in orenthal's 'goodbye' letter? none other than Mr. Wayne Hughes.

Verrry interesting. Now, I wonder which storage company all the other stuff is stored in...hmm.

[tv]

you don't suppose the storage units where orenthal laughed about hiding the staff belonged to Mr. Hughes do you?Oh, yeah, I do. ;)

[William Anthony]

The "it' may be the storage key.:)

[weezer]

Oh, yeah, I do. ;)

I've been trying to read up on this and so far have found info alluding to 'someone who works for someone' stealing from the storage and that the storage went unpaid and was auctioned off. hmmm

[tv]

I've been trying to read up on this and so far have found info alluding to 'someone who works for someone' stealing from the storage and that the storage went unpaid and was auctioned off. hmmm

Mike Gilbert told the Goldmans that he was going to work with them on handing over the contents of the storage units to them. I wonder if this is a different storage from the one that was auctioned off?

[William Anthony]

Could the "it" have been MG?:)

[weezer]

Mike Gilbert told the Goldmans that he was going to work with them on handing over the contents of the storage units to them. I wonder if this is a different storage from the one that was auctioned off?

according to testimony, there is a list that shows all of the items they had for sale. my guess is the Goldmans have the list and are checking it twice.

[tv]

according to testimony, there is a list that shows all of the items they had for sale. my guess is the Goldmans have the list and are checking it twice.The lawyer they have is an asset recovery lawyer and I've read he's good at what he does. Something tells me 'it' will soon have a new home. :)

[Big Ben]

However, with that came some responsibility and a willingness to accept what society had to say due to that choice..


WM, your prior remark could not be any closer in parodying what Johnson was trying to get Simpson to understand in November 1998, since he knew that Simpson was the focus of the celebrity spotlights. Simpson's response was equally as formidable in asserting that society be damned he was going to live his life the way he chose. He wasn't interested in any type of PR strategy whatsoever to strengthen his moral image. As far as he was concerned, he insisted, he hadn't done anything wrong to apologize to society for and any modification on his life was to be considered a restraint that he was simply unwilling to condone.

I wanted him to go even further than Johnson and get him a nice Black girlfriend and stay out of the limelight. After he chewed out Doc's brother, wasn't no need in approaching that PR recommendation. Again, imo, he has continued to mess around with the lion's mouth and I believe that is why he will be looking out through the bars for an awfully long time instead of assisting others in bringing forth the truth in this former matter.

[tv]

Do you think they'll find out who's naughty or nice? Did you know that Simpson has been found guilty and is going to jail? Oh yeah. Simpson has been found guilty and is going to jail. Simpson has been found guilty...Simpson has been...

Hi JB! I hear Simpson has been found guiilty...:seeya:

[William Anthony]

There once was a man
who lived in not too distant a land
He lived in perfect harmony
not a mean spirit troubled he

Many tried all too often in vain
to anger or to incur his distain
with arrows, knives and slings
they tried to move him from love everlasting

He often cried at what he would see
wondering why people so mean could be
when they were unable to get to him
they tried to deceive others of them

They would try to act as their friends
using trickery rather than amends
he watched there calculated callousness
but he knew that truth would come home to rest

[tv]

How lovely, William.

[William Anthony]

Thank you. To those who have ears, let them hear.

[William Anthony]

One of my favorite lines from Tombstone was, "my hypocrisy goes but so far". It appears that some have eternal hypocrisy.

[William Anthony]

WM, your prior remark could not be any closer in parodying what Johnson was trying to get Simpson to understand in November 1998, since he knew that Simpson was the focus of the celebrity spotlights. Simpson's response was equally as formidable in asserting that society be damned he was going to live his life the way he chose. He wasn't interested in any type of PR strategy whatsoever to strengthen his moral image. As far as he was concerned, he insisted, he hadn't done anything wrong to apologize to society for and any modification on his life was to be considered a restraint that he was simply unwilling to condone.

I wanted him to go even further than Johnson and get him a nice Black girlfriend and stay out of the limelight. After he chewed out Doc's brother, wasn't no need in approaching that PR recommendation. Again, imo, he has continued to mess around with the lion's mouth and I believe that is why he will be looking out through the bars for an awfully long time instead of assisting others in bringing forth the truth in this former matter.

I have said that Simpson's conduct was stupid. I have no problem with whomsoever he chose to form relationships, as I believe that was his personal choice and his right. I think Simpson did not use good judgment, after making his choices. To those that much has been given, much is required. His total disregard for societal acceptance was clearly shown in his subsequent conduct. However, his hatred and rejection of society's views not only showed a flaw in his understanding but also led to his demise, imho. I am very pleased to see that, at least, a sentiment is being negatively expressed about negativity by society (campaign). I think that the negativity toward Simpson was caused, in part, by his conduct and I feel no sympathy for him as that was his choice, which I think he had the right to choose and accept the consequences thereof.

[martin II]

The lawyer they have is an asset recovery lawyer and I've read he's good at what he does. Something tells me 'it' will soon have a new home. :)

That Asset recovery lawyer is one of the lawyers and others,that took all of the money from freds book sale and left him with .17 per book. So yes i would say he is good at what he does, collecting monety for himself. hahaha

[tv]

That Asset recovery lawyer is one of the lawyers and others,that took all of the money from freds book sale and left him with .17 per book. So yes i would say he is good at what he does, collecting monety for himself. hahaha

Why is it not possible for you to understand that Mr. Goldman doesn't give a rat's behind that he didn't make a big profit off of the book? It's all about making the killer of his son suffer. Also that he had to market the book or lose control of the rights? Why don't you understand this?

[William Anthony]

I thought that there was an uproar over the publishing of the book. I guess no one considered the contents of the book to be despicable as much as the fact that Simpson wrote it. Changing the title and adding a chapter did not change the original content of the book, imho. I understand but I think that a far better thing to have done with the book was to destroy it. I think hatred causes people to make irrational, unthoughtful and callous courses of action. Imho, the writing and publishing of the book did little to give meaning to the murders but it did a lot to increase hatred.

[weezer]

Why is it not possible for you to understand that Mr. Goldman doesn't give a rat's behind that he didn't make a big profit off of the book? It's all about making the killer of his son suffer. Also that he had to market the book or lose control of the rights? Why don't you understand this?

I don't think it's a matter of understanding as it is accepting. For some, the concept that Mr. Goldman was bound by the law to do certain things AND the fact that he did those things, is too much to comprehend.

I have to laugh when I read the goings on about this since the people hollering about it are the NG's. . . .not a word from the Goldmans. . . .they seem just fine with it. Hmm, I wonder if Mr. Goldman felt about the money like orenthal said he did about the stuff when he told the guys to take it and do whatever -- he just didn't want the Goldmans to get it.

[William Anthony]

Hatred often makes people hurt more than the person intended, such as the writing and publishing of the book, and when made to face the offense often try to justify the offenses rather than being truthful, admitting their mistakes and seeking to make amends. I think that acting, through deceptiveness, in the latter manner is often far more callous than the original callousness.

[martin II]

Why is it not possible for you to understand that Mr. Goldman doesn't give a rat's behind that he didn't make a big profit off of the book? It's all about making the killer of his son suffer. Also that he had to market the book or lose control of the rights? Why don't you understand this?

Nonsense

fred sent his lawyers to court to get title to the book and argued successfully to block the Browns from a equal share of the profits.
He then saught and found a publisher willing to invest in the publishing of the book for profit. He then made tv appearances to promote the book.
As it turned out the publisher, his lawyers , agents and the retailers took the $24.00 retail price and gave him .17 cent per book for his part.This after he and his lawyers had stated they expected to make big money from the sale of the book. If he was not interested in making money, he could have assigned all the proceeds to some non profit organization. But he did not do that. He wanted money for fred and he got screwed by his lawyers and the other 'HELPERS' Why cain't you understand this?
imo

[weezer]

"In Pursuit of a Civil Judgment

The Lord helps those who help themselves, and the Law is no different. More than a decade ago, the Law gave Fredric Goldman a $19 million wrongful-death civil judgment for the loss of his 25-year-old son, Ron Goldman. That civil judgment reflected a jury’s conclusion, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ron was murdered. The bulk of that judgment, more than $12 million, was punitive. The jury determined that the murderer was guilty and needed to be punished. The Law gave Fred that judgment, and then it said to him, “Now go out and enforce it . . . if you can. . .”

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

excellent article on the events of the book -- it wouldn't hurt some posters to educate themselves to facts and law.

[tv]

Nonsense

fred sent his lawyers to court to get title to the book and argued successfully to block the Browns from a equal share of the profits.
He then saught and found a publisher willing to invest in the publishing of the book for profit. He then made tv appearances to promote the book.
As it turned out the publisher, his lawyers , agents and the retailers took the $24.00 retail price and gave him .17 cent per book for his part.This after he and his lawyers had stated they expected to make big money from the sale of the book. If he was not interested in making money, he could have assigned all the proceeds to some non profit organization. But he did not do that. He wanted money for fred and he got screwed by his lawyers and the other 'HELPERS' Why cain't you understand this?
imo

martin, you are so wrong about all of this I don't even know where to start to unravel it. :shrug:

[tv]

"In Pursuit of a Civil Judgment

The Lord helps those who help themselves, and the Law is no different. More than a decade ago, the Law gave Fredric Goldman a $19 million wrongful-death civil judgment for the loss of his 25-year-old son, Ron Goldman. That civil judgment reflected a jury’s conclusion, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ron was murdered. The bulk of that judgment, more than $12 million, was punitive. The jury determined that the murderer was guilty and needed to be punished. The Law gave Fred that judgment, and then it said to him, “Now go out and enforce it . . . if you can. . .”

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

excellent article on the events of the book -- it wouldn't hurt some posters to educate themselves to facts and law.I couldn't agree more. :beer:

[weezer]

martin, you are so wrong about all of this I don't even know where to start to unravel it. :shrug:

LOL -- you "cain't" convince the orenthal apologists that he's ever done anything wrong. They've never "saught" the truth. ;)

[Redmama]

LOL -- you "cain't" convince the orenthal apologists that he's ever done anything wrong. They've never "saught" the truth. ;)

You both are so right - everytime the finger is pointed at OJ, someone elses shortcomings or stupid acts are brought up as a comparison - never has even one of those people come close to being as evil as OJ.

[tv]

LOL -- you "cain't" convince the orenthal apologists that he's ever done anything wrong. They've never "saught" the truth. ;)That's why I didn't even try. We've been over this before and posting the real facts doesn't stop the misinformation.

[tv]

You both are so right - everytime the finger is pointed at OJ, someone elses shortcomings or stupid acts are brought up as a comparison - never has even one of those people come close to being as evil as OJ.

Mr. Goldman is just a man who has lost his son to a brutal murder and just wants the killer to pay. There's nothing more to it than that but he's been portrayed as money hungry and celebrity seeking. It's a shame.

[Redmama]

Mr. Goldman is just a man who has lost his son to a brutal murder and just wants the killer to pay. There's nothing more to it than that but he's been portrayed as money hungry and celebrity seeking. It's a shame.

I totally agree - I have seen Mr. Goldman interviewed several times and I consider myself a very good judge of character. He is a wonderful person. I've heard some state that he is just seeking his 15 minutes of fame - he is doing anything but that. He is a very genuine person and a father that loved his son very much - and still loves his son which is what keeps him sane and motivated about righting the wrong done to his son. None of which has anything to do with his own financial gain.

[William Anthony]

Vengeance is mine, so saith the Lord.

[William Anthony]

It's a thine line between love and hate.

[William Anthony]

Let's talk facts. The "clear and convincing" standard is used in a civil trial. A civil trial can not render a verdict on a criminal charge such as murder. The "clear and convincing" standard is below the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Therefore, the civil verdict only proved that Simpson caused the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and that Simpson committed battery on Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. One can often be deceived by what they read, if they do not know enough about what has been written and trust what they read as being honest in its content.

[William Anthony]

At the very end of our posting day
As we all go our separate way
Careful our words did not harm
Or cause our listening audience alarm
And retire to our individual repose
Cautious not to offend the ears of those

[William Anthony]

"it wouldn't hurt some posters to educate themselves to facts and law."

Let's talk facts and law. The "clear and convincing" standard is used in a civil trial. A civil trial can not render a verdict on a criminal charge such as murder. The "clear and convincing" standard is below the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Therefore, the civil verdict only proved that Simpson caused the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and that Simpson committed battery on Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. One can often be deceived by what they read, if they do not know enough about what has been written and trust what they read as being honest in its content.

[William Anthony]

Is there a poster seeking to find the truth?

At the very end of our posting day
As we all go our separate way
Careful our words did not harm
Or cause our listening audience alarm
And retire to our individual repose
Cautious not to offend the ears of those

[William Anthony]

Is there a poster seeking to find the truth?

Perhaps, Simpson and Mr. Goldman in their times of emotional turmoil were both deceived by people, who spoke kind words in order to make them allies, but the truth was that they were only trying to use them for own agenda, while hiding what they really thought, said and/or wrote.

[martin II]

martin, you are so wrong about all of this I don't even know where to start to unravel it. :shrug:

Tv
I have posted the facts of what has transpired.Tell me what is SO WRONG about those facts.

[martin II]

You both are so right - everytime the finger is pointed at OJ, someone elses shortcomings or stupid acts are brought up as a comparison - never has even one of those people come close to being as evil as OJ.

Redmama
Your statement that oj is evil may be based only on your opinion that he murdered Ron and Nicole. I don't know for a fact that he killed either as i was not at bundy when they were killed.imo

[martin II]

Is there a poster seeking to find the truth?

Perhaps, Simpson and Mr. Goldman in their times of emotional turmoil were both deceived by people, who spoke kind words in order to make them allies, but the truth was that they were only trying to use them for own agenda, while hiding what they really thought, said and/or wrote.

I have often thought that some have by their words urges fred to continue
his hate filled actions not that it was in his best interest but to support their
hate filled attitudes towards oj. Any actions driven by hate harms the hater more than the hated. imo

[martin II]

Vengeance is mine, so saith the Lord.

Many christians that believe they live by the words of the Bible ignore what the lord said on the issue of Vengeance.It is like cherry picking or they don't believe those were the words of the Lord.imo:shrug:

[tv]

Tv
I have posted the facts of what has transpired.Tell me what is SO WRONG about those facts.

First of all, here is the reason the book was published by the Goldmans:

Simpson had formed a company to publish the book, Lorraine Brooke Associates, whose name comes from the middle names of his and Nicole Brown Simpson’s children, Sydney, 21, and Justin, 19. The Goldmans said that Simpson forced Lorraine Brooke Associates into bankruptcy.

“The book was seized as an asset by the court and the court ordered it monetized, and so we didn’t have a choice,” Kim Goldman explained.

“The book was going to be published either by us or by someone else,” her father added. “The judge actually asked me if I was going to make certain the book was going to be monetized. I promised the judge personally the book was going to be monetized no matter what.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20773910/

[tv]

Tv
I have posted the facts of what has transpired.Tell me what is SO WRONG about those facts.

Next, this addresses what you consider to be his 'bad book deal':

But, Vieira asked, is publishing the book worth the pain of reliving their loss yet again?

“Whatever it is, it’ll be worth it for a multitude of reasons,” Fred Goldman replied. “Every single penny that we take from him is one tiny, tiny piece of justice. If there is one single woman that reads this book and sees herself as the abused woman and gets out of that relationship, we’ve saved one woman.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20773910/

[tv]

Tv
I have posted the facts of what has transpired.Tell me what is SO WRONG about those facts.

Q: Peter, your lawyer, was telling me about the legal implications of the ruling in bankruptcy court. What was that conversation like, when he sat you down and told you your options?

Kim: It took more than one conversation, that's for sure. When he told us that the book was going to end up published, we were kicking and screaming. We were so torn about going down that road and we were worried about Nicole's family and the kids. But as we kept uncovering information - the kids had signed off on it, O.J. would be getting the proceeds, we decided we needed to take something back.

Fred: The bottom line is that we got the rights through the court. And the bankruptcy court required the book rights be monetized. I made a promise to the judge that I would maximize the asset and have it monetized.

Kim: My father and I started a foundation - the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice, and a portion of the proceeds will go to that. Also, the children will receive a portion of the money as well, whereas when it was in O.J.'s hands they weren't seeing any of it.

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/14/361586.aspx

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;9135243]I have often thought that some have by their words urges fred to continue
his hate filled actions not that it was in his best interest but to support their
hate filled attitudes towards oj. Any actions driven by hate harms the hater more than the hated. imo[/QUOTE

Yes, hatred can cause us to act in the most vile and despicable ways. What I find even more despicable is an attempt to conceal the truth. One of my favorite lines from Tombstone was, "my hypocrisy goes but so far". It appears that some have eternal hypocrisy.

[William Anthony]

Many christians that believe they live by the words of the Bible ignore what the lord said on the issue of Vengeance.It is like cherry picking or they don't believe those were the words of the Lord.imo:shrug:

I do not call myself a christian but I do believe in God and his word, even though I do not always follow them. That is why I can't say that I am a Christian.

[weezer]

". . .Fred and his daughter, Kim Goldman, felt compelled to fight. And fight they did. Ron was Fred’s only son and Kim’s only sibling. Ron was savagely ripped from their lives, and nothing could change that. But they could do their best to enforce the civil judgment any way they could under the Law. It is very difficult to try to follow the Law while others break it. Fred and Kim have faced terrible obstacles and choices. At times, public pressure has been overwhelming. There are those who have called them “greedy” for trying to enforce their judgment. Of all the criticisms leveled against them, that one is the most obscene. . ."

[William Anthony]

Obscenity comes in many forms and is open to consideration as to which form is worse. For instance, attempting to conceal and deceive one's callousness is one of the worst forms of obscenity to me.

[tv]

Obscenity comes in many forms and is open to consideration as to which form is worse. For instance, attempting to conceal and deceive one's callousness is one of the worst forms of obscenity to me.

What does that mean?

[William Anthony]

I think it is obvious and means what it says.

[tv]

I think it is obvious and means what it says.

Okay, who are we talking about that has attempted to conceal and deceive one's own callousness? OJ, LE, lawyers, the court, the Goldmans, the Vegas thugs, Riccio? Please be more specific.

[William Anthony]

Okay, who are we talking about that has attempted to conceal and deceive one's own callousness? OJ, LE, lawyers, the court, the Goldmans, the Vegas thugs, Riccio? Please be more specific.

I was talking about the statement that what some thought was the worse obscene and I just stated that that is a matter of personal opinion and gave an example.

At the very end of our posting day
As we all go our separate way
Careful our words did not harm
Or cause our listening audience alarm
And retire to our individual repose
Cautious not to offend the ears of those

To those that have ears, let them hear. Answer-none of the above listed in your post.

[tv]

I was talking about the statement that what some thought was the worse obscene and I just stated that that is a matter of personal opinion and gave an example.

At the very end of our posting day
As we all go our separate way
Careful our words did not harm
Or cause our listening audience alarm
And retire to our individual repose
Cautious not to offend the ears of those

To those that have ears, let them hear.

William, please stop being so cryptic. If you have something to say then just say it for heaven's sake.

[William Anthony]

Why, whatever do you mean? Do you know of someone that was extremely callous and unthoughtful and you remained silent in public but may have warned them about their comment, causing them to make a post on another thread?

[tv]

Why, whatever do you mean? Do you know of someone that was extremely callous and unthoughtful and you remained silent in public but may have warned them about their comment, causing them to make a post on another thread?

If you're talking about Kate's mother's death I didn't discuss that with anyone not that it's any of your business. This forum is to discuss OJ In The News Again not your personal vendettas. If you want to discuss callousness maybe you'd like to revisit your hood and sheet remark to me. Shall we?

[William Anthony]

If you're talking about Kate's mother's death I didn't discuss that with anyone not that it's any of your business. This forum is to discuss OJ In The News Again not your personal vendettas. If you want to discuss callousness maybe you'd like to revisit your hood and sheet remark to me. Shall we?

I made a general comment and you took it to someplace that you wanted to take it. My comment seemed to have struck a nerve. The comments I made were in regards to comments made in posts on this thread and from links provided. You mean the hood and sheet remark in regard to your not having a raincoat and you remark to me that you repeated in a manner on this thread that I ignored about me presiding over a festival or in the latest one about presiding over a thread. I did not hear you tell the poster that brought inappropriate and callous remarks to this thread that the thread was to discuss Simpson In The News Again but I did. I had to say that repeatedly but that did not stop that poster and you did not make the comment that it was to discuss Simpson in the news again.

[tv]

I made a general comment and you took it to someplace that you wanted to take it. My comment seemed to have struck a nerve. The comments I made were in regards to comments made in posts on this thread and from links provided. You mean the hood and sheet remark in regard to your not having a raincoat and you remark to me that you repeated in a manner on this thread that I ignored about me presiding over a festival or in the latest one about presiding over a thread. I did not hear you tell the poster that brought inappropriate and callous remarks to this thread that the thread was to discuss Simpson In The News Again but I did. I had to say that repeatedly but that did not stop that poster and you did not make the comment that it was to discuss Simpson in the news again.

I don't know why I decided to start talking to you again because you are still the same sanctimonious popinjay you've been since I joined this forum. I've tried to be friends with you but it's proven impossible. I'm done. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

You watch entirely to much Bill O'Riley and know nothing about me or why I value friendship or why I use Doc Holiday in my signature. Friendship to me is based on a mutual trust, respect and appreciation of another's feelings, beliefs and values. Hatred casues some to act in unthoughtful and callous ways. A friend would not blurt out irrelevant and immaterial things from hatred and not consider the feelings of others. I would not enjoy having this type of person for a friend, nor would I have a long friendship with them but to each his own.

[tv]

You watch entirely to much Bill O'Riley and know nothing about me or why I value friendship or why I use Doc Holiday in my signature. Friendship to me is based on a mutual trust, respect and appreciation of another's feelings, beliefs and values. Hatred casues some to act in unthoughtful and callous ways. A friend would not blurt out irrelevant and immaterial things from hatred and not consider the feelings of others. I would not enjoy having this type of person for a friend, nor would I have a long friendship with them but to each his own.What in the world does Bill O'Reilly have to do with this discussion? I don't know why it matters but I seldom watch his show...I'm sure you have some convoluted reasoning for that remark but please spare me. You're right -- you and I are not friends -- even without everything else your multiple identities are too much to keep up with.

[William Anthony]

Well, I must not be as good as some at the multiple personality thing, since you were able to pick them out. There is an honor in that. Regardless of my nic, my words come out honestly, which enables everyone to know where I am coming from. A friend gets upset when he see's attempts to try to deceive a friend. That is part of my personality, regardless of my nic.

[FDInLaw]

Is this thread still about OJ??? Seems like more of a "let's bicker for the h3ll of it" thread (LOL). :D


Come on you two. . . snap out of it! :punch:


Really, maybe there should be a "fight club" forum just so people can go at eachother AND be on topic. :tongue:

[martin II]

If you're talking about Kate's mother's death I didn't discuss that with anyone not that it's any of your business. This forum is to discuss OJ In The News Again not your personal vendettas. If you want to discuss callousness maybe you'd like to revisit your hood and sheet remark to me. Shall we?

TV

As you know the dissrespectful post made by THAT poster here was, imo, not just directed at Kate but also at WarmnCozy as both had shared simular sad stories about their love ones. It may be that THAT post was directed more at WarmnCozy but it was dissrespectful and callous to both and to the community. imo

When it happened i had thought that you would condem that post, but that did not happen and i was a little disapointed at your non response.

[martin II]

Q: Peter, your lawyer, was telling me about the legal implications of the ruling in bankruptcy court. What was that conversation like, when he sat you down and told you your options?

Kim: It took more than one conversation, that's for sure. When he told us that the book was going to end up published, we were kicking and screaming. We were so torn about going down that road and we were worried about Nicole's family and the kids. But as we kept uncovering information - the kids had signed off on it, O.J. would be getting the proceeds, we decided we needed to take something back.

Fred: The bottom line is that we got the rights through the court. And the bankruptcy court required the book rights be monetized. I made a promise to the judge that I would maximize the asset and have it monetized.

Kim: My father and I started a foundation - the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice, and a portion of the proceeds will go to that. Also, the children will receive a portion of the money as well, whereas when it was in O.J.'s hands they weren't seeing any of it.

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/14/361586.aspx

Fred has been in court at least 5-6 times seeking money from oj. He refused to share the book money equally with Nicoles estate and faught them in their efforts to get a equal share of the money received from the aution of ojs goods at his house. Every dime he has received has gone into the pockets of his lawyers or himself. He can continue to promise to donate to charity but it means nothing if he never does.

It is about the money and nothing else.

[martin II]

I don't know why I decided to start talking to you again because you are still the same sanctimonious popinjay you've been since I joined this forum. I've tried to be friends with you but it's proven impossible. I'm done. :seeya:

Do you do name calling to people that you want to be friends with?:shrug:

[tv]

Is this thread still about OJ??? Seems like more of a "let's bicker for the h3ll of it" thread (LOL). :D


Come on you two. . . snap out of it! :punch:


Really, maybe there should be a "fight club" forum just so people can go at eachother AND be on topic. :tongue:

FDInLaw, I'm trying to keep it on OJ but the constant snide remarks and veiled accusations are getting to be too much. I will take your suggestion to 'snap out of it' under advisement but I wish someone other than me would ask William to stop the poetry and preaching.

[tv]

Do you do name calling to people that you want to be friends with?:shrug:No. :)

[tv]

Fred has been in court at least 5-6 times seeking money from oj. He refused to share the book money equally with Nicoles estate and faught them in their efforts to get a equal share of the money received from the aution of ojs goods at his house. Every dime he has received has gone into the pockets of his lawyers or himself. He can continue to promise to donate to charity but it means nothing if he never does.

It is about the money and nothing else.
That's not true. The Goldmans did share the money with the children. Do you have a link that proves they didn't?

[FDInLaw]

FDInLaw, I'm trying to keep it on OJ but the constant snide remarks and veiled accusations are getting to be too much. I will take your suggestion to 'snap out of it' under advisement but I wish someone other than me would ask William to stop the poetry and preaching.
William, please stop your "poetry and preaching." :hat:


There, how's that? :biggrin:



On topic. . . It was no surprise to see OJ in trouble again. It's called karma. JMO

[tv]

TV

As you know the dissrespectful post made by THAT poster here was, imo, not just directed at Kate but also at WarmnCozy as both had shared simular sad stories about their love ones. It may be that THAT post was directed more at WarmnCozy but it was dissrespectful and callous to both and to the community. imo

When it happened i had thought that you would condem that post, but that did not happen and i was a little disapointed at your non response.You asked for the posts to be deleted but I wondered how long it would be before you or William brought it up. I don't post on here to please you so if you're disappointed in me that bothers me not at all.

I think we should get this back on OJ Simpson.

[tv]

William, please stop your "poetry and preaching." :hat:


There, how's that? :biggrin:



On topic. . . It was no surprise to see OJ in trouble again. It's called karma. JMO
Thank you.

I agree it's karma for a lifetime of misdeeds but I still want to see him get a fair sentence. I think the trial was fair and I believe the judge will be fair.

[weezer]

Fred has been in court at least 5-6 times seeking money from oj. He refused to share the book money equally with Nicoles estate and faught them in their efforts to get a equal share of the money received from the aution of ojs goods at his house. Every dime he has received has gone into the pockets of his lawyers or himself. He can continue to promise to donate to charity but it means nothing if he never does.

It is about the money and nothing else.

oh martin, not so fast. at least one of his children benefited -- his co-conspirator arnelle.

". . .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. . ."

[martin II]

oh martin, not so fast. at least one of his children benefited -- his co-conspirator arnelle.

". . .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. . ."


The issue here is not Arnell.
The issue is freds efforts to get money for 13 years.

Your bashing of Arnell is well known but that is your problem, not Arnells.

[martin II]

William, please stop your "poetry and preaching." :hat:


There, how's that? :biggrin:



On topic. . . It was no surprise to see OJ in trouble again. It's called karma. JMO

fdInLaw

I think everyone can post their opinions here and no one can ask/tell another not to post and i believe that includes you. right?:cool:
There hows that.

[martin II]

That's not true. The Goldmans did share the money with the children. Do you have a link that proves they didn't?

1. Against the request on Nicole brown simpsons estate the judge awarded fred the majority of the money expected from the sale revenue from the book.

2. After payment to freds lawyers, publisher and the retailers and fred took his .17 cent per book, there was no money left for nicoles estate or the other legal creditors.imo
u.s. bankruptcy court.State of Florida.

[martin II]

oh martin, not so fast. at least one of his children benefited -- his co-conspirator arnelle.

". . .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. . ."

What you don't seem to understand is that Arnell was the ceo of lba.Nothing wrong leagally with the company paying company expenses telephone calls
and leasing a car for her travel. fini.

[weezer]

The issue here is not Arnell.
The issue is freds efforts to get money for 13 years.

Your bashing of Arnell is well known but that is your problem, not Arnells.

no -- the issue is your inaccurate and dishonest post concerning Fred Goldman. the facts are that orenthal has spent 13 years lying, cheating, and stealing. the fact that 'arnell' has been a willing accomplice isn't bashing -- which makes it 'arnells' karma, not mine.

[weezer]

What you don't seem to understand is that Arnell was the ceo of lba.Nothing wrong leagally with the company paying company expenses telephone calls
and leasing a car for her travel. fini.

obviously there was something wrong and the courts found that the company was a sham. 'arnell' wasn't the ceo of anything but she was found to be guilty of trying to run a scam.

[weezer]

1. Against the request on Nicole brown simpsons estate the judge awarded fred the majority of the money expected from the sale revenue from the book.

2. After payment to freds lawyers, publisher and the retailers and fred took his .17 cent per book, there was no money left for nicoles estate or the other legal creditors.imo
u.s. bankruptcy court.State of Florida.

martin, please read up on the facts before posting on something you obviously don't understand.

1. the Browns were responsible for keeping up with their responsibilities to go after their share of the judgement -- they didn't.

2. LOL -- I bet Mr. Goldman laughs everytime one of the orenthal apologists tries to push this silly story. so far as I can tell, you, orenthal and 'arnell' are the ones that are bothered by the amount of money the Goldmans received.

BTW -- do you know if there was anything AFTER orenthal and 'arnell' spent the book money for Nicole's estate?

[martin II]

martin, please read up on the facts before posting on something you obviously don't understand.

1. the Browns were responsible for keeping up with their responsibilities to go after their share of the judgement -- they didn't.

2. LOL -- I bet Mr. Goldman laughs everytime one of the orenthal apologists tries to push this silly story. so far as I can tell, you, orenthal and 'arnell' are the ones that are bothered by the amount of money the Goldmans received.

BTW -- do you know if there was anything AFTER orenthal and 'arnell' spent the book money for Nicole's estate?

Read the bankruptcy award and you will be informed.You will be informed that the estate of NBS was not required to do anything as they had no control of the selling of the book. That was given to fred by the court.
Fron the book sales fred received about $24,000 which he was required to splt with his daughter equally.The balance went to lawyers, publishers and retaiers.
You are obviously confused about monies spent before the bankruptcy, legally which only lba had a right to.
Try informing yourself before making nosense claims.imo:cool:

[martin II]

obviously there was something wrong and the courts found that the company was a sham. 'arnell' wasn't the ceo of anything but she was found to be guilty of trying to run a scam.

Arnell was the lagal ceo of a legal Florida corporation according to the incorporaiton laws of the State of Florida.
No amount of nonsense post by you will ever change that.What the bankruptcy judge ruled in order to give the legal right to THE BOOK to fred is another issue.
But the HC contract with LBA was LEGAL.IMO

[weezer]

Read the bankruptcy award and you will be informed.You will be informed that the estate of NBS was not required to do anything as they had no control of the selling of the book. That was given to fred by the court.
Fron the book sales fred received about $24,000 which he was required to splt with his daughter equally.The balance went to lawyers, publishers and retaiers.
You are obviously confused about monies spent before the bankruptcy, legally which only lba had a right to.
Try informing yourself before making nosense claims.imo:cool:

again with your misinformed posting! Geez!

here are the facts:

". . .The sheriff’s sale was scheduled for Tuesday, April 17. On Friday, April 13 (a fateful day), we appeared before Judge Rosenberg to address one final challenge to the court-ordered sheriff’s sale. This time the Browns were trying to stop the sale. The chief spokesperson for the Browns is Nicole’s sister, Denise Brown. The Brown judgment, however, is held by her father, Lou Brown, as the representative of Nicole’s estate. As previously indicated, the beneficiaries of Nicole’s estate are Nicole’s and O.J.’s children – Sydney and Justin.

The Browns essentially argued that the sale should not go forward, but if it did go forward then they were entitled to half the proceeds. Their request could not be granted. Among other things, they had not perfected the renewal of their judgment. Under California law, judgments are valid for 10 years, and then they must be renewed. Our judgment had been renewed, as had the Browns, but, ironically, the Browns had not properly served notice of their renewal on Simpson himself. This defect was fatal to their claim. Until they properly served notice of their renewal, they could not take steps to enforce their judgment. . ."

[weezer]

Arnell was the lagal ceo of a legal Florida corporation according to the incorporaiton laws of the State of Florida.
No amount of nonsense post by you will ever change that.What the bankruptcy judge ruled in order to give the legal right to THE BOOK to fred is another issue.
But the HC contract with LBA was LEGAL.IMO

". . .But a shell game was exactly what O.J. played on the “If I Did It” deal. We later learned that a friend of Simpson’s, Miami attorney Leonardo Davinci Starke, created a sham corporation, entitled Lorraine Brooke Associates, Inc. (LBA). Two judges subsequently found that LBA was a sham, a fraudulent corporate alter ego of Simpson himself. It was our understanding that “Lorraine” and “Brooke” were the middle names of Simpson’s two children, Sydney and Justin, which he had with his late wife, Nicole Brown. Simpson assigned his publicity rights to LBA, and then LBA entered into the deal with HarperCollins Publishers to do the If I Did It project. LBA entered into that deal by and through an exclusive agent and representative based in Santa Monica. All monies from HarperCollins passed to the Santa Monica agent (which took 15%), then to LBA, and then to Simpson. 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. . ."

[martin II]

again with your misinformed posting! Geez!

here are the facts:

". . .The sheriff’s sale was scheduled for Tuesday, April 17. On Friday, April 13 (a fateful day), we appeared before Judge Rosenberg to address one final challenge to the court-ordered sheriff’s sale. This time the Browns were trying to stop the sale. The chief spokesperson for the Browns is Nicole’s sister, Denise Brown. The Brown judgment, however, is held by her father, Lou Brown, as the representative of Nicole’s estate. As previously indicated, the beneficiaries of Nicole’s estate are Nicole’s and O.J.’s children – Sydney and Justin.

The Browns essentially argued that the sale should not go forward, but if it did go forward then they were entitled to half the proceeds. Their request could not be granted. Among other things, they had not perfected the renewal of their judgment. Under California law, judgments are valid for 10 years, and then they must be renewed. Our judgment had been renewed, as had the Browns, but, ironically, the Browns had not properly served notice of their renewal on Simpson himself. This defect was fatal to their claim. Until they properly served notice of their renewal, they could not take steps to enforce their judgment. . ."

you are arguing grapes and grapefruits.

later for your misinformed comments.

[weezer]

". . .Incidentally, if you owe people a lot of money, and you create a corporation to shelter your assets, and that corporation is ostensibly owned and operated by your children, the Law tends to view that as a badge of fraud upon your creditors. Simpson has four children. Two of them, Sydney and Justin, are his children with Nicole Brown. Each of his children was an ostensible officer and 25% owner of LBA.

According to Arnelle, all the children knew about the contents of the book, and all expected to receive money from the publication. That seemed noteworthy, because a wrongful-death judgment for $14 million was also awarded against Simpson and in favor of the estate of Nicole Brown. The beneficiaries of that estate, and therefore the beneficiaries and effective stakeholders of that judgment, were and are Sydney and Justin. Thus, it seemed that everyone was trying to profit on the If I Did It project, including the holders of the Brown judgment. Everything about the project was an orchestrated attempt to pass money and assets, and keep all such money and assets beyond the reach of Fred and Kim. And everyone appeared to be in on it. . ."

[weezer]

". . .We pursued negotiations with the bankruptcy trustee, Drew Dillworth, and his counsel, Brian Reich, both of whom are extremely capable and intelligent lawyers. The trustee is the bankruptcy court’s appointed representative over the bankruptcy estate. His job, among other things, is to supervise the bankruptcy, gather the assets of the debtor, and come to an equitable distribution amongst all the creditors as soon as reasonably possible. We eventually reached a proposed settlement with the trustee to acquire the book rights, publish the book, and give the bankruptcy estate 10% of the gross sale proceeds (i.e., net proceeds after all publishing costs). The deal was a good one for the estate, because if our secured interest was upheld in bankruptcy (which we believed would happen), then we would have been able to take the book rights completely out of the estate and give it nothing. We also agreed that all of this 10% would go to pay administrative claims and all the other creditors of the LBA estate, primarily the Browns. We would not share in any of the 10% distributed to the estate, although we had the right to do so. . ."

[weezer]

this would be a good thing for the orenthal apologists to contemplate:

". . .Anyone in such a position faces a dilemma: to fight for justice or not to fight. Under such circumstances, it might be best simply to leave justice to the hand of fate. No one should be faulted for choosing that path, for choosing not to fight. By the same token, no one should be faulted for choosing the other path. Some might even say that it is not a choice at all, but rather a function of what we are compelled to do or not do, based on who and what we are, on what we believe and feel. . ."

[weezer]

Arnell was the lagal ceo of a legal Florida corporation according to the incorporaiton laws of the State of Florida.
No amount of nonsense post by you will ever change that.What the bankruptcy judge ruled in order to give the legal right to THE BOOK to fred is another issue.
But the HC contract with LBA was LEGAL.IMO

". . .The federal bankruptcy court ruled that LBA was a sham company established to perpetrate a fraud. A California Court had also recently deemed LBA a sham corporation. . ."

[William Anthony]

FDInLaw, I'm trying to keep it on OJ but the constant snide remarks and veiled accusations are getting to be too much. I will take your suggestion to 'snap out of it' under advisement but I wish someone other than me would ask William to stop the poetry and preaching.

Let me thank you for your recent efforts and wonder why you did not try to keep it on topic a short while ago. I guess you think it is alright for some to be as vile, reprehensible and callous as they want to be. I think that I was the one to state the subject of the thread was Simpson in the News Again, and asked whether that subject was in the news.

[William Anthony]

I would think that the posts about LBA are off topic, since to my knowledge they aren't in the news again..

[William Anthony]

William, please stop your "poetry and preaching." :hat:


There, how's that? :biggrin:



On topic. . . It was no surprise to see OJ in trouble again. It's called karma. JMO

I see that while I was gone
the discussion continued on
Some say I was trying to preach
when I was only trying to teach.

I asked that they considered the proof
in the alleged search for truth.
They seemed very angry to be
the callous one was not me.

With slippery feet the slid into the room
faster than a witch on a broom
but I will put the matter to an end
as long as they try not to trick my friend.

Simpson sits alone in a cell
but hatred makes the mind a jail.
I am so saddened to see
many members in penitentiaries.

[FDInLaw]

fdInLaw

I think everyone can post their opinions here and no one can ask/tell another not to post and i believe that includes you. right?:cool:
There hows that.
Now, I did say "please." :tongue: And, I would never ask William not to post.

Posting opinions on topic in a respectful manner is always welcome, it's the other stuff that gets each of us in trouble. :hat: In the past some forums have been closed without warning for bickering. . . why not work together to ensure this does not happen again? I'm just saying. . .

[FDInLaw]

I see that while I was gone
the discussion continued on
Some say I was trying to preach
when I was only trying to teach.

I asked that they considered the proof
in the alleged search for truth.
They seemed very angry to be
the callous one was not me.

With slippery feet the slid into the room
faster than a witch on a broom
but I will put the matter to an end
as long as they try not to trick my friend.

Simpson sits alone in a cell
but hatred makes the mind a jail.
I am so saddened to see
many members in penitentiaries.You had Martin worried, but you are back and as poetic as ever. I love the "Simpson sits alone in a cell but hatred makes the mind a jail" line. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

You had Martin worried, but you are back and as poetic as ever. I love the "Simpson sits alone in a cell but hatred makes the mind a jail" line. :seeya:

Thanks. I like the line where I said I put it to an end. :)

[martin II]

You had Martin worried, but you are back and as poetic as ever. I love the "Simpson sits alone in a cell but hatred makes the mind a jail" line. :seeya:

FDInLaw

Martin is not worried about anything. I just wanted to be informed if a new mod had been assigned to these threads.

[tv]

You had Martin worried, but you are back and as poetic as ever. I love the "Simpson sits alone in a cell but hatred makes the mind a jail" line. :seeya:

FDIL, thanks for encouraging him. :(

I'm wondering with Martin also...are you helping out with the forums?

[martin II]

FDIL, thanks for encouraging him. :(

I'm wondering with Martin also...are you helping out with the forums?

Good question:shrug:

[William Anthony]

FDIL,

I appreciate the encouragement but I know that is what thoughtful people do.

[FDInLaw]

In the past I've asked a friend to check in and see if I'm overreacting in a heated situation. Sometimes it helps to get another perspective. If I hear of someone having a hard time on a forum, if possible, I will check in. Guess you could call that helping out. I have a personal vested interest in this message board. If any of you would like for me to elaborate on that I'd be glad to in a PM. I do read here more than I post. . . y'all are a hoot. But maybe I should just keep to lurking lol.


:seeya:

[William Anthony]

In the past I've asked a friend to check in and see if I'm overreacting in a heated situation. Sometimes it helps to get another perspective. If I hear of someone having a hard time on a forum, if possible, I will check in. Guess you could call that helping out. I have a personal vested interest in this message board. If any of you would like for me to elaborate on that I'd be glad to in a PM. I do read here more than I post. . . y'all are a hoot. But maybe I should just keep to lurking lol.


:seeya:

I did not take offense at what you said and noticed the big grin. We do need some one to step in from time to time and we need more posters, who know how to post respectfully, civilly, politely and with thoughtfulness. I think some may not have understood and I will correct that. Feel free to lurk but I think we would not be angry at you comments. So, do drop in. You are welcome.

[tv]

In the past I've asked a friend to check in and see if I'm overreacting in a heated situation. Sometimes it helps to get another perspective. If I hear of someone having a hard time on a forum, if possible, I will check in. Guess you could call that helping out. I have a personal vested interest in this message board. If any of you would like for me to elaborate on that I'd be glad to in a PM. I do read here more than I post. . . y'all are a hoot. But maybe I should just keep to lurking lol.


:seeya:

Please, FDIL, jump in wherever you would like. It's always nice to see a fresh perspective. :)

[FDInLaw]

Thanks you two! :)

The main case I follow should be quiet for awhile due to a gag order. Sadly though, OJ went to trial the first time back when I was still in college. I was distracted by other things, so y'all have quite an advantage on me I'm sure.

[FDInLaw]

FD, with you dressed like that, you'd wipe the floor with any troublemakers.
Halloween is over isn't it.

Did anyone dress like OJ? (My lame attempt at being on topic lol). :D

[William Anthony]

Thanks you two! :)

The main case I follow should be quiet for awhile due to a gag order. Sadly though, OJ went to trial the first time back when I was still in college. I was distracted by other things, so y'all have quite an advantage on me I'm sure.

Is that your way of calling us lazy or diverse? :)

[FDInLaw]

Is that your way of calling us lazy or diverse? :)

"Now that is a horse of a different color." :biggrin:



(I was merely stating that I have not followed OJ very closely.)

[William Anthony]

"Now that is a horse of a different color." :biggrin:



(I was merely stating that I have not followed OJ very closely.)

Well let me post this as a counter to some posts as to what Riccio may have told the FBI

http://www.fox5vegas.com/simpsoncase/14498384/detail.html

"LOS ANGELES -- According to a new report from the FBI, federal agents knew about O.J. Simpson's plan to retrieve items he thought to be his.

I liked the joke.
The report said memorabilia dealer Thomas Riccio told FBI agents on Aug. 21 that Simpson wanted to televise the operation as he confronted a collector who was peddling thousands of pieces of Simpson's memorabilia.

Aside from the fact that he missed television, I think he was trying to show that he was not robbing but retrieving property he thought was his, which under Nevada law made no difference.

[William Anthony]

I really have too much time to think. While I think that Simpson broke the law in Nevada, I wonder why local LE did not tell Fumong to file a civil suit when they received the report. Law arbitrarily enforced is a disgrace.

[William Anthony]

Halloween is over isn't it.

Did anyone dress like OJ? (My lame attempt at being on topic lol). :D

Thank you. I appreciate the fact that, while you responded to a post, you did not buy the bait and ignored the part meant, imho, to start trouble.

[Redmama]

Well let me post this as a counter to some posts as to what Riccio may have told the FBI

http://www.fox5vegas.com/simpsoncase/14498384/detail.html

"LOS ANGELES -- According to a new report from the FBI, federal agents knew about O.J. Simpson's plan to retrieve items he thought to be his.

I liked the joke.
The report said memorabilia dealer Thomas Riccio told FBI agents on Aug. 21 that Simpson wanted to televise the operation as he confronted a collector who was peddling thousands of pieces of Simpson's memorabilia.

Aside from the fact that he missed television, I think he was trying to show that he was not robbing but retrieving property he thought was his, which under Nevada law made no difference.

I don't understand - why did Riccio state that he wanted to televise the operation? I thought he was looking to LE to help Simpson retrieve his possessions.

[William Anthony]

I don't understand - why did Riccio state that he wanted to televise the operation? I thought he was looking to LE to help Simpson retrieve his possessions.

It was Simpson that wanted to televise the operation and yes I believe Simpson and Riccio were looking to the FBI and local authorities for help and the televised operation was both for publicity and protection. I do not think that you would want to televise what you thought was a robbery.

[FDInLaw]

Through the whole camera thing, OJ displayed a Shakespearian level of narcissism IMO.

[William Anthony]

Through the whole camera thing, OJ displayed a Shakespearian level of narcissism IMO.

You may very well be correct and those narcissistic tendencies extend far beyond Simpson and into wall street. In fact, one can argue that the CEO's who partied on money that they knew did not belong to them, after misusing money that did not belong to them and being bailed out by money that did not belong to them, showed that narcissism is the American way. Would we call Simpson a patriot :), as he was after property that he may have, rightly or wrongly, believed belonged to him?

[FDInLaw]

You may very well be correct and those narcissistic tendencies extend far beyond Simpson and into wall street. In fact, one can argue that the CEO's who partied on money that they knew did not belong to them, after misusing money that did not belong to them and being bailed out by money that did not belong to them, showed that narcissism is the American way. Would we call Simpson a patriot :), as he was after property that he may have, rightly or wrongly, believed belonged to him?
Is there a political forum on this board? You artfully applied my post to Wall Street. :D

"Patriot," huh. Guess it depends on whether or not you see blood on his hands.

[William Anthony]

Is there a political forum on this board? You artfully applied my post to Wall Street. :D

"Patriot," huh. Guess it depends on whether or not you see blood on his hands.

Just making an observation on the narcissism and whether or not it is considered altogether a bad thing, since it seems to have been rewarded in some instances. That blood issue may well be argued in terms of the Iraq war. However, that is not my point. The point is that there is no verdict that places blood on his hands and, while people are entitled to their own opinions, which I respect, there are many ways to view any set of circumstances, depending on how one evaluates the effect of the variables. Can it be said that the FBI and local LE were acting from narcissism?

[tv]

Just making an observation on the narcissism and whether or not it is considered altogether a bad thing, since it seems to have been rewarded in some instances. That blood issue may well be argued in terms of the Iraq war. However, that is not my point. The point is that there is no verdict that places blood on his hands and, while people are entitled to their own opinions, which I respect, there are many ways to view any set of circumstances, depending on how one evaluates the effect of the variables. Can it be said that the FBI and local LE were acting from narcissism?
Not exactly. He was convicted of spousal abuse in 1989. The civil trial verdict placed the blood of Ron Goldman on his hands and also that of Nicole Brown due to the battery charge and verdict of liability.

[William Anthony]

Not exactly. He was convicted of spousal abuse in 1989. The civil trial verdict placed the blood of Ron Goldman on his hands and also that of Nicole Brown due to the battery charge and verdict of liability.

I think you misplace violence with blood. There is no verdict, although many believe he did, bloodily beat Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and/or Mr. Ronald Goldman. He was found liable for causing the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and was found liable for battery with malice and oppression on both, whether you take that to mean he bloodily beat them or violently beat them, depends on how you evaluate the variables but I was speaking as to what the verdicts literally mean.

[William Anthony]

Correction for clarity-There is no verdict saying, although many believe he did, that he bloodily beat Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and/or Mr. Ronald Goldman.

[tv]

Correction for clarity-There is no verdict saying, although many believe he did, that he bloodily beat Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson and/or Mr. Ronald Goldman.William, if he caused Ron Goldman's death then his blood is on his hands. Ron Goldman lost a large amount of blood due to his death being wrongfully caused so, yes, there is a verdict that puts blood on OJ Simpson's hands.

[William Anthony]

William, if he caused Ron Goldman's death then his blood is on his hands. Ron Goldman lost a large amount of blood due to his death being wrongfully caused so, yes, there is a verdict that puts blood on OJ Simpson's hands.

I will not try to change your opinion as I have learned that is a far too arduous and time consuming endeavor for me to engage in. However, Mr. Ronald Goldman died from stab wounds and the civil verdict did not place any knife in Simpson's hand, stabbing him. I am going by the literal meaning of the verdict. I know that we will disagree and that is just the way it is. Is there evidence to say that he committed the crime of murder-not beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there evidence that he was in some manner responsible for Mr. Ronald Goldman's death-yes, by a preponderance of the evidence.

[tv]

I will not try to change your opinion as I have learned that is a far too arduous and time consuming endeavor for me to engage in. However, Mr. Ronald Goldman died from stab wounds and the civil verdict did not place any knife in Simpson's hand, stabbing him. I am going by the literal meaning of the verdict. I know that we will disagree and that is just the way it is. Is there evidence to say that he committed the crime of murder-not beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there evidence that he was in some manner responsible for Mr. Ronald Goldman's death-yes, by a preponderance of the evidence.

If you believe that OJ Simpson caused Ron Goldman's death without touching him or a weapon it's okay with me even though it sounds very silly. :)

[William Anthony]

If you believe that OJ Simpson caused Ron Goldman's death without touching him or a weapon it's okay with me even though it sounds very silly. :)

I really do not understand. There was a trial in which the manner of death for Mr. Ronald Goldman was established by knife wounds. There was a civil trial, which stated that Simpson was liable for causing the wrongful death of Mr. Ronald Goldman and that Simpson committed battery and oppression on him. Simpson was found not guilty of stabbing him to death. If you want to believe that the civil verdict did something the criminal one could not, that is your right, which I respect. I will stick to the literal meaning of the verdicts. I will not call your opinion silly as that would be rude and uncivil. I will take the higher road and say that you are mistaken as to what the civil verdict meant but you are entitled to your opinion, which I will respect, smile.

[Redmama]

It was Simpson that wanted to televise the operation and yes I believe Simpson and Riccio were looking to the FBI and local authorities for help and the televised operation was both for publicity and protection. I do not think that you would want to televise what you thought was a robbery.

I agree you wouldn't want to televise a robbery, but I also think that going to the police and asking them to enforce the law would not include televising something - maybe that led to the request not being taken seriously?

I'm just stumpted over why they wanted it televised...

[martin II]

Is there a political forum on this board? You artfully applied my post to Wall Street. :D

"Patriot," huh. Guess it depends on whether or not you see blood on his hands.

Oj did have a wound on his fingfer but that blood was his.The criminal trial jury rendered a verdict of not guilty of ALL charges so where would one get the idea of seeing blood on his for hands for anything?imo:cool:

[martin II]

I agree you wouldn't want to televise a robbery, but I also think that going to the police and asking them to enforce the law would not include televising something - maybe that led to the request not being taken seriously?

I'm just stumpted over why they wanted it televised...


Why not just accept the reason Riccio said the FBI have him.They were not interested because oj was involved. Most have accepted Riccio explantation
on most everything else.

[William Anthony]

I agree you wouldn't want to televise a robbery, but I also think that going to the police and asking them to enforce the law would not include televising something - maybe that led to the request not being taken seriously?

I'm just stumpted over why they wanted it televised...

I think Simpson truly believed the property was his and he wanted it televised for protection and, maybe, thought that no one would use guns, if the media was present and LE and probably for publicity, thinking he could show he was law abiding. However, given LE's response, I think he soon lost that idea and of course this is just a guess on my part.

[Redmama]

Why not just accept the reason Riccio said the FBI have him.They were not interested because oj was involved. Most have accepted Riccio explantation
on most everything else.

I think by asking why they wanted it televised, that I am accepting Riccio's reason - it was Riccio that told them that, isn't it?

I'm just trying to figure out the motivation of wanting it televised...

[William Anthony]

I think by asking why they wanted it televised, that I am accepting Riccio's reason - it was Riccio that told them that, isn't it?

I'm just trying to figure out the motivation of wanting it televised...

I will offer another plausible explanation. They were all insanely stupid to include LE.

[Redmama]

I will offer another plausible explanation. They were all insanely stupid to include LE.

I agree with the insanely stupid part - but as for the other part, I think they included LE in the wrong way.

[William Anthony]

I agree with the insanely stupid part - but as for the other part, I think they included LE in the wrong way.

I should have inserted a comma. I was saying that LE also acted in an insanely stupid way after receiving the report. They not only have a duty to protect and serve but to investigate and prevent crime. The "all" was all inclusive, :).

[martin II]

I agree with the insanely stupid part - but as for the other part, I think they included LE in the wrong way.

Maby Riccio saw way to get paid by inside edition or some other outfit.

Not a bad idea, door opens Riccio and oj walk in, inside edition tapes the room activity, FBI opens door comes in and breaks up a stolen property ring.
Riccio and oj make a few bucks, fbi gets their man and inside edition broadcase for money. imo

[William Anthony]

Maby Riccio saw way to get paid by inside edition or some other outfit.

Not a bad idea, door opens Riccio and oj walk in, inside edition tapes the room activity, FBI opens door comes in and breaks up a stolen property ring.
Riccio and oj make a few bucks, fbi gets their man and inside edition broadcase for money. imo

"For The Love Of Money".

[martin II]

If you believe that OJ Simpson caused Ron Goldman's death without touching him or a weapon it's okay with me even though it sounds very silly. :)

TV

A person can be judged liable without making physical contact with a "victim."

[martin II]

"For The Love Of Money".

Same as fred.

[weezer]

Maby Riccio saw way to get paid by inside edition or some other outfit.

Not a bad idea, door opens Riccio and oj walk in, inside edition tapes the room activity, FBI opens door comes in and breaks up a stolen property ring.
Riccio and oj make a few bucks, fbi gets their man and inside edition broadcase for money. imo

If that were the case, why wasn't inside edition called before the robbery? orenthal didn't want anything taped -- remember his statement to mcclinton: "You didn't take the piece out in the hall did you?" -- he was afraid of something being taped.

[William Anthony]

Maby Riccio saw way to get paid by inside edition or some other outfit.

Not a bad idea, door opens Riccio and oj walk in, inside edition tapes the room activity, FBI opens door comes in and breaks up a stolen property ring.
Riccio and oj make a few bucks, fbi gets their man and inside edition broadcase for money. imo

Maybe, Simpson wanted LE to do their job, figuring if the dealers/thieves had guns in the room, they would not pull them and he could have had the incident televised to show that he had no intention of committing a robbery. Maybe, after LE refused to do their job and, not knowing what to expect inside the room, he did not want to place the media in danger and mistakenly sought the assistance of those he thought he could trust. You know that trust and deception thing.

[Redmama]

Maby Riccio saw way to get paid by inside edition or some other outfit.

Not a bad idea, door opens Riccio and oj walk in, inside edition tapes the room activity, FBI opens door comes in and breaks up a stolen property ring.
Riccio and oj make a few bucks, fbi gets their man and inside edition broadcase for money. imo

I wouldn't put that by Riccio at all - looking for a way to make a buck at any expense. But from there, I have to wonder how serious the police took that - it could have been a real request but they may think they are being set-up to look stupid or something...

[weezer]

I wouldn't put that by Riccio at all - looking for a way to make a buck at any expense. But from there, I have to wonder how serious the police took that - it could have been a real request but they may think they are being set-up to look stupid or something...

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/fbi_riccio.pdf

". . .Riccio said he did not specify to the FBI where or when the confrontation would take place, nor did he indicate that guns might be involved, . . ."

[tv]

TV

A person can be judged liable without making physical contact with a "victim."

That's not what the verdict meant and you know it. I'm going to drop this subject because this isn't the civil or criminal trial thread.

[weezer]

"O.J. Simpson and a memorabilia dealer initially hoped to videotape The Juice's Las Vegas hotel heist and televise the operation to make money, an FBI source said Friday.

What's more, federal agents learned about the ludicrous scheme three weeks before it took place Sept. 13, but did not pursue the matter beyond a written report, the source said.

Dealer Thomas Riccio told FBI agents Aug. 21 about Simpson's plan while talking to agents about another matter, the source said. Riccio did not mention that the confrontation would involve guns or Simpson taking items that did not belong to him.

"What he told us was a civil matter. He was not really telling us about a criminal violation," the source said.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller released a statement yesterday acknowledging that feds were aware of the plan.

"Mr. Riccio advised FBI agents that he and Mr. Simpson planned to confront a man allegedly in possession of property stolen from O.J. Simpson, and that he planned to film the confrontation," Eimiller said.

"Mr. Riccio did not provide information to the FBI indicating criminal activity was planned, nor specificity with regard to when and where the planned confrontation would occur."

She said agents advised Riccio to consult a lawyer "to determine the legality of his intentions." . . ."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/11/03/2007-11-03_oj_simpson_wanted_to_tape_hotel_heist_fb.html

[weezer]

That's not what the verdict meant and you know it. I'm going to drop this subject because this isn't the civil or criminal trial thread.

I'm with you tv --

Question 1: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?
Yes or No

Answer: YES

[William Anthony]

I guess we could excuse LE, because they filed a written report. which was certainly enough to be an investigation and sure enough to stop a crime-but it didn't. Law without enforcement is a mockery and law enforced arbitrarily is a disgrace. I guess you should not trust people to act in a manner they should.

[William Anthony]

Where is the question did you find that Simpson bloodily beat Mr. Ronald Goldman or took a knife and stabbed him to death willfully and wronfully causing his death?

[William Anthony]

"Trust

What is trust?
Who can we trust?
Can we trust our loved ones?
Can we trust each other?
Do we need to earn trust?
Can I trust you with a secret?
Can we trust our police force?
Can we trust our political masters?
Can we trust what we hear?
Can we trust our eyes?
Can we trust the camera to never lie?
Is trust very important to you?
Without trust what do we have?
Can we trust our landlords?
Can we trust our children?
Can we trust our friends?
Without trust, there can be no friendship.
Without friendship, there can be no trust.
Do you trust me?
Is trust the most important factor in a relationship?
I trust that you will forgive me this one time

Gordon David"

[martin II]

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/fbi_riccio.pdf

". . .Riccio said he did not specify to the FBI where or when the confrontation would take place, nor did he indicate that guns might be involved, . . ."


Let me help you.
At the time Riccio spoke to the FBi He only knew Beadsley said he knew where the good were and that he could then to be brought to a sales meeting. No one knew guns would be brought to the hotel room other then the two that brought them.:read:

[martin II]

I'm with you tv --

Question 1: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?
Yes or No

Answer: YES

It seems you are referring to the money trial. The trial to extract money from defendants.

[weezer]

Let me help you.
At the time Riccio spoke to the FBi He only knew Beadsley said he knew where the good were and that he could then to be brought to a sales meeting. No one knew guns would be brought to the hotel room other then the two that brought them.:read:

Let me help you. I still don't what you thought the FBI could have done other than what they did. I thought they gave him sound advice. The fact that he didn't take it speaks for itself.

[weezer]

It seems you are refrrinhg on the money trial. The trial to extract money from defendants.

actually, I was 'referring' to the civil trial where orenthal james simpson was found liable for causing the willful and wrongful death of Ron Goldman.

psst -- there was only one defendant. arnelle got away with her part in it. ;)

[martin II]

If that were the case, why wasn't inside edition called before the robbery? orenthal didn't want anything taped -- remember his statement to mcclinton: "You didn't take the piece out in the hall did you?" -- he was afraid of something being taped.

"Piece" was in referances to 'PIECE" of what that you have proof of. Tvs pineapple shortcake? Or a piece of Suzies Pecan pie?:shrug:

[FDInLaw]

And did you also know that Simpson's been found guilty and is going to jail?
Is this your new mantra? 'Cause you're cracking me up!

[martin II]

actually, I was 'referring' to the civil trial where orenthal james simpson was found liable for causing the willful and wrongful death of Ron Goldman.

psst -- there was only one defendant. arnelle got away with her part in it. ;)

That is the trial for the money in America.

[tv]

Where is the question did you find that Simpson bloodily beat Mr. Ronald Goldman or took a knife and stabbed him to death willfully and wronfully causing his death?Was that wording used in the murder indictment against him?

[tv]

And did you also know that Simpson's been found guilty and is going to jail?
Come on, where did you hear that, JB? :eek:

[grneyes]

And did you also know that Simpson's been found guilty and is going to jail?

Ya know JB, I do recall hearing that Simpson is going to jail/prison/the big house/Bubba's love shack. :beer:

[William Anthony]

The FBI and local LE could have done their duties and prevented a crime. However, it seems they were too callous to act in the manner expected by society and made excuses that seemed to have duped some. However, we know this is merely more callous deceit.

[William Anthony]

Was that wording used in the murder indictment against him?

Nothing, which could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt- that is why he was proven not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Is this your new mantra? 'Cause you're cracking me up!

Yes he is a funny character that does not mind showing his character and some that follow him must have been to his house-Bubba's love shack, where hatred makes the mind a jail. I don't think you have made that journey yet. so I caution you to exercise caution. I have warned about the infectious nature of hatred. I am saddened to see so many members in penitentiaries. However, let's keep hope alive and a change is going to come.

[William Anthony]

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/303.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/bubba

[William Anthony]

Ya know JB, I do recall hearing that Simpson is going to jail/prison/the big house/Bubba's love shack. :beer:

This is no longer the southern states and the northern states or the red states and the blue states or Black America and White America. This is the United States of America.

[William Anthony]

I thought of writing and ode to JB but there are a couple of words I could think of that rhyme with the house of Joseph Bell but I am much too thoughtful to tell other posters to go there.

[susie31023]

Martin,

I heard a funny joke. Do you know what they do with people in my home town when they go crazy-send them to Australia and make school teachers out of them.

Not sure what Australia and teachers have to do with OJ, but in my opinion teachers everywhere have my respect and admiration. They play a key role in our childrens lives and while some are bad most are the lowest paid and under appreciated workers around. In some cases they are the only stable force in some children's worlds...sorry for the intrusion,it's just I have a real respect for the teachers in this world~Suz

[William Anthony]

Not sure what Australia and teachers have to do with OJ, but in my opinion teachers everywhere have my respect and admiration. They play a key role in our childrens lives and while some are bad most are the lowest paid and under appreciated workers around. In some cases they are the only stable force in some children's worlds...sorry for the intrusion,it's just I have a real respect for the teachers in this world~Suz

I truly understand your appreciation for teachers and I have enjoyed having some, imho, of the best in America and I am truly glad that I did not go to school in Australia as I have been informed that what I took for a joke was the truth. I guess it is nice that there is employment for everyone. :)

[William Anthony]

Not sure what Australia and teachers have to do with OJ, but in my opinion teachers everywhere have my respect and admiration. They play a key role in our childrens lives and while some are bad most are the lowest paid and under appreciated workers around. In some cases they are the only stable force in some children's worlds...sorry for the intrusion,it's just I have a real respect for the teachers in this world~Suz

I don't know how long you lurked before starting to post on this thread but yes we occasionally digress into discussions of fried chicken and the use of the word boys and calling people your pal and sometimes send invitations to meet with others. I hope you will pardon my momentary digression but some times it is just relaxing to clear the air so to speak. I was in no means demeaning the respect due to America's teachers and hope that it was not taken that way.

[susie31023]

I truly understand your appreciation for teachers and I have enjoyed having some, imho, of the best in America and I am truly glad that I did not go to school in Australia as I have been informed that what I took for a joke was the truth. I guess it is nice that there is employment for everyone. :)

I have met quite a few of those from Australia and I would have to disagree on that point my friend. I have found that no matter where they come from it takes a certain type of person to take on such an awesome task. When you take into account that most teachers spend more time with our children than we do, what a powerful force they have in their lives. And again while some are bad there are many others who are not only teachers but in some cases have to take on the role as parents because in all societies some parents are too busy to be bothered by their own children, or the parents are the abusers and so the teacher has the added job of protector and confidant as well...So sorry for being off topic, please forgive me~Suz

[William Anthony]

I have met quite a few of those from Australia and I would have to disagree on that point my friend. I have found that no matter where they come from it takes a certain type of person to take on such an awesome task. When you take into account that most teachers spend more time with our children than we do, what a powerful force they have in their lives. And again while some are bad there are many others who are not only teachers but in some cases have to take on the role as parents because in all societies some parents are too busy to be bothered by their own children, or the parents are the abusers and so the teacher has the added job of protector and confidant as well...So sorry for being off topic, please forgive me~Suz

I understand and I was much alarmed to learn that what I took for a joke was purportedly the truth. I think we are able to judge by the evidence that the unstable cannot promote stability, as evidence by posts solely for the purpose of promoting dissension, imho.

[William Anthony]

Now let's eat, drink and be merry, hoping that one again America will be that glorious beacon of light on top of the hill and hope that it will not be eclipsed by the darkness of hatred and bigotry. I think that the last topic as it pertained to Simpson in the news again was whether or not LE could have done their job and prevented a crime and should this be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing.

[Redmama]

Maybe, Simpson wanted LE to do their job, figuring if the dealers/thieves had guns in the room, they would not pull them and he could have had the incident televised to show that he had no intention of committing a robbery. Maybe, after LE refused to do their job and, not knowing what to expect inside the room, he did not want to place the media in danger and mistakenly sought the assistance of those he thought he could trust. You know that trust and deception thing.

Do you know why they then decided not to have it filmed?

[Redmama]

In the past I've asked a friend to check in and see if I'm overreacting in a heated situation. Sometimes it helps to get another perspective. If I hear of someone having a hard time on a forum, if possible, I will check in. Guess you could call that helping out. I have a personal vested interest in this message board. If any of you would like for me to elaborate on that I'd be glad to in a PM. I do read here more than I post. . . y'all are a hoot. But maybe I should just keep to lurking lol.


:seeya:

Interesting - I've had my husband do the same for me. It's always good to get that second opinion.

[susie31023]

Now let's eat, drink and be merry, hoping that one again America will be that glorious beacon of light on top of the hill and hope that it will not be eclipsed by the darkness of hatred and bigotry. I think that the last topic as it pertained to Simpson in the news again was whether or not LE could have done their job and prevented a crime and should this be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing.

I'm not sure that LE could have done anything without an actual stolen goods report. I have asked an LE officer in my family and he said that with out an actual report that the goods had been stolen LE could not assume they were,and that the informing Riccio to contact a lawyer would have been the only action they could have offered. Albeit the purported statements made by the LE are not in keeping with procedure they were not in fact sufficient enough to be considered dereliction of duty. Therefore should not be considered at sentencing. Not sure of Nevada Laws though.

[William Anthony]

Do you know why they then decided not to have it filmed?

Maybe, after LE refused to do their job and, not knowing what to expect inside the room, he did not want to place the media in danger. I can only offer an educated (oops, :)) guess.

[Redmama]

Not sure what Australia and teachers have to do with OJ, but in my opinion teachers everywhere have my respect and admiration. They play a key role in our childrens lives and while some are bad most are the lowest paid and under appreciated workers around. In some cases they are the only stable force in some children's worlds...sorry for the intrusion,it's just I have a real respect for the teachers in this world~Suz

I know I'm off topic but anytime teachers pay is mentioned I need to jump in and agree, they are not paid near enough!!

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure that LE could have done anything without an actual stolen goods report. I have asked an LE officer in my family and he said that with out an actual report that the goods had been stolen LE could not assume they were,and that the informing Riccio to contact a lawyer would have been the only action they could have offered. Albeit the purported statements made by the LE are not in keeping with procedure they were not in fact sufficient enough to be considered dereliction of duty. Therefore should not be considered at sentencing. Not sure of Nevada Laws though.

Interesting, I do not think that is quite correct, according to my understanding of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I think, if I remember correctly, a report that there may have been a crime committed allows LE to make a cursory investigation but lacking probable cause LE could not make an arrest or search and seizure, absent exigent circumstances. I think that LE could have contacted the dealers/thieves and asked for receipts/bill of sales/consignment orders for the property. I think that if none were produced they then could have gotten a search warrant and taken possession of the property until such receipts were produced, thereby, preventing the subsequent crime. I truly believe that LE is allowed to investigate if they have a reasonable suspicion, which does not mean that a crime actually has been committed. It would require more to make an arrest and conduct a search.

[tv]

Maybe, after LE refused to do their job and, not knowing what to expect inside the room, he did not want to place the media in danger. I can only offer an educated (oops, :)) guess.

Riiiight, OJ Simpson battered Nicole for years, slaughtered Nicole and Ron, attacked a guy during a road rage incident, threatened to kill his gardner who he thought was fooling around with Christie Prody, went into the Vegas hotel room with his gun-carrying thugs and we're supposed to believe he was worried the media would be in danger? Riccio went into the room first so why wouldn't he know what to expect?

[Redmama]

Maybe, after LE refused to do their job and, not knowing what to expect inside the room, he did not want to place the media in danger. I can only offer an educated (oops, :)) guess.

Sounds to me like it was all manipulated to make it all look like it was LE's fault. The way I see it is that Riccio mentioned it - almost in passing - that OJ wanted his stuff back - told LE that they wanted to film it - LE's answer was they were not interested in getting involved in something that was just a play for media coverage and regarding items that were never reported stolen even. Then all of a sudden, nothing was being filmed, so Riccio and OJ could say "well we tried to do the right thing." Then the whole thing is taped by Riccio so that he could make the money on something that wasn't going to be filmed - a tape of at least the audio allowed him to at least have something to sell. Riccio is definitely a bottom feeder - but OJ should have known better too.

[William Anthony]

Riiiight, OJ Simpson battered Nicole for years, slaughtered Nicole and Ron, attacked a guy during a road rage incident, threatened to kill his gardner who he thought was fooling around with Christie Prody, went into the Vegas hotel room with his gun-carrying thugs and we're supposed to believe he was worried the media would be in danger? Riccio went into the room first so why wouldn't he know what to expect?

Let me begin at the end. Riccio was expected. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I offered a guess as to why Simpson may not have wanted the incident/crime televised after LE refused to do their job. There is no verdict attributing to him the things you believe he did in regard to Mr. Ronald Goldman and Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson (other than spousal abuse0. In the other incidents he seemed to have placed only himself in harms way. Going to battle is like going to court-you never know how you are going to come out.

[susie31023]

Interesting, I do not think that is quite correct, according to my understanding of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I think, if I remember correctly, a report that there may have been a crime committed allows LE to make a cursory investigation but lacking probable cause LE could not make an arrest or search and seizure, absent exigent circumstances. I think that LE could have contacted the dealers/thieves and asked for receipts/bill of sales/consignment orders for the property. I think that if none were produced they then could have gotten a search warrant and taken possession of the property until such receipts were produced, thereby, preventing the subsequent crime. I truly believe that LE is allowed to investigate if they have a reasonable suspicion, which does not mean that a crime actually has been committed. It would require more to make an arrest and conduct a search.

As I said I'm not sure of Nevada laws but that would be the correct response here. IF on the other hand the items were reported stolen then of course they would be allowed to ask for verification of receipts etc. As for a possible crime having taken place with out the actual victims input it would be hard for the LE to launch an investigation and be able to justify doing so legally. There is a lot of legalities involved with any investigation, as I am sure you know. Law enforcement has to make sure the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed so to speak. I'm not trying to argue so please understand this is what the procedures are here. Not necessarily anywhere else. `Suz

[William Anthony]

Sounds to me like it was all manipulated to make it all look like it was LE's fault. The way I see it is that Riccio mentioned it - almost in passing - that OJ wanted his stuff back - told LE that they wanted to film it - LE's answer was they were not interested in getting involved in something that was just a play for media coverage and regarding items that were never reported stolen even. Then all of a sudden, nothing was being filmed, so Riccio and OJ could say "well we tried to do the right thing." Then the whole thing is taped by Riccio so that he could make the money on something that wasn't going to be filmed - a tape of at least the audio allowed him to at least have something to sell. Riccio is definitely a bottom feeder - but OJ should have known better too.

I am not defending Simpson or Riccio. I am saying that LE does not have the authority or should not have the authority to arbitrarily decide whether or not they do an investigation after receiving a report of a crime. I am not blaming LE for Simpson's or Riccio's subsequent conduct. It would seem to me that, if they had investigated and receipts were produced, they then could have told Riccio that they showed ownership of the property and any plans to retrieve the property should be abandoned and to inform anyone that thought they were the rightful owners to contact a lawyer and file a civil suit, as their lawful duty had been exhausted.

[tv]

Let me begin at the end. Riccio was expected. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I offered a guess as to why Simpson may not have wanted the incident/crime televised after LE refused to do their job. There is no verdict attributing to him the things you believe he did in regard to Mr. Ronald Goldman and Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson (other than spousal abuse0. In the other incidents he seemed to have placed only himself in harms way. Going to battle is like going to court-you never know how you are going to come out.

Yes, there was a verdict that he wrongfully caused the death of Ron Goldman. Ron didn't die of natural causes -- he was stabbed to death. As for the rest of it, there are no verdicts but I believe most of it.

I doubt he had much concern for the media since he called them "barracudas" and "bottom-feeders". I'm sure he thinks less of them than he did his own wife and he didn't mind smacking her around fairly often.

[William Anthony]

As I said I'm not sure of Nevada laws but that would be the correct response here. IF on the other hand the items were reported stolen then of course they would be allowed to ask for verification of receipts etc. As for a possible crime having taken place with out the actual victims input it would be hard for the LE to launch an investigation and be able to justify doing so legally. There is a lot of legalities involved with any investigation, as I am sure you know. Law enforcement has to make sure the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed so to speak. I'm not trying to argue so please understand this is what the procedures are here. Not necessarily anywhere else. `Suz

I think you have forgotten that LE allegedly filed a written report. That written report would have caused an investigation to be initiated. Let's say that I report that a saw a woman running after a man shouting he has stolen my purse and give LE the location where the man is hiding. The woman is running all about and I have lost track of her. I guess in that event LE could justify any inaction because I did not have first hand knowledge that the purse was stolen, and they could just write a report, allowing the thief to escape, and drink coffee and eat pastries where you live, correct?.

[William Anthony]

Yes, there was a verdict that he wrongfully caused the death of Ron Goldman. Ron didn't die of natural causes -- he was stabbed to death. As for the rest of it, there are no verdicts but I believe most of it.

I doubt he had much concern for the media since he called them "barracudas" and "bottom-feeders". I'm sure he thinks less of them than he did his own wife and he didn't mind smacking her around fairly often.

There was no verdict saying he slaughtered/murdered Mr. Ronald Goldman or Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. As to the rest of your opinions, You are entitled to them and I respect them. I have concluded that it is far too arduous an endeavor for me to try to persuade you any differently once you have formed an opinion.

[tv]

There was no verdict saying he slaughtered/murdered Mr. Ronald Goldman or Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson. As to the rest of your opinions, You are entitled to them and I respect them. I have concluded that it is far too arduous an endeavor for me to try to persuade you any differently once you have formed an opinion.

I don't want you to try to persuade me any differently even though I might agree to anything to keep you from spouting more poetry.

[William Anthony]

I don't want you to try to persuade me any differently even though I might agree to anything to keep you from spouting more poetry.

If you will agree with me
I won't write any more poetry. :)

[susie31023]

I think you have forgotten that LE allegedly filed a written report. That written report would have caused an investigation to be initiated. Let's say that I report that a saw a woman running after a man shouting he has stolen my purse and give LE the location where the man is hiding. The woman is running all about and I have lost track of her. I guess in that event LE could justify any inaction because I did not have first hand knowledge that the purse was stolen, and they could just write a report, allowing the thief to escape, and drink coffee and eat pastries where you live, correct?.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic to you William. The two situations are not interchangeable. I will bow out of this board and not bother anyone here again, as I see by your post that you seem to be somewhat angry with me....~Suz

[tv]

If you will agree with me
I won't write any more poetry. :)

Hmm...I had to think that over. Very tempting...but no, can't do it.

[tv]

I think you have forgotten that LE allegedly filed a written report. That written report would have caused an investigation to be initiated. Let's say that I report that a saw a woman running after a man shouting he has stolen my purse and give LE the location where the man is hiding. The woman is running all about and I have lost track of her. I guess in that event LE could justify any inaction because I did not have first hand knowledge that the purse was stolen, and they could just write a report, allowing the thief to escape, and drink coffee and eat pastries where you live, correct?.In this case you would be an eye witness. Riccio was not an eye witness.

[William Anthony]

Hmm...I had to think that over. Very tempting...but no, can't do it.

Thoughtfulness is always a good thing.

[William Anthony]

In this case you would be an eye witness. Riccio was not an eye witness.

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
I think you have forgotten that LE allegedly filed a written report. That written report would have caused an investigation to be initiated. Let's say that I report that a saw a woman running after a man shouting he has stolen my purse and give LE the location where the man is hiding. The woman is running all about and I have lost track of her. I guess in that event LE could justify any inaction because I did not have first hand knowledge that the purse was stolen, and they could just write a report, allowing the thief to escape, and drink coffee and eat pastries where you live, correct?.

I am only an eyewitness to the location of someone hiding and not to the crime.

[William Anthony]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic to you William. The two situations are not interchangeable. I will bow out of this board and not bother anyone here again, as I see by your post that you seem to be somewhat angry with me....~Suz

I truly was not angry with you or anyone else, save maybe three, and one is not TV (that poetry thing again). I welcome your input. I guess I should have used the icon of the smile as my last sentence was a joke or intended to be. I thought you would have understood. I do apologize if you took that wrongly. I think you add great value to the threads and would never want you to feel unwelcomed.

[tv]

I am only an eyewitness to the location of someone hiding and not to the crime.

I would have attended to the woman not the man in hiding as she could have been injured. Also, how come you were able to find the location of the man but the woman pursuing him was not? :confused:

[weezer]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic to you William. The two situations are not interchangeable. I will bow out of this board and not bother anyone here again, as I see by your post that you seem to be somewhat angry with me....~Suz

Never give up! Never give up! :patriot:

[William Anthony]

I would have attended to the woman not the man in hiding as she could have been injured. Also, how come you were able to find the location of the man but the woman pursuing him was not? :confused:

I guess to stop crime I was more prone
and alerted LE via the telephone
alas, to each his own
the woman may have been gone. :)

[Kate Sachel]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic to you William. The two situations are not interchangeable. I will bow out of this board and not bother anyone here again, as I see by your post that you seem to be somewhat angry with me....~Suz

Please do not leave this forum; I can assure that I find value in your postings and your thought process in general. In the short time you have posted with us, you have offered much to think about.

We have all been challenged on this forum and felt frustration and hostility in the face of adversity, but you musn't allow that to stop you from voicing your opinions and it matters not if someone gets angry with you for doing so.

Kate

[Redmama]

I am not defending Simpson or Riccio. I am saying that LE does not have the authority or should not have the authority to arbitrarily decide whether or not they do an investigation after receiving a report of a crime. I am not blaming LE for Simpson's or Riccio's subsequent conduct. It would seem to me that, if they had investigated and receipts were produced, they then could have told Riccio that they showed ownership of the property and any plans to retrieve the property should be abandoned and to inform anyone that thought they were the rightful owners to contact a lawyer and file a civil suit, as their lawful duty had been exhausted.

As yours was your opinion - that is mine - I wasn't saying you were defending OJ - sorry if it came across that way.

Didn't LE tell them to contact a lawyer? I think I read that somewhere. I asked a policeman I know about it and he said that even when they are called to domestic situations where they talk one of the parties into leaving - and the party that is leaving and needs to take things with him/her, they will let them take their personal clothes, but tell both parties that the items - that are not their personal clothing will have to be argued during a divorce proceeding, or if they are not married, in court. The only time they let them take something is if they are both in agreement.

[William Anthony]

As yours was your opinion - that is mine - I wasn't saying you were defending OJ - sorry if it came across that way.

Didn't LE tell them to contact a lawyer? I think I read that somewhere. I asked a policeman I know about it and he said that even when they are called to domestic situations where they talk one of the parties into leaving - and the party that is leaving and needs to take things with him/her, they will let them take their personal clothes, but tell both parties that the items - that are not their personal clothing will have to be argued during a divorce proceeding, or if they are not married, in court. The only time they let them take something is if they are both in agreement.

There is no need to apologize. I did not mean for you to think I was accusing you but clarifying my position.

I hope you see the difference in the situations in your post and the one being discussed. The significant difference is that LE responded to the report in order to prevent crime and then suggested contacting a lawyer.

[grneyes]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic to you William. The two situations are not interchangeable. I will bow out of this board and not bother anyone here again, as I see by your post that you seem to be somewhat angry with me....~Suz

Suz, don't you dare leave this thread. We have the right to our opinions just as much as everyone else on this thread does.


As for Simpson, while he may not have been convicted of Ron and Nicole's deaths, that does not mean he didn't do it. He wouldn't be the first person to walk away on a murder charge.

[William Anthony]

Suz, don't you dare leave this thread. We have the right to our opinions just as much as everyone else on this thread does.


As for Simpson, while he may not have been convicted of Ron and Nicole's deaths, that does not mean he didn't do it. He wouldn't be the first person to walk away on a murder charge.

I think I was the first to voice my opinion that she has a right to voice her opinion and is welcome here. What I hope that is not welcome here is your comments about bubba, or at least, I hope they are not.

[grneyes]

I think I was the first to voice my opinion that she has a right to voice her opinion and is welcome here. What I hope that is not welcome here is your comments about bubba, or at least, I hope they are not.

You have never heard it called that obviously but I don't see what the problem is. There are many slang names for prisons.

[William Anthony]

You have never heard it called that obviously but I don't see what the problem is. There are many slang names for prisons.

I am in a relatively good mood today and seriously have things to do. So I have decided to follow my own advice and don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. With that said, the best thing I can do for you is to give you a good leaving alone. :seeya: "A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself."

[grneyes]

I am in a relatively good mood today and seriously have things to do. So I have decided to follow my own advice and don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. With that said, the best thing I can do for you is to give you a good leaving alone. :seeya:

So now you are saying I'm trouble? Just because I used a term you may or may not be familiar with does not make me trouble. Yes, please do leave me alone.

[weezer]

Bubba
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bubba is a relationship nickname formed from brother, given to boys to indicate their role in the family, especially the oldest male sibling. For some boys and men, bubba is used so pervasively it replaces the given name. The nickname may also be used outside the family by friends as a term of affection.

. . .At times it may be used as a term of endearment (or in an insulting sense) for a person who is rather fat or has a large body frame, especially for men.In popular culture it is often joked that new male prisoners will be locked up with a large guy called Bubba who will become sexually intimate with them. . ."

[William Anthony]

Since Simpson is alone in a cell, I do not think we need concern ourselves with who his cell mate is and since there was a post about him being befriended by low life black dudes, which was called great, and others thought to chime in and one took a portion of the link I supplied on the meanings of bubba but did not post that portion showing someone of low income and education as one of its meanings. I felt compelled to set the record straight. However, let me just say
"A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself."

[grneyes]

Since Simpson is alone in a cell, I do not think we need concern ourselves with who his cell mate is and since there was a post about him being befriended by low life black dudes, which was called great, and others thought to chime in and one took a portion of the link I supplied on the meanings of bubba but did not post that portion showing someone of low income and education as one of its meanings. I felt compelled to set the record straight. However, let me just say
"A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself."

I said nothing fraudulent and I absolutely said nothing about people with low incomes or education. Don't even try to turn my words around to mean something they don't. I think most of the people here knew what that comment meant and if you don't, then that is your problem. You can take it or leave it as you wish, but do not try to turn it into something it isn't.

[William Anthony]

I was following wishes as if they were my command. I only placed things in their proper context. Some seem to protest too much.

[William Anthony]

Redmama,

Do you see the difference in the situation you supplied and the one we were discussing?

[grneyes]

I was following wishes as if they were my command. I only placed things in their proper context. Some seem to protest too much.

You placed nothing in it's proper context and you know that as well as I do. If you follow wishes, then I wish you would ignore my posts from here on out.

[Redmama]

There is no need to apologize. I did not mean for you to think I was accusing you but clarifying my position.

I hope you see the difference in the situations in your post and the one being discussed. The significant difference is that LE responded to the report in order to prevent crime and then suggested contacting a lawyer.

But weren't they also told to seek Legal advice?

[William Anthony]

But weren't they also told to seek Legal advice?

yes, but they at least investigated to see if a crime had been committed in your scenario, as opposed to summarily dismissing the report in the Simpson case by telling them to seek a lawyer's advice.