O.J. In The News Again

[weezer]

Weezer, hold your rope for a minute. All of the above does matter, whether you want to accept it or not there might be mitigating factors associated with the so called "gang of thugs", the "brandishing of weapons", and the alleged "bursting through the door".

The court is going to have to consider all of these issues particularly if the property belonged to Simpson and men were licensed to carry concealed weapons. If the latter is the case, you have nothing more, imo, than a petty misdemeanor, 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. However, imo, there is the possibility, but a longshot, of a Gross Misdemeanor, one year in jail and $3,000fine. That's probably all! Take that heavy rope back to the barn, Weezer. It's not time yet.

Nope -- no mitgating factors. orenthal (the Butcher of Brentwood) and a gang of his associates/thugs, burst into a hotel room, brandished weapons, took stuff that did not belong to them. It's way past time.

[martin II]

Replacing Paula's nude picture is not the issue. Simpson's trophy room is not the issue. The issue is the fantasy Simpson's defense tried to spin for the jury that Simpson was framed by the LAPD simply because he was a black man. In their fantasy they used Mark Fuhrman as a villain who they said must have planted evidence because they claimed he was a racist. And to show the jury that Simpson was a victim because he was black they replaced all of the many photographs in his house showing him with his white friends with framed photocopies of his black family. And then prominently displaying at the top of the stairs to his bedroom a poster from Cochran's office of a famous 1963 painting showing a black grade school girl surrounded by federal marshals.

bobaugust

bob
He could have used the picture of oj and J.Edgar Hoover that oj owned.

martin II

[weezer]

bob
He could have used the picture of oj and J.Edgar Hoover that oj owned.

martin II

I'd heard orenthal was real partial to that picture. Odd that he would choose someone known to have been a racist and liked boys too. :eek:

[William Anthony]

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust

I am not sure that you watched the same trial, since there was evidence of contamination, sloppy evidence collection, false results, and I will not call them lies as you do, but mistakes, human error and confusion. There were lies told by maggot festering and race played a small part in the reason trial as it was evidence of maggot festering's motivation to break the law.

[martin II]

I'd heard orenthal was real partial to that picture. Odd that he would choose someone known to have been a racist and liked boys too. :eek:

Everyone seems to demand pictures of celebrities like oj simpson.Not sure oj
admired him. Hoover was a snake but still a powerful man. WTH. How do you say no to a picture. People take pictures with Bush too, even today.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Nope -- no mitgating factors. orenthal (the Butcher of Brentwood) and a gang of his associates/thugs, burst into a hotel room, brandished weapons, took stuff that did not belong to them. It's way past time.

I think the thiefs were treated very kindly by oj's crew. In some places they would have received a first class dusting up and down. Especially since they were caught with the goods.imo:D
martin II

[socaldiva]

I'd heard orenthal was real partial to that picture. Odd that he would choose someone known to have been a racist and liked boys too. :eek:


Well, OJ's not exactly the brightest bulb in the package. He probably didn't know who Hoover was, til someone told him :biggrin:

[weezer]

You're welcome. :)

I usually ignore his posts but I used poor judgement in the last few days and responded to him a couple of times. Unless you agree with his reality all you get from him is demeaning name calling and insults. I think it's time for me to just back away slowly.

:beer: I'd run -- ;)

[Jayme K]

I think the thiefs were treated very kindly by oj's crew. In some places they would have received a first class dusting up and down. Especially since they were caught with the goods.imo:D
martin II

Leave it to you to approve:rolleyes:

[tv]

:beer: I'd run -- ;)Good advice -- I think I'll take it. :) :chicken:

[bobaugust]

I'm afraid to learn or ask about your facts. You will only waste my time telling me that what I heard and what I saw, was not what I heard and what I saw. So what's the use with you?

I'll bet that if I did receive an invitation to view something, given the way that you've edited the cross examinations here, I would probably be looking at some weird presentation that you pasted together. The funny thing is that whatever you're taking, by beverage or sandwich, it allows you to promote this madness with a straight face.

No, I don't edit testimony by taking specific portions of sentences out of context or change the order they were said in. I copy and paste testimony directly from the transcripts. I preface it with the date so others can read it out for themselves and I use asterisks to separate the portions that I post or to indicate if I eliminate objections and rulings. That in no way is comparable to the fraudulent video you made and promote, Big Ben.

This is not the appropriate thread to discuss specific evidence in the Simpson case but I would be more than happy to inform you why your claims are false or wrong on another thread.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think the thiefs were treated very kindly by oj's crew. In some places they would have received a first class dusting up and down. Especially since they were caught with the goods.imo:D
martin II

martin II, you're calling the two victims thieves based on what? Simpson's claim that some of these things were stolen property? As I understand it one of these so called thieves has previously supported Simpson even helping him set up off shore accounts and has no criminal record. The other is a person Simpson has been dealing with for years to sell his memorabilia and hide the proceeds from the Goldman's. We won't know any of the specific details until or if there is a trial but evidently not only were things taken from the room that Simpson is claiming were his but supposedly other things were taken that were not his.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, you're calling the two victims thieves based on what? Simpson's claim that some of these things were stolen property? As I understand it one of these so called thieves has previously supported Simpson even helping him set up off shore accounts and has no criminal record. The other is a person Simpson has been dealing with for years to sell his memorabilia and hide the proceeds from the Goldman's. We won't know any of the specific details until or if there is a trial but evidently not only were things taken from the room that Simpson is claiming were his but supposedly other things were taken that were not his.

bobaugust

Riccio gave oj a list of the items being offered and it was determined that oj had not sold them to anyone.
In their haste to collect items i think there were 3-4 items taken that were not oj"s but the majority were his.

These two had not informed oj they were selling his goods in that room.
martiNII

[weezer]

Riccio gave oj a list of the items being offered and it was determined that oj had not sold them to anyone.
In their haste to collect items i think there were 3-4 items taken that were not oj"s but the majority were his.

These two had not informed oj they were selling his goods in that room.
martiNII

I believe it is clear that on the tape orenthal instructs his thugs to 'take everything' -- 'take it all' -- of course, orenthal taking the man's cell phone is above and beyond the other things.

[weezer]

Riccio gave oj a list of the items being offered and it was determined that oj had not sold them to anyone.
In their haste to collect items i think there were 3-4 items taken that were not oj"s but the majority were his.

These two had not informed oj they were selling his goods in that room.
martiNII

what part of 'orenthal lost those things to the Goldmans and Browns in the lawsuit' do you have trouble with?

[weezer]

wonder if anyone got paid for the rights? surely if orenthal did, he would have notified the Goldmans and Browns.

http://blog.courttv.com/informer/2007/11/goodnight-court.html

"Goodnight Court TV; Goodnight O.J.
November 1, 2007
OK, so as you may have heard as of January 1st, we are going to be called truTV. But until then, we can still remember our Court TV history without people getting confused. And now's the perfect time to indulge in a little misty-eyed nostalgia, right?

Right. So we couldn't help but take notice this original one-woman show that opens tonight in New York City, entitled "Goodnight O.J." that would certainly interest all Court TV fans. The show describes itself this way:

In 1994, while in prison and on trial for double murder, O.J. Simpson received over 300,000 letters. To help pay for his defense and gain public support, they were published in the book, "I Want to Tell You: My Response to Your Letters, Your Questions, Your Messages."

Alternately humorous, disturbing and poignant, "Goodnight O.J." looks at the cultural phenomenon that is O.J. Simpson, asking how we’ve changed and how we have not, by exploring the minds of the people who wrote him.

Created & Performed by Livia Scott, Directed by Baron Vaughn."Goodnight O.J." runs for three nights only at the UCB theater in NYC."

[martin II]

wonder if anyone got paid for the rights? surely if orenthal did, he would have notified the Goldmans and Browns.

http://blog.courttv.com/informer/2007/11/goodnight-court.html

"Goodnight Court TV; Goodnight O.J.
November 1, 2007
OK, so as you may have heard as of January 1st, we are going to be called truTV. But until then, we can still remember our Court TV history without people getting confused. And now's the perfect time to indulge in a little misty-eyed nostalgia, right?

Right. So we couldn't help but take notice this original one-woman show that opens tonight in New York City, entitled "Goodnight O.J." that would certainly interest all Court TV fans. The show describes itself this way:

In 1994, while in prison and on trial for double murder, O.J. Simpson received over 300,000 letters. To help pay for his defense and gain public support, they were published in the book, "I Want to Tell You: My Response to Your Letters, Your Questions, Your Messages."

Alternately humorous, disturbing and poignant, "Goodnight O.J." looks at the cultural phenomenon that is O.J. Simpson, asking how we’ve changed and how we have not, by exploring the minds of the people who wrote him.

Created & Performed by Livia Scott, Directed by Baron Vaughn."Goodnight O.J." runs for three nights only at the UCB theater in NYC."


opening date is wrong

martinii

[socaldiva]

opening date is wrong

martinii

How do you know, do you have tickets? :tongue:

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Riccio gave oj a list of the items being offered

So now you find Riccio credible? I thought you denounced him as having set Orenthal up.....

[weezer]

So now you find Riccio credible? I thought you denounced him as having set Orenthal up.....

you know that martin picks and chooses what parts of anything that has to do with orenthal is believable! LOL

Actually, I was kind of serious about the play and whether or not anyone got money to use the letters that were in orenthal's book. Wouldn't they have had to request permission? and, doesn't that usually involve $$$ when it comes to plays, etc?

[socaldiva]

you know that martin picks and chooses what parts of anything that has to do with orenthal is believable! LOL

Actually, I was kind of serious about the play and whether or not anyone got money to use the letters that were in orenthal's book. Wouldn't they have had to request permission? and, doesn't that usually involve $$$ when it comes to plays, etc?

I know what you mean about the letters. Good question.

[kjb19500]

I just read on Yahoo that the FBI was informed by Riccio of Simpson's hotel plan 3 weeks before it went down. The FBI advised Riccio that this wouldn't protect him from charges if laws were broken. Riccio denies knowing that guns were to be brought. Riccio also has been granted immunity from prosecution for his part in the incident.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_on_re_us/o_j__simpson;_ylt=AhQi_YMAwYH7c1MUFnm0kWas0NUE

[martin II]

I just read on Yahoo that the FBI was informed by Riccio of Simpson's hotel plan 3 weeks before it went down. The FBI advised Riccio that this wouldn't protect him from charges if laws were broken. Riccio denies knowing that guns were to be brought. Riccio also has been granted immunity from prosecution for his part in the incident.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_on_re_us/o_j__simpson;_ylt=AhQi_YMAwYH7c1MUFnm0kWas0NUE

i saw that also on cnn

[martin II]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/02/oj.fbi.ap/index.html

[martin II]

you know that martin picks and chooses what parts of anything that has to do with orenthal is believable! LOL

Actually, I was kind of serious about the play and whether or not anyone got money to use the letters that were in orenthal's book. Wouldn't they have had to request permission? and, doesn't that usually involve $$$ when it comes to plays, etc?

Stop twisting my post.

Riccio planned and executed the whole affair.

martinII

[weezer]

Stop twisting my post.

Riccio planned and executed the whole affair.

martinII

So says who? What does it say about orenthal when his out of control behavior was predictable.

[martin II]

So says who? What does it say about orenthal when his out of control behavior was predictable.

riccio said so.

martin II

[socaldiva]

riccio said so.

martin II

I guess you also believe him when he says that Orenthal wanted to tape the encounter & have Riccio set up interview with tv shows? Do you believe him when he says that Orenthal brought guns?

[martin II]

BEN

It looks like riccio may have been a regulat FBI snitch.I bet oj didn't know that.

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.

ny post

[socaldiva]

*snip*

It looks like riccio may have been a regulat FBI snitch.I bet oj didn't know that.



Why would Orenthal be concerned with someone having FBI connections? I thought you were claiming that OJ didn't do anything illegal?

I didn't see a link in your post to support this, nor have I seen another to suggest such a thing elsewhere.

[weezer]

BEN

It looks like riccio may have been a regulat FBI snitch.I bet oj didn't know that.

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.

ny post

ah yes -- the famous LE connection. Personally, I'm inclined to believe Riccio that orenthal wanted him to tape the encounter and **** for media exposure -- nothing surprising there. I also believe Riccio that he didn't know how far orenthal was willing to go with thugs and guns and robbery. imo

[martin II]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67198/page/2

[martin II]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67198/page/2



Like many Simpson loyalists, Scotto believes that Thomas Riccio deliberately set a trap for Simpson by arranging the meeting at which Simpson could confront Beardsley and Fromong and recover goods that included Simpson's signed All-American football from his USC days. As evidence he cites the fact that Riccio made a secret audiotape of the confrontation and then sold it to celebrity scandal site TMZ.com. An attorney for Riccio, Mark Haushalter, rejects Scotto's allegations and says the recording had nothing to do with O. J. "This was not a setup," he tells NEWSWEEK. "Mr. Riccio was recording [the meeting] to safeguard himself against Mr. Beardsley, who he did not trust and who he's had dealings with in the past."


Scotto asserts that Riccio, a convicted felon who has not been charged in the robbery, is a confidential informant working with the feds, though what interest federal investigators have in O. J. Simpson remains obscure. ("Ridiculous," says another Riccio attorney, Ryan Okabe.) Riccio spent the afternoon of the robbery getting Simpson drunk, Scotto says. "This guy Riccio was out by the pool (at the Palm Hotel) buying him drink after drink," Scotto says. "This was somebody who is supposedly a friend." (A Riccio lawyer denies that Riccio bought drinks for Simpson.)

[William Anthony]

This is not a non-issue. I didn't say it influenced the jury. I have no idea if it did or not. What it does is show that the defense was dishonest. I don't know why you keep going on about a naked woman. The dishonest part is that they removed pictures of one race and replaced them with another. If they were only there to see the layout why bother to change the pictures?

Tv,

Are you questionin the display of particular pictures, :)?

[William Anthony]

Please, Cochran did everything he could to exploit race by painting a false picture that Simpson was the victim in this case. A victim of the LAPD simply because he was a black man. Simpson's defense used false claims and false insinuations as tactics to try and persuade that jury to ignore the evidence and believe in the fairy tales they suggested. Fairy tales regarding evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD to frame this supposed upstanding citizen of their community. The changes made in Simpson's house before the jury toured it epitomized the fantasies the defense spun.

bobaugust


The defense only had to point to the sloppy evidence collection techniques, evidence of contamination and cross contamination, lies and what you call human error and mistakes to allow a sophisticated jury to arrive at a not guilty verdict, imho. JC and the defense team were magnificent in those areas, imho.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Like many Simpson loyalists

Nuff said :tongue:

[tv]

Tv,

Are you questionin the display of particular pictures, :)?


I'm questioning why Simpson and his defense attorneys felt it necessary to portray him other than the way he really was. What was the point?

[William Anthony]

I'm questioning why Simpson and his defense attorneys felt it necessary to portray him other than the way he really was. What was the point?

I think the picture of a naked woman was his personal likes and, as you point out, the jury was there to see the layout of his home and not the layout of his personal tastes.

[bobaugust]

The defense only had to point to the sloppy evidence collection techniques, evidence of contamination and cross contamination, lies and what you call human error and mistakes to allow a sophisticated jury to arrive at a not guilty verdict, imho. JC and the defense team were magnificent in those areas, imho.

There was no evidence of cross contamination. Contamination doesn't change the fact that Simpson's fresh blood was found at the murder scene or that both of the victim's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco or that Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock. Nor does contamination change the fact that fiber evidence ties Simpson to the murders. Nor does contamination change the fact that all the relevant collected physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer or the fact that nothing points to anyone else but Simpson or the fact that nothing eliminates Simpson. Simpson's criminal trial defense attorneys were magnificent in using tactics of deceit and fantasy to sway a jury that was either not capable of or willing to separate fact from fiction to find this killer guilty.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think the picture of a naked woman was his personal likes and, as you point out, the jury was there to see the layout of his home and not the layout of his personal tastes.

Both you and martin can't seem to grasp the fact that Paula's picture is not the issue. The fact is that Simpson's defense replaced all the photos in Simpson's house showing him with his white friends replacing them with framed photocopies of his black family. And the fact is that Cochran took a poster from his office of a famous 1963 painting showing a black grade school girl surrounded by federal marshals prominently displaying it in Simpson's house for the jurors to see. As Schiller wrote,

"The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women."

bobaugust

[Mazie]

:cuss: I think I would hide out. Stay out of the news

[martin II]

Both you and martin can't seem to grasp the fact that Paula's picture is not the issue. The fact is that Simpson's defense replaced all the photos in Simpson's house showing him with his white friends replacing them with framed photocopies of his black family. And the fact is that Cochran took a poster from his office of a famous 1963 painting showing a black grade school girl surrounded by federal marshals prominently displaying it in Simpson's house for the jurors to see. As Schiller wrote,

"The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women."

bobaugust

BOB

The jury already knew that oj had a lot of white frirends.Most blacks in the celebrity /entertainment business have white friends.Cochran just rearranged the house to be friendly to the people that were visiting.Why leave something in view that would not show the client in the best possible light. It's like lawyers require their clients to show in court in suite and tie.
Are you concerned that oj had white friends?
This is just another attempt to attack Cochran.OJ was going to be black
regardless of what pictures were on his wall.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

I think the picture of a naked woman was his personal likes and, as you point out, the jury was there to see the layout of his home and not the layout of his personal tastes.

That's ridiculous and we both know it.

Why were all photos of OJ with white individuals removed and replaced with photos of OJ with black individuals? You and I both, I believe, know the truth of the answer to that question. The real question now, I believe, is are you willing to admit it?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

BOB

The jury already knew that oj had a lot of white frirends.Most blacks in the celebrity /entertainment business have white friends.Cochran just rearranged the house to be friendly to the people that were visiting.Why leave something in view that would not show the client in the best possible light. It's like lawyers require their clients to show in court in suite and tie.
Are you concerned that oj had white friends?
This is just another attempt to attack Cochran.OJ was going to be black
regardless of what pictures were on his wall.
martin II

Why would OJ having photographs of white human beings not show him in the best possible light? And if OJ was going to be black regardless of the photos on his wall then why remove them?

It seems as though the people concerned that OJ had white friends is not Bobaugust, but rather Cochran and an individual by the nic martinII. Your posting on this matter above speaks volumes to this issue, though I'm certain you don't realize your slips.

Kate

[weezer]

Why would OJ having photographs of white human beings not show him in the best possible light? And if OJ was going to be black regardless of the photos on his wall then why remove them?

It seems as though the people concerned that OJ had white friends is not Bobaugust, but rather Cochran and an individual by the nic martinII. Your posting on this matter above speaks volumes to this issue, though I'm certain you don't realize your slips.

Kate

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[martin II]

Some will try to find any reason to demonize Cochran and or OJ based on the criminal trial verdict. I doubt Cochran was concerned with what some felt about some pitcures being removed or the jury being walked through Oj's trophy room to see his awards. After all his job was to try to get the jury to bond with his client, not to try to satisfy the concerns of those that thought that his client was guilty.
So this is a non issue.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
So this is a non issue.


For you perhaps. That doesn't make it the case for others ;)

"Bond with his client"? Based on a false persona?

[tv]

Some will try to find any reason to demonize Cochran and or OJ based on the criminal trial verdict. I doubt Cochran was concerned with what some felt about some pitcures being removed or the jury being walked through Oj's trophy room to see his awards. After all his job was to try to get the jury to bond with his client, not to try to satisfy the concerns of those that thought that his client was guilty.
So this is a non issue.

martin IIJC must have had some concerns about what the jury would think of all the pictures of white people in the house or he wouldn't have bothered to replace them with pictures of black people.

You want to make this a non-issue because it shows that Cochran was attempting to deceive the jury. This is a valid issue whether you think so or not.

[Kate Sachel]

Some will try to find any reason to demonize Cochran and or OJ based on the criminal trial verdict. I doubt Cochran was concerned with what some felt about some pitcures being removed or the jury being walked through Oj's trophy room to see his awards. After all his job was to try to get the jury to bond with his client, not to try to satisfy the concerns of those that thought that his client was guilty.
So this is a non issue.

martin II

It is an issue, though not necessarily because of the fact that his job is to help his client but rather it shows that Cochran acitvely played to race in an effort to manipulate the thought process of a jury.

Quite frankly, I think the jury panel should have been insulted in the aftermath when they realized what he had done because I also think it speaks volumes in Cochran's lack of faith in his fellow African Americans by apparently assuming that they were not individuals who would be capable of ignoring the color of the skin of those in the photographs and focusing soley on OJ Simpson as a human being.

Kate

[socaldiva]

It is an issue, though not necessarily because of the fact that his job is to help his client but rather it shows that Cochran acitvely played to race in an effort to manipulate the thought process of a jury.

Quite frankly, I think the jury panel should have been insulted in the aftermath when they realized what he had done because I also think it speaks volumes in Cochran's lack of faith in his fellow African Americans by apparently assuming that they were not individuals who would be capable of ignoring the color of the skin of those in the photographs and focusing soley on OJ Simpson as a human being.

Kate


:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[martin II]

It is a issue only for those that are still dissapointed that they did not get the verdict they expected. It is a issue only for those that are looking for any reason to attack J Cochran.

There were five white lawyers.and trwo blacks on the defense team.
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld did as much or more damage to the prosecutions case than J Cochran yet, it is Cochran that is pointed to and called a R*****.

Cochran made the correct decision to do whatever was done at oj's house.Not one law was broken and there was no reason to be concerend about the various opinions some may have.

Some even thought it was wrong for the jury to see oj's throphy room.

non issue for sure.
imo
martinii

[weezer]

It is a issue only for those that are still dissapointed that they did not get the verdict they expected. It is a issue only for those that are looking for any reason to attack J Cochran.

There were five white lawyers.and trwo blacks on the defense team.
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld did as much or more damage to the prosecutions case than J Cochran yet, it is Cochran that is pointed to and called a R*****.

Cochran made the correct decision to do whatever was done at oj's house.Not one law was broken and there was no reason to be concerend about the various opinions some may have.

Some even thought it was wrong for the jury to see oj's throphy room.

non issue for sure.
imo
martinii

Is that what you think this is all about? People being mad because they didn't get the verdict they wanted?

Scheck and Neufeld didn't do any damage. Good Lord. Didn't you listen to the jury? They didn't pay no attention to that stuff -- they didn't understand it.

Tell me, martin, what exactly did orenthal's trophy room have to do with the murders?

[weezer]

:eek:

O.J. Simpson's lawyer loses bid to edit 'inflammatory' charges

LAS VEGAS – O.J. Simpson's lawyer lost a bid to strike what he called “unfairly prejudicial and inflammatory” language from the criminal complaint accusing Simpson and two other men of armed robbery and kidnapping.
Lawyers for co-defendants Clarence “C.J.” Stewart and Charles Ehrlich joined in what amounted to last-minute procedural maneuvering before an evidentiary hearing scheduled Thursday and Friday in Las Vegas. Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Joe M. Bonaventure says he'll be able to separate the wording of the charges from what the state will need to prove for him to bind the case over for trial. Simpson, Stewart and Ehrlich face 12 criminal charges stemming from the alleged armed robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers Sept. 13 in a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071106-0934-nv-o.j.simpson.html

[Kate Sachel]

It is a issue only for those that are still dissapointed that they did not get the verdict they expected. It is a issue only for those that are looking for any reason to attack J Cochran.

There were five white lawyers.and trwo blacks on the defense team.
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld did as much or more damage to the prosecutions case than J Cochran yet, it is Cochran that is pointed to and called a R*****.

Cochran made the correct decision to do whatever was done at oj's house.Not one law was broken and there was no reason to be concerend about the various opinions some may have.

Some even thought it was wrong for the jury to see oj's throphy room.

non issue for sure.
imo
martinii

Count me out of your list because I got the exact verdict that I expected from the criminal trial. Count me out of your list because I look only to "attack" those who deserve such and not on a basis of "any reason".

Kate

[tv]

It is a issue only for those that are still dissapointed that they did not get the verdict they expected. It is a issue only for those that are looking for any reason to attack J Cochran.

There were five white lawyers.and trwo blacks on the defense team.
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld did as much or more damage to the prosecutions case than J Cochran yet, it is Cochran that is pointed to and called a R*****.

Cochran made the correct decision to do whatever was done at oj's house.Not one law was broken and there was no reason to be concerend about the various opinions some may have.

Some even thought it was wrong for the jury to see oj's throphy room.

non issue for sure.
imo
martiniiMartin, no one really cares about the trophy room. It's all about the defense team trying to deceive the jury by creating a different persona for their client. If he'd been found guilty I would still find fault with what they did.

You seem to think that as long as no law was broken then it should be a non-issue. You should extend that same consideration to Mark Fuhrman for the remarks he made on the tapes for the screenplay. No laws broken there.

[martin II]

Martin, no one really cares about the trophy room. It's all about the defense team trying to deceive the jury by creating a different persona for their client. If he'd been found guilty I would still find fault with what they did.

You seem to think that as long as no law was broken then it should be a non-issue. You should extend that same consideration to Mark Fuhrman for the remarks he made on the tapes for the screenplay. No laws broken there.

There were complainted about the jury walking through oj's throphy room looking at all of his awards.So i am not sure it accurate to say no one cared.

Furhman broke the law when he lied on the stand.

I have wondered how many, good clean le detectives would have wanted to have their name associated with any work, screenplay or not that was filled with that kind of vile language and claims against minority citizens. Furhman seemed not to care as he gave his life story as a cop in the minority community.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I have wondered how many, good clean le detectives would have wanted to have their name associated with any work, screenplay or not that was filled with that kind of vile language and claims against minority citizens. Furhman seemed not to care as he gave his life story as a cop in the minority community.


I guess you think that all fictional screenplays are real. Do you think Stephen King goes out & kills people in order to write his novels? :tongue:

Joseph Wambaugh wrote both fictional & non-fictional books about police work while still employed with LAPD. Do you think that his works of fiction were true also?

As for "vile language", I guess you missed the verbage Simpson used in the Vegas hotel room.

I heard Simpson say that he didn't care about Fuhrman's use of the "N" word. I wonder why. Perhaps because he's so distanced himself from his own race? Just a guess....

[tv]

I guess you think that all fictional screenplays are real. Do you think Stephen King goes out & kills people in order to write his novels? :tongue:

Joseph Wambaugh wrote both fictional & non-fictional books about police work while still employed with LAPD. Do you think that his works of fiction were true also?

As for "vile language", I guess you missed the verbage Simpson used in the Vegas hotel room.

I heard Simpson say that he didn't care about Fuhrman's use of the "N" word. I wonder why. Perhaps because he's so distanced himself from his own race? Just a guess....

My guess is that your guess is right on target. I wonder how long it took to get those pictures back up after the jury had visited the house? Probably the same day. :D

I knew if I mentioned Mark Fuhrman that martin would grab the opportunity to start his usual bashing. He can accuse Mark Fuhrman of lying on the stand but it doesn't change the fact that when he made the tapes he was breaking no laws.

[socaldiva]

My guess is that your guess is right on target. I wonder how long it took to get those pictures back up after the jury had visited the house? Probably the same day. :D

I knew if I mentioned Mark Fuhrman that martin would grab the opportunity to start his usual bashing. He can accuse Mark Fuhrman of lying on the stand but it doesn't change the fact that when he made the tapes he was breaking no laws.

I think you're probably right, he probably had the picture switched back pronto! lol.

Of course Martin mentions MF's irrelevant lie that had no bearing on the murders, yet never seems to mention Simpson's multitude of lies in the civil case, even though those had direct correlation to the murders themselves.

[martin II]

tv
I thought that when you brought up the name of your hero, you would expect me to comment.

I have wondered how many, good clean le detectives would have wanted to have their name associated with any work, screenplay or not that was filled with that kind of vile language and claims against minority citizens. Furhman seemed not to care as he gave his life story as a cop in the minority community.

I just think that most honest, noncriminal cops would not want to be heard on any tape saying the things furhman said.

S.K. is not a cop.
I don't think any cop has written the kinds of things furhman wrote. if so i put them into the same class as furhman.

imo
martin II

pS If you go to the link i gave you last week you may find out some info about him that you may not have known.

imo
martinII

[Kate Sachel]

There were complainted about the jury walking through oj's throphy room looking at all of his awards.So i am not sure it accurate to say no one cared.

Furhman broke the law when he lied on the stand.

I have wondered how many, good clean le detectives would have wanted to have their name associated with any work, screenplay or not that was filled with that kind of vile language and claims against minority citizens. Furhman seemed not to care as he gave his life story as a cop in the minority community.
imo
martin II

Fuhrman having perjured himself is not the issue that was mentioned regarding broken laws, so let us not confuse the two.

You continue to help me paint the point onto the canvas however. You find Fuhrman vile and a dirty detective, and I don't disagree. Just keep in mind that some find Cochran vile and a dirty attorney as they feel he breached an ethics conduct in the bar and manipulated a panel of jurors by purposely and willfully adding fuel to a racial fire that was already up in flames.

There are two sides to every story, and neither side is ever comprised of the whole truth.

Kate

[martin II]

tv
if memory serves me correctly, Mckenny first wanted furhman to talk about women in lapd. It was furhman that turned it into his experiences about what he had done to minorities in the minority community.

martin II

[martin II]

People can attack Cochran for his defense of oj as much as they like.

My post was about how many and which cops that are good cops, with good reputaitons in their work would want to have their names associated with the kind of activities that furhman spoke of in those tapes. Most cops would draw the line as they would not want to have their reputations smeared by the kind of stuff furhman talked about. Generally,active cops try to stay above suspecion in their work. Making a tape that closely protrayed the activities of the bad cops in the Rampart investigation would be over the top for most le detectives. So i was just wondering why furhman did not feel that his words would reflect negatively on his service as a le detective or why he may not have cared.
imo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

So i was just wondering why furhman did not feel that his words would reflect negatively on his service as a le detective or why he may not have cared.
imo
martin II

Because he was ridiculously arrogant, and at the same time idiotic. People like Fuhrman generally don't take anything other than themselves into consideration. He's actually quite like OJ Simpson in that manner.

Kate

[tv]

tv
I thought that when you brought up the name of your hero, you would expect me to comment.

I have wondered how many, good clean le detectives would have wanted to have their name associated with any work, screenplay or not that was filled with that kind of vile language and claims against minority citizens. Furhman seemed not to care as he gave his life story as a cop in the minority community.

I just think that most honest, noncriminal cops would not want to be heard on any tape saying the things furhman said.

S.K. is not a cop.
I don't think any cop has written the kinds of things furhman wrote. if so i put them into the same class as furhman.

imo
martin II

pS If you go to the link i gave you last week you may find out some info about him that you may not have known.

imo
martinIINo, I thought you would see that I'm saying that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I actually thought you might see what I was getting at. I'm not going to get into an indepth discussion about Mark Fuhrman with you. If you want to go on and on about him it belongs in the Mark Fuhrman thread.

By the way, I'll decide who my heroes are.

[socaldiva]

I heard on the radio this morning that a third party is suing relative to the "If I did it" book, claiming that they wrote what is contained in chapter 6 & 7 back in 1995. I just looked for a link, but couldn't find it. Did anyone else hear of this? :confused:

[Kate Sachel]

I heard on the radio this morning that a third party is suing relative to the "If I did it" book, claiming that they wrote what is contained in chapter 6 & 7 back in 1995. I just looked for a link, but couldn't find it. Did anyone else hear of this? :confused:

Here you go;

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=cd0a1e80-c17d-49c8-b7d3-99de90b3bdfa


Kate

[martin II]

No, I thought you would see that I'm saying that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I actually thought you might see what I was getting at. I'm not going to get into an indepth discussion about Mark Fuhrman with you. If you want to go on and on about him it belongs in the Mark Fuhrman thread.

By the way, I'll decide who my heroes are.

tv
i understood clearly your post about certain things being done legally do not, in your opinion, mean that YOU accept them as being ok for you.

I post information that i think is interesting for the discussion. This does not mean that i am trying to convience or cause you to agree with what i have posted.

martin II

[martin II]

All
When furhman applied for his early retirement he had many excuses, those used by others le to get early retirement, he could have used to try to show that he was not fit to continue to be employed as a lapd detective.
Yet he decided to use excuse that involved stories of his feelings and actions against minorities and mixed black and white couples.

Initially when he was engaged by McKenny to give his views on the problems of women in the work place in the LAPD for the 'SCREENPLAY" He turned that subject into many tapes of r***** rants and stories about minorities and his history of actions against mixed black and white couples.
His stories were in many ways identical to what some minorities communities had complained about him and others in the lapd Ramport investigation of lapd cops that led to Justice Depertmant control/regulation of the lapd.

So a fair question can be asked imo. Why, in these instances, was mistreatment of minorities and mixed couples, Furhmans subject of choice?
imo
martin II

[weezer]

*SNIPPED**". . .His stories were in many ways identical to what some minorities communities had complained about him and others in the lapd Ramport investigation of lapd cops that led to Justice Depertmant control/regulation of the lapd.

So a fair question can be asked imo. Why, in these instances, was mistreatment of minorities and mixed couples, Furhmans subject of choice?
imo
martin II

where in the world did you get the idea that there was "minorities communities" complaints about him?

[martin II]

hearing
courttv.com
live
back at 5pm

martin II

[William Anthony]

Both you and martin can't seem to grasp the fact that Paula's picture is not the issue. The fact is that Simpson's defense replaced all the photos in Simpson's house showing him with his white friends replacing them with framed photocopies of his black family. And the fact is that Cochran took a poster from his office of a famous 1963 painting showing a black grade school girl surrounded by federal marshals prominently displaying it in Simpson's house for the jurors to see. As Schiller wrote,

"The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women."

bobaugust

It now seems that you want to convict Simpson because he associated with whites women and men. I think the jury view was to get a look at the layout of his home and not his associations. I think the defense took the steps necessary to protect their client against undue prejudice and it would appear that you wanted Simpson to be prejudiced.

[bobaugust]

It now seems that you want to convict Simpson because he associated with whites women and men. I think the jury view was to get a look at the layout of his home and not his associations. I think the defense took the steps necessary to protect their client against undue prejudice and it would appear that you wanted Simpson to be prejudiced.

This issue has nothing to do with my opinion as to why Simpson should have been convicted it has to do with the fantasy Cochran created to deceive the criminal trial jury not to convict Simpson.

bobaugust

[martin II]

This issue has nothing to do with my opinion as to why Simpson should have been convicted it has to do with the fantasy Cochran created to deceive the criminal trial jury not to convict Simpson.

bobaugust

bob
The jury was there to see the layout of the house.Rockingham gate, south walkway, ojs laundry room, bedroom, kitchen, other parts of the house, rockingham gate, ashford gate and driveway and as it turned out if A Park could have seen all the things he testified to seeing.

Not how many pictures of white or black people were on his walls.

As it turned out, it seemed that Parks testimony of what he said he saw from where was may have been the most informative part of the jury visit.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Not how many pictures of white or black people were on his walls.


If that were true, they wouldn't have bothered to replace the pictures!

[bobaugust]

bob
The jury was there to see the layout of the house.Rockingham gate, south walkway, ojs laundry room, bedroom, kitchen, other parts of the house, rockingham gate, ashford gate and driveway and as it turned out if A Park could have seen all the things he testified to seeing.

Not how many pictures of white or black people were on his walls.

As it turned out, it seemed that Parks testimony of what he said he saw from where was may have been the most informative part of the jury visit.

martin II

martin II, if the jurors were really interested in seeing what Allan Park testified he saw they would have requested to see visit the house at night. Based on photographs and testimony, nothing contradicted what Park said he saw.

Schiller wrote,

"The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women."

bobaugust

[weezer]

bob
The jury was there to see the layout of the house.Rockingham gate, south walkway, ojs laundry room, bedroom, kitchen, other parts of the house, rockingham gate, ashford gate and driveway and as it turned out if A Park could have seen all the things he testified to seeing.

Not how many pictures of white or black people were on his walls.

As it turned out, it seemed that Parks testimony of what he said he saw from where was may have been the most informative part of the jury visit.

martin II

what did the trophy room, a fire in the fireplace and pictures of black people on the walls have to do with the murders?

[Kate Sachel]

It now seems that you want to convict Simpson because he associated with whites women and men. I think the jury view was to get a look at the layout of his home and not his associations. I think the defense took the steps necessary to protect their client against undue prejudice and it would appear that you wanted Simpson to be prejudiced.

I honestly have to wonder where you got the first sentence of your post.

Protect their client against undue prejudice? Apparently you agree with Cochran then that the predominantly black jury would be upset to see all white individuals on OJ's walls rather than blacks and, as a result, have ill feelings and possibly not provide him with a fair trial?

Kate

[martin II]

what did the trophy room, a fire in the fireplace and pictures of black people on the walls have to do with the murders?

I thought i had included everythinjg. Thanks

It would be impossible for the jury to visit oj's house and not get a feeling of oj personally.This is the place where the defendant lives and that was a crime scene.Everything including the fireplace.haha
Another way of looking at the house is to say a person that reached this level of success would not in most instances risk giving all of this up.

Why not show his trophy room? It was part of the house on 6/12. The media had wrongly painted oj as some non-black person so the pictures corrected that impression.The fireplace gave a nice homely feeling to the place i guess.

Nothing wrong with the defence presenting their client in the best possible light. That is part of their job.

I think some people that believe oj was guilty have tried to make a issue of the pictures either because, they, for some reason did not approve of oj having so many white friends and ex wife and girlfriend in the first place, or they would just like to see him painted in the worse light possible.
Thank God Cochran was thinking about the details in defense of his client.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

martin II, if the jurors were really interested in seeing what Allan Park testified he saw they would have requested to see visit the house at night. Based on photographs and testimony, nothing contradicted what Park said he saw.

Schiller wrote,

"The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women."

bobaugust

BOB

So what?

I think it was Nicole that had decorated the house in the first place.However, if a white person was the defendant and had a lot of gang banging or hip hop
type pictures of his friends and a all white jury, say from Santa Monica, was the jury comming to visit his house,do you believe his lawyers, if they were thinking, would find some pictures of white people to put up to "Make the jury feel confortable"?
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

I think it was Nicole that had decorated the house in the first place.

I'm sure she didn't choose pictures of naked women ;)

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Another way of looking at the house is to say a person that reached this level of success would not in most instances risk giving all of this up.


Do you really think that weathly people sit around & evaluate losing their material possessions when comtemplating murder?

People with money can be just as crazy as anyone, maybe even more so. Just look at Phil Spector, Robert Blake, Robert Durst, Michael Jackson & Britney Spears.

[tv]

tv
i understood clearly your post about certain things being done legally do not, in your opinion, mean that YOU accept them as being ok for you.

I post information that i think is interesting for the discussion. This does not mean that i am trying to convience or cause you to agree with what i have posted.

martin IIIt's not surprising that you've managed to turn a discussion about Johnny Cochran removing all the pictures of white people in Simpson's house and replacing them with pictures of black people into a discussion about Mark Fuhrman.

I haven't asked you to convenience me. You're so amusing; I never know what off-the-wall comment you're coming to come up with next. :biggrin:

[bobaugust]

BOB

So what?

I think it was Nicole that had decorated the house in the first place.However, if a white person was the defendant and had a lot of gang banging or hip hop
type pictures of his friends and a all white jury, say from Santa Monica, was the jury comming to visit his house,do you believe his lawyers, if they were thinking, would find some pictures of white people to put up to "Make the jury feel confortable"?
martin II

martin II, so what? This issue has nothing to do with Nicole. She wasn't living there and had nothing to do with it. It has to do with one of the tactics Cochran used to deceive the criminal trial jury.

bobaugust

[martin II]

It's not surprising that you've managed to turn a discussion about Johnny Cochran removing all the pictures of white people in Simpson's house and replacing them with pictures of black people into a discussion about Mark Fuhrman.

I haven't asked you to convenience me. You're so amusing; I never know what off-the-wall comment you're coming to come up with next. :biggrin:

tv
The discussion has not changed in case you have not noticed and you can save yourself some time by attempting to tell me what i can/should post.

I am interested in opinions about the case not your negative personal comments about me as they add nothing to the discussion.

martin II

[tv]

tv
The discussion has not changed in case you have not noticed and you can save yourself some time by attempting to tell me what i can/should post.

I am interested in opinions about the case not your negative personal comments about me as they add nothing to the discussion.

martin II

The discussion did return to Johnny Cochran and the pictures but not until you went on one of your usual Mark Fuhrman tirades. My comments may have been negative but they weren't personal. :shrug:

Thanks for the offer for me to tell you what you can/should post but I think I'll decline. :)

[martin II]

martin II, so what? This issue has nothing to do with Nicole. She wasn't living there and had nothing to do with it. It has to do with one of the tactics Cochran used to deceive the criminal trial jury.

bobaugust

BOB

You know and i know that the jury knew oj had a ex white wife and girlfriend and therefore other white and black friends because he was black.

I believe it was reasonable for Cochran to try to counter the media focus on oj's white friends for him to use some pictures of his blacks during their visit.

martin II

[William Anthony]

This issue has nothing to do with my opinion as to why Simpson should have been convicted it has to do with the fantasy Cochran created to deceive the criminal trial jury not to convict Simpson.

bobaugust

You imply that there was something wrong with him replacing pictures of Whites, with whom he associated and putting up pictures of Blacks, even though the jury was not there to view his associations. You accuse JC of inventing a fantasy but the jury was not there to view the pictures. The only fantasy, imho, is created in the minds of those who think that there was something wrong with a person protecting his privacy, and his choice to display any pictures he wanted at anytime in his home.

I do not think JC violated any court order.

[William Anthony]

I honestly have to wonder where you got the first sentence of your post.

Protect their client against undue prejudice? Apparently you agree with Cochran then that the predominantly black jury would be upset to see all white individuals on OJ's walls rather than blacks and, as a result, have ill feelings and possibly not provide him with a fair trial?

Kate

I got the first sentence from the fact that the poster seemed to see something amiss with pictures that belonged to someone else, being changed in a home that belonged to someone else and tge poster's idea that the change in pctures altered the perception of those with whom Simpson associated. I do not see this as marterial or relevant to the charges. The poster implied that this evidence, the home view, changed the jury's perception of Simpson.

I do not know if I agree with the sentiments expressed, if they were expressed by JC. However, I do agree that he owed the duty to provide a service in the best interest of his client. If this was his view, judging by the verdict, then I would say he took the necessary steps to avoid undue prejudice, whether or not it would have actually ended up that way.

[martin II]

Riccio's testimony.

"O.J. was cool with me, it seemed like the right thing to do," the silver-haired New Jersey native said, sticking out his chin and glancing toward the defendants.

Riccio said he let Simpson and a group of men into a hotel room to claim Simpson's property, contradicting the other memorabilia dealer involved, Bruce Fromong, who testified there had been a "military style invasion."

"I had a key and I let them in," Riccio said. "Nobody was busting the door down."

Riccio said when the group first entered the room Fromong's demeanor was "apologetic" and he took "a scolding from Simpson" who complained loudly that the materials Fromong and Beardsley had brought to the room were his.

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

The seeds of the confrontation were planted weeks earlier, when one of the dealers, Alfred Beardsley, offered to sell Riccio memorabilia. Riccio, 44, said he had a bad feeling about it, and not just because he lost $500 in an earlier deal with Beardsley.

"He came right out and said it was stolen from O.J.'s trophy room. Those were his exact words," Riccio said. "I was very concerned. It seemed like there was a good chance Beardsley ... was setting me up."

The witness said he was hesitant to handle stolen goods so he contacted the FBI and police but they brushed him off.

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

Had the group only taken the Simpson items, Riccio speculated, the dealers might not have gone to the police.

"I don't think we would have been here if no gun was here," he said.

Later Friday, a man recruited to help gather Simpson's memorabilia and carry it from the hotel room said he saw two men with guns during the confrontation but that he heard Simpson say several times that he never saw a gun. He also said he heard Simpson say he didn't want to keep any memorabilia that wasn't his.

Asked why he didn't tell Simpson guns were present, Charles Cashmore said, "In hindsight I guess I should have corrected him. There was fear in me. I was in a situation that was very surreal to me so I didn't say anything."

[martin II]

I got the first sentence from the fact that the poster seemed to see something amiss with pictures that belonged to someone else, being changed in a home that belonged to someone else and tge poster's idea that the change in pctures altered the perception of those with whom Simpson associated. I do not see this as marterial or relevant to the charges. The poster implied that this evidence, the home view, changed the jury's perception of Simpson.

I do not know if I agree with the sentiments expressed, if they were expressed by JC. However, I do agree that he owed the duty to provide a service in the best interest of his client. If this was his view, judging by the verdict, then I would say he took the necessary steps to avoid undue prejudice, whether or not it would have actually ended up that way.

William
It may just be that some would have preferred that the pictures of white people had remained to enhance the possibility that the jury just might have taken a negative view of oj because of them.
J Cochran did not allow this possibility and some may feel they were "robbed"
of this as a issue.

But then on the other hand some seem to grasp at any opportunity to defame the great J Cochran. May he rest in peace.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Riccio's testimony.


Looks like you are quoting Riccio's testimony because you think it favors Simpson. I thought you said that Riccio set Simpson up?

[William Anthony]

William
It may just be that some would have preferred that the pictures of white people had remained to enhance the possibility that the jury just might have taken a negative view of oj because of them.
J Cochran did not allow this possibility and some may feel they were "robbed"
of this as a issue.

But then on the other hand some seem to grasp at any opportunity to defame the great J Cochran. May he rest in peace.

martin II

He magnificently preformed his duties to his client, imho. The pictures were not relevant or material, imho, to the charges.

[Kate Sachel]

He magnificently preformed his duties to his client, imho. The pictures were not relevant or material, imho, to the charges.

I note that you protected your statement by adding "to the charges", but we both are aware that if they weren't relevant to some issue at hand then they would not have been removed.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I note that you protected your statement by adding "to the charges", but we both are aware that if they weren't relevant to some issue at hand then they would not have been removed.

Kate

Kate,

As usual you are correct that other issues, which have no bearing on the charges may be correctly or incorrectly brought into a case. Therefore, I think it was wise and magnificent of JC to take all precautions to avoid any chance that irrelevant issues were brought into the case.

[weezer]

Kate,

As usual you are correct that other issues, which have no bearing on the charges may be correctly or incorrectly brought into a case. Therefore, I think it was wise and magnificent of JC to take all precautions to avoid any chance that irrelevant issues were brought into the case.

he was a sleaze that manipulated an already biased jury. imo

[Martyrdom]

Kate,

As usual you are correct that other issues, which have no bearing on the charges may be correctly or incorrectly brought into a case. Therefore, I think it was wise and magnificent of JC to take all precautions to avoid any chance that irrelevant issues were brought into the case.

I ain't sure how much wisdom or magnificence it takes to figure out that a group of mostly blacks ain't gonna like all them white folk hanging up in a black man's home, but it don't sound like it takes much to be earnin' your admiration.

[Martyrdom]

William
It may just be that some would have preferred that the pictures of white people had remained to enhance the possibility that the jury just might have taken a negative view of oj because of them.
J Cochran did not allow this possibility and some may feel they were "robbed"
of this as a issue.

But then on the other hand some seem to grasp at any opportunity to defame the great J Cochran. May he rest in peace.

martin II

At least ya finally admit that your great almost all black jury woulda probably seen Simpson in a negative view cause of all them whites he associated with!

Racist come in all different kinds of shades and sizes, no matter how much you be wantin to pretend that blacks don't do it.

[weezer]

Kate,

As usual you are correct that other issues, which have no bearing on the charges may be correctly or incorrectly brought into a case. Therefore, I think it was wise and magnificent of JC to take all precautions to avoid any chance that irrelevant issues were brought into the case.

so what did the pictures of black people, a fire in the fireplace and a tour through orenthal's trophy have to do with the murders? I'm struggling to see what bearing they had on the case.

Those pictures weren't hanging on those walls or sitting by his bedside the night of the murders. There was no fire in the fireplace on the night of the murders. No one was in the trophy room on the night of the murders.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

I ain't sure how much wisdom or magnificence it takes to figure out that a group of mostly blacks ain't gonna like all them white folk hanging up in a black man's home


:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[martin II]

so what did the pictures of black people, a fire in the fireplace and a tour through orenthal's trophy have to do with the murders? I'm struggling to see what bearing they had on the case.

Those pictures weren't hanging on those walls or sitting by his bedside the night of the murders. There was no fire in the fireplace on the night of the murders. No one was in the trophy room on the night of the murders.

J Cochran had a resonsibility to show his client in whatever light he felt
would cause them to see him as he was. Especially since the media and others had shown him as a person that was non black since he had a white ex , girlfriend and friends. That image should not have been allowed to prevail.
This is a non isue.

martin II

[martin II]

The oj hearing is being televised on msbnc and ctv.
Four have testified so far and it seems that are lying on each other.

martin II:D

[bobaugust]

The oj hearing is being televised on msbnc and ctv.
Four have testified so far and it seems that are lying on each other.

martin II:D

martin II, yes it sure seems that Simpson's circle of friends are as shady as he is. Despite inconsistencies there is no doubt that guns were involved, that Simpson knew that guns were involved, and that things were taken that had never belonged to Simpson.

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, yes it sure seems that Simpson's circle of friends are as shady as he is. Despite inconsistencies there is no doubt that guns were involved, that Simpson knew that guns were involved, and that things were taken that had never belonged to Simpson.

bobaugust


Bob
Listen to the testimony of Alexander and McClinton and then decide if you believe a jury would believe either of them.

Alexander said he took the montana items by mistake and oj told him to return them.OJ was also on the tape saying "Take my stuff and leave the rest"
Both witnesses today testified that no one waved a gun in Fronmongs face as he was on the other side of the bed from oj and McClinton.

Now be sure to listen to the tape that ALexander left on the grooms phone machine where he tell the groom 'If you give me money i will slant my testimony to help oj." When asked how he would do that he said " I would just not tell (da)the exact truth"

You will also be able hear the different tales as to how,when oj was suppose to have told them to bring guns. Also in their initial statements both said there were no guns but after receiving their deals their story changed.

Some have said oj was running the show, but when the tape was broken down it was Mc Clinton that was barking out all the orders to everyone in the room and oj was just yelling at Fromong and Beasley.

martin II

[martin II]

I ain't sure how much wisdom or magnificence it takes to figure out that a group of mostly blacks ain't gonna like all them white folk hanging up in a black man's home, but it don't sound like it takes much to be earnin' your admiration.

i don't think your attempt to use slang is fooling anyone.

[socaldiva]

i don't think your attempt to use slang is fooling anyone.

Huh? What slang :confused: You're funny :tongue:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Now be sure to listen to the tape that ALexander left on the grooms phone machine where he tell the groom 'If you give me money i will slant my testimony to help oj." When asked how he would do that he said " I would just not tell (da)the exact truth"


Yeah, because the "exact truth" would implicate Simpson :tongue:

[bobaugust]

Bob
Listen to the testimony of Alexander and McClinton and then decide if you believe a jury would believe either of them.

Alexander said he took the montana items by mistake and oj told him to return them.OJ was also on the tape saying "Take my stuff and leave the rest"
Both witnesses today testified that no one waved a gun in Fronmongs face as he was on the other side of the bed from oj and McClinton.

Now be sure to listen to the tape that ALexander left on the grooms phone machine where he tell the groom 'If you give me money i will slant my testimony to help oj." When asked how he would do that he said " I would just not tell (da)the exact truth"

You will also be able hear the different tales as to how,when oj was suppose to have told them to bring guns. Also in their initial statements both said there were no guns but after receiving their deals their story changed.

Some have said oj was running the show, but when the tape was broken down it was Mc Clinton that was barking out all the orders to everyone in the room and oj was just yelling at Fromong and Beasley.

martin II

martin II, I did listen to the testimony and it's clear to me that a gun was drawn and Simpson was aware of it. It's also clear to me that there is no doubt that Simpson was the one in charge having asked the others to help him. There is also no doubt that some items were taken that never belonged to Simpson. Was everyone involved somewhat shady, willing to turn on the others to help themselves? Absolutely. Including Simpson.

bobaugust

[Martyrdom]

i don't think your attempt to use slang is fooling anyone.

Ain't my problem if you don't be likin' the way us white southern country boys talk.

I don't reckon that your attempt to sound like you know what your talkin' about is foolin' anyone either.

[martin II]

martin II, I did listen to the testimony and it's clear to me that a gun was drawn and Simpson was aware of it. It's also clear to me that there is no doubt that Simpson was the one in charge having asked the others to help him. There is also no doubt that some items were taken that never belonged to Simpson. Was everyone involved somewhat shady, willing to turn on the others to help themselves? Absolutely. Including Simpson.

bobaugust

bob
From what has been reported , from the beginning all the way up to entering the room Riccio was the central planner of this caper even to the details of how he wanted the guys to walk in the halls going to the room.
OJ knew he could not carry all the goods out so he asked some for some help
and to make sure it was not just him and Riccio against whoever was in the room.

Mc Clinton said Alexander had the gun he gave him and that he drew it out and had it in his hand in plain view. Alexander said he did not draw his gun out at all.
Which do you believe.

At trial Alexanders statement that He would slant his testimony and just not tell the DA the exact truth if he had been paid by Scotto or oj will be played. How would you as a juror evaluate him as a witness?

Personally i believe Mc Clintin and Alexander would have brought their guns withoiut anyone asking them to.

[weezer]

*SNIPPED* ". . .At trial Alexanders statement that He would slant his testimony and just not tell the DA the exact truth if he had been paid by Scotto or oj will be played. How would you as a juror evaluate him as a witness?. . ."

I would ask myself 'why' -- if there were no guns -- would the witness need to 'slant' his story to favor orenthal????? :shrug:

[martin II]

I would ask myself 'why' -- if there were no guns -- would the witness need to 'slant' his story to favor orenthal????? :shrug:

Guns are not the only issue in the case. however that was not the question.

Since Alexander testified that he would slant his testimony and or just not tell the DA exactly what happened if oj and or scotty had paid him money,that statement would cause me to ask my self if he was slantingh his testimony against oj now since he was not paid.
Remember both said there were no guns intially in their statements.They only remembered there were guns after talking to the da and getting some kind of deal.
martin II

[weezer]

Guns are not the only issue in the case. however that was not the question.

Since Alexander testified that he would slant his testimony and or just not tell the DA exactly what happened if oj and or scotty had paid him money,that statement would cause me to ask my self if he was slantingh his testimony against oj now since he was not paid.
Remember both said there were no guns intially in their statements.They only remembered there were guns after talking to the da and getting some kind of deal.
martin II

that's silly -- if he was willing to 'slant' his story in favor of orenthal if paid but you question if he's 'slanting' his story to be against orenthal because he wasn't paid, what then would the 'truth' be?

[martin II]

that's silly -- if he was willing to 'slant' his story in favor of orenthal if paid but you question if he's 'slanting' his story to be against orenthal because he wasn't paid, what then would the 'truth' be?

It is not that difficult to figure it out.
If he had been paid, maby his testimony would be that oj did not ask for a gun. Since he was not paid and is angry with oj for not paying, the issue becomes is he slanting his testimony against oj now?

It is obvious to me that Alexander is not concerned about the truth. The important issue is that the jury may find whatever he is saying difficult to believe based on his taped statements.

Look Alexander met with the prosecution and did not like the deal he was first offered. He left that meeting and called Scotto and asked for the money.
Scotto said no as he thought it could give the impression that he was buying witness testimony.Alexander then went back to the prosecution and changed his position that oj did have a gun.

So it appears that he did get paid but not by oj.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
So it appears that he did get paid but not by oj.


Are you attempting to imply that the prosecution paid Alexander??

[bobaugust]

bob
From what has been reported , from the beginning all the way up to entering the room Riccio was the central planner of this caper even to the details of how he wanted the guys to walk in the halls going to the room.
OJ knew he could not carry all the goods out so he asked some for some help
and to make sure it was not just him and Riccio against whoever was in the room.

Mc Clinton said Alexander had the gun he gave him and that he drew it out and had it in his hand in plain view. Alexander said he did not draw his gun out at all.
Which do you believe.

At trial Alexanders statement that He would slant his testimony and just not tell the DA the exact truth if he had been paid by Scotto or oj will be played. How would you as a juror evaluate him as a witness?

Personally i believe Mc Clintin and Alexander would have brought their guns withoiut anyone asking them to.

martin II, Riccio testified that he didn't know Simpson was going to bring so many of his friends along or that they had weapons. Riccio had his own agenda for this but the fact remains that Simpson was the leader of this so called sting. Without Simpson's consent and direction it would never have happened. If Simpson had said at the beginning, no guns, then no guns would have been brought.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is not that difficult to figure it out.
If he had been paid, maby his testimony would be that oj did not ask for a gun. Since he was not paid and is angry with oj for not paying, the issue becomes is he slanting his testimony against oj now?

It is obvious to me that Alexander is not concerned about the truth. The important issue is that the jury may find whatever he is saying difficult to believe based on his taped statements.

Look Alexander met with the prosecution and did not like the deal he was first offered. He left that meeting and called Scotto and asked for the money.
Scotto said no as he thought it could give the impression that he was buying witness testimony.Alexander then went back to the prosecution and changed his position that oj did have a gun.

So it appears that he did get paid but not by oj.
martin II

martin II, you say Alexander then went back to the prosecution and changed his position that oj had a gun? Where did you get that information from?

bobaugust

[martin II]

A woman has posted some e-mails on various sites that she claim were sent to her by M Furhman. Have you seen them? They were posted on B.P. site.

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

martin II, you say Alexander then went back to the prosecution and changed his position that oj had a gun? Where did you get that information from?

bobaugust

correction. He said that oj asked him to bring a gun. Or some HEAT.

martin II

[martin II]

bob

Alexanders testified that he would slant his testimony in favor of oj if he got paid And he would just not tell the exact truth about what happenmed if oj/scotty paid him.

How do you believe the jury,at trial, will take his testimony.
martin II

[weezer]

A woman has posted some e-mails on various sites that she claim were sent to her by M Furhman. Have you seen them? They were posted on B.P. site.

MARTIN ii

I think you are stooping so low with this email stuff. What in the world the emails have to do with this discussion is beyond me.

You are so transparent. LOL When you're backed into the corner and can't come up with a reasonable answer, you attack. If not the victims then the victims' families or the witnesses.

imo

[weezer]

bob

Alexanders testified that he would slant his testimony in favor of oj if he got paid And he would just not tell the exact truth about what happenmed if oj/scotty paid him.

How do you believe the jury,at trial, will take his testimony.
martin II

so for money he would slant his testimony that orenthal didn't want/know guns BUT . . . .

can you see how ridiculous your argument is?

[bobaugust]

correction. He said that oj asked him to bring a gun. Or some HEAT.

martin II

martin II, what information do you know of that Alexander changed his position after he spoke with Scotto?

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

correction. He said that oj asked him to bring a gun. Or some HEAT.

martin II

Gee, what do you think "some HEAT" means? One of Paris Hilton's little dogs in their pockets?

[William Anthony]

he was a sleaze that manipulated an already biased jury. imo

Careful with the fingerpointing, because there are three pointing at the one who points the finger.

[William Anthony]

I ain't sure how much wisdom or magnificence it takes to figure out that a group of mostly blacks ain't gonna like all them white folk hanging up in a black man's home, but it don't sound like it takes much to be earnin' your admiration.

I hope and pray that I have not earned your admiration. Yes, it takes intelligence and wisdom to earn my admiration as it relates to a lawyer's ability to act in the best interest of his client and to be able to speak and act in an eloquent manner.

[William Anthony]

so what did the pictures of black people, a fire in the fireplace and a tour through orenthal's trophy have to do with the murders? I'm struggling to see what bearing they had on the case.

Those pictures weren't hanging on those walls or sitting by his bedside the night of the murders. There was no fire in the fireplace on the night of the murders. No one was in the trophy room on the night of the murders.

None, which was my point and neither should pictures of Whites. Therefore, the whole issue is irrelevant, except in the minds of those, Black and White, who feel that a person does not have the right to associate with people of races of his/her own choice.

[William Anthony]

martin II, yes it sure seems that Simpson's circle of friends are as shady as he is. Despite inconsistencies there is no doubt that guns were involved, that Simpson knew that guns were involved, and that things were taken that had never belonged to Simpson.

bobaugust


Charged, tried and convicted without one iota of testimony in a trial. I love the way you construct the judicial system.

[martin II]

martin II, what information do you know of that Alexander changed his position after he spoke with Scotto?

bobaugust

BOB'
Read the cross by yale of Alexander.

martin II

[martin II]

so for money he would slant his testimony that orenthal didn't want/know guns BUT . . . .

can you see how ridiculous your argument is?


see what happens when you read my post and then try to craft something else out of it.

[martin II]

I think you are stooping so low with this email stuff. What in the world the emails have to do with this discussion is beyond me.

You are so transparent. LOL When you're backed into the corner and can't come up with a reasonable answer, you attack. If not the victims then the victims' families or the witnesses.

imo

weezer
I am not backed into any corner.

martin II

[bobaugust]

Charged, tried and convicted without one iota of testimony in a trial. I love the way you construct the judicial system.

Charged, tried and convicted? That's funny. No one here is constructing the judicial system what ever that means, only offering opinions based on what witnesses are testifying to. If you have an opinion feel free to offer it but I'm sorry to say your obnoxious comments add nothing to the discussion.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

BOB'
Read the cross by yale of Alexander.

martin II

martin II, read the cross examination? Where can it be read? I heard the cross examination and I didn't hear where Alexander said he changed what he told the prosecutors after they offered him a deal. If you know of a link to the transcripts so we can read them, post it please, or at the very least post the portion that supports your claim.

bobaugust

[weezer]

weezer
I am not backed into any corner.

martin II

LOL -- you crack me up! :punch:

[Suzee10]

About time, maybe the jury will get it right this time!!!:beer:

[Suzee10]

You know what has really got me through this entire hearing, it is everyone saying how all of the co-defendants bad guys and how they all have criminal records and this is why no one should believe what they say, but what everyone needs to remember they are simpson's friends and aquaintances, so what does this say about simpson. These are the kind of people he surrounds himself with, so he is no better that they are so why should anyone believe what he says? It is not like he has not brushes with the law, please...

[martin II]

martin II, read the cross examination? Where can it be read? I heard the cross examination and I didn't hear where Alexander said he changed what he told the prosecutors after they offered him a deal. If you know of a link to the transcripts so we can read them, post it please, or at the very least post the portion that supports your claim.

bobaugust

BOB

Did you have the opportunity to read those e-maile i mentioned?

martin II

[socaldiva]

BOB

Did you have the opportunity to read those e-maile i mentioned?

martin II


Ah, back to the alledged "e-maile" from MF? This is the "OJ in the news thread". There is a separate thread for MF ;)

[tv]

Ah, back to the alledged "e-maile" from MF? This is the "OJ in the news thread". There is a separate thread for MF ;)
Diva, I tried to check this out and all I saw was a convuluted mess of factual misreprentations and plain old BS concerning the crimes. :shrug: There was the usual Mark Fuhrman bashing. Nothing new there.

[kjb19500]

My only hope is that the judge has the wisdom to keep this trial focused on the facts and issues and doesn't allow the irrelevancies to take over the case.
Whether or not Simpson knew there were guns is irrelevant: He was part of a criminal enterprise; if I planned a weaponless bank robbery and one of my partners brought a gun without my knowledge, I'm still as guilty as he is.

Apparently the judge believes all the charges should stand.

[kjb19500]

A defense lawyer contended that the case was based on the accounts of "crackheads and groupies and pimps and purveyors of stolen merchandise and gun carriers and con artists and crooks."

"These guys are bad. The court can't ascribe any credibility to what came out of their mouths," said attorney John Moran Jr., who represents Ehrlich. "Every witness up there was looking to sell testimony and make money off of this case."

Prosecutor Chris Owens offered no defense of their characters but said: "It's not like the state went out and found the witnesses. These are people aligned with O.J. Simpson. These are the people he surrounds himself with."

The witnesses corroborated one another's stories, and recordings, video and photographs supported the charges, Owens said.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Isn't it an old clique that a man is known by the company he keeps?

[rachelslaw]

A defense lawyer contended that the case was based on the accounts of "crackheads and groupies and pimps and purveyors of stolen merchandise and gun carriers and con artists and crooks."

"These guys are bad. The court can't ascribe any credibility to what came out of their mouths," said attorney John Moran Jr., who represents Ehrlich. "Every witness up there was looking to sell testimony and make money off of this case."

Prosecutor Chris Owens offered no defense of their characters but said: "It's not like the state went out and found the witnesses. These are people aligned with O.J. Simpson. These are the people he surrounds himself with."

The witnesses corroborated one another's stories, and recordings, video and photographs supported the charges, Owens said.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Isn't it an old clique that a man is known by the company he keeps?

Yes, that old clique certainly does have some truth in it. It's not as if OJ is the one shining good guy in a sea of bad guys who simply wanted his stuff back and called upon his "friends" to help him recover his items, and was simply an innocent among crooks. It will make for a rather amusing defense. ;)

IMO

[socaldiva]

Diva, I tried to check this out and all I saw was a convuluted mess of factual misreprentations and plain old BS concerning the crimes. :shrug: There was the usual Mark Fuhrman bashing. Nothing new there.


Thanks for checking. I'm sure you're right on target. :seeya:

[BigBrat]

martin II, Riccio testified that he didn't know Simpson was going to bring so many of his friends along or that they had weapons. Riccio had his own agenda for this but the fact remains that Simpson was the leader of this so called sting. Without Simpson's consent and direction it would never have happened. If Simpson had said at the beginning, no guns, then no guns would have been brought.

bobaugust

Good point, bobaugust. And, it was OJ himself who rounded up this crew of men to accompany him to the caper.
The fact that some of the guys call OJ a long time friend, gives you an idea of the type of people OJ hangs with. He knew which friends of his would go along with his plan. You notice he didn't ask Al Cowlins or Marcus Allen to help him.
jmo

[martin II]

Diva, I tried to check this out and all I saw was a convuluted mess of factual misreprentations and plain old BS concerning the crimes. :shrug: There was the usual Mark Fuhrman bashing. Nothing new there.

A few days ago 2-3 of the e-mails were posted on the BP message board.
I read them there. A few days later BP deleted them for his board.

I also read that they were posted on ctv message board and there was some heated discussion about them until , it was reported, that for some reason CW deleted them.After reading them i believe she deleted them bacause of the content.Some posters challanged the poster on the authenticy of the mail and it seems that the poster somehow verified that they did in fact come from furhman to her.As his e-mail address was listed. I think i even saw a post by furhman. Not really sure but i think that is correct.They can be described as filty, xrated and anything else one would like to call them.
But it is not the image of him that many seem to have.
I think they will surface again.

martin II

[martin II]

A defense lawyer contended that the case was based on the accounts of "crackheads and groupies and pimps and purveyors of stolen merchandise and gun carriers and con artists and crooks."

"These guys are bad. The court can't ascribe any credibility to what came out of their mouths," said attorney John Moran Jr., who represents Ehrlich. "Every witness up there was looking to sell testimony and make money off of this case."

Prosecutor Chris Owens offered no defense of their characters but said: "It's not like the state went out and found the witnesses. These are people aligned with O.J. Simpson. These are the people he surrounds himself with."

The witnesses corroborated one another's stories, and recordings, video and photographs supported the charges, Owens said.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Isn't it an old clique that a man is known by the company he keeps?

From the testimony i heard Mc Clinton, Alexander, Cashmore, Riccio and Beadsley all contridicted each other in their testimony on various material issues.imo

martin II

[bobaugust]

From the testimony i heard Mc Clinton, Alexander, Cashmore, Riccio and Beadsley all contridicted each other in their testimony on various material issues.imo

martin II

From the testimony I heard all of these witnesses were consistent in the two main issues. A gun was drawn and some items that never belonged to Simpson were taken. Armed robbery.

bobaugust

[weezer]

A few days ago 2-3 of the e-mails were posted on the BP message board.
I read them there. A few days later BP deleted them for his board.

I also read that they were posted on ctv message board and there was some heated discussion about them until , it was reported, that for some reason CW deleted them.After reading them i believe she deleted them bacause of the content.Some posters challanged the poster on the authenticy of the mail and it seems that the poster somehow verified that they did in fact come from furhman to her.As his e-mail address was listed. I think i even saw a post by furhman. Not really sure but i think that is correct.They can be described as filty, xrated and anything else one would like to call them.
But it is not the image of him that many seem to have.
I think they will surface again.

martin II

martin, if you're wanting to hear filthy language, you can just keep replaying orenthal's taped rants from the Bundy 911 call or when he was in the hotel room in Vegas or his email message. Those should fix whatever need you have. imo

[socaldiva]

*snip*

A few days ago 2-3 of the e-mails were posted on the BP message board.
I read them there. A few days later BP deleted them for his board.

I also read that they were posted on ctv message board and there was some heated discussion about them until , it was reported, that for some reason CW deleted them.


Nuff said ;)

[weezer]

From the testimony I heard all of these witnesses were consistent in the two main issues. A gun was drawn and some items that never belonged to Simpson were taken. Armed robbery.

bobaugust

don't forget: "Don't let anybody out of here."

[martin II]

martin, if you're wanting to hear filthy language, you can just keep replaying orenthal's taped rants from the Bundy 911 call or when he was in the hotel room in Vegas or his email message. Those should fix whatever need you have. imo

weezer
i am not wanting to hear any filthy language. I and many others read that when Furhmans e-mails were posted and believe me they were as you say filthy. Some believe BP will put them in his book.You never heard oj utter this kind of stuff.
martin II

[martin II]

From the testimony I heard all of these witnesses were consistent in the two main issues. A gun was drawn and some items that never belonged to Simpson were taken. Armed robbery.

bobaugust

bob
two guns were drawn and oj did not draw either. nor did oj take any item from that room.
martinII

[socaldiva]

bob
two guns were drawn and oj did not draw either. nor did oj take any item from that room.
martinII

IIRC, He is facing 11-12 criminal counts. It was reported that he REQUESTED the guns be brought to the room & he was taped threatening people. Nuff said. ;)

[tv]

IIRC, He is facing 11-12 criminal counts. It was reported that he REQUESTED the guns be brought to the room & he was taped threatening people. Nuff said. ;)

I don't believe anyone involved would have brought guns without Simpson's approval. If he told them he just needed help carrying the items then what made them decide to bring guns? It just doesn't make sense to think that they brought them on their own. The last time I helped someone carry something I didn't bring a gun.

One of the co-defendant's lawyers said the case was based on the accounts of "crackheads and groupies and pimps and purveyors of stolen merchandise and gun carriers and con artists and crooks," he said. I can see Simpson fitting into a couple of those categories. ;)

[bobaugust]

bob
two guns were drawn and oj did not draw either. nor did oj take any item from that room.
martinII

martin II, and your point is?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

weezer
i am not wanting to hear any filthy language. I and many others read that when Furhmans e-mails were posted and believe me they were as you say filthy. Some believe BP will put them in his book.You never heard oj utter this kind of stuff.
martin II

martin II, who is BP?

bobaugust

[weezer]

weezer
i am not wanting to hear any filthy language. I and many others read that when Furhmans e-mails were posted and believe me they were as you say filthy. Some believe BP will put them in his book.You never heard oj utter this kind of stuff.
martin II

pssst -- no one cares about the emails. IF they exist, they have nothing to do with the discussion.

[weezer]

martin II, who is BP?

bobaugust

maybe bill pavelic? :shrug:

[martin II]

pssst -- no one cares about the emails. IF they exist, they have nothing to do with the discussion.

weezer

you can only say you may not care but others on the BP site and CTV were concerned therefore the discussion and post on the subject. That is how i happened to see it. I think you would be dissapointed and maby shocked.
imo

martin II

[weezer]

weezer

you can only say you may not care but others on the BP site and CTV were concerned therefore the discussion and post on the subject. That is how i happened to see it. I think you would be dissapointed and maby shocked.
imo

martin II

LOL -- then you need to be on those sites discussing your untrest in the emails. As far as I can tell, no one here is interested in the fanthom emails. imo

[kjb19500]

weezer

you can only say you may not care but others on the BP site and CTV were concerned therefore the discussion and post on the subject. That is how i happened to see it. I think you would be dissapointed and maby shocked.
imo

martin II

What is the relevance of Mark Furman to the present case? Did he gather/plant evidence in the hotel room or something? Or maybe he voiced his opinion about Simpson and his groupies? I don't get it.:confused:

[weezer]

"All three defendants are scheduled for arraignment Nov. 28. Until then, O.J. will do "what he always does," said Galanter. "He'll be home and playing golf and taking care of the kids."

He must mean arnelle since -- IIRC -- the other kids are away at school. :eek:

[martin II]

What is the relevance of Mark Furman to the present case? Did he gather/plant evidence in the hotel room or something? Or maybe he voiced his opinion about Simpson and his groupies? I don't get it.:confused:

BP has been after furhman for some time.He is writing a book that includes claimes about furhman. The e-mail issue was posted on some sites and was being discussed before the oj lv situation happened.Furhman is always discussed on the bp and other sites.
martin II

[martin II]

If a robber meets a person in the hallway of a building and tells him "don't move" "get against the wall" "give me your money" The victim gives up the money. The robber is later caught with the victims money and is locked up and charged. would the robber be charged with kidnapping? or armed robbery.

[martin II]

"All three defendants are scheduled for arraignment Nov. 28. Until then, O.J. will do "what he always does," said Galanter. "He'll be home and playing golf and taking care of the kids."

He must mean arnelle since -- IIRC -- the other kids are away at school. :eek:

Sydney may be home for the holiday and Justin goes to school in Miami.

martin II

[martin II]

LOL -- then you need to be on those sites discussing your untrest in the emails. As far as I can tell, no one here is interested in the fanthom emails. imo

There is no requirement that you be interested in what a poster may post here.
martin II

[socaldiva]

"All three defendants are scheduled for arraignment Nov. 28. Until then, O.J. will do "what he always does," said Galanter. "He'll be home and playing golf and taking care of the kids."

He must mean arnelle since -- IIRC -- the other kids are away at school. :eek:

He might also mean Jason. I think he lives there too :tongue:

[socaldiva]

There is no requirement that you be interested in what a poster may post here.
martin II

Perhaps you should read her post again. She didn't say that she wasn't interested, she said as far as she could tell, no one here was interested.

[weezer]

If a robber meets a person in the hallway of a building and tells him "don't move" "get against the wall" "give me your money" The victim gives up the money. The robber is later caught with the victims money and is locked up and charged. would the robber be charged with kidnapping? or armed robbery.

IF he had a gun, he would be charged with armed robbery. IF he had the victim come to a room under a pretense and then kept the victim from leaving, he could -- in Nevada -- be charged with kidnapping. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. imo

[weezer]

BP has been after furhman for some time.He is writing a book that includes claimes about furhman. The e-mail issue was posted on some sites and was being discussed before the oj lv situation happened.Furhman is always discussed on the bp and other sites.
martin II

the phantom emails have NOT been discussed on this board. My suggestion to you is to go to the site where someone is interested and post there about them -- :rolleyes:

[martin II]

the phantom emails have NOT been discussed on this board. My suggestion to you is to go to the site where someone is interested and post there about them -- :rolleyes:


you have no way of knowing what ALL posters here are interested in.

Thanks.

martin II

[weezer]

you have no way of knowing what ALL posters here are interested in.

Thanks.

martin II

you're right -- except it just seems obvious that no one here is interested in the phantom emails. imo

[martin II]

you're right -- except it just seems obvious that no one here is interested in the phantom emails. imo

You have no way of knowing what all posters here are interested in so your comment make absolutely no sense.

martin ii

[socaldiva]

You have no way of knowing what all posters here are interested in so your comment make absolutely no sense.

martin ii


Martin, it should be evident to you by the posts that no one here seems interested in these alleged emails from MF. You see to be the only one mentioning them. ;)

[Jayme K]

Martin, it should be evident to you by the posts that no one here seems interested in these alleged emails from MF. You see to be the only one mentioning them. ;)


:beer:

[weezer]

swiped from another site: Live Stream Coverage
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/

today's appearance by orenthal and gang

[weezer]

LOL -- judging from orenthal's girth, the turkey lost! :eek:

[William Anthony]

so what did the pictures of black people, a fire in the fireplace and a tour through orenthal's trophy have to do with the murders? I'm struggling to see what bearing they had on the case.

Those pictures weren't hanging on those walls or sitting by his bedside the night of the murders. There was no fire in the fireplace on the night of the murders. No one was in the trophy room on the night of the murders.

This was a view of how the home was structured. What others read into it was not JC's or Simpson's concern, imho.

[William Anthony]

he was a sleaze that manipulated an already biased jury. imo

Some say sleaze and others say magnificent.

[William Anthony]

I ain't sure how much wisdom or magnificence it takes to figure out that a group of mostly blacks ain't gonna like all them white folk hanging up in a black man's home, but it don't sound like it takes much to be earnin' your admiration.

I take it that you have personal experience with those feelings.

[weezer]

Some say sleaze and others say magnificent.

I said sleaze. . . .

[William Anthony]

martin II, I did listen to the testimony and it's clear to me that a gun was drawn and Simpson was aware of it. It's also clear to me that there is no doubt that Simpson was the one in charge having asked the others to help him. There is also no doubt that some items were taken that never belonged to Simpson. Was everyone involved somewhat shady, willing to turn on the others to help themselves? Absolutely. Including Simpson.

bobaugust

Here we go with the muddy creek again.

[William Anthony]

I said sleaze. . . .


I am aware of your opinion but JC's reputation of those in the legal profession is what matters, imho.

[martin II]

william
i hope your comment will clear that issue up.
martin II

[weezer]

I am aware of your opinion but JC's reputation of those in the legal profession is what matters, imho.

maybe but I would think the human profession's opnion would matter. . .;)

[martin II]

maybe but I would think the human profession's opnion would matter. . .;)


I doubt that non legal professionals can offer valid legar opinions on legal matters. They offer Only biased opinions based on non legal experience as you seem to have done.

martin II

[weezer]

I doubt that non legal professionals can offer valid legar opinions on legal matters. They offer Only biased opinions based on non legal experience as you seem to have done.

martin II

I didn't know martin -- you've received your valid 'legar' license! :tongue:

[socaldiva]

william
i hope your comment will clear that issue up.
martin II

Nah, probably just for you & him :tongue:

[socaldiva]

I doubt that non legal professionals can offer valid legar opinions on legal matters. They offer Only biased opinions based on non legal experience as you seem to have done.

martin II

Ah, now you've pasted the bar exam ? Congratulations!!!!!

[kjb19500]

I've been attempting to post the NV code regarding what constitutes kidnapping and robbery for several days; each time I get a message that the page is bad or expired. Am I being blackballed here or just paranoid?

[socaldiva]

I've been attempting to post the NV code regarding what constitutes kidnapping and robbery for several days; each time I get a message that the page is bad or expired. Am I being blackballed here or just paranoid?


I can't imagine that you are being blackballed & I doubt you are paranoid. Probably just a computer glitch of some sort :D

[William Anthony]

maybe but I would think the human profession's opnion would matter. . .;)

That is a really interesting idea-for once it was thought by the alleged human profession (what ever that means-when I mean human members of American society) that Blacks were not members of that profession. I would think that what the law said matters more, at least in America, since Blacks were allowed entry into that profession.

[kjb19500]

Kidnapping
NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines... a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person... extortion or robbery upon or from the person... is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.
2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes... another person... in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.

Robbery
NRS 200.380 Definition; penalty.
1. Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery. A taking is by means of force or fear if force or fear is used to:
(a) Obtain or retain possession of the property;
(b) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; or
(c) Facilitate escape.
The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property.

I was curious as to how Simpson could be charged with kidnapping, so I looked up the NRS and found their definition, which I thought I'd share with whoever might be interested. I also included the NRS for robbery, although I couldn't find "armed robbery" specifically. It has been edited by me. For some reason I can’t post the link.

[tv]

Thanks, kgb. Very interesting information. What you posted makes it very clear why he was charged with kidnapping.

[kjb19500]

Thanks, kgb. Very interesting information. What you posted makes it very clear why he was charged with kidnapping.

Thank you. I found it interesting (not sure that's the right word) that Nevada calls this crime "kidnapping" while my state (Indiana) would call it "criminal confinement" and although a felony, would weigh less in terms of punishment than kidnapping.
In reading this, it seems that whether Simpson owned the original property or if guns were used, the kidnapping charge would still hold since force or threat of force were clearly heard on that tape (assuming many things here that might be different in the trial.) I also thought that under robbery the last paragraph (it was marked with that "paragraph" symbol on the original; I had to do a lot of editing to get it to post here) that "it doesn't matter the degree of force used" may be highly significant in the outcome of this case.

[martin II]

Thank you. I found it interesting (not sure that's the right word) that Nevada calls this crime "kidnapping" while my state (Indiana) would call it "criminal confinement" and although a felony, would weigh less in terms of punishment than kidnapping.
In reading this, it seems that whether Simpson owned the original property or if guns were used, the kidnapping charge would still hold since force or threat of force were clearly heard on that tape (assuming many things here that might be different in the trial.) I also thought that under robbery the last paragraph (it was marked with that "paragraph" symbol on the original; I had to do a lot of editing to get it to post here) that "it doesn't matter the degree of force used" may be highly significant in the outcome of this case.


kjb19500

'NO BODY LEAVES THE ROOM" I believe was spoken by oj and may be a hurdle
for his defense team. The truthfulness of some of the prosecutions witnesses
(Alexander/Mc Clinton) and their motive after receiving their pleas, may be one for the prosecution.
imo
martin II

[tv]

Thank you. I found it interesting (not sure that's the right word) that Nevada calls this crime "kidnapping" while my state (Indiana) would call it "criminal confinement" and although a felony, would weigh less in terms of punishment than kidnapping.
In reading this, it seems that whether Simpson owned the original property or if guns were used, the kidnapping charge would still hold since force or threat of force were clearly heard on that tape (assuming many things here that might be different in the trial.) I also thought that under robbery the last paragraph (it was marked with that "paragraph" symbol on the original; I had to do a lot of editing to get it to post here) that "it doesn't matter the degree of force used" may be highly significant in the outcome of this case.It sounds to as though the use of the guns may not matter relating to the kidnapping charge. It would seem that Simpson and his friends may have been unfortunate in the state that they chose to "reclaim" OJ's property.

[William Anthony]

kjb19500

'NO BODY LEAVES THE ROOM" I believe was spoken by oj and may be a hurdle
for his defense team. The truthfulness of some of the prosecutions witnesses
(Alexander/Mc Clinton) and their motive after receiving their pleas, may be one for the prosecution.
imo
martin II

Martin,

I too see that this may be a hurdle in that it seems indicative of a the class B felony of kidnapping.

[jotun]

kjb19500

'NO BODY LEAVES THE ROOM" I believe was spoken by oj and may be a hurdle
for his defense team. The truthfulness of some of the prosecutions witnesses
(Alexander/Mc Clinton) and their motive after receiving their pleas, may be one for the prosecution.
imo
martin II

martin,
Yes, O.J.said 'Don't let nobody out of here',or a variation, at least 3 times.

IFFFF this IS kidnapping wouldn't that be 9 counts not just 2 ??? Including O.J. himself.Except maybe the guy he said it to, the guy by the door.Tho, don't believe anyone wanted to or was trying to leave.

But the gunmen [Alexander,who is barking orders & McClinton who is acting like a cop] and the real thief [Cashmore,who was asked to return everything not his, by O.J. and volunteered to do so,but didn't.Took it home instead] were not charged with kidnapping or ARMED robbery. Even tho they did ROB as O.J. told them not to take any of that, because it was NOT HIS. Cashmore testified to this and it is reportly on the tape.Also reportly on the tape, when the 'victims' complain that they have some of their things, O.J. says he'll get it back to them.[O.J. also says this to Fromong on the phone, played on 'Entertainment Tonight'days after.]

All of them are to get probation for this alleged robbery [tho they all testified they went to retrive O.J.'s stolen property except Cashmore who was going to move boxes]
With all charges DROPPED after
O.J.'s CONVICTION.

They just might get a surprise.
O.J. WILL BE AQUITTED and these 3 will end up in prison. HOPE!!!

IMO

jotun

[William Anthony]

It sounds to as though the use of the guns may not matter relating to the kidnapping charge. It would seem that Simpson and his friends may have been unfortunate in the state that they chose to "reclaim" OJ's property.

I think that some may find this interesting, since the central issue to the new Simpson case may be one of property rights. Here is the link and I have not had the time to see if the dicta in the case is still good law. We know that slavery is abolished but what about the right to obtain one's property as it relates to the charge of kidnapping.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13486/Prigg-v-Pennsylvania.html

Please, do not think that this is a race issue-I was only seeking some rulings on kidnapping and how it may relate to this case.

[weezer]

I think that some may find this interesting, since the central issue to the new Simpson case may be one of property rights. Here is the link and I have not had the time to see if the dicta in the case is still good law. We know that slavery is abolished but what about the right to obtain one's property as it relates to the charge of kidnapping.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13486/Prigg-v-Pennsylvania.html

Please, do not think that this is a race issue-I was only seeking some rulings on kidnapping and how it may relate to this case.

What the hey! :shrug: how in the world did you correlate this link to orenthal's latest fiasco?

[William Anthony]

What the hey! :shrug: how in the world did you correlate this link to orenthal's latest fiasco?

With this simple phrase in the Constitution, "Article I of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States."

Given that the property was Simpson's, if true, there is no reason to believe that he was not going to sell it in another state, such as Florida or over the internet. Perhaps, this is just legal creative thinking.

[William Anthony]

What the hey! :shrug: how in the world did you correlate this link to orenthal's latest fiasco?

This is the dicta to which I referred, "Given the association of slavery with commerce in the nation's early years, slavery cases were considered by the Supreme Court as commerce issues focusedon property rights rather than human rights. In 1825 in the first slave casebefore the Court, The Antelope, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote thatin "claims in which the sacred rights of liberty and of property come in conflict with each other . . . this Court must not yield to feelings which mightseduce it from the path of duty, but must obey the mandates of the law." Theproperty rights of slave owners prevailed in the courts."

It would seem that the property rights of the property owner must prevail in the courts, despite any claim of liberty (kidnapping) by whomsoever made. Again, I say that this might just be creative thinking and is dependent on whether or not the case is still good law.

[weezer]

This is the dicta to which I referred, "Given the association of slavery with commerce in the nation's early years, slavery cases were considered by the Supreme Court as commerce issues focusedon property rights rather than human rights. In 1825 in the first slave casebefore the Court, The Antelope, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote thatin "claims in which the sacred rights of liberty and of property come in conflict with each other . . . this Court must not yield to feelings which mightseduce it from the path of duty, but must obey the mandates of the law." Theproperty rights of slave owners prevailed in the courts."

It would seem that the property rights of the property owner must prevail in the courts, despite any claim of liberty (kidnapping) by whomsoever made. Again, I say that this might just be creative thinking and is dependent on whether or not the case is still good law.

sounds more like 'wishful' thinking to me! LOL

the first hurdle orenthal has to get over is whether or not the property actually belonged to him -- we know that some of what he took did not and there is great doubt as to whether any of it did.

[William Anthony]

sounds more like 'wishful' thinking to me! LOL

the first hurdle orenthal has to get over is whether or not the property actually belonged to him -- we know that some of what he took did not and there is great doubt as to whether any of it did.

One might say it is wishful thinking to think the property was not his. There have been some who have posted that Simpson told the others to put back the property that was not his. As you so keenly pointed out, mens rea, i.e. was the requiste intent present, is a primary element of criminal law. I am sure that one with your knowledge of the law realizes that the onus is on the prosecution to show that Simpson did not believe the property was his and, therefore, the hurdle would seemingly belong to the prosecution.

[weezer]

One might say it is wishful thinking to think the property was not his. There have been some who have posted that Simpson told the others to put back the property that was not his. As you so keenly pointed out, mens rea, i.e. was the requiste intent present, is a primary element of criminal law. I am sure that one with your knowledge of the law realizes that the onus is on the prosecution to show that Simpson did not believe the property was his and, therefore, the hurdle would seemingly belong to the prosecution.

what part of 'take everything' are you having problems with? he knew it didn't belong to him -- most especially, the cell phone that the victim was begging him not to break/mess-up.

[William Anthony]

what part of 'take everything' are you having problems with? he knew it didn't belong to him -- most especially, the cell phone that the victim was begging him not to break/mess-up.


As for the cell phone, I admit I have not read the tapes and I am going by what others post, destruction of property is different from theft. As for the take everything comment, he could have meant take everything that he believed belonged to him.

[weezer]

As for the cell phone, I admit I have not read the tapes and I am going by what others post, destruction of property is different from theft. As for the take everything comment, he could have meant take everything that he believed belonged to him.

'Nobody leaves'

Mr Fromong told a packed courtroom at the Las Vegas Regional Justice Centre that one of the men in Simpson's entourage pointed a gun at him during the chaotic confrontation.

"He stood probably 10 to 12 feet from me with a semi-automatic basically pointed at my face," Mr Fromong said.

"OJ kept screaming, 'This is all my sh*t, it belongs to me'.

"There was a lot of yelling and screaming going on and the first thing I remember was a statement from Mr Simpson saying 'don't let anyone out of this room, nobody leaves'." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/09/2086552.htm

in Nevada the “claim of right” thinking it’s your own property is NOT a defense to robbery, that is taking stuff with force or fear.

The memorabilia taken from the hotel room included football game balls signed by Simpson, Joe Montana lithographs, baseballs autographed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider and framed awards and plaques, together valued at as much as $100,000.

[William Anthony]

'Nobody leaves'

Mr Fromong told a packed courtroom at the Las Vegas Regional Justice Centre that one of the men in Simpson's entourage pointed a gun at him during the chaotic confrontation.

"He stood probably 10 to 12 feet from me with a semi-automatic basically pointed at my face," Mr Fromong said.

"OJ kept screaming, 'This is all my sh*t, it belongs to me'.

"There was a lot of yelling and screaming going on and the first thing I remember was a statement from Mr Simpson saying 'don't let anyone out of this room, nobody leaves'." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/09/2086552.htm

in Nevada the “claim of right” thinking it’s your own property is NOT a defense to robbery, that is taking stuff with force or fear.

The memorabilia taken from the hotel room included football game balls signed by Simpson, Joe Montana lithographs, baseballs autographed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider and framed awards and plaques, together valued at as much as $100,000.

I would like to address your legal proposition on the "right of claim" not being a viable defense in the state of Nevada. It has long been a long recognized legal principle that state law that is repugnant to the Constitution cannnot stand. With that said, I refer to the dicta in the case I posted and again reiterate that I am not sure that the case is good law. However, if it is, Simpson may have a violation of his Constitutional righ to reclaim his property.

Your post indicates one person's view of what was said, wich will be the subject of cross examination, I believe. As far as the memorabilia, it must be determined who was the rightful owner and who had reason to believe they were the rightful owner(s). Of course, this is all my opinion and based upon legal arguments that can be made. I think the question may be wheter or not Simpson reasonably believed he was the owner.

[weezer]

I would like to address your legal proposition on the "right of claim" not being a viable defense in the state of Nevada. It has long been a long recognized legal principle that state law that is repugnant to the Constitution cannnot stand. With that said, I refer to the dicta in the case I posted and again reiterate that I am not sure that the case is good law. However, if it is, Simpson may have a violation of his Constitutional righ to reclaim his property.

Your post indicates one person's view of what was said, wich will be the subject of cross examination, I believe. As far as the memorabilia, it must be determined who was the rightful owner and who had reason to believe they were the rightful owner(s). Of course, this is all my opinion and based upon legal arguments that can be made. I think the question may be wheter or not Simpson reasonably believed he was the owner.

the case you posted is a silly comparison. My post is not one person's view -- for Pete's sake -- there is a tape recording. orenthal KNEW he was not the rightful owner of everything he took.

[socaldiva]

the case you posted is a silly comparison. My post is not one person's view -- for Pete's sake -- there is a tape recording. orenthal KNEW he was not the rightful owner of everything he took.

I bet they never kept any dopey visors of Orenthal's. I see he was still wearing one the other day in route to the latest trip to the pokey. Couldn't tell if he was also wearing the fanny pack :D

[weezer]

I bet they never kept any dopey visors of Orenthal's. I see he was still wearing one the other day in route to the latest trip to the pokey. Couldn't tell if he was also wearing the fanny pack :D

LOL -- oh my I've missed you!

[William Anthony]

the case you posted is a silly comparison. My post is not one person's view -- for Pete's sake -- there is a tape recording. orenthal KNEW he was not the rightful owner of everything he took.

You seem to know what was/is in Simpson's mind-I do not. The case I posted had to do with an owner's right to reclaim his property, which had been removed to another state, which included the right to take that property by force if necessary, even if human to the state of ownership, even if the property/person did not want to return to that state, i.e. kidnapping.
Thus, if the case is good law, then the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court and the Nevada law is repugnant to the Constitution.

[weezer]

You seem to know what was/is in Simpson's mind-I do not. The case I posted had to do with an owner's right to reclaim his property, which had been removed to another state, which included the right to take that property by force if necessary, even if human to the state of ownership, even if the property/person did not want to return to that state, i.e. kidnapping.
Thus, if the case is good law, then the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court and the Nevada law is repugnant to the Constitution.

you have posed a silly argument that does not correspond to orenthal's predicament. I do not need to 'know' what was/is in orenthal's mind -- he told us on the tape.

[socaldiva]

LOL -- oh my I've missed you!

Thanks, I've missed posting with you as well.

Did you hear the bail bondsman talk about the flight back from Florida with Orenthal? He said that Orenthal kept talking to himself non stop & the bondsman couldn't wait for the plane to land :)

[weezer]

Thanks, I've missed posting with you as well.

Did you hear the bail bondsman talk about the flight back from Florida with Orenthal? He said that Orenthal kept talking to himself non stop & the bondsman couldn't wait for the plane to land :)

I didn't get to watch and/or hear the proceedings. I'm sure they'll play over and over tonight so I'll catch it then.

LOL -- isn't that exactly what his 'friends and acquaintances' said during the murder trial? orenthal can't stop talking.

[Redmama]

Wow - I just happened to be working at home and turned on the TV right as the Judge was giving OJ the what for - by looking at his face I think he got it - about time a judge was clear about what she expected and made what he did serious enough to get through to him. Don't see that too often anymore.

[weezer]

Wow - I just happened to be working at home and turned on the TV right as the Judge was giving OJ the what for - by looking at his face I think he got it - about time a judge was clear about what she expected and made what he did serious enough to get through to him. Don't see that too often anymore.

orenthal NEVER gets it!

[William Anthony]

you have posed a silly argument that does not correspond to orenthal's predicament. I do not need to 'know' what was/is in orenthal's mind -- he told us on the tape.

You may say it is a silly argument but the question is whether or not it is a legally cognizable defense. We all know that how the spoken word is said or interpreted by the listener is not what the speaker intended to convey and you realize that intent is an element of most crimes.

[Redmama]

You really need to see it - for just 3 seconds I actually felt sorry for the man - okay it didn't last longer than that, but from what I've seen of him, I've never seen that expression....I'm not giving him props, he doesn't deserve them but the judge DEFINATELY DOES!

[Redmama]

oh forgot - i'm REALLY new...IMO!!!

[BigBrat]

orenthal NEVER gets it!

Especially if it comes from a woman!

[William Anthony]

Especially if it comes from a woman!

I am of the opinion that the law is gender neutral.

[weezer]

I am of the opinion that the law is gender neutral.

the law may be, but orenthal isn't! LOL

[weezer]

You really need to see it - for just 3 seconds I actually felt sorry for the man - okay it didn't last longer than that, but from what I've seen of him, I've never seen that expression....I'm not giving him props, he doesn't deserve them but the judge DEFINATELY DOES!

finally got to catch parts of the procedure on tv last night. orenthal looks like cr@p -- :eek:

[William Anthony]

the law may be, but orenthal isn't! LOL

I thought his gender was male.

[weezer]

I thought his gender was male.

are you discounting his lingerie found in the washing machine with his sweat suit? LOL

How many men have you heard that orenthal has punched, slapped, etc? None. No, orenthal isn't gender neutral. I believe he has a real problem about gender (maybe from his dad's lifestyle) -- that's why I believe the scolding coming from a woman would have really been an insult to him. imo

[Just Peachy]

I thought his gender was male.

OJ is no man. mho

He's going down finally! Will they let him wear that stupid visor in jail?

To OJ, you deserve this daily :punch:

[Just Peachy]

are you discounting his lingerie found in the washing machine with his sweat suit? LOL

How many men have you heard that orenthal has punched, slapped, etc? None. No, orenthal isn't gender neutral. I believe he has a real problem about gender (maybe from his dad's lifestyle) -- that's why I believe the scolding coming from a woman would have really been an insult to him. imo

:beer:

[pearyb]

OJ is no man. mho

He's going down finally! Will they let him wear that stupid visor in jail?

To OJ, you deserve this daily :punch:

If he didn't get jail time out of his last gig what makes you think he'll get to go there this time? 15-20 minutes before killing his wife, the mother of his children, and lover he goes off for a big mac with a guy named Kato in a prestine Bently. I think the jury saw it for what it was.

[pearyb]

I don't believe anyone involved would have brought guns without Simpson's approval. If he told them he just needed help carrying the items then what made them decide to bring guns? It just doesn't make sense to think that they brought them on their own. The last time I helped someone carry something I didn't bring a gun.

One of the co-defendant's lawyers said the case was based on the accounts of "crackheads and groupies and pimps and purveyors of stolen merchandise and gun carriers and con artists and crooks," he said. I can see Simpson fitting into a couple of those categories. ;)

The only conviction hes' got is from a civil court which has been known to swing on whether the jury room has coffee and allows smoking. I thought like lots of other surveyors, the prosecution had big holes in there case. Holes that could only create doubt. Even if he had enough time, how does one guy kill two people with a knife and the other person says nothing? If had to kill two people with a knife that were both in the same spot I'd would probably have some difficulty in convincing the second victim to hang a minute whilst I slice your lovers' throat. So you say Goldman was killed first, so Nicole decided to come out and break up the argument? However, nobody hears anything, or sees anything. Many detectives, even some within the LAPD, think there were 2 killers and still feel other scenarios and suspects were never investigated.

[bobaugust]

If he didn't get jail time out of his last gig what makes you think he'll get to go there this time? 15-20 minutes before killing his wife, the mother of his children, and lover he goes off for a big mac with a guy named Kato in a prestine Bently. I think the jury saw it for what it was.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only conviction hes' got is from a civil court which has been known to swing on whether the jury room has coffee and allows smoking. I thought like lots of other surveyors, the prosecution had big holes in there case. Holes that could only create doubt. Even if he had enough time, how does one guy kill two people with a knife and the other person says nothing? If had to kill two people with a knife that were both in the same spot I'd would probably have some difficulty in convincing the second victim to hang a minute whilst I slice your lovers' throat. So you say Goldman was killed first, so Nicole decided to come out and break up the argument? However, nobody hears anything, or sees anything. Many detectives, even some within the LAPD, think there were 2 killers and still feel other scenarios and suspects were never investigated.

pearyb, the evidence suggests a scenario that contradicts your comments. After Simpson arrived at Bundy he first encountered Nicole. When that confrontation turned physical Simpson hit Nicole on her forehead knocking her down. When Nicole fell she hit the back of her head on something hard, possibly the cement steps, and was knocked unconscious. That's when Ron Goldman arrived opening the front gate at Bundy. Goldman yelled at Simpson. Simpson yelled back and attacked Goldman. After stabbing and cutting Ron Goldman over thirty times Simpson left him on the ground to bleed to death and returned to his unconscious exwife. Putting one foot on her back Simpson pulled her head up and sliced her throat nearly decapitating her. Simpson could not leave a living witness to his rage killing of Ron Goldman.

There is no evidence of anyone else involved in these murders except for the two victims and one killer. All of the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as that killer.

bobaugust

[Just Peachy]

If he didn't get jail time out of his last gig what makes you think he'll get to go there this time? 15-20 minutes before killing his wife, the mother of his children, and lover he goes off for a big mac with a guy named Kato in a prestine Bently. I think the jury saw it for what it was.

lmao I hadn't heard that sad excuse before. I can't stop laughing. Seems the jury weren't the only ones sleeping during that case.


mho

oj is burn toast!

[Heyes]

Oh the expression on orenthals ugly mug when the judge TOLD him how it was going to be. Priceless!
A WOMAN! telling the great oj what to do! gotta love it!
This trial is gonna be bangin!
No Ito here!

[Suzee10]

This is completely off from what was being discussed, but just keep simpson in jail. Everyone knows he can't keep his mouth shut so it was stupid for the judge to let him go again.

[Suzee10]

Oh the expression on orenthals ugly mug when the judge TOLD him how it was going to be. Priceless!
A WOMAN! telling the great oj what to do! gotta love it!
This trial is gonna be bangin!
No Ito here!


I kind of liked that too Heyes, a woman bossing simpson around for a change, lol.

[glassdude007]

guilty again imho

[jotun]

pearyb, the evidence

bobaugust

pearyb--- Don't bite on this thread. ba changes the name and posts the exact same thing OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN.

All---OFF TOPIC AS USUAL...

ba--please take this off-topic nonsence to the only other & proper thread.

IMO

jotun

[weezer]

pearyb--- Don't bite on this thread. ba changes the name and posts the exact same thing OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN.

All---OFF TOPIC AS USUAL...

ba--please take this off-topic nonsence to the only other & proper thread.

IMO

jotun

LOL -- sounds like some are growing desparate! :eek:

[tv]

LOL -- sounds like some are growing desparate! :eek:Have you noticed when their arguments are weak and they're presented with the facts they start yelling off-topic and nonsense? It never fails. :D

[socaldiva]

*snip*
ba changes the name and posts the exact same thing OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN.


Gee, maybe that's because the testimony & the truth don't change ;)

[Redmama]

pearyb--- Don't bite on this thread. ba changes the name and posts the exact same thing OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN.

All---OFF TOPIC AS USUAL...

ba--please take this off-topic nonsence to the only other & proper thread.

IMO

jotun

i don't get it - really i don't

[weezer]

Gee, maybe that's because the testimony & the truth don't change ;)

it has to IF you support ANY argument for orenthal's innocence! LOL

[Just Peachy]

Have you noticed when their arguments are weak and they're presented with the facts they start yelling off-topic and nonsense? It never fails. :D

Some aren't mature enough to handle being wrong all the time. It's silly and they should have their computers taken away until they learn to grow up. jmo

:shrug:

[weezer]

Some aren't mature enough to handle being wrong all the time. It's silly and they should have their computers taken away until they learn to grow up. jmo

:shrug:

:beer: :beer:

[Just Peachy]

:beer: :beer:

Thank you. It is much worse on some other boards.

:seeya:

[William Anthony]

are you discounting his lingerie found in the washing machine with his sweat suit? LOL

How many men have you heard that orenthal has punched, slapped, etc? None. No, orenthal isn't gender neutral. I believe he has a real problem about gender (maybe from his dad's lifestyle) -- that's why I believe the scolding coming from a woman would have really been an insult to him. imo

I am not discounting anything, nor am I convicting anyone on the scantiest of evidence.

[William Anthony]

If he didn't get jail time out of his last gig what makes you think he'll get to go there this time? 15-20 minutes before killing his wife, the mother of his children, and lover he goes off for a big mac with a guy named Kato in a prestine Bently. I think the jury saw it for what it was.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[weezer]

:beer: :beer: :beer:

why are you toasting incorrect information?