Verdict is in

[martin II]

no -- but the analogy has everything to do with YOUR thoughts and opinions on Mr. Goldman's feelings about the murderer of his son and what he is willing to do and for how long he's willing to do it.

Again
40 acres and a mule is connected to freds actions.
That is a weak argument.

[William Anthony]

Again
40 acres and a mule is connected to freds actions.
That is a weak argument.

I think Simpson's promise to Mr. Goldman was that he would not pay the damages. He did not promise him 40 acres or a mule.

[William Anthony]

Yes! It is the Roman version of Homer's The Odyssey, Ulysses being Odyssey in Greek.

I'll pass, thanks. :)

[William Anthony]

martin, I love you just as much as I love William. ;)

Love is a word not to be used falsely even in the glory of all its emotions. :)

[Kate Sachel]

My daughter spent her entire 37 years on earth trying to save the worlds' animals from abuse and mistreatment. She love animals more than people. They had no agenda! Just wanted to love and be loved.

I'm very sorry to hear that your daughter passed away at the incredibly young age of 37. Is it your daughter that is listed first at the bottom of your posts?

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

You're right about not having a good answer here. How would Fred know OJ killed his son? On the other hand, OJ knows!

Yes OJ knows, but do you believe he is going to tell the truth about whether or not he brutally murdered the mother of his two youngest children and her friend and then left them both near the door of a home where those two children could have discovered them in the morning?

Admitting that would make him a monster, and I think we have all learned that OJ Simpson's image has meant the world to him and I believe he grieves the loss of that old image far more than he grieves the loss of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

I'm very sorry to hear that your daughter passed away at the incredibly young age of 37. Is it your daughter that is listed first at the bottom of your posts?

Kate

Yes.

[Kate Sachel]

Fred received justice for his son in the civil trial.

He did?

Justice for Ron Goldman would be for the individual who murdered him to be held accountable for his actions by way of a "guilty" verdict in a criminal proceeding in which a life sentence behind bars with no chance of parole or an injection to put him to sleep forever was handed down upon him.

Perhaps a civil trial verdict with no punishment other than monetary would be acceptable to you if your son were murdered, but the majority of us don't put a price tag on the lives of our loved ones.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Yes.

May she be resting in peace, and may you continue to heal more with each passing day.

God Bless!

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

Yes OJ knows, but do you believe he is going to tell the truth about whether or not he brutally murdered the mother of his two youngest children and her friend and then left them both near the door of a home where those two children could have discovered them in the morning?

Admitting that would make him a monster, and I think we have all learned that OJ Simpson's image has meant the world to him and I believe he grieves the loss of that old image far more than he grieves the loss of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Kate

If OJ did these crimes, and my belief is that two people did this crime, he would have been covered with blood from head to toe, not just a speck. I don't think he did it. What I do believe is that he was alerted of the crimes and went over to see for himself. The glove was planted by the murderes. JMO

[WarmNCozy]

May she be resting in peace, and may you continue to heal more with each passing day.

God Bless!

Kate

Thank you, Kate! It still hurts and probably always will. It's my wish she is at the Rainbow Bridge with all the animals she so loved here on earth. My AV is a pic of Allison.

[William Anthony]

Yes OJ knows, but do you believe he is going to tell the truth about whether or not he brutally murdered the mother of his two youngest children and her friend and then left them both near the door of a home where those two children could have discovered them in the morning?

Admitting that would make him a monster, and I think we have all learned that OJ Simpson's image has meant the world to him and I believe he grieves the loss of that old image far more than he grieves the loss of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Kate

Some believe he already has. On the off chance that he is not a monster, would you agree that his image has been unfairly tarnished, which is not to minimize his culpability in that?

[William Anthony]

He did?

Justice for Ron Goldman would be for the individual who murdered him to be held accountable for his actions by way of a "guilty" verdict in a criminal proceeding in which a life sentence behind bars with no chance of parole or an injection to put him to sleep forever was handed down upon him.

Perhaps a civil trial verdict with no punishment other than monetary would be acceptable to you if your son were murdered, but the majority of us don't put a price tag on the lives of our loved ones.

Kate

What do you think was the purpose of the civil trial?

[martin II]

If freds efforts has not been for money and only to see oj in jail for life he may get his wish on Dec 5 and we will maby see no more efforts to make money by fred.:cool:

[William Anthony]

He did?

Justice for Ron Goldman would be for the individual who murdered him to be held accountable for his actions by way of a "guilty" verdict in a criminal proceeding in which a life sentence behind bars with no chance of parole or an injection to put him to sleep forever was handed down upon him.

Perhaps a civil trial verdict with no punishment other than monetary would be acceptable to you if your son were murdered, but the majority of us don't put a price tag on the lives of our loved ones.

Kate

My other post was not correctly stated. Given that you agree that some will not find money sufficient for the wrongful death of a loved one, what purpose do you think the civil trial against Simpson served?

[weezer]

If freds efforts has not been for money and only to see oj in jail for life he may get his wish on Dec 5 and we will maby see no more efforts to make money by fred.:cool:

you sure seem to worry about Mr. Goldman alot. Seems like a lot of wasted effort on your part. He's doing fine. on the other, your hero. . .:eek:

[martin II]

you sure seem to worry about Mr. Goldman alot. Seems like a lot of wasted effort on your part. He's doing fine. on the other, your hero. . .:eek:

Fred has spent a lot of energy becomming a tv celebrity as part of his efforts to get money as a result of the death of his son. He has made himself open for dicussion.

[weezer]

Fred has spent a lot of energy becomming a tv celebrity as part of his efforts to get money as a result of the death of his son. He has made himself open for dicussion.

you go for it martin. if it makes you feel better to bash the families of the victims -- more power to you. at the end of the day, your hero -- orenthal james simpson -- is a convicted felon in prison.

of course, if it were me, I'd make damn sure arnelle didn't enjoy the fruits of her and daddy's labors. but then, that's just me. ;)

[Kate Sachel]

My other post was not correctly stated. Given that you agree that some will not find money sufficient for the wrongful death of a loved one, what purpose do you think the civil trial against Simpson served?

From all I have read and from Fred it seems to me that this was more about forcing OJ Simpson to take the stand and showing people what a liar he really is, and that this man really did murder his son.

I recall that when the civil suit was first getting underway it was speculated that OJ would rather not partake in the action and have a default judgment entered against him. Fred was outraged because he didn't want a default judgment, he wanted OJ to have to take that stand and answer questions he never had to answer in the criminal proceeding.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Fred has spent a lot of energy becomming a tv celebrity as part of his efforts to get money as a result of the death of his son. He has made himself open for dicussion.

That's so sad, and speaks such volume to your character.

Kate

[weezer]

That's so sad, and speaks such volume to your character.

Kate

:beer::beer:

[WarmNCozy]

He did?

Justice for Ron Goldman would be for the individual who murdered him to be held accountable for his actions by way of a "guilty" verdict in a criminal proceeding in which a life sentence behind bars with no chance of parole or an injection to put him to sleep forever was handed down upon him.

Perhaps a civil trial verdict with no punishment other than monetary would be acceptable to you if your son were murdered, but the majority of us don't put a price tag on the lives of our loved ones.

Kate

Am I understanding you correctly? Since OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial, the civil trail was merely to show OJ to be guilty not liable?:shrug:

[WarmNCozy]

That's so sad, and speaks such volume to your character.

Kate

I don't think it necessary for a character assassination because you don't agree with Martin.

[WarmNCozy]

From all I have read and from Fred it seems to me that this was more about forcing OJ Simpson to take the stand and showing people what a liar he really is, and that this man really did murder his son.

I recall that when the civil suit was first getting underway it was speculated that OJ would rather not partake in the action and have a default judgment entered against him. Fred was outraged because he didn't want a default judgment, he wanted OJ to have to take that stand and answer questions he never had to answer in the criminal proceeding.

Kate

OJ didn't take the stand in the Criminal Trial, why would Fred think that OJ would want to take the stand in the Civil Trail. Fred's wanting OJ to be guilty of killing his son, just does not make it so!

[weezer]

I don't think it necessary for a character assassination because you don't agree with Martin.

beautiful young woman in your avatar. you must miss her terribly. maybe since you understand the loss of a child from a sudden and violent death, you might be able to explain it to martin when it is exactly that a parent gets over the death/trauma.

[Kate Sachel]

I don't think it necessary for a character assassination because you don't agree with Martin.

I don't particularly care whether or not you think it necessary; perhaps a more appropriate comment from you would be directed toward martin and advising him that you don't think it necessary for a character assasination against Fred Goldman just because he doesn't agree with him.

Kate

[tv]

OJ didn't take the stand in the Criminal Trial, why would Fred think that OJ would take the stand in the Civil Trail. Fred's wanting OJ to be guilty of killing his son, just does not make it so!

I doubt that Fred Goldman "wanted" anyone to be guilty of killing his son. OJ Simpson did take the stand in the civil trial so why are you surprised that Fred Goldman though he should?

[Kate Sachel]

OJ didn't take the stand in the Criminal Trial, why would Fred think that OJ would take the stand in the Civil Trail. Fred's wanting OJ to be guilty of killing his son, just does not make it so!

OJ Simpson was required to take the stand in the civil trial.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

OJ Simpson was required to take the stand in the civil trial.

Kate

sorry I left out the word "wanted" to my statement which is now corrected.

[martin II]

beautiful young woman in your avatar. you must miss her terribly. maybe since you understand the loss of a child from a sudden and violent death, you might be able to explain it to martin when it is exactly that a parent gets over the death/trauma.

Weezer
You are crossing a line in your anger.

[William Anthony]

From all I have read and from Fred it seems to me that this was more about forcing OJ Simpson to take the stand and showing people what a liar he really is, and that this man really did murder his son.

I recall that when the civil suit was first getting underway it was speculated that OJ would rather not partake in the action and have a default judgment entered against him. Fred was outraged because he didn't want a default judgment, he wanted OJ to have to take that stand and answer questions he never had to answer in the criminal proceeding.

Kate

So, if that was his reason and Simpson did take the stand and most believe him to be the murder and Mr. Goldman was not truly pursuing damages for the wrongful death of his son, would you not agree that Mr. Goldman received his reward and there is no sense in continuing to hate and that the civil trial was a socio-political event brought not to prove Simpson liable for the wrongful death, but in essence was what the judge said, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial, and as such,an improper use of our judicial system?

[Redmama]

Fred has spent a lot of energy becomming a tv celebrity as part of his efforts to get money as a result of the death of his son. He has made himself open for dicussion.

I just don't see it - in the interviews I've seen, Fred doesn't look like he wants to be there - he doesn't come off looking like he is into being a TV star. What I get from him is that he is still grieving his son immensely. Some may believe he should be over it by now - but he's not - to each their own.

[martin II]

I don't think it necessary for a character assassination because you don't agree with Martin.

Some do not seem to be able to just dissagree without making personal attacks with those that don't walk like sheep to their opinions.
That is noting but pure nonsense.
imo:cool:

[martin II]

I just don't see it - in the interviews I've seen, Fred doesn't look like he wants to be there - he doesn't come off looking like he is into being a TV star. What I get from him is that he is still grieving his son immensely. Some may believe he should be over it by now - but he's not - to each their own.

Fred has in the last 13 years made many yearly tv appearances per year on national tv. When ojs name hits the news fred hits the tv programs.
I don't think anyone has forced him to do so.

[martin II]

I doubt that Fred Goldman "wanted" anyone to be guilty of killing his son. OJ Simpson did take the stand in the civil trial so why are you surprised that Fred Goldman though he should?

after the criminal trial verdict was handed down fred stood on the court house steps and ranted to no end that oj was guilty and that he was dissapointed that that jury did not do what he thought they should have done or what he had been fooled into believing he was entitled to.
Sound like he wanted oj to be guilty to me.

[tv]

after the criminal trial verdict was handed down fred stood on the court house steps and ranted to no end that oj was guilty and that he was dissapointed that that jury did not do what he thought they should have done or what he had been fooled into believing he was entitled to.
Sound like he wanted oj to be guilty to me.

He wanted the murderer of his son to be found guilty of killing him. This vendetta you have against Fred Goldman is starting to sound silly. I give Fred Goldman a lot of credit for restraining himself as much as he has.

[martin II]

I just don't see it - in the interviews I've seen, Fred doesn't look like he wants to be there - he doesn't come off looking like he is into being a TV star. What I get from him is that he is still grieving his son immensely. Some may believe he should be over it by now - but he's not - to each their own.

People loose love ones every day, very few turn these death into a 13 year money making publicity seeking mini industry. I think fred has
drank the celebrity kool aid and the support of many that think they know who killed his son. It seems it is just too difficult to put the glass down.imo

[tv]

People loose love ones every day, very few turn these death into a 13 year money making publicity seeking mini industry. I think fred has
drank the celebrity kool aid and the support of many that think they know who killed his son. It seems it is just too difficult to put the glass down.imo

That's funny! You've been guzzling the OJ IS AN INNOCENT VICTIM kool-aid for years!

[martin II]

He wanted the murderer of his son to be found guilty of killing him. This vendetta you have against Fred Goldman is starting to sound silly. I give Fred Goldman a lot of credit for restraining himself as much as he has.

The person that fred believes killed his son will never be found guilty of murdering him. If he was dealing with reality he would know that.

[tv]

The person that fred believes killed his son will never be found guilty of murdering him. If he was dealing with reality he would know that.

Oh, he knows it -- that's why he's pursuing him in any other way he can. Maybe you're starting to get it?

[William Anthony]

For the most part I have stayed out of the victim and family bashing, to include both the Goldmans and the Simpsons. My initial impression of Mr. Goldman was not favorable, regarding the comments he made when MF's tapes were played. However, I realized that he had a son that was brutally murdered and this may not be his true character. I have since formed no opinion of him, nor have I followed his efforts. I know very little of Ms. Arnelle and have formed no opinion or her or followed her efforts. It seems that the Simpson saga has spawned enough negative feelings and I do not think that there is any reason to display negative feelings or to form them toward each other.

[Kate Sachel]

So, if that was his reason and Simpson did take the stand and most believe him to be the murder and Mr. Goldman was not truly pursuing damages for the wrongful death of his son, would you not agree that Mr. Goldman received his reward and there is no sense in continuing to hate and that the civil trial was a socio-political event brought not to prove Simpson liable for the wrongful death, but in essence was what the judge said, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial, and as such,an improper use of our judicial system?

No, I would not agree with that. His point was to prove OJ liable, and we have hashed previously the fact that, given the manner in which Ron died, that to find OJ liable for his death would in essence be the same as saying he murdered Ron. I am aware that you don't agree with that assessment but many people, including Fred, do.

In addition, for the reasons I stated in the "OJ in the News" thread, I also don't agree with the idea that there is no sense in continuing to hate.

Kate

[martin II]

you sure seem to worry about Mr. Goldman alot. Seems like a lot of wasted effort on your part. He's doing fine. on the other, your hero. . .:eek:

Not nearly as much as your jealousy of Arnell causes you to bash her.hahaha

[Kate Sachel]

People loose love ones every day, very few turn these death into a 13 year money making publicity seeking mini industry. I think fred has
drank the celebrity kool aid and the support of many that think they know who killed his son. It seems it is just too difficult to put the glass down.imo

I can only say, again, that this speaks volumes of your character.

Kate

[tv]

Not nearly as much as your jealousy of Arnell causes you to bash her.hahaha

Oh, I see, your bashing of Mr. Goldman means you're jealous of him. Hmm...puts your negative comments in a whole new light.

[Kate Sachel]

For the most part I have stayed out of the victim and family bashing, to include both the Goldmans and the Simpsons. My initial impression of Mr. Goldman was not favorable, regarding the comments he made when MF's tapes were played. However, I realized that he had a son that was brutally murdered and this may not be his true character. I have since formed no opinion of him, nor have I followed his efforts. I know very little of Ms. Arnelle and have formed no opinion or her or followed her efforts. It seems that the Simpson saga has spawned enough negative feelings and I do not think that there is any reason to display negative feelings or to form them toward each other.

I fully exercise my right to form both positive and negative opinions of those who display their opinions on this forum.

Kate

[Redmama]

I can only say, again, that this speaks volumes of your character.

Kate

I with you Kate. It is so obvious that what is being stated about Fred can be stated about OJ - word for word.

[martin II]

After the civil trial fred said he wanted justice. If the civil trial told him that oj was liable or in his mind guilty,Then his efforts since then have been about what he has constantly said it was NOT about. Money.

[William Anthony]

No, I would not agree with that. His point was to prove OJ liable, and we have hashed previously the fact that, given the manner in which Ron died, that to find OJ liable for his death would in essence be the same as saying he murdered Ron. I am aware that you don't agree with that assessment but many people, including Fred, do.

In addition, for the reasons I stated in the "OJ in the News" thread, I also don't agree with the idea that there is no sense in continuing to hate.

Kate

The verdict prove Simpson liable and, if most believe by that fact that he proved Simpson guilty, I would think he has been vindicated. Then you do not believe Mr. Goldman when he said his purpose was to get Simpson on the stand and prove that he murdered his son. It is the point that so many seem to agree with Mr. Goldman that causes me to believe that any continued hate is simply a self-destructive emotion and it seems that to him nothing will vindicate the murder of his son. If that is true, then hate seems to be the motivating force. I just feel that to live a life full of hate is a terrible life to live.

[martin II]

I with you Kate. It is so obvious that what is being stated about Fred can be stated about OJ - word for word.

Whats good for one is good for the other.

[William Anthony]

I fully exercise my right to form both positive and negative opinions of those who display their opinions on this forum.

Kate

Of course, that is your right. I just don't think there is a need to do so, since we can disagree without becoming disagreeable or hope we can. I think that may be the true hallmark of a civilized society.

[Kate Sachel]

After the civil trial fred said he wanted justice. If the civil trial told him that oj was liable or in his mind guilty,Then his efforts since then have been about what he has constantly said it was NOT about. Money.

I'm not quite certain how one individual can be so off base, and I'm even less certain of why I continually attempt to explain things to you but here goes once again;

I personally would never feel as though justice were served if the individual guilty of murdering my loved one never had to face punishment through the criminal system.

The fact is that Ron Goldman remained dead at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, and the man who Fred believes murdered his son walked away a free man, alive and breathing. As he stated, that to him is not justice.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Of course, that is your right. I just don't think there is a need to do so, since we can disagree without becoming disagreeable or hope we can. I think that may be the true hallmark of a civilized society.

Frankly I find you to be one of the biggest offenders, and I generally don't mind until you pull out the kind of statements you've posted above.

Forming opinions is normal, and expressing them is normal. I generally express my opposition to an opinion as kindly as I can. The exception on this forum for me is martin and as you are already aware of the reasons why, I assume there is no need to rehash them.

Kate

[martin II]

The verdict prove Simpson liable and, if most believe by that fact that he proved Simpson guilty, I would think he has been vindicated. Then you do not believe Mr. Goldman when he said his purpose was to get Simpson on the stand and prove that he murdered his son. It is the point that so many seem to agree with Mr. Goldman that causes me to believe that any continued hate is simply a self-destructive emotion and it seems that to him nothing will vindicate the murder of his son. If that is true, then hate seems to be the motivating force. I just feel that to live a life full of hate is a terrible life to live.

This is exactly my point.
I cannot believe that anyone would support the idea that hate is any thing but a self destructive emotion. But then again some take any position based on their hatred for oj and that in itself is unhealthy.imo:cool:

[Redmama]

Whats good for one is good for the other.

Exactly.

[weezer]

After the civil trial fred said he wanted justice. If the civil trial told him that oj was liable or in his mind guilty,Then his efforts since then have been about what he has constantly said it was NOT about. Money.

once again: so what? if Mr. Goldman wants to spend the rest of his life pursuing the judgment from orenthal -- so what? The fact that orenthal got caught in an armed robbery trying to keep stuff away from Fred Goldman and now will spend time in prison AND quite possibly lose his 'sh*t' after all could mean that what you believe has been wasted, hasn't been.

Look at it this way martin -- now we know orenthal isn't going to be set up by anyone AND on top of all that security, he does get three hots and a cot! ;)

[weezer]

This is exactly my point.
I cannot believe that anyone would support the idea that hate is any thing but a self destructive emotion. But then again some take any position based on their hatred for oj and that in itself is unhealthy.imo:cool:

I don't know why you concern yourself -- Fred Goldman seems to be doing just fine. Looks healthy -- living life just like the rest of us. Now poor ole orenthal on the other hand did have to request a bottom bunk for his arthritis -- or maybe he just likes being on bottom.

[William Anthony]

Frankly I find you to be one of the biggest offenders, and I generally don't mind until you pull out the kind of statements you've posted above.

Forming opinions is normal, and expressing them is normal. I generally express my opposition to an opinion as kindly as I can. The exception on this forum for me is martin and as you are already aware of the reasons why, I assume there is no need to rehash them.

Kate

Why I am surprised that you do not share the sentiments of those who find me to be statesman like. You very well know the slings and arrows I endure before taking the offense. There is only so much any human can endure before taking umbrage, as evidenced by your feelings toward martin. I think you misunderstood again. There are thing things that will cause some in society to reduce themselves to the most primordial instincts such as war-with terrorism and self-defense being examples of the causes. I am truly cognizant of the fact that we as humans are not completely civilized and to err is human, but forgiveness is divine. My point is that there is so little that we can do to change anything that those who are directly involved with the Simpson saga, do that, regardless of opinion we have formed of another, we should show the proper etiquette in our responses as we strive toward becoming more civilized.

[martin II]

I with you Kate. It is so obvious that what is being stated about Fred can be stated about OJ - word for word.

if it is good for one it is good for the other.

[martin II]

I don't know why you concern yourself -- Fred Goldman seems to be doing just fine. Looks healthy -- living life just like the rest of us. Now poor ole orenthal on the other hand did have to request a bottom bunk for his arthritis -- or maybe he just likes being on bottom.

fred is a sick man. it shows in his face. He has allowed oj to dominate his every thought and his life for 13 years as he has tried to make money on his sons death. It also seems that he has you all hooked up to.

[Kate Sachel]

fred is a sick man. it shows in his face. He has allowed oj to dominate his every thought and his life for 13 years as he has tried to make money on his sons death. It also seems that he has you all hooked up to.

Ew, you are so gross.

Although I suppose I'd much rather be in alignment with a Fred Goldman rather than be a sycophant who aligns himself so zealously with an OJ Simpson.

Kate

[weezer]

fred is a sick man. it shows in his face. He has allowed oj to dominate his every thought and his life for 13 years as he has tried to make money on his sons death. It also seems that he has you all hooked up to.

LOL -- Mr. Goldman isn't sick -- in fact, he's doing better these days then he has in years (I'm sure). He appears to be in a good place these days.

on the other hand, orenthal james simpson has led a life rife with debauchery and evil. He does not appear to be in a good place these days.

I guess if we are known by the life we lead, Fred Goldman wins hands down - eh?

[martin II]

LOL -- Mr. Goldman isn't sick -- in fact, he's doing better these days then he has in years (I'm sure). He appears to be in a good place these days.

on the other hand, orenthal james simpson has led a life rife with debauchery and evil. He does not appear to be in a good place these days.

I guess if we are known by the life we lead, Fred Goldman wins hands down - eh?

Oj may be on his way to jail, what will freds new game be now?

[martin II]

LOL -- Mr. Goldman isn't sick -- in fact, he's doing better these days then he has in years (I'm sure). He appears to be in a good place these days.

on the other hand, orenthal james simpson has led a life rife with debauchery and evil. He does not appear to be in a good place these days.

I guess if we are known by the life we lead, Fred Goldman wins hands down - eh?

Fred has been playing you for 14 years and you don't even know it. hahaha

[martin II]

Why I am surprised that you do not share the sentiments of those who find me to be statesman like. You very well know the slings and arrows I endure before taking the offense. There is only so much any human can endure before taking umbrage, as evidenced by your feelings toward martin. I think you misunderstood again. There are thing things that will cause some in society to reduce themselves to the most primordial instincts such as war-with terrorism and self-defense being examples of the causes. I am truly cognizant of the fact that we as humans are not completely civilized and to err is human, but forgiveness is divine. My point is that there is so little that we can do to change anything that those who are directly involved with the Simpson saga, do that, regardless of opinion we have formed of another, we should show the proper etiquette in our responses as we strive toward becoming more civilized.


One who claims to be civilized of the highest order and continue to speak like a ganster will never understand your post.imo:cool:

[WarmNCozy]

Why I am surprised that you do not share the sentiments of those who find me to be statesman like. You very well know the slings and arrows I endure before taking the offense. There is only so much any human can endure before taking umbrage, as evidenced by your feelings toward martin. I think you misunderstood again. There are thing things that will cause some in society to reduce themselves to the most primordial instincts such as war-with terrorism and self-defense being examples of the causes. I am truly cognizant of the fact that we as humans are not completely civilized and to err is human, but forgiveness is divine. My point is that there is so little that we can do to change anything that those who are directly involved with the Simpson saga, do that, regardless of opinion we have formed of another, we should show the proper etiquette in our responses as we strive toward becoming more civilized.

One who claims to be civilized of the highest order and continue to speak like a ganster will never understand your post.imo:cool:


William posted you, Kate to be a stateswoman and praised you for you objectivity What has changed?

[deicer]

I feel for the Goldmans. It was an absolute tragedy that they lost a loved one. I would want the killer to pay also, but i believe the Goldmans to be hypocrites in a way. On the Dr. Phil show they praised the jury for using the letter of the law in putting O.J. away. Well, in the murder case the jury did the same, with tampered evidance being a huge factor. So by the letter of the law, that jury rendered the proper verdict in California.

[Kate Sachel]

William posted you, Kate to be a stateswoman and praised you for you objectivity What has changed?

Nothing has changed, I have continued to post in the same manner in which I have posted on this forum for years and perhaps you don't like it but martin disgusts me; he has for years and continues to do so and I will continue to respond to him with the little respect I feel he is due.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Why I am surprised that you do not share the sentiments of those who find me to be statesman like. You very well know the slings and arrows I endure before taking the offense. There is only so much any human can endure before taking umbrage, as evidenced by your feelings toward martin. I think you misunderstood again. There are thing things that will cause some in society to reduce themselves to the most primordial instincts such as war-with terrorism and self-defense being examples of the causes. I am truly cognizant of the fact that we as humans are not completely civilized and to err is human, but forgiveness is divine. My point is that there is so little that we can do to change anything that those who are directly involved with the Simpson saga, do that, regardless of opinion we have formed of another, we should show the proper etiquette in our responses as we strive toward becoming more civilized.

I misunderstood nothing, I am growing rather tired of hypocritical remarks.

I know very well some of the slings and arrows you endure before taking the offense, but don't act superior now and in a manner that attempts to make it seem as though you are always the wronged party who is simply defending himself. I've seen you throw the first punch on far more than one occassion, and it would be quite lovely to see you acknowledge that.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I misunderstood nothing, I am growing rather tired of hypocritical remarks.

I know very well some of the slings and arrows you endure before taking the offense, but don't act superior now and in a manner that attempts to make it seem as though you are always the wronged party who is simply defending himself. I've seen you throw the first punch on far more than one occassion, and it would be quite lovely to see you acknowledge that.

Kate

Perhaps, you do not like the statesman remark of should I say feel that it is undeserved. I am not trying to say that I am superior to anyone, because that goes against my fundamental belief. When posters post comments they are open to response by anyone, whether or not addressed to a particular poster, as I understand. While I may have thrown the first punch toward a poster that had not addressed me, I probably found something offensive in the way they addressed another poster or in their post. My tendency is to first point out what I find offensive, unless I feel that the poster intentionally made the post offensive.

Do I have flaws? Yes, and I will publicly admit so. Does that mean that I should not correct them? No, and I am in the process. Please, do not hold it against me that I am not changing as fast as some think I should. I am aware of the differences between you and martin and I was not speaking to that nor did I express any opinion as to who was one of the biggest offenders. In short, my post was not directed to you and I apologize, if you thought it was. My post was directed to those who become uncivil when someone expresses an opinion about the case and they are immediately and intentionally assaulted and it is usually those same people, who make unnecessary offensive remarks about a desire to be treated equally and seem to become particularly annoyed when someone of their persuasion express a sentiment that is in line with equality or try to start trouble among posters who are disagreeing civilly. I enjoy your posts (wish there were more) and our discussions on the law. I find you to be an honest, civil, polite, respectful and intelligent poster with whom I can disagree without becoming disagreeable. I hope that continues. I will admit to picking one argument.

[Kate Sachel]

Perhaps, you do not like the statesman remark of should I say feel that it is undeserved. I am not trying to say that I am superior to anyone, because that goes against my fundamental belief. When posters post comments they are open to response by anyone, whether or not addressed to a particular poster, as I understand. While I may have thrown the first punch toward a poster that had not addressed me, I probably found something offensive in the way they addressed another poster or in their post. My tendency is to first point out what I find offensive, unless I feel that the poster intentionally made the post offensive.

Do I have flaws? Yes, and I will publicly admit so. Does that mean that I should not correct them? No, and I am in the process. Please, do not hold it against me that I am not changing as fast as some think I should. I am aware of the differences between you and martin and I was not speaking to that nor did I express any opinion as to who was one of the biggest offenders. In short, my post was not directed to you and I apologize, if you thought it was. My post was directed to those who become uncivil when someone expresses an opinion about the case and they are immediately and intentionally assaulted and it is usually those same people, who make unnecessary offensive remarks about a desire to be treated equally and seem to become particularly annoyed when someone of their persuasion express a sentiment that is in line with equality or try to start trouble among posters who are disagreeing civilly. I enjoy your posts (wish there were more) and our discussions on the law. I find you to be an honest, civil, polite, respectful and intelligent poster with whom I can disagree without becoming disagreeable. I hope that continues. I will admit to picking one argument.

Then I stand corrected as I obviously did misunderstand a portion of your previous post in that it very much appeared to have been directed at me.

The remainder I stand firm on.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Then I stand corrected as I obviously did misunderstand a portion of your previous post in that it very much appeared to have been directed at me.

The remainder I stand firm on.

Kate

So, I am still one of the biggest offenders?:) I really do not think that I am superior to anyone and respectfully ask that you rethink that statement. It is because that I do not feel superior that I defend my right and the right of other posters to be treated civilly, with respect and politely. Perhaps, you just do not like the manner in which I state my defense.

[Kate Sachel]

So, I am still one of the biggest offenders?:) I really do not think that I am superior to anyone and respectfully ask that you rethink that statement. It is because that I do not feel superior that I defend my right and the right of other posters to be treated civilly, with respect and politely. Perhaps, you just do not like the manner in which I state my defense.

I will not rethink that statement because I did not say in my post that you do think you are superior to everyone; I posted that, in your post that I was responding to, you were acting superior now ... meaning in that post and nothing else.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I will not rethink that statement because I did not say in my post that you do think you are superior to everyone; I posted that, in your post that I was responding to, you were acting superior now ... meaning in that post and nothing else.

Kate

That was not my intention. No matter how rude I think a person's post is, I still have respect for them as a human and think of them as equal to me as a human.

[martin II]

The rudeness would dissapear if personal attacks ceased.imo

[martin II]

OJ Simpson seeks new robbery trial in Las Vegas

By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Lawyers for O.J. Simpson are citing judicial errors and insufficient evidence as they seek a new trial.

They filed documents Friday in Las Vegas with Judge Jackie Glass. She oversaw the trial at which the former football star was convicted of robbing two memorabilia dealers at gunpoint.

If she doesn't grant a new trial, Simpson attorney Yale Galanter says he will appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
But then again some take any position based on their hatred for oj and that in itself is unhealthy.imo:cool:

Any position? No. A position that Orenthal should be punished for each of the crimes he commits? Yes.

As for unhealthy emotions, I'd say that sitting on a forum 24/7 defending a has been football star who went on to double murder & armed robbery is about as unhealthy as it gets. :(

[William Anthony]

What ex football star was convicted of double murder?

[socaldiva]

I see that once again William has went against his prior word to not post to me or about me. Why am I not surprised?

Read my post again, I never referred to a convicted football player.

[William Anthony]

I posted to the board and since you never said convicted double murderer why would you think it was posted to you. It seems you broke your own word by mentioning me. Why am I not surprised that you would break your word. So, I guess it is just par to say committed double murder, without any basis in fact.

[martin II]

William

I posted this on the other thread.
There are more pages in the link.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

[martin II]

I posted to the board and since you never said convicted double murderer why would you think it was posted to you. It seems you broke your own word by mentioning me. Why am I not surprised that you would break your word. So, I guess it is just par to say committed double murder, without any basis in fact.

She has never had a clue.

[William Anthony]

William

I posted this on the other thread.
There are more pages in the link.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Thanks and I did not read the link but some of the answers to the questions posed to me are on page 2 and I still did not finish reading the entire article.
I was surprised to see a seven day deadline.

[socaldiva]

I posted to the board and since you never said convicted double murderer why would you think it was posted to you. It seems you broke your own word by mentioning me. Why am I not surprised that you would break your word. So, I guess it is just par to say committed double murder, without any basis in fact.

More nonsense posted by you, but I knew it was coming. I see it took you a while to come up with this post.

I didn't break my word, but anyone here that isn't a Simpson groupie & is truthful, can see that you broke yours :rolleyes:

[weezer]

More nonsense posted by you, but I knew it was coming. I see it took you a while to come up with this post.

I didn't break my word, but anyone here that isn't a Simpson groupie & is truthful, can see that you broke yours :rolleyes:

maybe the 'convicted' was a freudian slip on the part of the poster? :eek: :beer:

[William Anthony]

I see you posted to me. I may have posted about what you wrote, which was not your claim. You mentioned me and said you would not and now you have posted to me, which you also said you wouldn't do. To use the words of one I believe to be your cohort, reckless disregard for the truth shows the character of the person.

[William Anthony]

The use of the word convicted was in regard to the use of one that I believe to be your cohort of the words, "who went on" as if it were a fact.

[weezer]

TRU TH's discussing the possibility of the likelihood of the appeal being successful said they believed the chances were slim to none.

[William Anthony]

I found another link and this was stated.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/30261659.html?page=2&c=y

"She refused to give the lawyers extended time to file a motion for new trial, which under Nevada law must be filed within seven days. The attorneys said they needed time to submit a voluminous record.

"I've sat through the trial," Glass said. "If you want a motion for new trial, send me something."

[socaldiva]

I see you posted to me. I may have posted about what you wrote, which was not your claim. You mentioned me and said you would not and now you have posted to me, which you also said you wouldn't do. To use the words of one I believe to be your cohort, reckless disregard for the truth shows the character of the person.

blah, blah, blah. More nonsense posted by you in an effort to cover up your misdeeds. Talk about lack of character!

[martin II]

I found another link and this was stated.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/30261659.html?page=2&c=y

"She refused to give the lawyers extended time to file a motion for new trial, which under Nevada law must be filed within seven days. The attorneys said they needed time to submit a voluminous record.

"I've sat through the trial," Glass said. "If you want a motion for new trial, send me something."

Judge Glass did seem to be in a hurry to get that trial started and overwith.

[William Anthony]

I may have misdeeds but I am a man of my word and do not try to cover my broken words with a lot of blah, blah, blah, that amounts to nothing but pure nonsense. ;):cool:

[weezer]

Judge Glass did seem to be in a hurry to get that trial started and overwith.

and orenthal's lawyers wanted to drag it out. so what? the jury (and world) heard the evidence and made a decision: orenthal james simpson -- GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. Think I got all 12 GUILTY's in there. :D

[William Anthony]

Judge Glass did seem to be in a hurry to get that trial started and overwith.

It seems that some have missed your point, which is one of the grounds for the motion for a new trial, IIRC. The concept that the defense was limited on cross and in voire dire, or, in other words that the trial was not fair. I understand the concepts of judicial expediency and that the defense should be allowed wide latitude on cross.

[tv]

You didn't think that the criminal or civil trial was fair and now you don't think this trial was fair? Interesting.

Also interesting to me that you feel these tapes possibly shouldn't have been used as collaborative evidence but purely as evidence. I realize your interest is in the law and how it properly applies to this case but what is your personal feeling about the tapes?

[William Anthony]

You didn't think that the criminal or civil trial was fair and now you don't think this trial was fair? Interesting.

Also interesting to me that you feel these tapes possibly shouldn't have been used as collaborative evidence but purely as evidence. I realize your interest is in the law and how it properly applies to this case but what is your personal feeling about the tapes?

I do not think you have understood me from the beginning. I do think that the criminal murder trial was fair. I think that all the juries reached the correct verdict based on the evidence admitted. I question why some speak so negatively about the criminal jury. I think that the civil trial was motivated by socio-political concerns but that the jury reached the correct verdict based on the rulings and the evidence.

I have never said that the tapes should not have been used as collaborative evidence. I have questioned whether or not they were and, posted my understanding of Nevada law if they were. I truly have formed no opinion on the use of the tapes outside the legality of their use, which remains to be seen. It is impossible for me to form an opinion about them without listening to and evaluating the legal arguments and court's reasoning on their admissibility, if you understand what I am trying to say. I have no emotional ties to Simpson and my interest comes from an interest in learning the application of the law. Once that is rendered, I will be able to offer an opinion on the legal analysis.

[tv]

I do not think you have understood me from the beginning. I do think that the criminal murder trial was fair. I think that all the juries reached the correct verdict based on the evidence admitted. I question why some speak so negatively about the criminal jury. I think that the civil trial was motivated by socio-political concerns but that the jury reached the correct verdict based on the rulings and the evidence.

I have never said that the tapes should not have been used as collaborative evidence. I have questioned whether or not they were and, posted my understanding of Nevada law if they were. I truly have formed no opinion on the use of the tapes outside the legality of their use, which remains to be seen. It is impossible for me to form an opinion about them without listening to and evaluating the legal arguments and court's reasoning on their admissibility, if you understand what I am trying to say. I have no emotional ties to Simpson and my interest comes from an interest in learning the application of the law. Once that is rendered, I will be able to offer an opinion on the legal analysis.

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. You think the criminal trial was fair and the civil trial was unfair because of the evidence that was allowed and disallowed not because of the jury. I think just the opposite. I think what was presented by the defense in the criminal trial made it very unfair. I don't think the civil trial was socio-political because it was brought by the families. Why would they bring a civil suit against him for any other reason than justice for Ron and Nicole? I realize you may say FG did it for money but that would be a personal reason not socio-political reason. The perjury trial of Det. Fuhrman on the other hand...;)

[William Anthony]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. You think the criminal trial was fair and the civil trial was unfair because of the evidence that was allowed and disallowed not because of the jury. I think just the opposite. I think what was presented by the defense in the criminal trial made it very unfair. I don't think the civil trial was socio-political because it was brought by the families. Why would they bring a civil suit against him for any other reason than justice for Ron and Nicole? I realize you may say FG did it for money but that would be a personal reason not socio-political reason. The perjury trial of Det. Fuhrman on the other hand...;)

No, you do not see what I am saying or, perhaps, what I said was unclear. If I have accepted the verdict, it means that I have no problem with the trial being fair based on the evidence and rulings the juries were allowed to consider. Whether or not the evidence should have been admitted is another issue. Let us now say that the appeals from the civil trial were denied and I would suppose that meant the court found valid legal reasons to admit the evidence. No appeal was taken from the verdict in the criminal murder trial for obvious reasons. The concept of due process entails some degree of fairness in that there are procedures that must be followed and substantive rights that may not be abridged, because of the fundamental right to liberty. What I am saying is that the procedures must be followed in accordance to the rules in order for a process to be fair, which begins at the time of investigation and continues throughout the trial process. It is the fairness of the procedures that is called into question and not the fairness of the trial, unless there have been clearly erroneous and harmful errors of law.

Now, with that said. I call and question the civil trial's motivation a socio-political production by the judge's statements, the statement of Mr. Goldman, which was recently brought to my attention as to his purpose for filing the suit and to the rulings of the judge based on his statement. It is not the fairness of the trial that I question but the fairness of the process used in the civil trial. To use an unlawful course of action to accomplish an otherwise lawful result is in itself unlawful, as recently shown in the criminal armed robbery trial. I don't know, if I clarified that for you but I am trying.

[martin II]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. You think the criminal trial was fair and the civil trial was unfair because of the evidence that was allowed and disallowed not because of the jury. I think just the opposite. I think what was presented by the defense in the criminal trial made it very unfair. I don't think the civil trial was socio-political because it was brought by the families. Why would they bring a civil suit against him for any other reason than justice for Ron and Nicole? I realize you may say FG did it for money but that would be a personal reason not socio-political reason. The perjury trial of Det. Fuhrman on the other hand...;)

Did the defense present evidence in the criminal trial or did they show that what the prosecution presented was not proof beyond a reasopnable doubt?

[martin II]

tv
If the FBI could not authenticate the tapes do you believe they should have been entered into evidence?

[weezer]

tv
If the FBI could not authenticate the tapes do you believe they should have been entered into evidence?

I've been looking at the stuff on the Fuhrman tapes and I can't find anything where the FBI 'authenticated' them. The only thing I can find is that mckinney said the tapes were hers and that she had made them. If the FBI didn't 'authenticate' the Fuhrman tapes, do you believe they should have been entered into evidence?

[William Anthony]

LHM went through extensive vorie dire outside the presence of the jury in order to authenticate the tapes. Did Riccio?

[William Anthony]

Was there any testimony that Riccio wanted the tapes to be as accurate as possible, because he intended to sell them, as opposed to ensuring their accuracy, so that he could later use them in a screenplay?

[martin II]

Was there any testimony that Riccio wanted the tapes to be as accurate as possible, because he intended to sell them, as opposed to ensuring their accuracy, so that he could later use them in a screenplay?

He testified that he taped to protect himself in business dealings so people would not be able to "forget their argeement"

He did do a book that flopped.

He is the master setter upper. and made $250,000 off everyone.

I bet mcclinton would like to get his hands on Riccio.

He has the ability to talk out of the left side of his mouth and the right side of his neck at the same time.

[martin II]

LHM went through extensive vorie dire outside the presence of the jury in order to authenticate the tapes. Did Riccio?

Not that i heard

[William Anthony]

He testified that he taped to protect himself in business dealings so people would not be able to "forget their argeement"

He did do a book that flopped.

He is the master setter upper. and made $250,000 off everyone.

I bet mcclinton would like to get his hands on Riccio.

He has the ability to talk out of the left side of his mouth and the right side of his neck at the same time.

Maybe, he had not heard that lawyers draw up contracts.

[weezer]

He testified that he taped to protect himself in business dealings so people would not be able to "forget their argeement"

He did do a book that flopped.

He is the master setter upper. and made $250,000 off everyone.

I bet mcclinton would like to get his hands on Riccio.

He has the ability to talk out of the left side of his mouth and the right side of his neck at the same time.

mcclinton's tape was one of the 'nails in the coffin' for orenthal. why would he be mad? I mean, he made a tape too.

[weezer]

Not that i heard

does that mean you don't know?

[martin II]

I've been looking at the stuff on the Fuhrman tapes and I can't find anything where the FBI 'authenticated' them. The only thing I can find is that mckinney said the tapes were hers and that she had made them. If the FBI didn't 'authenticate' the Fuhrman tapes, do you believe they should have been entered into evidence?


The prosecution could have demamded the mckinney take be authenticated, they didn't

The prosecution asked the fib to authenticate the tapes in a effort to make transciptions that would show who said what. The transcripts were not accurate, files had been deleted and not all were retreivable.

They were asked to authenticatre and they couldn't On cross it was discovered that the experts could not authenticate who said what on the taspe and that they had not been altered.
That is the differance,

[weezer]

Sudden Fame is Frustrating for Writer Behind Tapes; Fuhrman's Views Shocked McKinny, But She Doggedly Pursued Script. Despite Notoriety, It's Still Unsold
By Stephanie Simon and Robert J. Lopez

Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1995

The ugly words shocked and repulsed her. But Laura Hart McKinny listened all the same.

She wanted the story. Detective Mark Fuhrman had it.

So she listened. He talked. And the tapes recorded. Spinning and spinning, they captured Fuhrman's racist slurs and brutal boasts. They recorded McKinny's cautious questions. And then they vaulted smack into the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Now jurors will hear a few snippets from those famous tapes. And McKinny will be called upon to explain them. A soft-spoken professor known as the mothering type, a driven researcher who once slept in a cardboard box to better write about a homeless character, McKinny will be asked to testify that Fuhrman repeatedly slurred African Americans with the word "n-----."

The long-running tape furor has pushed McKinny tantalizingly close to the big bucks of Hollywood. It's a glitzy, high-rolling world she and her husband have long struggled to enter.

But she has found this experience more frustrating than fantastic.

Just two years after a financial crisis that forced her to declare personal bankruptcy, McKinny holds much-sought-after assets: tapes that politicians are desperate to hear, a transcript folks are begging to read, and a well-hyped screenplay that sprang from the Fuhrman tapes. So far, however, she has been unable or unwilling to earn a dime from that material.

Eager to pin a price tag on the tapes, her lawyer contacted a few tabloids in early July -- about two weeks before the Fuhrman interviews exploded into the Simpson spotlight. "We were duty-bound as attorneys to advise her of the value," attorney Ron Regwan said.

Now, however, McKinny insists the tapes are not for sale.

At least, not now, her lawyer hastens to add.

McKinny would much prefer to peddle "Men Against Women," her 120-page screenplay based on the Fuhrman tapes. She wouldn't mind selling her novel by the same name either, even though she's not quite done with the second draft.

A screenwriting professor who has never sold a major script, McKinny, 44, longs to turn her decade of laborious research into a Hollywood blockbuster. According to her husband, Daniel, she has watched with frustration as her copyrighted tapes leaked into the press and blared from the courthouse -- diminishing the shock value and perhaps the commercial appeal of "Men Against Women."

"She has done a lot of journalism to reveal (racism and sexism) at the LAPD, and she thinks it's important for the public to hear about it, but she wants to be the one to tell them," Daniel McKinny said. "She did all the work."

Despite the financial trouble two years ago, when Laura McKinny declared bankruptcy after toting up $80,000 in credit card debt and unpaid taxes, Daniel McKinny said the couple feel no pressure to sell the stack of Fuhrman audiotapes.

A cinematographer who toiled for years as a grip on movie sets, Daniel McKinny said the two ran up the debts during a period when neither had a full-time job. Laura McKinny was tutoring UCLA athletes at the time -- earning praise as a teacher but working just part-time.

The couple, who have two sons, left their Santa Monica home after the 1993 bankruptcy filing to take up posts as professors at the North Carolina School of the Arts. "It's the first time in our lives we've had steady paychecks," Daniel McKinny said.

"If this happened two years ago (money) would probably be an issue," he added. "But fortunately, we're not in that situation now. We really aren't financially strapped. So we have no pressure to sell those tapes and transcripts if we don't want to."

Still, their lawyer recently tried to sell the transcripts to Dove Books for $500,000, publisher Michael Viner said. Viner, who has published several books related to the Simpson trial, turned them down, explaining: "It didn't even pass the smell test as being anything close to literature."

The transcripts may not have rated as fine literature. But McKinny labored for a decade to turn her raw material into a screenplay.

The result: "Men Against Women," a story of a rookie female police officer who falls in love with her patrol partner -- a man who just happens to belong to a club of racist, sexist and all-around nasty cops.

McKinny had just started working on the screenplay back in 1985 when she met Fuhrman at Alice's Restaurant in Westwood. She was typing on a laptop computer; curious about the machine, he approached her and started chatting. Once he learned she was working on a script about cops, Fuhrman volunteered to help out.

And McKinny found him an excellent source. After promising to pay him $10,000 if she sold the script to a movie-maker, she called on Fuhrman for at least a dozen interviews. She also tagged along with other officers on patrol. Her extensive research, students say, was typical of her writing style.

"She always told us, 'How are you going to write about someone unless you live their life?' " said one of her North Carolina students, junior Harbor Peoples.

Another student, Michael Patwin Jr., said McKinny advised everyone to be persistent when interviewing: "When you establish a source, the more you go back, the more you can learn," he said she told them. McKinny also taught her students to listen to sources unobtrusively, no matter what they said, Patwin recalled: "You don't want to edit or cut (sources) off -- you want them to go and go and go and go."

Eager to keep Fuhrman talking, McKinny did not challenge even his most repugnant views. But inside, she bristled -- and, as a fairly liberal women's rights advocate, expressed disgust to friends.

"She certainly made it clear that she was appalled at the Men Against Women (group)," one friend said.

Convinced that the world should know what a Los Angeles cop could say and do, Laura McKinny "talked a lot about the best way to get this story in front of the public," Daniel McKinny said. Her conclusion: tell the shocking tales with movies.

Some analysts have criticized Laura McKinny for that decision. Given Fuhrman's sensational stories of police misconduct, and the specific details he provided, defense attorney Gigi Gordon said she believes McKinny should have set aside her screenplay ambitions and turned over the tapes to authorities.

"She's a woman who heard the war stories of a racist, abusive police officer and did nothing about it," Gordon said. "Why didn't she come forward with the tapes? . . . She's no better than all the people in LAPD who heard him use the word, knew about the things he did and stood by and remained silent."

Even when she realized her tapes could be relevant to the Simpson trial, McKinny decided to hold on to the material. She told her stepson last Christmas that she had been interviewing Fuhrman. But she warned him not to blab.

"They told me not to say anything," 14-year-old Ryan McKinny said. "My dad told me he didn't want to pay money to hire a lawyer, and he didn't want reporters knocking on his door."

[weezer]

In an appearance on "Prime Time Live," Laura McKinny explained that she never considered handing lawyers the material because "there's nothing on the tapes that directly exonerates Mr. Simpson." Her husband added in an interview that they decided the tapes "didn't directly relate" to the case -- even though they clearly impeached Fuhrman's testimony that he had not used the word "n-----" in a decade.

Calling his wife's position "a moral dilemma," Daniel McKinny said they both believe "there's a lot of evidence O.J. Simpson did these terrible things." To their dismay, the tapes boost Simpson's defense.

Fighting to keep the tapes private, the McKinnys' lawyers, Ron Regwan and Matthew Schwartz, met secretly in Judge Lance A. Ito's chambers to discuss the matter. But it was clear both the prosecution and the defense would subpoena the tapes.

Shortly after that meeting -- before the tapes hit the press -- Regwan said he called "just a couple" of tabloids to see how much money his clients' research might fetch. "We were duty bound as attorneys to advise her of the value," Regwan said. "Anything less than that would be malpractice."

Now that the most stunning snippets of the tapes have been played in open court, their price is bound to plunge. McKinny's script, which attracted few bids before the furor, may also lose value, said Sam Grogg, dean of the school of filmmaking where McKinny teaches.

"She was nervous that the value of her screenplay might be diminished because it was so controversial," Grogg said. McKinny never told him she wanted to earn money off the raw transcripts, he said. "I've never heard her say, 'This is where I cash in.' "

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this story.

anyone ever hear whether or not Ms McKinney made it to the big time with her stories?

[weezer]

The prosecution could have demamded the mckinney take be authenticated, they didn't

The prosecution asked the fib to authenticate the tapes in a effort to make transciptions that would show who said what. The transcripts were not accurate, files had been deleted and not all were retreivable.

They were asked to authenticatre and they couldn't On cross it was discovered that the experts could not authenticate who said what on the taspe and that they had not been altered.
That is the differance,

now how would the FBI be able to 'authenticate' who said what on the tapes? I recommend you re-read the argument on the tapes.

[martin II]

Maybe, he had not heard that lawyers draw up contracts.

I womder if navada law not including intent in robbery charges is constitutional?

I also wonder why 'Aspertation' did not come into play as far as kidnapping is concerned.

[William Anthony]

I womder if navada law not including intent in robbery charges is constitutional?

I also wonder why 'Aspertation' did not come into play as far as kidnapping is concerned.


You have posed some interesting questions, regarding federalism and state sovereignty and a state's police power, as well as, public policy, which would take hours to discuss but, in the general sense, I would say that they are not unconstitutional, per se.

[martin II]

In an appearance on "Prime Time Live," Laura McKinny explained that she never considered handing lawyers the material because "there's nothing on the tapes that directly exonerates Mr. Simpson." Her husband added in an interview that they decided the tapes "didn't directly relate" to the case -- even though they clearly impeached Fuhrman's testimony that he had not used the word "n-----" in a decade.

Calling his wife's position "a moral dilemma," Daniel McKinny said they both believe "there's a lot of evidence O.J. Simpson did these terrible things." To their dismay, the tapes boost Simpson's defense.

Fighting to keep the tapes private, the McKinnys' lawyers, Ron Regwan and Matthew Schwartz, met secretly in Judge Lance A. Ito's chambers to discuss the matter. But it was clear both the prosecution and the defense would subpoena the tapes.

Shortly after that meeting -- before the tapes hit the press -- Regwan said he called "just a couple" of tabloids to see how much money his clients' research might fetch. "We were duty bound as attorneys to advise her of the value," Regwan said. "Anything less than that would be malpractice."

Now that the most stunning snippets of the tapes have been played in open court, their price is bound to plunge. McKinny's script, which attracted few bids before the furor, may also lose value, said Sam Grogg, dean of the school of filmmaking where McKinny teaches.

"She was nervous that the value of her screenplay might be diminished because it was so controversial," Grogg said. McKinny never told him she wanted to earn money off the raw transcripts, he said. "I've never heard her say, 'This is where I cash in.' "

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this story.

anyone ever hear whether or not Ms McKinney made it to the big time with her stories?

The mckinney tapes were brough in to prove fuhrman a liar. Those tapes and the conditions are different than the vegas tapes.

[martin II]

now how would the FBI be able to 'authenticate' who said what on the tapes? I recommend you re-read the argument on the tapes.

They could have done on a more professional and accurate basis what the detective tried to do from his memory.

[William Anthony]

I guess this bolsters the validity of her testimony.

"Another student, Michael Patwin Jr., said McKinny advised everyone to be persistent when interviewing: "When you establish a source, the more you go back, the more you can learn," he said she told them. McKinny also taught her students to listen to sources unobtrusively, no matter what they said, Patwin recalled: "You don't want to edit or cut (sources) off -- you want them to go and go and go and go."

[William Anthony]

I guess she was in an entirely different posture from Riccio.

"She was nervous that the value of her screenplay might be diminished because it was so controversial," Grogg said. McKinny never told him she wanted to earn money off the raw transcripts, he said. "I've never heard her say, 'This is where I cash in.'

[WarmNCozy]

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

[William Anthony]

Did the defense present evidence in the criminal trial or did they show that what the prosecution presented was not proof beyond a reasopnable doubt?

They did both, imho.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution could have demamded the mckinney take be authenticated, they didn't

The prosecution asked the fib to authenticate the tapes in a effort to make transciptions that would show who said what. The transcripts were not accurate, files had been deleted and not all were retreivable.

They were asked to authenticatre and they couldn't On cross it was discovered that the experts could not authenticate who said what on the taspe and that they had not been altered.
That is the differance,

The MF tapes were authenticated during voir dire and the foundation was laid on direct.

[martin II]

In an appearance on "Prime Time Live," Laura McKinny explained that she never considered handing lawyers the material because "there's nothing on the tapes that directly exonerates Mr. Simpson." Her husband added in an interview that they decided the tapes "didn't directly relate" to the case -- even though they clearly impeached Fuhrman's testimony that he had not used the word "n-----" in a decade.

Calling his wife's position "a moral dilemma," Daniel McKinny said they both believe "there's a lot of evidence O.J. Simpson did these terrible things." To their dismay, the tapes boost Simpson's defense.

Fighting to keep the tapes private, the McKinnys' lawyers, Ron Regwan and Matthew Schwartz, met secretly in Judge Lance A. Ito's chambers to discuss the matter. But it was clear both the prosecution and the defense would subpoena the tapes.

Shortly after that meeting -- before the tapes hit the press -- Regwan said he called "just a couple" of tabloids to see how much money his clients' research might fetch. "We were duty bound as attorneys to advise her of the value," Regwan said. "Anything less than that would be malpractice."

Now that the most stunning snippets of the tapes have been played in open court, their price is bound to plunge. McKinny's script, which attracted few bids before the furor, may also lose value, said Sam Grogg, dean of the school of filmmaking where McKinny teaches.

"She was nervous that the value of her screenplay might be diminished because it was so controversial," Grogg said. McKinny never told him she wanted to earn money off the raw transcripts, he said. "I've never heard her say, 'This is where I cash in.' "

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this story.

anyone ever hear whether or not Ms McKinney made it to the big time with her stories?

Maby the public was turned off listening to furhman talk about his experiences as a lapd officer and there was no public interest.

[martin II]

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

Thanks

[martin II]

"I am not going to support that tape," said Beardsley, who has sued Riccio in civil court.

Earlier, jurors heard an FBI analyst testify that he could not determine whether the tape had been altered

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la

[WarmNCozy]

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Riccio_Transcripts/Recording_File_3.pdf

[tv]

"I am not going to support that tape," said Beardsley, who has sued Riccio in civil court.

Earlier, jurors heard an FBI analyst testify that he could not determine whether the tape had been altered

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la

Why did Beardsley call 911?

[weezer]

all of the tapes (Riccio and McClinton) as well as juror questionnaires can be found at

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

scroll toward bottom of page and click on simpson's name.

[weezer]

Why did Beardsley call 911?

because he'd just been robbed at gunpoint?

[tv]

because he'd just been robbed at gunpoint?

That's what I thought too. Now he wants to backpeddle about the tapes but I think his call to 911 was a gut reaction to what happened in that hotel room.

[weezer]

That's what I thought too. Now he wants to backpeddle about the tapes but I think his call to 911 was a gut reaction to what happened in that hotel room.

I think he believes that of the two evils, orenthal is the lesser. or maybe arnelle got through to him. at any rate, no king's xx's for you al.

[WarmNCozy]

because he'd just been robbed at gunpoint?

Not by OJ, but OJ is sitting in jail and those gansters are free? You call that justice.

[martin II]

Why did Beardsley call 911?

Because he was pissed because the SALE did not go through and he did not walk out with cash in his pockets.

[tv]

I think he believes that of the two evils, orenthal is the lesser. or maybe arnelle got through to him. at any rate, no king's xx's for you al.

Riccio was saying on tv the other day that he didn't think at first that OJ Simpson knew about the gun/guns but he now believes he knew about it but didn't expect it to be taken out. I don't believe every word any of these guys say but I don't see what reason he'd have for lying at this point. He's made money off the tapes and his book already.

[tv]

Because he was pissed because the SALE did not go through and he did not walk out with cash in his pockets.

He knew calling 911 would bring LE so he obviously thought a crime had been committed. People don't call 911 when they're the perpetrators of the crime.

[martin II]

I think he believes that of the two evils, orenthal is the lesser. or maybe arnelle got through to him. at any rate, no king's xx's for you al.

I think that wjen he reflected on the whole situation, he relized that it was Riccio that set him up, brought oj to the room and caused him not to make money. He realized that Riccio lied to him about who the buyer was and oj caught him with his goods.

[martin II]

Riccio was saying on tv the other day that he didn't think at first that OJ Simpson knew about the gun/guns but he now believes he knew about it but didn't expect it to be taken out. I don't believe every word any of these guys say but I don't see what reason he'd have for lying at this point. He's made money off the tapes and his book already.

tv
His book was a bust according to him but he did sell the tape for money which was his objective from the git go.
I understand the law but think that these two adults made their own decision to bring guns.No one forced them to make this decision and i think they should have been held responsible for that decision.Alexander said he brought his gun because he wanted to have protection for himself.

If the jury did not believe the testimony of these witnesses , why did they believe them when they said oj told them to bring guns. Even if oj did ask them to being guns does that mean that they had to do so?
That is their word against ojs.imo

[martin II]

He knew calling 911 would bring LE so he obviously thought a crime had been committed. People don't call 911 when they're the perpetrators of the crime.

He knew that some people came, one person flashed a gun and oj was with them. He and Fumong decided, as soon a the group left that "'we can make big money because oj was invovled" and they then called the tabolids to sell the story.

[tv]

tv
His book was a bust according to him but he did sell the tape for money which was his objective from the git go.
I understand the law but think that these two adults made their own decision to bring guns.No one forced them to make this decision and i think they should have been held responsible for that decision.Alexander said he brought his gun because he wanted to have protection for himself.

If the jury did not believe the testimony of these witnesses , why did they believe them when they said oj told them to bring guns. Even if oj did ask them to being guns does that mean that they had to do so?
That is their word against ojs.imo

What do you think OJ Simpson meant on the tape when he asked if the gun was taken out in the hall?

[weezer]

I think that wjen he reflected on the whole situation, he relized that it was Riccio that set him up, brought oj to the room and caused him not to make money. He realized that Riccio lied to him about who the buyer was and oj caught him with his goods.

martin, on the tapes right after the robbery, before anyone knew any tapes were going to be sold, beardsley and fromong say there were guns. besides, as far as I can tell by the list, none of it looks like orenthal's goods except for the personal family pictures.

[weezer]

He knew that some people came, one person flashed a gun and oj was with them. He and Fumong decided, as soon a the group left that "'we can make big money because oj was invovled" and they then called the tabolids to sell the story.

orenthal's bad behavior can only be excused so many times before you have to admit that not everything is somebody's else's fault. orenthal thought he could get the stuff and keep it out of the hands of the Goldmans. do you think he still believes it was worth it?

[martin II]

orenthal's bad behavior can only be excused so many times before you have to admit that not everything is somebody's else's fault. orenthal thought he could get the stuff and keep it out of the hands of the Goldmans. do you think he still believes it was worth it?

What you think oj thought is not fact for anyone but you.

[martin II]

martin, on the tapes right after the robbery, before anyone knew any tapes were going to be sold, beardsley and fromong say there were guns. besides, as far as I can tell by the list, none of it looks like orenthal's goods except for the personal family pictures.

All witnesses testified that they and oj were going to retreive ojs personal items and no one went with the intent to commit a crime.

[tv]

All witnesses testified that they and oj were going to retreive ojs personal items and no one went with the intent to commit a crime.

How is that different than a drunk driver saying he was only on his way home and didn't mean for anyone to get hurt?

[weezer]

What you think oj thought is not fact for anyone but you.

actually there was testimony about orenthal wanting to keep it out of the hands of the Goldmans -- so, no, it isn't just my thought. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

All witnesses testified that they and oj were going to retreive ojs personal items and no one went with the intent to commit a crime.

then why do it in secrecy and carry guns? they knew what they were doing was wrong.

[martin II]

How is that different than a drunk driver saying he was only on his way home and didn't mean for anyone to get hurt?

I am not sure the drunk driver was trying to retreive anything but maby another drink. hahaha

[martin II]

then why do it in secrecy and carry guns? they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Riccio and others testified that oj, at the palms told everyone in ear shot that he was going to retreive his stuff that day, Riccio said nothing was done in secrecy. The two adult guys that brouight the guns did so on their own. Oj did not have a gun.

[martin II]

actually there was testimony about orenthal wanting to keep it out of the hands of the Goldmans -- so, no, it isn't just my thought. :rolleyes:

Fred, on the 13 did now own any of those goods and do not own any now.

[tv]

Riccio and others testified that oj, at the palms told everyone in ear shot that he was going to retreive his stuff that day, Riccio said nothing was done in secrecy. The two adult guys that brouight the guns did so on their own. Oj did not have a gun.

OJ Simpson knew the guns were there. What testimony makes you think that he didn't?

[Redmama]

I think that wjen he reflected on the whole situation, he relized that it was Riccio that set him up, brought oj to the room and caused him not to make money. He realized that Riccio lied to him about who the buyer was and oj caught him with his goods.

And Riccio was also the one "in charge" of asking the police and FBI to come. I'm sorry, but when you are an adult, all the actions you take are your own personal responsibility. You can't say well he was supposed to do it and they said no.

If this was all not such a deal, why didn't OJ just call up to the room and say you have my stuff, I want you to deliver it back to me now? If OJ was in the right, those that had his stuff would have probably brought him his stuff. No, instead he pulls enough guys together they could have moved a whole house worth or items - it just makes no sense to me.

[martin II]

And Riccio was also the one "in charge" of asking the police and FBI to come. I'm sorry, but when you are an adult, all the actions you take are your own personal responsibility. You can't say well he was supposed to do it and they said no.

If this was all not such a deal, why didn't OJ just call up to the room and say you have my stuff, I want you to deliver it back to me now? If OJ was in the right, those that had his stuff would have probably brought him his stuff. No, instead he pulls enough guys together they could have moved a whole house worth or items - it just makes no sense to me.

Oj agreed that Riccio could inform the FBI because Riccio had a meeting with them in la on another item. Beadsley had informed Riccio that he would bring a lot of stuff and that is why 5 people came with oj. He lied and only brough a small amount of ojs stuff as that is all he had.

[martin II]

OJ Simpson knew the guns were there. What testimony makes you think that he didn't?

how do you know what oj knew?

[William Anthony]

How is that different than a drunk driver saying he was only on his way home and didn't mean for anyone to get hurt?

The drunk driver broke a law when he got behind the wheel. There is no defense. Either the state can prove he was legally intoxicated or not. There is no defense to drunk driving. However, the issue remains as to whether there can be a defense such as did the state do the proper intoxication tests or where the tests done properly. In this case, there may be the Constitutional argrument that the law deprived him of an opportunity to have his defense considered.

[William Anthony]

And Riccio was also the one "in charge" of asking the police and FBI to come. I'm sorry, but when you are an adult, all the actions you take are your own personal responsibility. You can't say well he was supposed to do it and they said no.

If this was all not such a deal, why didn't OJ just call up to the room and say you have my stuff, I want you to deliver it back to me now? If OJ was in the right, those that had his stuff would have probably brought him his stuff. No, instead he pulls enough guys together they could have moved a whole house worth or items - it just makes no sense to me.

If I had stolen his property and he called, I would tell him I am sorry and did not know it was stolen, asked him where he was, hoping he wasn't on the cell phone outside the door, and, if he was downstairs, I would have said I coming right down on the elevator, grabbed his stuff and went down the stairs and outside, laughing all the way, thinking how did he ever get out of high school. If they did not think the property was stolen, why were they being so secretive? Why not place an add in the paper and sell to the highest bidder? Did they think the property belonged to the Goldmans? If they did, were they attempting to commit theft through deception?

[martin II]

If I had stolen his property and he called, I would tell him I am sorry and did not know it was stolen, asked him where he was, hoping he wasn't on the cell phone outside the door, and, if he was downstairs, I would have said I coming right down on the elevator, grabbed his stuff and went down the stairs and outside, laughing all the way, thinking how did he ever get out of high school. If they did not think the property was stolen, why were they being so secretive? Why not place an add in the paper and sell to the highest bidder? Did they think the property belonged to the Goldmans? If they did, were they attempting to commit theft through deception?

The bell hop said he got the impression that Fumong.Beadsley and Riccio were doing something wrong as they were acting suspecious and his suspcion
was supported when he found out that they had rented a room so far from where mosr guest rented rooms in the back side of the hotel.They knew the stuff was stolen and were worried that oj would come which is why Beadsley continued to ask Rizzio if oj was the buyer.imo

[tv]

how do you know what oj knew?It's clear from listening to the tapes.

[tv]

If I had stolen his property and he called, I would tell him I am sorry and did not know it was stolen, asked him where he was, hoping he wasn't on the cell phone outside the door, and, if he was downstairs, I would have said I coming right down on the elevator, grabbed his stuff and went down the stairs and outside, laughing all the way, thinking how did he ever get out of high school. If they did not think the property was stolen, why were they being so secretive? Why not place an add in the paper and sell to the highest bidder? Did they think the property belonged to the Goldmans? If they did, were they attempting to commit theft through deception?

If Simpson didn't think he was doing anything wrong why did he take a group of thugs with guns? Most people wouldn't be so secretive if they thought they were the real victims.

[Kate Sachel]

Not by OJ, but OJ is sitting in jail and those gansters are free? You call that justice.

That is the part of our justice system that many people struggle with, but it is the way that the system works and this case is only one example of many like it where people who should be serving their own time are not because they struck a deal to work with the prosecution.

Kate

[tv]

The drunk driver broke a law when he got behind the wheel. There is no defense. Either the state can prove he was legally intoxicated or not. There is no defense to drunk driving. However, the issue remains as to whether there can be a defense such as did the state do the proper intoxication tests or where the tests done properly. In this case, there may be the Constitutional argrument that the law deprived him of an opportunity to have his defense considered.William, I was talking about intent. The drunk driver didn't intend to hurt anyone just as Simpson's supporters say he didn't intend to commit a crime.

[martin II]

William, I was talking about intent. The drunk driver didn't intend to hurt anyone just as Simpson's supporters say he didn't intend to commit a crime.

Why is intent allowed for Burgulary in nevada??

[tv]

Why is intent allowed for Burgulary in nevada??

Never mind. I'm sorry I even mentioned it.

[William Anthony]

William, I was talking about intent. The drunk driver didn't intend to hurt anyone just as Simpson's supporters say he didn't intend to commit a crime.

The difference is that the drunk driver intended to drive drunk. He broke the law intentionally.

[tv]

The difference is that the drunk driver intended to drive drunk. He broke the law intentionally.

When OJ Simpson and his band of merry twits went to that hotel room with guns they knew they were going to break the law. It's common knowledge and common sense that pulling a gun on someone is a crime.

[William Anthony]

When OJ Simpson and his band of merry twits went to that hotel room with guns they knew they were going to break the law. It's common knowledge and common sense that pulling a gun on someone is a crime.

Have you ignored my posts on precedent, i.e. the slave owners that pulled guns on and chained their slaves and transported them back to their plantations? All use of guns is not a crime when you are attempting to retrieve your property.

[tv]

Have you ignored my posts on precedent, i.e. the slave owners that pulled guns on and chained their slaves and transported them back to their plantations? All use of guns is not a crime when you are attempting to retrieve your property.

William, please do not start about Amistad with me. The connection is not even tenuous. If you're not talking about Amistad then I probably did miss it.

[William Anthony]

William, please do not start about Amistad with me. The connection is not even tenuous. If you're not talking about Amistad then I probably did miss it.

I am sure you didn't as you are commenting on it. I am talking about forming an argument as to the claim of right defense being applicable to Simpson's conduct. If that allows me to draw upon historical decisions, please do not be offended?

[WarmNCozy]

When OJ Simpson and his band of merry twits went to that hotel room with guns they knew they were going to break the law. It's common knowledge and common sense that pulling a gun on someone is a crime.

I just had to chuckle "OJ and his band of merry twits" That about sums the whole group up that night!

[William Anthony]

I just had to chuckle "OJ and his band of merry twits" That about sums the whole group up that night!

And add the Keystone cops. We are not interested, unless we can arrest Simpson.

[tv]

I am sure you didn't as you are commenting on it. I am talking about forming an argument as to the claim of right defense being applicable to Simpson's conduct. If that allows me to draw upon historical decisions, please do not be offended?

I'm not the least offended even though I don't agree with you.

[tv]

And add the Keystone cops. We are not interested, unless we can arrest Simpson.

Did OJ Simpson call LE and report his things stolen?

[William Anthony]

I'm not the least offended even though I don't agree with you.

I think the Supreme Court has.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/9372/Prigg-v-Pennsylvania.html

[William Anthony]

Did OJ Simpson call LE and report his things stolen?

Did Riccio testify, provide evidence, that he, Riccio, did? If you see a crime or have knowledge that a crime is about to be committed but you are not the victim, can you report it and does LE have a duty to investigate?

[William Anthony]

I'm not the least offended even though I don't agree with you.

"Edward Prigg, a professional slave catcher, seized Margaret Morgan, a runaway slave from Maryland living in Pennsylvania. Prigg applied to a state magistrate for certificates of removal under the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and an 1826 Pennsylvania personal liberty law. Prigg needed the certificates to legally remove Morgan and her two children to Maryland. The Pennsylvania law had a higher standard of proof for demonstrating the slave owner applicant's title to the slaves. After the magistrate refused to issue the certificates, Prigg illegally returned the slaves to Maryland. Pennsylvania indicted Prigg for KIDNAPPING under the 1826 law and extradited him from Maryland. Following his conviction, Prigg appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

By an 8–1 vote, the Court reversed his conviction. Writing for the Court, Justice JOSEPH STORY concluded that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the federal act. He based his analysis on the Fugitive Slave Clause contained in Article IV, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. The clause directs the return of runaway slaves to the state from where they came.

Story claimed that the clause was a "fundamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed." His historical analysis, however, was questionable. The clause was added late in the Constitutional Convention and was not debated. Nevertheless, Story concluded that the clause was a "practical necessity." Without it, every non-slaveholding state would have been at liberty to free all runaway slaves coming within its limits. This would have "created the most bitter animosities, and engendered perpetual strife between the different states."

[tv]

Did Riccio testify, provide evidence, that he, Riccio, did? If you see a crime or have knowledge that a crime is about to be committed but you are not the victim, can you report it and does LE have a duty to investigate?

I don't think the appropriate agency to report it to would be the FBI. Local LE should have been contacted first. They would have responded and investigated. Like someone said in another post OJ Simpson and his gang were engaging in vigilante justice.

[William Anthony]

While an argument can be made that slavery was abolished and the laws pertaining there to are archaic, a convincing argument can be made that slaves were identical to other types of personal property, and, as such, while the category of personal property had been removed, the laws applicable to a property owner's right to retreive his property remain. In essence, the laws, pertaining to a property owner's right of retrieval apply to personal property in general. It would be a interesting exercise in Constitutional law, imho.

[William Anthony]

I don't think the appropriate agency to report it to would be the FBI. Local LE should have been contacted first. They would have responded and investigated. Like someone said in another post OJ Simpson and his gang were engaging in vigilante justice.

I thought the testimony was that he contacted the FBI and local authorities. In any event they would have had concurrent jurisdiction as the case involved the interstate transportation of alleged stolen property. I did not hear it said that the FBI refused, because they lacked jurisdiction, but, because it involved Simpson. "Law without enforcement is a mockery."

[tv]

"Edward Prigg, a professional slave catcher, seized Margaret Morgan, a runaway slave from Maryland living in Pennsylvania. Prigg applied to a state magistrate for certificates of removal under the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and an 1826 Pennsylvania personal liberty law. Prigg needed the certificates to legally remove Morgan and her two children to Maryland. The Pennsylvania law had a higher standard of proof for demonstrating the slave owner applicant's title to the slaves. After the magistrate refused to issue the certificates, Prigg illegally returned the slaves to Maryland. Pennsylvania indicted Prigg for KIDNAPPING under the 1826 law and extradited him from Maryland. Following his conviction, Prigg appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

By an 8–1 vote, the Court reversed his conviction. Writing for the Court, Justice JOSEPH STORY concluded that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the federal act. He based his analysis on the Fugitive Slave Clause contained in Article IV, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. The clause directs the return of runaway slaves to the state from where they came.

Story claimed that the clause was a "fundamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed." His historical analysis, however, was questionable. The clause was added late in the Constitutional Convention and was not debated. Nevertheless, Story concluded that the clause was a "practical necessity." Without it, every non-slaveholding state would have been at liberty to free all runaway slaves coming within its limits. This would have "created the most bitter animosities, and engendered perpetual strife between the different states."

William, the only nexus between this case and the OJ Simpson case is skin color. I truly think you post this stuff to highlight the suffering of slaves at the hands of their white owners. We white people get it -- blacks were done a terribly inhumane injustice by being enslaved. You don't have to keep reminding us. Now is there some way we can discuss OJ Simpson and what is relevant to his case?

[tv]

I thought the testimony was that he contacted the FBI and local authorities. In any event they would have had concurrent jurisdiction as the case involved the interstate transportation of alleged stolen property. I did not hear it said that the FBI refused, because they lacked jurisdiction, but, because it involved Simpson. "Law without enforcement is a mockery."

If what you say is the case why aren't we discussing disciplinary action and firings?

[William Anthony]

William, the only nexus between this case and the OJ Simpson case is skin color. I truly think you post this stuff to highlight the suffering of slaves at the hands of their white owners. We white people get it -- blacks were done a terribly inhumane injustice by being enslaved. You don't have to keep reminding us. Now is there some way we can discuss OJ Simpson and what is relevant to his case?

The issue is not the injustice slaves suffered and I thought that I made that clear when you said you were not offended. The issues being discussed are the motion for a new trial and appeals that have been promised. In that vein, and in answer to martin's question about the Constitutionality of the lack of a claim of right defense, after rethinking, I thought of possible arguments that could be formed in the appeal. Therefore, the information and the law, which I am discussing are relevant to the case and to answering a poster's question, according to my understanding. I am not trying to make anyone feel guilty or ashamed but I am considering precedent. I simply pointed to a case where the Supreme Court agreed with my argument, which you have said you disagreed with.

[William Anthony]

If what you say is the case why aren't we discussing disciplinary action and firings?

I have no interest in disciplinary actions or firings. I think that is an internal decision. I am discussing things involved in the trial by the evidence admitted.

[tv]

I have no interest in disciplinary actions or firings. I think that is an internal decision. I am discussing things involved in the trial by the evidence admitted.

William, please make an effort not to be so infuriating. I meant why hasn't someone been disciplined for ignoring a citizen's plea for help? That would be more convincing to me that LE did something wrong.

[tv]

The issue is not the injustice slaves suffered and I thought that I made that clear when you said you were not offended. The issues being discussed are the motion for a new trial and appeals that have been promised. In that vein, and in answer to martin's question about the Constitutionality of the lack of a claim of right defense, after rethinking, I thought of possible arguments that could be formed in the appeal. Therefore, the information and the law, which I am discussing are relevant to the case and to answering a poster's question, according to my understanding. I am not trying to make anyone feel guilty or ashamed but I am considering precedent. I simply pointed to a case where the Supreme Court agreed with my argument, which you have said you disagreed with.

Please don't think I feel either guilty or ashamed. If your goal isn't to bring these issues to the forefront and beat people over the head with the injustice then I see no reason at all for you posting this. It's totally irrelevant to the OJ Simpson armed robbery case.

[William Anthony]

William, please make an effort not to be so infuriating. I meant why hasn't someone been disciplined for ignoring a citizen's plea for help? That would be more convincing to me that LE did something wrong.

I do not see what you find infuriating, because I believe it is an internal decision that holds not interest for me. I do not know if the people, who took Riccio's calls were identified, although it should not be hard to do. I doubt that, without an overwhelming public interest into the situation, that any LE agency would make public those actions and, IIRC, in the criminal trial the records of LE were shielded.

[tv]

I do not see what you find infuriating, because I believe it is an internal decision that holds not interest for me. I do not know if the people, who took Riccio's calls were identified, although it should not be hard to do. I doubt that, without an overwhelming public interest into the situation, that any LE agency would make public those actions and, IIRC, in the criminal trial the records of LE were shielded.

Okay, William. :)

[William Anthony]

Please don't think I feel either guilty or ashamed. If your goal isn't to bring these issues to the forefront and beat people over the head with the injustice then I see no reason at all for you posting this. It's totally irrelevant to the OJ Simpson armed robbery case.

You may not understand the relevance but it bears on the application of the Nevada law not allowing a claim of right defense to the conduct Simpson engaged in and whether or not that deprivation was Constitutional, according to precedents set by the Supreme Court. The most interesting statement in Story's opinion is that the Article was fundamental/Constitutional, could not be abridged by state law, without due process of law, under the theory of Constitutionalism. Thus, it would seem that a property owner had a fundamental right to retrieve his property and even to use violence in so doing and to assist the aid of others.

[martin II]

all of the tapes (Riccio and McClinton) as well as juror questionnaires can be found at

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

scroll toward bottom of page and click on simpson's name.

Paul connelly the person that was the jury foreperson stated on his questionair that he only heard about the vegas case from friends and family.
He did not follow the criminal trial but oj was tried and a verdict was rendered.

He wrote that he had no personal feelings about the criminal trial verdict.
When in court he was asked to explain his answer about the criminal trial verdict by the defense ,he stated in open court that He believes oj got away with murder or oj was guilty.(think that is correct)

The defense attacked him on this statement.The judge then took over asking the quesitons of Connelly. She asked him if he could put aside his personal feelings about the criminal trial verdict he said yes. the judge just accepted him with no further questions by the defense.

[William Anthony]

Okay, William. :)

I enjoyed the discussion. :) You keep me thinking. :)

[tv]

You may not understand the relevance but it bears on the application of the Nevada law not allowing a claim of right defense to the conduct Simpson engaged in and whether or not that deprivation was Constitutional, according to precedents set by the Supreme Court. The most interesting statement in Story's opinion is that the Article was fundamental/Constitutional, could not be abridged by state law under the theory of Constitutionalism. Thus, it would seem that a property owner had a fundamental right to retrieve his property and even to use violence in so doing and to assist the aid of others.

Okay, William. I understand why you think it's relevant but I don't share your enthusiasm. Have at it. :)

[weezer]

Okay, William. :)

what an idiotic argument -- to equate the struggles/horror/sadness of Amistad with orenthal robbing memorabilia dealers in vegas is just downright obscene. imo

[weezer]

Okay, William. I understand why you think it's relevant but I don't share your enthusiasm. Have at it. :)

there is nothing relevant about comparing human lives to inanimate objects -- imo

[William Anthony]

Okay, William. I understand why you think it's relevant but I don't share your enthusiasm. Have at it. :)

My enthusiasm is not for this trial alone. It is for the law and how it effects all citizens. I would think that any citizen that was incarcerated and thought there was a violation of his Constitutional rights would be enthusiastic about an argument that would sustain his rights being violated.:)

[tv]

Paul connelly the person that was the jury foreperson stated on his questionair that he only heard about the vegas case from friends and family.
He did not follow the criminal trial but oj was tried and a verdict was rendered.

He wrote that he had no personal feelings about the criminal trial verdict.
When in court he was asked to explain his answer about the criminal trial verdict by the defense ,he stated in open court that He believes oj got away with murder or oj was guilty.(think that is correct)

The defense attacked him on this statement.The judge then took over asking the quesitons of Connelly. She asked him if he could put aside his personal feelings about the criminal trial verdict he said yes. the judge just accepted him with no further questions by the defense.

Maybe this will be an issue for appeal. I believe OJ is guilty of murder but I could have been fair in this trial even though you may not believe that.

[tv]

I enjoyed the discussion. :) You keep me thinking. :)

Good. At least you're smiling. :)

[weezer]

Maybe this will be an issue for appeal. I believe OJ is guilty of murder but I could have been fair in this trial even though you may not believe that.

I don't see it as any more appealable than the 'black power salute' or 'we take care of our own' or 'I knew he was a racist when he started walking to the witness box' from the criminal trial.

imo

[martin II]

I don't think the appropriate agency to report it to would be the FBI. Local LE should have been contacted first. They would have responded and investigated. Like someone said in another post OJ Simpson and his gang were engaging in vigilante justice.

Beasdley told Riccio told the fbi and la le that the goods would be brought to la. Across state lines.This brings the fbi in. Riccio had a scheduled meeting with the fbi in la on a issue of how he got some Anna Nicole merchandise the fbi knew he was selling.
Riccio told oj of this requested meeting and agreed that Riccio should ask for their help in retreiving his goods.

Riccio told the fbi that he would meet but he wanted them to hear his report of the oj stolen goods.They agreed. He met them, told them about Beadsley and the stolen oj stuff and they said oj involved we have no interest.

I see no reason why the fbi would not consider following up on Riccios info of a crime. If he was reporting info on someone holding a stash of stolen drugs,
or a stash of say stolen jewery not involving oj do you think they would have ignored him.I don't

If he had told them that he knew oj was holding some strolen goods they would have acted.

martin II

[tv]

there is nothing relevant about comparing human lives to inanimate objects -- imo

I agree -- to me it's not even remotely close.

[martin II]

what an idiotic argument -- to equate the struggles/horror/sadness of Amistad with orenthal robbing memorabilia dealers in vegas is just downright obscene. imo

I don't think it will help to say this but CLAIM OF RIGHT is the issue.

[martin II]

I agree -- to me it's not even remotely close.

TV
I am sure that you are capable of undertanding that CLAIM OF RIGHT is the issue.

[tv]

I don't see it as any more appealable than the 'black power salute' or 'we take care of our own' or 'I knew he was a racist when he started walking to the witness box' from the criminal trial.

imo

I agree but people keep harping on this so maybe his lawyer will give it a shot. I don't think it will fly but don't forget we're talking about OJ Simpson. I'd forgotten about those things from the criminal trial jurors...thanks for reminding me. I need a nudge now and then. :rolleyes:

[tv]

TV
I am sure that you are capable of undertanding that CLAIM OF RIGHT is the issue.

I'm capable but I disagree with what you and William are saying.

[weezer]

I don't think it will help to say this but CLAIM OF RIGHT is the issue.

let me get this right: you believe that the right of your life is the same as a football signed by orenthal? or a pair of sunglasses? or a cell phone?

oooookay

[WarmNCozy]

While an argument can be made that slavery was abolished and the laws pertaining there to are archaic, a convincing argument can be made that slaves were identical to other types of personal property, and, as such, while the category of personal property had been removed, the laws applicable to a property owner's right to retreive his property remain. In essence, the laws, pertaining to a property owner's right of retrieval apply to personal property in general. It would be a interesting exercise in Constitutional law, imho.

The 15th amendment which gave the right to vote to all races, and former slaves was ratified in 1870. Before woman gained the vote, they were considered chattel by their husbands. The 19th amendment gave the right to vote to woman in 1920. JMO

[martin II]

Maybe this will be an issue for appeal. I believe OJ is guilty of murder but I could have been fair in this trial even though you may not believe that.

Jury consultant report that this is very difficult for people to do this.

[tv]

Jury consultant report that this is very difficult for people to do this.

That doesn't mean it can't be done.

[William Anthony]

The 15th amendment which gave the right to vote to all races, and former slaves was ratified in 1870. Before woman gained the vote, they were considered chattel by their husbands. The 19th amendment gave the right to vote to woman in 1920. JMO

I would like to thank you and a previous poster that caused me to remember that a strong part of the argument is that, at the time the cases I have referenced slaves were not considered as animate, they were considered chattel or, if you will, personal property. Thank both of you. The argument is bolstered by that fact. The laws pertaining, even to people considered as mere inanimate personal, property have by precedent upheld the property owner's right to retrieve his property even by use of violence.

[tv]

I would like to thank you and a previous poster that caused me to remember that a strong part of the argument is that, at the time the cases I have referenced slaves were not considered as animate, they were considered chattel or, if you will, personal property. Thank both of you. The argument is bolstered by that fact. The laws pertaining, even to people considered as mere inanimate personal, property have by precedent upheld the property owner's right to retrieve his property even by use of violence.

Slaves were considered property but I doubt if they were considered inanimate.

[William Anthony]

I agree but people keep harping on this so maybe his lawyer will give it a shot. I don't think it will fly but don't forget we're talking about OJ Simpson. I'd forgotten about those things from the criminal trial jurors...thanks for reminding me. I need a nudge now and then. :rolleyes:

The difference is that the state get's one bite at the apple.

[William Anthony]

Slaves were considered property but I doubt if they were considered inanimate.

All you have to do is read the Dread Scott decision. The Constitution said that "All persons born in the States or naturalized are considered to be citizens of the state in which they reside and citizens of the United States." Tawney then said that the right to vote had been extended to Negroes and that the right to vote could not therefore be based on citizenship. Effectively, what he was saying is that Blacks were not persons. Interestingly, the word persons has been applied to the inanimate object of Corporations, enabling them sue and to be sued and Blacks could not sue.

[William Anthony]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

"Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

[tv]

inanimate

1: not animate: a: not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b: lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body>

2: not animated or lively : dull

William, you need to make a separate thread to talk about slavery.

[William Anthony]

inanimate

1: not animate: a: not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b: lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body>

2: not animated or lively : dull

William, you need to make a separate thread to talk about slavery.

The relevant part of my statement, "slaves were not considered as animate, they were considered chattel or, if you will, personal property."

The relevant part of Taney's, "He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

I was trying to discuss the Constitutionality of the Nevada Statute and the rights of property owners in regard to Simpson's conduct. You have provided statements in contradiction of my arguments and I have directed you to case law supporting my positions and my analogies. There is no need to start a separate thread, when the discussion is relevant to the trial and motions for a new trial are being considered and appeals are promised to be forthcoming. I look forward to your counter arguments. That which does not kill me makes me stronger.

[susie31023]

While I see the actions of the Amistad people as an act to justly gain their own lives back, I can't in good faith relate that heroic act to OJS trying to get his "Property" back. I have read all of the arguments you put forth William, and honestly whether you believe it or not you do make it sound as though the Amistad group and OJ are equal in their own respective cases. That to me is very sad, since I fully believe you could use other more relevant cases to make your point.

I understand that some of you think that OJ is innocent in whatever he has done. BUT, I don't believe that anyone on either side should use such cases as the Amistad to bolster a prosecution or defense for OJ. It devalues what those men did and it makes me very angry that it was even brought into this. The "property" they sought were their lives. The "property" OJ sought was simply items that he felt were his. Plain old everyday items that in no way shape or form constituted something ALIVE.

William, I consider you to be a very intelligent man and I would have expected another argument besides the one you have chosen. Slavery and the many lives it affected is a sad part of our American history. The injustices are many and to equate it to a man who uses force to take what he wants while holding others hostage is an insult to those persons who had to live through that time in our history.

As I said before, even if you use that logic that OJ had a right to take what he thought was his property, once he gathered together his goons/thugs/twits it became a crime because it was no longer just him going after his property it was a gang. Plain and simple..He asked them to accompany him so he is the ring leader, no way around it. He is also responsible since he is the one who wanted them to help him..So therefore he has to bear the brunt of the charges. He may well get a new trial, but if he does I don't believe it will be on the basis of the Amistad cae..Just my very humble honest opinion~Suz

[martin II]

let me get this right: you believe that the right of your life is the same as a football signed by orenthal? or a pair of sunglasses? or a cell phone?

oooookay

weezer
i expected your response to be along those lines. Like silly .

[William Anthony]

While I see the actions of the Amistad people as an act to justly gain their own lives back, I can't in good faith relate that heroic act to OJS trying to get his "Property" back. I have read all of the arguments you put forth William, and honestly whether you believe it or not you do make it sound as though the Amistad group and OJ are equal in their own respective cases. That to me is very sad, since I fully believe you could use other more relevant cases to make your point.

I understand that some of you think that OJ is innocent in whatever he has done. BUT, I don't believe that anyone on either side should use such cases as the Amistad to bolster a prosecution or defense for OJ. It devalues what those men did and it makes me very angry that it was even brought into this. The "property" they sought were their lives. The "property" OJ sought was simply items that he felt were his. Plain old everyday items that in no way shape or form constituted something ALIVE.

William, I consider you to be a very intelligent man and I would have expected another argument besides the one you have chosen. Slavery and the many lives it affected is a sad part of our American history. The injustices are many and to equate it to a man who uses force to take what he wants while holding others hostage is an insult to those persons who had to live through that time in our history.

As I said before, even if you use that logic that OJ had a right to take what he thought was his property, once he gathered together his goons/thugs/twits it became a crime because it was no longer just him going after his property it was a gang. Plain and simple..He asked them to accompany him so he is the ring leader, no way around it. He is also responsible since he is the one who wanted them to help him..So therefore he has to bear the brunt of the charges. He may well get a new trial, but if he does I don't believe it will be on the basis of the Amistad cae..Just my very humble honest opinion~Suz

There is no doubt that the Amistad story is one of heroic deeds and a great awakening in America. There is no doubt that they were fortunate to have landed in N.Y., as opposed to another part of the United States, where they would not have been entitled to a day in court. There is no doubt that the legal fight was fought for their liberty to return to their homeland and their possessions and loved ones. There is no doubt that the court realized that what they did to capture the ship was illegal but defensible and understandable in their quest to return to their homeland, their lives and their possessions. There is no doubt that slave owners had the right to regain their property, using both violence and the assistance of others.

You included a you in your sentence that said some of think Simpson is innocent. I have stated that he is guilty under the Nevada law. I do not care whether his appeal is won or lost. What I do care is that he receives due process of law, and whether there is precedent to support that his due process rights were violated, as his case may be a precedent for other citizens. I have never tried to devalue what the Africans went through. I have said that the Court appreciated what they went through, which is why they decided that they had the right to regain both their liberty and their property. The slave owner had the right to regain his property at the loss of liberty of another, transport his property back to the place from which it escaped, which now would be called kidnapping. However, there is precedent, albeit disgusting, to form the argument that the Nevada law was unconstitutional. Often disgusting and morally unjust things are discussed in courtrooms. The law does not always adhere to what we consider just or moral. The slaves were property and the slave owner had the right to retrieve his property using the techniques previously mentioned. Thank you and I, likewise, consider you intelligent and appreciate and share your disdain about the Amistad case. However, I am detaching emotions or trying to and looking at the legal argument.

I do not know, if you read the link I supplied but there were those, who captured runaway slaves for slave owners. One was convicted for his efforts but the Supreme Court reversed his conviction and stated that the law upon which he was convicted was unconstitutional. Therefore, Simpson may have not been guilty, when he acquired the assistance of others and they may not be guilty. The Amistad was just one of the cases I cited. What I was showing is that there was a continuous line of precedent, regarding the rights of property owners and the circumstances under which they could use violence and seek assistance. Try to take emotion out of the equation and consider the precedent. It is very hard to do-I know from experience. I spend some money deposing a person, who had very little to do with my case, but I wanted him under oath to prove a point to myself, if no one else. In hindsight, I learned that I should have saved my money and time and focused on what I needed to prove to the court.

[susie31023]

Thank you for the compliment William and I return it to you honestly. But if you don't mind could we please cite other cases besides the Amistad case and others like it in favor of something a little more recent and [if you would do me the honor] more relevant?

I realize you owe me nothing but as a favor I would truly appreciate us being able to discuss this case without the sadness of slavery attached to it. I know I have no right to ask this but I am asking, because I consider you a well informed man and think you could find others that don't pertain to slavery. Thank you in advance if you see fit to honor my request~Suz

[William Anthony]

Thank you for the compliment William and I return it to you honestly. But if you don't mind could we please cite other cases besides the Amistad case and others like it in favor of something a little more recent and [if you would do me the honor] more relevant?

I realize you owe me nothing but as a favor I would truly appreciate us being able to discuss this case without the sadness of slavery attached to it. I know I have no right to ask this but I am asking, because I consider you a well informed man and think you could find others that don't pertain to slavery. Thank you in advance if you see fit to honor my request~Suz

Mine was honestly meant and I have tried and when I researched the Supreme Court issue on the topic those are the cases I found. Some dealt with landlord tenant rights and few on personal property.

[Redmama]

Oj agreed that Riccio could inform the FBI because Riccio had a meeting with them in la on another item. Beadsley had informed Riccio that he would bring a lot of stuff and that is why 5 people came with oj. He lied and only brough a small amount of ojs stuff as that is all he had.

So it is still not OJ's fault.

And so...even if the ENTIRE hotel room was full of stuff...why would you need 5 people to move it?

[Redmama]

So it is still not OJ's fault.

And so...even if the ENTIRE hotel room was full of stuff...why would you need 5 people to move it?

And...if there was enough stuff in one hotel room that it needed five people to move it - was there a UHAUL waiting outside - obviously you'd have to move that much stuff somehow...

[martin II]

Thank you for the compliment William and I return it to you honestly. But if you don't mind could we please cite other cases besides the Amistad case and others like it in favor of something a little more recent and [if you would do me the honor] more relevant?

I realize you owe me nothing but as a favor I would truly appreciate us being able to discuss this case without the sadness of slavery attached to it. I know I have no right to ask this but I am asking, because I consider you a well informed man and think you could find others that don't pertain to slavery. Thank you in advance if you see fit to honor my request~Suz


susie
hi

If the principal of law is the same in both cases , why does it matter if the first case is older? When a president is set, it usually last until overturned by the Supreme Court.

Amistad, on the surface was about slavery.The principal put forth by Adams
on property right is what is important in both cases.This principal that people have rights to get and keep their property is what won the case for the slaves. Not that they were slaves and should be allowed to go home.

Oj simpson had a constitutional right,regardless of nevada law, maby, to get his property back. That is the issue.In the vegas case he was not allowed to argue this right and this may have caused him to have lost his right in this case. imo

[martin II]

And...if there was enough stuff in one hotel room that it needed five people to move it - was there a UHAUL waiting outside - obviously you'd have to move that much stuff somehow...

Redmama

Rizzio was given two seperate list on two different ocassions of several pages each that Beadslety told him was the list of all the items he would bring to the "sale" I would assume this is whay 5 people came to get the stuff.

On the 13th Beadsley and Fumong showed up with only a luggage cart of stuff which caused Rizzio to ask him 'where is the other stuff'. 'Is this all.' etc.
There were 3 SUVS availabvle to take the stuff away.

[martin II]

So it is still not OJ's fault.

And so...even if the ENTIRE hotel room was full of stuff...why would you need 5 people to move it?

I have not said it is not oj fault.I have said it was a mistake on his part to go to that room. This imo does not mean the case cannot be discussed critically both sides of the case including what the prosecution and the judge did in the case.

[susie31023]

susie
hi

If the principal of law is the same in both cases , why does it matter if the first case is older? When a president is set, it usually last until overturned by the Supreme Court.

Amistad, on the surface was about slavery.The principal put forth by Adams
on property right is what is important in both cases.This principal that people have rights to get and keep their property is what won the case for the slaves. Not that they were slaves and should be allowed to go home.

Oj simpson had a constitutional right,regardless of nevada law, maby, to get his property back. That is the issue.In the vegas case he was not allowed to argue this right and this may have caused him to have lost his right in this case. imo

Hi Martin, it really isn't that the case is older it is the subject of the case, which is the slaves. I realize what you and William are trying to say but the case cited was about much more than the right to property in my opinion. Therefore it is somewhat saddening to have it brought forth in a case where the poperty is just items and not human beings.

if you can understand what I am trying to say. I know in courtrooms such precedent setting cases may be discussed and brought forth. But here on the message boards where tempers fly and insults abound once it is brought up it causes one to stop and remember the particular case and in my opinion equates their fight with what most of us here agree were just items and no where near the value of what those slaves endured.

I am not trying to argue or be mean I am just trying to perhaps explain why it touches me the way it does...Which in no way is to say everyone should abide by my wishes, just posting my thoughts on the subject.~Suz

[William Anthony]

Hi Martin, it really isn't that the case is older it is the subject of the case, which is the slaves. I realize what you and William are trying to say but the case cited was about much more than the right to property in my opinion. Therefore it is somewhat saddening to have it brought forth in a case where the poperty is just items and not human beings.

if you can understand what I am trying to say. I know in courtrooms such precedent setting cases may be discussed and brought forth. But here on the message boards where tempers fly and insults abound once it is brought up it causes one to stop and remember the particular case and in my opinion equates their fight with what most of us here agree were just items and no where near the value of what those slaves endured.

I am not trying to argue or be mean I am just trying to perhaps explain why it touches me the way it does...Which in no way is to say everyone should abide by my wishes, just posting my thoughts on the subject.~Suz

I do understand but those items that they were trying to return to and those memories were of great value to them. I think everyone can discuss the issue of property rights in the context of the cases without becoming argumentative, if they can detach themselves from the emotions of the case.

[weezer]

I guess for some, EVERYTHING comes down to color. There is nothing about Amistad or orenthal that correlates. I am so tired of having this discussion board derailed by race.

but, hey, just in case, I'll be happy to sit and watch orenthal go through the motions of getting the nevada surpreme court to over rule their own laws. of course, it may take awhile. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Some people do not understand the theory of Constitutionalism, imho. It took some time for the Africans to gain their freedom and property back but they did. Okay, I'll buy the bait. Some never tire of making racial innuendos but tire of open and honest discussion on race so easily. Why is that?

[tv]

Some people do not understand the theory of Constitutionalism, imho. It took some time for the Africans to gain their freedom and property back but they did. Okay, I'll buy the bait. Some never tire of making racial innuendos but tire of open and honest discussion on race so easily. Why is that?

What I find shocking is that you and martin would equate human beings lives and freedom to material possessions. For heavens sake, William. :eek:

[William Anthony]

What I find shocking is that you and martin would equate human beings lives and freedom to material possessions. For heavens sake, William. :eek:

I don't know how many times I have to say this. That is not the comparison I was making. It was the right to reclaim their lives and property, as well as, the slave owner's in regard to the denial of that claim under Nevada law and the Constitutionality of that law. However, I truly appreciate that you appreciate the struggle that the Africans went through.

[tv]

I don't know how many times I have to say this. That is not the comparison I was making. It was the right to reclaim their lives and property, as well as, the slave owner's in regard to the denial of that claim under Nevada law and the Constitutionality of that law. However, I truly appreciate that you appreciate the struggle that the Africans went through.

I suppose we're just going to have to have to disagree about this.

[William Anthony]

I suppose we're just going to have to have to disagree about this.

Par. :)

[martin II]

What I find shocking is that you and martin would equate human beings lives and freedom to material possessions. For heavens sake, William. :eek:

tv
i truly believe that you know that william, in his post speaks to another issue than what you have posted above.
martin II

[tv]

tv
i truly believe that you know that william, in his post speaks to another issue than what you have posted above.
martin II

He referred to the prisoners as inanimate and equated them with the property that OJ Simpson was seeking. I understand what he was trying to say but I don't agree with comparing the two cases. As I said before, we'll just have to disagree.

[William Anthony]

tv
i truly believe that you know that william, in his post speaks to another issue than what you have posted above.
martin II

The issue that I speak to is succinctly stated in the Story opinion. Justice Story found a fundamental (Constitutional) Article for owner's to retrieve their property and I might add through fear, threat of force or actual force and violence. Having found that Constitutional/fundamental right, no state shall make a law that abridges that right.

[martin II]

The issue that I speak to is succinctly stated in the Story opinion. Justice Story found a fundamental (Constitutional) Article for owner's to retrieve their property and I might add through fear, threat of force or actual force and violence. Having found that Constitutional/fundamental right, no state shall make a law that abridges that right.

Thanks again.
That should direct the issue back to where it belongs.

[martin II]

He referred to the prisoners as inanimate and equated them with the property that OJ Simpson was seeking. I understand what he was trying to say but I don't agree with comparing the two cases. As I said before, we'll just have to disagree.

TV
Slaves considered as inanimate objects

"Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.

Whereas millions of Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and the 13 American colonies from 1619 through 1865;

Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured and sold at auction like inanimate objects or animals;

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/House_to_take_up_apology_for_slavery_and_racial_se gregation_next_week.html

[weezer]

I'm still trying to make the correlation between the Amistad and orenthal's memorabilia. Unless someone has info that the inanimate objects rose up against the memorabilia dealers and declared themselves free. . . .

[tv]

I'm still trying to make the correlation between the Amistad and orenthal's memorabilia. Unless someone has info that the inanimate objects rose up against the memorabilia dealers and declared themselves free. . . .

Exactly. I posted the definition of 'inanimate' but it's still being used to describe the prisoners of the Amistad. I just can't make the connection between 'stuff' and human beings.

[William Anthony]

Exactly. I posted the definition of 'inanimate' but it's still being used to describe the prisoners of the Amistad. I just can't make the connection between 'stuff' and human beings.

I thought I posted the Story decision and it was clear and unambiguous. Slave were considered as any other merchandise. The Amistad case set the precedent that owner's of property could use violence, even murder in some circumstances, in order to retrieve both their liberty and their property, which we all must believe is an aspect of liberty (the right to own and enjoy personal property without theft by others). The Amistad is just a persuasive argument on the use of force but the Story opinion is more on point as to the use of force and acquiring the assistance of others and the claim of right defense. I really do not see what is so difficult to understand. It is the Constitutionality of the law that is being argued, not the atrocities of slavery. I think there may be an unwillingness to accept that premise, simply because it involves things that some would rather not think about.

[tv]

I thought I posted the Story decision and it was clear and unambiguous. Slave were considered as any other merchandise. The Amistad case set the precedent that owner's of property could use violence, even murder in some circumstances, in order to retrieve both their liberty and their property, which we all must believe is an aspect of liberty (the right to own and enjoy personal property without theft by others). The Amistad is just a persuasive argument on the use of force but the Story opinion is more on point as to the use of force and acquiring the assistance of others and the claim of right defense. I really do not see what is so difficult to understand. It is the Constitutionality of the law that is being argued, not the atrocities of slavery. I think there may be an unwillingness to accept that premise, simply because it involves things that some would rather not think about.

Please don't rely on your own prejudices to announce what you feel I would rather not think about. If you can compare material possessions to human beings and call them inanimate that's something I can do nothing about. Human beings used as slaves were animate -- they breathed, slept, ate, cried, rejoiced -- they were endowed with human emotions and functions as we all are. You can put forth this premise until the cows come home and I still don't have to agree with it.

[martin II]

Exactly. I posted the definition of 'inanimate' but it's still being used to describe the prisoners of the Amistad. I just can't make the connection between 'stuff' and human beings.

tv
INANIMATE was one term to describe slaves. You clain, i believe, that this was not a proper use of the word. See the proclimation by the u,s, congress that i posted.

[martin II]

Please don't rely on your own prejudices to announce what you feel I would rather not think about. If you can compare material possessions to human beings and call them inanimate that's something I can do nothing about. Human beings used as slaves were animate -- they breathed, slept, ate, cried, rejoiced -- they were endowed with human emotions and functions as we all are. You can put forth this premise until the cows come home and I still don't have to agree with it.

You are denying how slave owners and the larger society viewed slaves as inniimate object.It is well documented that this is how they were viewed.So i don't understand why you have a problem with this term being used.:cool:
Lots of descriptions used against slaves were wrong but they were used by the larger society to describe them and these descrioptions were accepted by the society.

[weezer]

how about the slave terminology, etc., go to a board where that's being discussed.

[tv]

You are denying how slave owners and the larger society viewed slaves as inniimate object.It is well documented that this is how they were viewed.So i don't understand why you have a problem with this term being used.:cool:
Lots of descriptions used against slaves were wrong but they were used by the larger society to describe them and these descrioptions were accepted by the society.

Obviously, how they viewed slaves was WRONG, and calling them inanimate was WRONG. Do you mean to tell me that you view slaves as inanimate? It's a good thing not everyone shared your view in history or the instituion of slavery would still be alive and well.

You denounce slavery but continue to describe the victims as inanimate. martin, that's not :cool:.

[martin II]

Obviously, how they viewed slaves was WRONG, and calling them inanimate was WRONG. Do you mean to tell me that you view slaves as inanimate? It's a good thing not everyone shared your view in history or the instituion of slavery would still be alive and well.

You denounce slavery but continue to describe the victims as inanimate. martin, that's not :cool:.

tv

Let me try to get this straight.
You are wrong when you say i viewed slaves as inanimate. i have never said i agree that slaves were inanimate and i think you know this. i do not agree with that description. i don't agree with slave owners description that they were inhuman or any other other desctriptions used either.

I have posted information on how slave owners and the larger society viewed them.

[tv]

how about the slave terminology, etc., go to a board where that's being discussed.
Agreed. We've spent enough time on this off-topic subject already.

[William Anthony]

Please don't rely on your own prejudices to announce what you feel I would rather not think about. If you can compare material possessions to human beings and call them inanimate that's something I can do nothing about. Human beings used as slaves were animate -- they breathed, slept, ate, cried, rejoiced -- they were endowed with human emotions and functions as we all are. You can put forth this premise until the cows come home and I still don't have to agree with it.

It is not what I did. It is what the supreme court in America did and set the precedent that others here wish to discuss. I am not asking you to agree, since disagreements are what keeps this board alive.

[William Anthony]

Agreed. We've spent enough time on this off-topic subject already.

The right of claim defense and the Constitutional precedent allowing it and Nevada law and the promise of an appeal are what we are discussing. I would ask you to take your emotions out the equation and look at the law so that you may add to the discussion, as opposed to desiring to terminate it.

[martin II]

Obviously, how they viewed slaves was WRONG, and calling them inanimate was WRONG. Do you mean to tell me that you view slaves as inanimate? It's a good thing not everyone shared your view in history or the instituion of slavery would still be alive and well.

You denounce slavery but continue to describe the victims as inanimate. martin, that's not :cool:.

That is not true and you know it.

[tv]

The right of claim defense and the Constitutional precedent allowing it and Nevada law and the promise of an appeal are what we are discussing. I would ask you to take your emotions out the equation and look at the law so that you may add to the discussion, as opposed to desiring to terminate it. I've explained to you why I don't agree with you. I agreed with the suggestion that you take it somewhere else but if you want to continue it here I have the choice to not participate. By all means continue to hold forth. :patriot:

[William Anthony]

I've explained to you why I don't agree with you. I agreed with the suggestion that you take it somewhere else but if you want to continue it here I have the choice to not participate. By all means continue to hold forth. :patriot:

It was a request not a demand. :)

[martin II]

I've explained to you why I don't agree with you. I agreed with the suggestion that you take it somewhere else but if you want to continue it here I have the choice to not participate. By all means continue to hold forth. :patriot:

tv

Let me try to get this straight.
You are wrong when you say i viewed slaves as inanimate. i have never said i agree that slaves were inanimate and i think you know this. i do not agree with that description. i don't agree with slave owners description that they were inhuman or any other other desctriptions used either.

I have posted information on how slave owners and the larger society viewed them.


Please don't misquote my position because you dissagree with me.
:cool: