Will Simpson be in court as a plaintiff

[William Anthony]

Here is what I found on surreptitious taping.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

It seems that Simpson may be entitled to a part, if not all, of Mike's earnings from the sale of the tapes.

[Redmama]

Here is what I found on surreptitious taping.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

It seems that Simpson may be entitled to a part, if not all, of Mike's earnings from the sale of the tapes.

Then, wouldn't it just go to the Goldmans?

[William Anthony]

Then, wouldn't it just go to the Goldmans?

I think that we are both speaking hypothetically and it depends on the wording of the court order. IIRC, the order was written so that it included his future earnings and any monies he retrieved would be more in the line of damages like from a personal injury, which are not taxable as earnings.

[slipnslide]

Here is what I found on surreptitious taping.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

It seems that Simpson may be entitled to a part, if not all, of Mike's earnings from the sale of the tapes.


Pardon me, but who is this Mike that you speak of?

[William Anthony]

Pardon me, but who is this Mike that you speak of?


Good catch. I meant Tom. I guess I am like the others-blame it on Mike. :)

[slipnslide]

Good catch. I meant Tom. I guess I am like the others-blame it on Mike. :)

Thanks for clarifiying.

[socaldiva]

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him. :rolleyes:

now THAT'S funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[William Anthony]

No other Blacks in Simpson's neighborhood? LE rushed to judgment? There is a rich Black man, who was married to a blue-eyed blond White woman who was murdered, and there are no other Blacks in the neighborhood, doesn't that proof he is guilty? Did he not know that he did not have those rights? Didn't he know that by living in that neighborhood he gave up all his Constitutional rights? Some have far too dim a view of the America I have become proud of in my adult life. I see it as sad rather than funny when some express the views that there is something wrong with a Black living and marrying where he wants and who he chooses and imply that automatically equates to a desire to be White. White acceptance is not always the motive. Equality is sometimes the cause. It has been said that the White man and the Black woman were the only two free people in America. I hope that is no longer the standard we live by and, if it is, then it is time for change, reform just isn't good enough.

[socaldiva]

I see that once again, a certain poster is posting in reference to my post even though he's agreed in the past not to.

Coming soon, an excuse.....and if the past predicts the future, he will blame me. Sounds rather OJish don't ya think?

[socaldiva]

now THAT'S funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dunno, it looks like some think it's A-Ok to denounce your race. Nothing wrong with using the race card when it suits your needs, then scurrying back to your friends & neighborhood, who happen to be of a different race. :tongue:

[Reckless]

No other Blacks in Simpson's neighborhood? LE rushed to judgment? There is a rich Black man, who was married to a blue-eyed blond White woman who was murdered, and there are no other Blacks in the neighborhood, doesn't that proof he is guilty? Did he not know that he did not have those rights? Wow, circular non-logic at it's finest. It's pure bs and only stupid people believe circular file fodder.

[Reckless]

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him. :rolleyes:LMAO! You got that right.

[William Anthony]

I have never posted that I would not post in reference to any posters post, especially those who place racists post on the board.

[William Anthony]

To those who do not know there is a thing called freedom of association. I do believe some may not want it that way and it seems that they believe in segregation. Reform did not work. Perhaps, change will work. It seems like the Bible may be fulfilling and the bottom is rising to the top, thanks to the sentiments of some, who continue to hold stupid and archaic notions about race. Were those Whites, who associated with Simpson denying their race, and, because they did, should they have lost their Constitutional rights?

[William Anthony]

Wow, circular non-logic at it's finest. It's pure bs and only stupid people believe circular file fodder.

I had some suspicions when I first saw your avatar as to you being a racist. I am glad to see that I am wrong. However, I do believe that the majority of the members feel the same way about gender discrimination. I do not think that you should post in a manner that implies that the two particular females have stupid beliefs, even though their thinking is circular or illogical or as you say bs, which is usually a manner of showing a limited vocabulary. Even if I might find truth in your assessment of these two females, I must say that they have the right, just as you do, to voice stupid opinions. You must not call them stupid, because to so do is truly reckless. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Wow, circular non-logic at it's finest. It's pure bs and only stupid people believe circular file fodder.

It appears that change defeated reform. Although, I must admit that at near the end there seemed to be an agreement that reform was not good enough as one changed from reform to wanting to mavericky change Washington. :) Seriously, let's hope that America has learned that long-held notions about race are no longer acceptable and that America is moving in the direction toward those lofty words written in the Constitution, or placed another way, is cashing the check it long ago wrote and not continuing to act in a reckless manner.

[Big Ben]

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him. :rolleyes:

Whether your assertion bothers him or not is Irrelevant!

What is relevant is whether there were any Blacks in the jury pool and how Nevada law operated to their exclusion and did Nevada's method of exclusion deprive Simpson of a Constitutional right to a fair trial.

[weezer]

Whether your assertion bothers him or not is Irrelevant!

What is relevant is whether there were any Blacks in the jury pool and how Nevada law operated to their exclusion and did Nevada's method of exclusion deprive Simpson of a Constitutional right to a fair trial.

looks like a question you need to bring up with galaner and grasso since they are the ones that accepted the jury and left the two black jurors sitting as alternates. :shrug:

[Big Ben]

looks like a question you need to bring up with galaner and grasso since they are the ones that accepted the jury and left the two black jurors sitting as alternates. :shrug:

No, I'll wait, Weezer! Galanter is egotistical enough as it is, but to his benefit, he probably got as good as anyone else was going to get trying a case like this in Nevada. I doubt that Simpson was going to walk even if he could reincarnate the great Clarence Darrow to represent him in Nevada. My understanding is that it is a tough state and to your satisfaction tends to be merciless towards defendants tried there.

However, it will be interesting to see if his lawyers try to make anything out of striking the Blacks from the jury. That bothers me for sure and with this issue coupled with the remarks of the jury foreman regarding his beliefs that Simpson escaped justice in 1995, and his alleged prior disciplinary actions for racial animosity at a previous job could give Simpson another bite at the apple (new trial). Since we don't know what if any coercion went on in the jury room, given what we now know about him we'd best have another trial to redeem the integrity of the state's judicial system. It's a long shot but what the heck! Simpson has nothing at this time to lose.

Also, there appears to be something disconcerting about not offering an opportunity for Simpson to reach a plea agreement while immediately offering such agreements to the other ex-felons, and unscrupulous characters, involved in this otherwise sordid comical affair. It may not rise to a level of a cause of action, however it really makes the state look retributory, like they wanted to take down Simpson exclusively, and would go so far as to grossly over charge him and old poor C.J. Stewart.

I know that those type of ethical considerations usually don't phase you, Weezer. But pettyness is unbecoming for a state to be engaged in, WEEZ!

[martin II]

[QUOTE=Big Ben;9137972]No, I'll wait, Weezer! Galanter is egotistical enough as it is, but to his benefit, he probably got as good as anyone else was going to get trying a case like this in Nevada. I doubt that Simpson was going to walk even if he could reincarnate the great Clarence Darrow to represent him in Nevada. My understanding is that it is a tough state and to your satisfaction tends to be merciless towards defendants tried there.

However, it will be interesting to see if his lawyers try to make anything out of striking the Blacks from the jury. That bothers me for sure and with this issue coupled with the remarks of the jury foreman regarding his beliefs that Simpson escaped justice in 1995, and his alleged prior disciplinary actions for racial animosity at a previous job could give Simpson another bite at the apple (new trial). Since we don't know what if any coercion went on in the jury room, given what we now know about him we'd best have another trial to redeem the integrity of the state's judicial system. It's a long shot but what the heck! Simpson has nothing at this time to lose.

Also, there appears to be something disconcerting about not offering an opportunity for Simpson to reach a plea agreement while immediately offering such agreements to the other ex-felons, and unscrupulous characters, involved in this otherwise sordid comical affair. It may not rise to a level of a cause of action, however it really makes the state look retributory, like they wanted to take down Simpson exclusively, and would go so far as to grossly over charge him and old poor C.J. Stewart.

I know that those type of ethical considerations usually don't phase you, Weezer. But pettyness is unbecoming for a state to be engaged in, WEEZ![/QUOTE

Big Ben

A very well articulated post especially your last paragraph.

Nevada da was after simpson and only simpson. It is nothing but a payback check.

[weezer]

LOL -- orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

[martin II]

LOL -- orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

OJ did not TAKE any men or guns anyplace.

[Big Ben]

LOL -- orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

There apparently will never be any mitigating circumstances in America when it relates to O.J. Simpson! Yours is a reflection of so many of the media brainwashed who now salivate with anticipation as sentencing day comes near. However, despite your feigned righteous indignation, there was nothing about this case that truly reflects kidnapping or armed robbery in the normal sense of the word. If this was truly that type of crime all participants, especially the guy that set the conspiracy in motion (Riccio) should have stood trial as well and not been granted immunity from prosecution.

Weezer, you don't know of anyone who has ever planned a kidnapping, lured a kidnapping victim to a certain location, eagerly participated in the act of kidnapping, planned and carried out the intentional taping of that kidnapping for later sale for the titillation of listeners and voyeurs like yourself, and then later joyously celebrated the kidnapping in the midst of frivolety at a house party and then the prosecutors decided not to charge that eager participant with the crime of kidnapping. If you know of such then by all means share it with us. The thought of such biased prosecution is completely absurd.

Yet, in Clark County, the Prosecutor's zeal to gain a conviction caused him to choose to selectively over-charge a targeted defendant. In a case involving a kidnapping any Appellate Court should certainly see the error and take that fact into consideration in whether to allow this verdict to stand.

Again, this is not the Sovereign State of Weezerdom, this is the Sovereign State of Nevada. They have now become an embarrassment as they attempt to pass this over-charged case off as being fair justice. It is anything but that, it is a travesty of justice. Nevada has gone too far, Weezer!

[weezer]

Like I said:

orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

and I would add:

nothing anyone else did or didn't do makes orenthal's part in this crime less.

[Big Ben]

Like I said:

orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

and I would add:

nothing anyone else did or didn't do makes orenthal's part in this crime less.

Well, that's typical of you. As I said I wouldn't expect anymore or any less. However, the circumstances of the Court allowing all of the other "thugs" to accept a plea, just leaves an unpleasant odor around the whole case.

That foul odor is strong, especially around the initiator (Riccio) who, as I understand, brought the initial idea of the kidnapping directly to Simpson and then received immunity from being charged as a kidnapper himself. This kidnap conspirator also received $150, 000 for his preplanned audio recording of the kidnap incident from that TV clown-lawyer, Harvey Levin, of TMZ. Very strange, I'd say!

[martin II]

Well, that's typical of you. As I said I wouldn't expect anymore or any less. However, the circumstances of the Court allowing all of the other "thugs" to accept a plea, just leaves an unpleasant odor around the whole case.

That foul odor is strong, especially around the initiator (Riccio) who, as I understand, brought the initial idea of the kidnapping directly to Simpson and then received immunity from being charged as a kidnapper himself. This kidnap conspirator also received $150, 000 for his preplanned audio recording of the kidnap incident from that TV clown-lawyer, Harvey Levin, of TMZ. Very strange, I'd say!

I have always seen Riccio as the master manipulator of oj and the leader of all activities. The da did not seem to care about illegal taping even of le investigating the case.
there are some that consider themselves extreme law and order types until le has them in their clutches. Then they run to defense lawyers to pray for help.

[weezer]

the facts of THIS case speak for themselves and orenthal helped it along by memoralizing his planning and participation on audio tapes.

just as a reminder --


riccio was the one who went to LE NOT orenthal
nobody got off scott free -- orenthal's 'thugs' are all facing sentences
the tape recording was not illegal

[William Anthony]

The tape recording was illegal.

Here is the link that started the thread.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

Here is what it says with emphasis in bold on the relevant portions.

"Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

There can be no invasion of privacy if the other person(s) authorize the taping. In short, one can not authorize his invasion of privacy of another.

[weezer]

the facts of THIS case speak for themselves and orenthal helped it along by memoralizing his planning and participation on audio tapes.

just as a reminder --


riccio was the one who went to LE NOT orenthal
nobody got off scott free -- orenthal's 'thugs' are all facing sentences
the tape recording was not illegal


to clarify the recording and whether or not it was illegal, the statute says 'conversations by other[B] people -- riccio [B]was a party to the conversations so. . . .

[tv]

to clarify the recording and whether or not it was illegal, the statute says 'conversations by other[B] people -- riccio [B]was a party to the conversations so. . . .

That's the way I understood the law also. It doesn't say if the person recording the conversation is a part of the conversation he still has to ask yet another person involved in the conversation if it's okay. Riccio said he always tapes business dealings. I wonder if he knew the laws regarding it wherever these deals took place?

[martin II]

the facts of THIS case speak for themselves and orenthal helped it along by memoralizing his planning and participation on audio tapes.

just as a reminder --


riccio was the one who went to LE NOT orenthal
nobody got off scott free -- orenthal's 'thugs' are all facing sentences
the tape recording was not illegal


nonsense

[weezer]

That's the way I understood the law also. It doesn't say if the person recording the conversation is a part of the conversation he still has to ask yet another person involved in the conversation if it's okay. Riccio said he always tapes business dealings. I wonder if he knew the laws regarding it wherever these deals took place?

I doubt seriously that he has enough smarts to think about that part of it. I do think he is telling the truth about the reasons for taping his business deals -- and sure enough, without those tapes, orenthal (like he managed with the road rage case) would have AGAIN lied/cheated his way out of having to pay for his bad/criminal behavior. imo

[martin II]

That's the way I understood the law also. It doesn't say if the person recording the conversation is a part of the conversation he still has to ask yet another person involved in the conversation if it's okay. Riccio said he always tapes business dealings. I wonder if he knew the laws regarding it wherever these deals took place?

Riccio made illegal recordings and the da did not care.HE has not been charged with breaking the state law.the da used these illegal recordings in court.

[martin II]

to clarify the recording and whether or not it was illegal, the statute says 'conversations by other[B] people -- riccio [B]was a party to the conversations so. . . .

the taper must notify one of the people being taped. period.

[tv]

the taper must notify one of the people being taped. period.
It doesn't say that. It just says that one of the parties must be aware and Riccio was one of the parties.

[tv]

I doubt seriously that he has enough smarts to think about that part of it. I do think he is telling the truth about the reasons for taping his business deals -- and sure enough, without those tapes, orenthal (like he managed with the road rage case) would have AGAIN lied/cheated his way out of having to pay for his bad/criminal behavior. imo
I think you're right -- he's all about self-preservation. He may have made illegal recordings in other places but I think he did it within the law this time.

[weezer]

Riccio made illegal recordings and the da did not care.HE has not been charged with breaking the state law.the da used these illegal recordings in court.

you are wrong.

[weezer]

I think you're right -- he's all about self-preservation. He may have made illegal recordings in other places but I think he did it within the law this time.

I believe you are exactly right.

[weezer]

the taper must notify one of the people being taped. period.

riccio (the 'taper') was one of the people being taped. geez martin. period.

[martin II]

I doubt seriously that he has enough smarts to think about that part of it. I do think he is telling the truth about the reasons for taping his business deals -- and sure enough, without those tapes, orenthal (like he managed with the road rage case) would have AGAIN lied/cheated his way out of having to pay for his bad/criminal behavior. imo

Riccio not smart enough???
hahahaha

[martin II]

It doesn't say that. It just says that one of the parties must be aware and Riccio was one of the parties.

the taper notifies himself and no one else knows,

[William Anthony]

Perhaps this will help.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=114nvadvopno125&invol=2

Most states have a unique nuance in its law regarding taping conversations that should be referred to before making any decisions. However, 12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation are: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_/ai_n27496500

I hope that I have supplied the right link about the case of Randy Lane.

While the intrusion by telephone is greater, it is nonetheless an intrusion in face-to-face conversations.

[tv]

the taper notifies himself and no one else knows,
Do you see anything in the law that says he must notify someone else even if he's a party in the conversation?

[weezer]

Do you see anything in the law that says he must notify someone else even if he's a party in the conversation?

I would have thought that orenthal's lawyers could have kept the tapes out of the trial if they were 'illegal' -- oh wait -- they did --

the tapes were legal.

[William Anthony]

The law is open to interpretation by the judges and the tapes may well be an issue on appeal. However, if you read the dissenting opinion, you will find this.

"Based on the 1973 amendments to NRS 200.620, I conclude that Nevada did indeed enact the single-party consent rule. However, because of the 1985 modification to the definition of "person," it is very unclear as to whether NRS 200.620 and 200.650 were to apply to all individuals, including law enforcement, whether both sections were to apply to law enforcement only, or as Lane argues, whether NRS 200.620 applies only to law enforcement and NRS 200.650 applies to individuals. "

Based on the clearly erroneous harmful error factor, I would think that the judge's decision to admit them will not be overturned and Galanter did not object to their admission. However, I do believe that there may well be those, who are aware of the changes to the law and how it is practiced, such as reporters, that say Nevada requires the consent of all participantts to the conversation. Within the body of the ruling I provided, it is said that the benefit of the ambiguity should inure to the defendant.

[William Anthony]

"Our next inquiry concerns the effect of the tape-recording on Lane's action against his former employer. The district court dismissed Lane's complaint stating:

Plaintiff's misconduct has directly affected the discovery process and is an abuse of the litigation process. In an attempt to gather evidence, Plaintiff willfully tape recorded conversations without receiving the consent of any other participant. By engaging in such conduct, Plaintiff violated Nevada law and has forever tainted these proceedings. Continued discovery in the instant action is now a laborious task. In order for the Court to determine which evidence will be suppressed, the identity of each of the parties to the taped conversations and the subject matter of the conversations will have to be identified. These additional requirements constitute an inefficient use of judicial resources and place a significant burden on Defendants and their counsel. Furthermore, since much of the evidence in this case has been tainted by Plaintiff's misconduct, the Court finds it highly unlikely that sufficient evidence exists to sustain Plaintiff's claim. Finally, dismissal of Plaintiff's claim will act as a deterrent to other litigants who frustrate the discovery process by attempting to gather evidence through such questionable and dubious means."

[martin II]

a person RICCIOshall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons,OTHERS IN THE GROUP or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded,RICCIO unless authorized to do so by one of the persons ONE OF THE OTHERSengaging in the conversation.

[weezer]

".. .Under federal law, telephone calls and other electronic communications can be recorded with the consent of at least one party to the call. Unless state law prohibits the practice, any party to a conversation can tape that conversation without the knowledge of the other party. . ."

". . .You can't stop, however, after considering federal law and assume that your recording passes muster. Each state and territory has its own statutes regarding the recording of conversations. Most state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws are based upon the federal law and allow recording with the consent of one party to the conversation.

The 37 states which allow one party consent recording of oral communications are: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. . ."

[Big Ben]

the facts of THIS case speak for themselves and orenthal helped it along by memoralizing his planning and participation on audio tapes.

just as a reminder --


riccio was the one who went to LE NOT orenthal
nobody got off scott free -- orenthal's 'thugs' are all facing sentences
the tape recording was not illegal


As usual you want to scope shift from the significant issue that was brought to the table by me. I don't care whether the D.A. didn't charge Riccio with taping an illegal conversation. My point, again, is that if the D.A. knew that he was going to charge anyone with kidnapping, certainly the person who planned the kidnapping, lured the victims, participated, and taped for financial gain the kidnapping would have to be charged with the crime of kidnapping too, or it would jeopardize the D.A.'s criminal case.

Don't be surprised if the Appellate judges decide that this trial was unfair and send it back for retrial.

[William Anthony]

As I have said the Nevada law is ambiguous, as noted by the dissenting opinion. It is not unusual given that fact to find conflicting views on the law. However, I choose to rely on the court's interpretation or, in this case, lack thereof. I guess it will remain an issue until it is revised or ruled upon by a high court. Until then, I guess any judge can interpret it to their individual liking based on their view and that view is not likely to be overturned on the basis of clearly harmful and erroneous error. I think to say that the tapes were not illegally created has not been conclusively decided and, as such, may be suppressed. I think the court took into consideration in the link I supplied the intent in making the tapes and it is clear, imho, why Riccio created them.

[martin II]

I would have thought that orenthal's lawyers could have kept the tapes out of the trial if they were 'illegal' -- oh wait -- they did --

the tapes were legal.

The judge can overule any defense objection in a case. One would think that you would know this considering the many time she did overule defense objections but i guess that slipped you. hahaha

[martin II]

As I have said the Nevada law is ambiguous, as noted by the dissenting opinion. It is not unusual given that fact to find conflicting views on the law. However, I choose to rely on the court's interpretation or, in this case, lack thereof. I guess it will remain an issue until it is revised or ruled upon by a high court. Until then, I guess any judge can interpret it to their individual liking based on their view and that view is not likely to be overturned on the basis of clearly harmful and erroneous error. I think to say that the tapes were not illegally created has not been conclusively decided and, as such, may be suppressed. I think the court took into consideration in the link I supplied the intent in making the tapes and it is clear, imho, why Riccio created them.

It is clear Riccio created the tapes to make money.

[martin II]

".. .Under federal law, telephone calls and other electronic communications can be recorded with the consent of at least one party to the call. Unless state law prohibits the practice, any party to a conversation can tape that conversation without the knowledge of the other party. . ."

". . .You can't stop, however, after considering federal law and assume that your recording passes muster. Each state and territory has its own statutes regarding the recording of conversations. Most state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws are based upon the federal law and allow recording with the consent of one party to the conversation.

The 37 states which allow one party consent recording of oral communications are: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. . ."

Why do you believe utilities and other companies give notice to the person being called that "this conversation will be recorded"
Based on you belief there would be no reason for a notice by the taper.

The law makes a differance when reporters record conversations as the recorder is in plain sight in front of the person being recorded.

If Riccio had never put his plan into action. beadsley and fumong would still be trying to sell ojs stuff and oj would be home in Florida.
Ricco was the master conspirator that brought all parties togeather.The DA and judge were willing to ignore this because Riccio brought them their target. oj simpson.

[weezer]

Why do you believe utilities and other companies give notice to the person being called that "this conversation will be recorded"
Based on you belief there would be no reason for a notice by the taper.

The law makes a differance when reporters record conversations as the recorder is in plain sight in front of the person being recorded.

If Riccio had never put his plan into action. beadsley and fumong would still be trying to sell ojs stuff and oj would be home in Florida.
Ricco was the master conspirator that brought all parties togeather.The DA and judge were willing to ignore this because Riccio brought them their target. oj simpson.

you do realize that the audio tapes are not part of the motion for a new trial -- right?

you do realize that the defense did not object to the audio tapes on the basis of illegality -- right?

[weezer]

SNIPPED "Why do you believe utilities and other companies give notice to the person being called that "this conversation will be recorded"
Based on you belief there would be no reason for a notice by the taper. . ."

are you telling me that they are lying when they say it's to improve customer service? :eek: ya just can't believe anybody these days.

[weezer]

SNIPPED ". . .If Riccio had never put his plan into action. beadsley and fumong would still be trying to sell ojs stuff and oj would be home in Florida.
Ricco was the master conspirator that brought all parties togeather.The DA and judge were willing to ignore this because Riccio brought them their target. oj simpson.

I'm sure you meant to say ". . .if orenthal had never put his plan into action. . ."

[William Anthony]

http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=175160

“Stewart's lawyer, E. Brent Bryson, has spent much of the day challenging the admissibility of the recordings and the transcripts Caldwell created. “

[William Anthony]

Martin,

It seems that you already answered the question about the tapes on page 11 of the OJ In The News Againg thread.

"Weezer
my post it to toby tiger.not you.


Athena

This is interesting
Nevada LAW ON TAPING CONVERSATIONS

"although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations"
Look at what it says about Nevada specifically.

martin II


Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
http://www.parentadvocates.org/index...articleID=3510"

I guess the State supreme court has ruled.

[martin II]

you do realize that the audio tapes are not part of the motion for a new trial -- right?

you do realize that the defense did not object to the audio tapes on the basis of illegality -- right?

NO
MartinII

[martin II]

I'm sure you meant to say ". . .if orenthal had never put his plan into action. . ."

Caldwell's transcript of the poolside conversation attributes some of the dialogue to Stewart. Stewart, meanwhile, says he wasn't at the poolside meeting, and the voice on the tape isn't his.

This is of particular interest to the North Las Vegas mortgage agent's lawyer because three of the charges Stewart faces – conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit robbery, and conspiracy to commit a crime – carry minimum one-year sentences.

Stewart's lawyer, E. Brent Bryson, has spent much of the day challenging the admissibility of the recordings and the transcripts Caldwell created.

While Simpson's attorneys said they challenge "six or seven" words in the transcript, they, too, object to Caldwell's determination of who said what.

District Judge Jackie Glass decided, however, to allow the jury to use the audio transcripts as guides while they listen to the recordings in court, but the judge chose not to provide them with transcripts to use in the jury room.

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

I meant what i posted.
At some point long before vegas, Riccio made contact with Beadsley as he had info that Beadsley was trying to sell ojs stuff. Riccio then called oj and informed him he had contact with a seller of his stuff and that he would arrange for this sales meeting at which time oj could get his stuff back.

Ricco eventually brought the two parties togeather in a hotel room he rented for the transaction.

Based on this, Riccio was the original conspirator that caused the event at the Palace Station hotel to take place. Without his efforts there would not have been any meeting.imo

[martin II]

"Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping."

[martin II]

are you telling me that they are lying when they say it's to improve customer service? :eek: ya just can't believe anybody these days.

What i know is people are notified.

[martin II]

Did the people at the pool and hotel room have a right to expect privacy when they were talking to each other?

In December 1998, the state's highest court stated in a 3-2 decision that the wiretapping statutes require that an individual obtain the consent of all parties before taping a telephone conversation, and thus, that an individual who tapes his own telephone calls without the consent of all participants unlawfully "intercepts" those calls. Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).

In addition, it is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation." Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

[martin II]

http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=175160

“Stewart's lawyer, E. Brent Bryson, has spent much of the day challenging the admissibility of the recordings and the transcripts Caldwell created. “

Caldwell , not a tape expert, after testifying and making a transcript admited he could not very the authenticy of the tapes or the transcript.This led the judge not to admit the transcripts as evidence but gave it to the jury as a AID to understand the tapes?
That i don't understand.

[tv]

It is clear Riccio created the tapes to make money.He says he always tapes business dealings but what if he did do it to make money? It doesn't make them any less valid as evidence.

[tv]

Why do you believe utilities and other companies give notice to the person being called that "this conversation will be recorded"
Based on you belief there would be no reason for a notice by the taper.

The law makes a differance when reporters record conversations as the recorder is in plain sight in front of the person being recorded.

If Riccio had never put his plan into action. beadsley and fumong would still be trying to sell ojs stuff and oj would be home in Florida.
Ricco was the master conspirator that brought all parties togeather.The DA and judge were willing to ignore this because Riccio brought them their target. oj simpson.

You can blame Riccio all you want but I all he did was tell OJ Simpson that the memorabilia would be at the hotel and arranged the meeting. He didn't tell Simpson to bring a group of thugs to commit armed robbery. Riccio didn't take Simpson to the DA and the judge. He committed a crime, was arrested and stood trial. No one twisted his arm -- Simpson has a mind of his own.

You say that OJ Simpson was a target of the judge? That's a pretty strong accusation.

[martin II]

You can blame Riccio all you want but I all he did was tell OJ Simpson that the memorabilia would be at the hotel and arranged the meeting. He didn't tell Simpson to bring a group of thugs to commit armed robbery. Riccio didn't take Simpson to the DA and the judge. He committed a crime, was arrested and stood trial. No one twisted his arm -- Simpson has a mind of his own.

You say that OJ Simpson was a target of the judge? That's a pretty strong accusation.

tv

You speak of simpson having a mind of his own.
Did Alexander and McClinton have a mind of their own when they, at Mc Clintons house decide to bring guns to the hotel? Was this a decision that they as adults decided on??? Did they have a mind of their own????
HAHAHA

[martin II]

You can blame Riccio all you want but I all he did was tell OJ Simpson that the memorabilia would be at the hotel and arranged the meeting. He didn't tell Simpson to bring a group of thugs to commit armed robbery. Riccio didn't take Simpson to the DA and the judge. He committed a crime, was arrested and stood trial. No one twisted his arm -- Simpson has a mind of his own.

You say that OJ Simpson was a target of the judge? That's a pretty strong accusation.

ALL HE DID!!!!!!!

Riccios actions started all the events that ended in his hotel room.He was the master conspirator that guided the events. manipulated oj and Beadsley
until he had both in HIS hotel room while taping everyone.
Without him there would have been no action by anyone.imo

[martin II]

He says he always tapes business dealings but what if he did do it to make money? It doesn't make them any less valid as evidence.

The legality of the tapes is a issue to be determined by the Nevada Appeals
or Supreme Court. So far the law means different things to different people.
What looks like common sense wording can mean something different in Law.

When Riccio says oj only wanted to get his personal stuff back, you seem to not believe his comments, when he says he always tapes people you believe him. hahahaha

[William Anthony]

He says he always tapes business dealings but what if he did do it to make money? It doesn't make them any less valid as evidence.

The tapes may be valid. But can they or should they have been used as evidence? That is the question. Evidence obtained by unlawful means is often suppressed. If the link martin supplied is true, then the tapes should have been suppressed according to Nevada law. I wonder if any attorney will move for a declaratory verdict, saying that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict, since the jury relied so heavily on the tapes and dismissed the witnesses as not being credible?

[tv]

tv

You speak of simpson having a mind of his own.
Did Alexander and McClinton have a mind of their own when they, at Mc Clintons house decide to bring guns to the hotel? Was this a decision that they as adults decided on??? Did they have a mind of their own????
HAHAHA

Did Alexander and McClinton have a mind of their own when they, at Mc Clintons house decide to bring guns to the hotel?

I don't think they would have brought guns without the approval of OJS.

Was this a decision that they as adults decided on???

I think that after knowing that Simpson didn't mind guns being there that they brought them. I think that he may have even asked them to bring guns.

Did they have a mind of their own????
HAHAHA

I think they have functioning brains -- I'm not sure how well they function but I believe they were trying to impress The Juice.

[tv]

The tapes may be valid. But can they or should they have been used as evidence? That is the question. Evidence obtained by unlawful means is often suppressed. If the link martin supplied is true, then the tapes should have been suppressed according to Nevada law. I wonder if any attorney will move for a declaratory verdict, saying that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict, since the jury relied so heavily on the tapes and dismissed the witnesses as not being credible?

Do you really think the brilliant Yale Galanter would have made a mistake like that?

[tv]

The legality of the tapes is a issue to be determined by the Nevada Appeals
or Supreme Court. So far the law means different things to different people.
What looks like common sense wording can mean something different in Law.

When Riccio says oj only wanted to get his personal stuff back, you seem to not believe his comments, when he says he always tapes people you believe him. hahahaha

No, I don't believe everything Riccio says but I do believe he tapes all his business dealings.

[tv]

ALL HE DID!!!!!!!

Riccios actions started all the events that ended in his hotel room.He was the master conspirator that guided the events. manipulated oj and Beadsley
until he had both in HIS hotel room while taping everyone.
Without him there would have been no action by anyone.imo

So, Riccio is the one that made OJ do it. There's always someone else to blame. Face it, OJ Simpson participated in and masterminded an armed robbery. The proof is on tape. I always said you wouldn't believe that he killed Ron and Nicole even if it was on video tape and I see now I was right.

OJ Simpson had the option of not going to the Palace Station that day. He made the decision to go and is accountable for his actions. Beardsley is a little weasel that called 911 and then flip-flopped. The reason for that has yet to come out.

[William Anthony]

Do you really think the brilliant Yale Galanter would have made a mistake like that?

Bailey was brilliant. Galanter was gallant. However gallant he may have been, does not mean that he asserted a correct legal argument, as he focused on the the claim of right defense, which we now know was not a defense to the crime under Nevada law. He objected to the tapes but did not argue against their admissibility, because he thought they would evidence the defense of claim of right. However, it appears that Stewart's lawyer argued against their admissibility. I think it remains to be seen how this will play out in regard to Simpson's and Stewart's defenses.

[William Anthony]

So, Riccio is the one that made OJ do it. There's always someone else to blame. Face it, OJ Simpson participated in and masterminded an armed robbery. The proof is on tape. I always said you wouldn't believe that he killed Ron and Nicole even if it was on video tape and I see now I was right.

OJ Simpson had the option of not going to the Palace Station that day. He made the decision to go and is accountable for his actions. Beardsley is a little weasel that called 911 and then flip-flopped. The reason for that has yet to come out.

Beardsley's alleged flip-flop may have been a mater of conscience. Will you believe that Simpson did not commit the murders, if someone, other than Simpson, confesses?

[William Anthony]

No, I don't believe everything Riccio says but I do believe he tapes all his business dealings.

So, could his business have been to surreptitiously record Simpson and others, so that he could later sell the tapes? If that was the case, then the only business deal he made was with the devil, himself. :)

[tv]

Beardsley's alleged flip-flop may have been a mater of conscience. Will you believe that Simpson did not commit the murders, if someone, other than Simpson, confesses?

If there's evidence to show that someone else did it then I'll believe it. I'm sure you know that there are mentally ill people that confess to crimes that they didn't do all the time. Case in point: John Mark Carr tried to implicate himself in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder but he was merely a kook. No evidence.

[tv]

So, could his business have been to surreptitiously record Simpson and others, so that he could later sell the tapes? If that was the case, then the only business deal he made was with the devil, himself. :)

Possibly so. I've never sung the praises of Tom Riccio. While he may be a colorful character I don't think he's of strong moral fiber by any means. Whether he was trying to make money or not, he didn't force Simpson to go to that room nor do his motives for taping have anything to do with the content of the tapes. They are what they are.

[William Anthony]

If there's evidence to show that someone else did it then I'll believe it. I'm sure you know that there are mentally ill people that confess to crimes that they didn't do all the time. Case in point: John Mark Carr tried to implicate himself in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder but he was merely a kook. No evidence.

I understand. You are willing to assume that possibly anyone, who provides testimony or evidence in Simpson's favor, may have a motive other than telling the truth.

[tv]

I understand. You are willing to assume that possibly anyone, who provides testimony or evidence in Simpson's favor, may have a motive other than telling the truth.

William, please don't put words in my mouth. :no:

[William Anthony]

Possibly so. I've never sung the praises of Tom Riccio. While he may be a colorful character I don't think he's of strong moral fiber by any means. Whether he was trying to make money or not, he didn't force Simpson to go to that room nor do his motives for taping have anything to do with the content of the tapes. They are what they are.

I understand. However, you said you believed that he always taped his business dealings. I do not know what type of business arrangement he may have had with any of those involved. I do not believe he testified to any such arrangement. The issue is his credibility and motivation for even informing Simpson of the sale and the decision to illegally surreptitiously tape the conversations in light of his knowledge of a plan that, without his notification, probably would not have been formulated and, in consideration of the above facts, should those tapes have been admissible. They are what they are but is that all or have certain parts been deleted and could those deletions have been exculpatory evidence, based on his desire to sell the tapes.

[William Anthony]

William, please don't put words in my mouth. :no:

I was not trying to put words in your mouth as you said that Beardsley was a little weasel and the motivation for his flip-flop may not have come out yet, which indicates to me that you distrust his testimony and you will not entertain the thought that Simpson did not commit the murders, despite the confession of another, until there is evidence that the confession is true, correct?

[tv]

I understand. However, you said you believed that he always taped his business dealings. I do not know what type of business arrangement he may have had with any of those involved. I do not believe he testified to any such arrangement. The issue is his credibility and motivation for even informing Simpson of the sale and the decision to illegally surreptitiously tape the conversations in light of his knowledge of a plan that, without his notification, probably would not have been formulated and, in consideration of the above facts, should those tapes have been admissible. They are what they are but is that all or have certain parts been deleted and could those deletions have been exculpatory evidence, based on his desire to sell the tapes.

There's no evidence that the tapes were doctored and once again it's my opinion that Riccio's motives have no bearing on the content of the tapes.

[tv]

I was not trying to put words in your mouth as you said that Beardsley was a little weasel and the motivation for his flip-flop may not have come out yet, which indicates to me that you distrust his testimony and you will not entertain the thought that Simpson did not commit the murders, despite the confession of another, until there is evidence that the confession is true, correct?I distrust his testimony because there's a possibility that he was bribed by OJ Simpson to change his story. I trust his call to 911 because he was acting on a gut reaction which is a more reliable indicator of truth to me. There's some reason he changed his attitude toward the incident so rapidly. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[weezer]

Caldwell's transcript of the poolside conversation attributes some of the dialogue to Stewart. Stewart, meanwhile, says he wasn't at the poolside meeting, and the voice on the tape isn't his.

This is of particular interest to the North Las Vegas mortgage agent's lawyer because three of the charges Stewart faces – conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit robbery, and conspiracy to commit a crime – carry minimum one-year sentences.

riccio arranged the meeting. orenthal arranged the armed robbery.

Stewart's lawyer, E. Brent Bryson, has spent much of the day challenging the admissibility of the recordings and the transcripts Caldwell created.

While Simpson's attorneys said they challenge "six or seven" words in the transcript, they, too, object to Caldwell's determination of who said what.

District Judge Jackie Glass decided, however, to allow the jury to use the audio transcripts as guides while they listen to the recordings in court, but the judge chose not to provide them with transcripts to use in the jury room.

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

I meant what i posted.
At some point long before vegas, Riccio made contact with Beadsley as he had info that Beadsley was trying to sell ojs stuff. Riccio then called oj and informed him he had contact with a seller of his stuff and that he would arrange for this sales meeting at which time oj could get his stuff back.

Ricco eventually brought the two parties togeather in a hotel room he rented for the transaction.

Based on this, Riccio was the original conspirator that caused the event at the Palace Station hotel to take place. Without his efforts there would not have been any meeting.imo

orenthal's voice was more than recognizable -- kinda like when he was ranting and raging at Nicole in the 911 call don't you think?

[weezer]

There's no evidence that the tapes were doctored and once again it's my opinion that Riccio's motives have no bearing on the content of the tapes.

it's obvious from listening to the tapes that riccio was indeed trying to make money off the deal. riccio talks incessantly to orenthal about signing the "if I DID IT" books that were due for release that day. thank goodness he didn't trust the people he did business with and the tapes exist.

odd that no one is slamming mcclinton for his tape. imo

[William Anthony]

There's no evidence that the tapes were doctored and once again it's my opinion that Riccio's motives have no bearing on the content of the tapes.

Motivation of doing something always bears on whether or not there was a motivation to doctor something. There is no evidence that they were not doctored, which would be an element of authenticity, imho.

[William Anthony]

I distrust his testimony because there's a possibility that he was bribed by OJ Simpson to change his story. I trust his call to 911 because he was acting on a gut reaction which is a more reliable indicator of truth to me. There's some reason he changed his attitude toward the incident so rapidly. It doesn't pass the smell test.

There is no evidence that he was possibly bribed. Yes, and the change could have been a conscience.

[William Anthony]

I do not think that the tapes fall within the business exception as it pertains to their inherent trustworthiness.

[martin II]

So, Riccio is the one that made OJ do it. There's always someone else to blame. Face it, OJ Simpson participated in and masterminded an armed robbery. The proof is on tape. I always said you wouldn't believe that he killed Ron and Nicole even if it was on video tape and I see now I was right.

OJ Simpson had the option of not going to the Palace Station that day. He made the decision to go and is accountable for his actions. Beardsley is a little weasel that called 911 and then flip-flopped. The reason for that has yet to come out.

After Rizzio set up the meeting oj made a very bad mistake by accepting Rizzios deal.He forgot he was still a target of many DA that would welcome the change to get him.

Beadsley realized he had been caught so he confesswed MIKE TOOK IT.Then
he followed Fumong in his scheme to make some extra money by calling the cops and that tv program.

Later he realized that Rizzio had set the whole scheme to make money
and felt that oj had been set up which is why he later called for the trial to be stopped.

Rizzio was the master manipulator and most all witnesses agreed with that.
imo

[martin II]

Do you really think the brilliant Yale Galanter would have made a mistake like that?

Most smart defense lawyers after evaluation the judges positions in the case
try when forced to,save certain issues for appeal expecially when a judge has ruled against most defense objections.
The judge rules the procedings. Defense lawyers are helpless when the judge rules against their objections. you should know that.

But the appeals courths job is to weigh the law and review possible rulings by the trial judge.

[martin II]

There's no evidence that the tapes were doctored and once again it's my opinion that Riccio's motives have no bearing on the content of the tapes.

Caldwell testified that there were i think 3-4 files that had been deleted that he was not able to retreive.Do you know what was on those files he could not retreive??? If files were deleted does that fit your definition of DOCTORED??

[martin II]

Did Alexander and McClinton have a mind of their own when they, at Mc Clintons house decide to bring guns to the hotel?

I don't think they would have brought guns without the approval of OJS.

Was this a decision that they as adults decided on???

I think that after knowing that Simpson didn't mind guns being there that they brought them. I think that he may have even asked them to bring guns.

Did they have a mind of their own????
HAHAHA

I think they have functioning brains -- I'm not sure how well they function but I believe they were trying to impress The Juice.

tv

BS
mcClinton had a lisence carry permit for the gun. He knew when he was allowed to carry a gun and for what purpose according to his permit. OJ was not his daddy and he was not a child following orders.
He decided to bring his gun all on his own. Alexander actually said he wanted to bring a gun for his own safely reasons.
So both made their own adult decisions to bring guns.
Period.
imo

[martin II]

No, I don't believe everything Riccio says but I do believe he tapes all his business dealings.

Riccio did business in NY, CA and a lot of other places. You think he was breaking the law in all the places he illegally taped people.hahaha

[martin II]

Did Alexander and McClinton have a mind of their own when they, at Mc Clintons house decide to bring guns to the hotel?

I don't think they would have brought guns without the approval of OJS.

Was this a decision that they as adults decided on???

I think that after knowing that Simpson didn't mind guns being there that they brought them. I think that he may have even asked them to bring guns.

Did they have a mind of their own????
HAHAHA

I think they have functioning brains -- I'm not sure how well they function but I believe they were trying to impress The Juice.

I believe mcClinton takes his gun to his bathroom. So no one had to give him a suggestions as to what to do.

[weezer]

After Rizzio set up the meeting oj made a very bad mistake by accepting Rizzios deal.He forgot he was still a target of many DA that would welcome the change to get him.

Beadsley realized he had been caught so he confesswed MIKE TOOK IT.Then
he followed Fumong in his scheme to make some extra money by calling the cops and that tv program.

Later he realized that Rizzio had set the whole scheme to make money
and felt that oj had been set up which is why he later called for the trial to be stopped.

Rizzio was the master manipulator and most all witnesses agreed with that.
imo

who's Rizzio?

[weezer]

Caldwell testified that there were i think 3-4 files that had been deleted that he was not able to retreive.Do you know what was on those files he could not retreive??? If files were deleted does that fit your definition of DOCTORED??

maybe he took out the part where orenthal MADE the victims say MIKE TOOK IT? :eek:

[tv]

Riccio did business in NY, CA and a lot of other places. You think he was breaking the law in all the places he illegally taped people.hahaha

If he was breaking the law in some other place by taping illegally then it was hmm...let's see...illegal!

[tv]

I believe mcClinton takes his gun to his bathroom. So no one had to give him a suggestions as to what to do.

Now you claim to know what McClinton does in the bathroom? hahaha

[tv]

tv

BS
mcClinton had a lisence carry permit for the gun. He knew when he was allowed to carry a gun and for what purpose according to his permit. OJ was not his daddy and he was not a child following orders.
He decided to bring his gun all on his own. Alexander actually said he wanted to bring a gun for his own safely reasons.
So both made their own adult decisions to bring guns.
Period.
imo

It's my opinion that OJ Simpson knew the guns were going to be there. I don't think he forced them to bring them but I think he was aware of it and approved it.

[tv]

Caldwell testified that there were i think 3-4 files that had been deleted that he was not able to retreive.Do you know what was on those files he could not retreive??? If files were deleted does that fit your definition of DOCTORED??
No it doesn't fit my definition. Doctored means changed or made to sound like something different. Deleted is simply deleted.

[tv]

There is no evidence that he was possibly bribed. Yes, and the change could have been a conscience.
Not yet.

[tv]

maybe he took out the part where orenthal MADE the victims say MIKE TOOK IT? :eek:Or the part where he says OMG, A GUN! ;)

[tv]

After Rizzio set up the meeting oj made a very bad mistake by accepting Rizzios deal.He forgot he was still a target of many DA that would welcome the change to get him.

Beadsley realized he had been caught so he confesswed MIKE TOOK IT.Then
he followed Fumong in his scheme to make some extra money by calling the cops and that tv program.

Later he realized that Rizzio had set the whole scheme to make money
and felt that oj had been set up which is why he later called for the trial to be stopped.

Rizzio was the master manipulator and most all witnesses agreed with that.
imo

No one forced Simpson to go to that hotel room and start yelling that no one could leave the room and then take items that never belonged to him. You say McClinton and the others were adults who made their own decisions. The same applies to OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

No it doesn't fit my definition. Doctored means changed or made to sound like something different. Deleted is simply deleted.

Well if the deleted files were in ojs favor what would you say about that.manipulation by Riccio?

[martin II]

Not yet.

you think that weezer had a inside tract on what happened??hahahaha

[martin II]

maybe he took out the part where orenthal MADE the victims say MIKE TOOK IT? :eek:

The tapes prove you wrong.

[martin II]

No it doesn't fit my definition. Doctored means changed or made to sound like something different. Deleted is simply deleted.

If the tape was changed by Riccio that is not doctored.You sound like weezer.

[tv]

Well if the deleted files were in ojs favor what would you say about that.manipulation by Riccio?I'm always willing to change my mind with proper proof. But it doesn't matter whether Riccio manipulated the situation. He didn't hold a gun to OJ Simpson's head to get him to that room.

[tv]

If the tape was changed by Riccio that is not doctored.You sound like weezer.Changed and deleted are two different things.

[tv]

The tapes prove you wrong.If you believe the tapes are doctored then how can you say they prove anything?

[tv]

you think that weezer had a inside tract on what happened??hahahahaI'm not sure what you mean by this but at least she doesn't claim to have an inside tract on what people take into the bathroom.

[weezer]

No one forced Simpson to go to that hotel room and start yelling that no one could leave the room and then take items that never belonged to him. You say McClinton and the others were adults who made their own decisions. The same applies to OJ Simpson.

two of orenthal's 'thugs' testified that orenthal asked them to bring 'heat.' orenthal knew they had guns. on the mcclinton tape he even asked mcclinton if he had taken the 'piece' out in the hall before they entered the room.

yep -- they were all adults. might be considered 'arrested development' but adults none-the-less. imo

[martin II]

No one forced Simpson to go to that hotel room and start yelling that no one could leave the room and then take items that never belonged to him. You say McClinton and the others were adults who made their own decisions. The same applies to OJ Simpson.

I see you don't like yelling.

[tv]

two of orenthal's 'thugs' testified that orenthal asked them to bring 'heat.' orenthal knew they had guns. on the mcclinton tape he even asked mcclinton if he had taken the 'piece' out in the hall before they entered the room.

yep -- they were all adults. might be considered 'arrested development' but adults none-the-less. imo
Of course he knew the guns would be there. Once again, some people want to pick and choose what they believe depending on whether or not it puts OJ Simpson in a good light.

[tv]

I see you don't like yelling.


:confused: :shrug:

[Big Ben]

Based on this, Riccio was the original conspirator that caused the event at the Palace Station hotel to take place. Without his efforts there would not have been any meeting.imo

I'm ashamed of you, Martin. The charge against the conspirators was kidnapping, not conspiracy to attend a "meeting". If the targeted defendants were ultimately charged with kidnapping then it was a decision that the prosecutors consciously decided. When you say "meeting" you are discounting the reprehensible conduct of the Clark County D.A.'s office to see Riccio as simply participating in an innoculous act of arranging a meeting, so that their conduct appears less offensive in giving Riccio immunity. In the meantime, the selected targets of the D.A.'s office are given the charge of conspiracy to carry out a kidnapping with no opportunity to plead to a lesser offense, as allowed Riccio, the original planner.

Appears like (14th Amendment) violations here, under due process and equal protection clauses.

[William Anthony]

Caldwell testified that there were i think 3-4 files that had been deleted that he was not able to retreive.Do you know what was on those files he could not retreive??? If files were deleted does that fit your definition of DOCTORED??

Martin,

In some instances, does a doctor surgically remove defective portions of organs so that the defective portion will not damage the remaining portions of the organ?

[William Anthony]

I'm ashamed of you, Martin. The charge against the conspirators was kidnapping, not conspiracy to attend a "meeting". If the targeted defendants were ultimately charged with kidnapping then it was a decision that the prosecutors consciously decided. When you say "meeting" you are discounting the reprehensible conduct of the Clark County D.A.'s office to see Riccio as simply participating in an innoculous act of arranging a meeting, so that their conduct appears less offensive in giving Riccio immunity. In the meantime, the selected targets of the D.A.'s office are given the charge of conspiracy to carry out a kidnapping with no opportunity to plead to a lesser offense, as allowed Riccio, the original planner.

Appears like (14th Amendment) violations here, under due process and equal protection clauses.

I am thoroughly surprised to see that you question the ancient and time honored concept of quid pro quo. It is just a logical occurrence that the concept would spill into the judicial arena. It is, imho, just another example of the American way. However, I understand your protestation to be lodged in the fairness aspect of the quid pro quo arrangement as it relates to due process. It seems that there are many, who would argue the fairness of the quid pro quo system based on who gets what and how. We need look no further than the recent political campaign for President on the different plans for the economy to see the validity of that argument. It is not the system that they argue against but who benefits from the system. Given that the argument will likely be judicial expediency and reduction of costs, combined with the discretion deferred to DAs, I doubt that anyone is willing, at this time to consider a possible 14th Amendment violation, and the tradition of plea bargaining will flourish long into the future, even though it may offend the concept of having the punishment fit the crime .

[Redmama]

Riccio did business in NY, CA and a lot of other places. You think he was breaking the law in all the places he illegally taped people.hahaha


The company I work for includes a statement "this call may be monitored or recorded" on every call that comes through. In California, our prompts include a choice to go to a call flow that does not monitor or record. I'm checking now to see what happens to Nevada customers. I know they are informed that they might be monitored or recorded but not sure if they are given the choice to go to a unrecorded call flow -

[martin II]

Martin,

In some instances, does a doctor surgically remove defective portions of organs so that the defective portion will not damage the remaining portions of the organ?

tv
exactly why do you believe Riccio deleted 3-4 files on his original tape that was absent when he gave it to le.??

[martin II]

Of course he knew the guns would be there. Once again, some people want to pick and choose what they believe depending on whether or not it puts OJ Simpson in a good light.

Talking about picking choosing

Mc clinton had 2-3 meetings with the prosecution discussing his participation and relaying what had happened.

It was only when he met with them to discuss a plea or reduced charges that he told them that oj had asked him to bring a gun.

On the stand and questIoned by defense as to why he had NOT told le about oj asking for the gun he said' I MUST HAVE FORGOTEN ABOUT THAT.

[tv]

Talking about picking choosing

Mc clinton had 2-3 meetings with the prosecution discussing his participation and relaying what had happened.

It was only when he met with them to discuss a plea or reduced charges that he told them that oj had asked him to bring a gun.

On the stand and questIoned by defense as to why he had NOT told le about oj asking for the gun he said' I MUST HAVE FORGOTEN ABOUT THAT.

So? That doesn't mean OJS didn't know about the gun. McClinton may have been trying to protect him until it came to saving his own skin then he told what he knew.

[tv]

tv
exactly why do you believe Riccio deleted 3-4 files on his original tape that was absent when he gave it to le.??No clue but it's my understanding that the TWO files that were deleted were recovered.

[martin II]

No clue but it's my understanding that the TWO files that were deleted were recovered.

There were several files deleted. Two were recovered the others, we will never know who was speaking and what was said.Only Riccio knows.

[Redmama]

There were several files deleted. Two were recovered the others, we will never know who was speaking and what was said.Only Riccio knows.

I think everyone in the room knows.

[tv]

There were several files deleted. Two were recovered the others, we will never know who was speaking and what was said.Only Riccio knows.
What I read is that there were possibly other files removed but since ony two were recovered that's all they can say for sure. It still doesn't change what remains on the recording.

[tv]

I think everyone in the room knows.

Great point!:)

[martin II]

I think everyone in the room knows.

Yes but everyone in the room but the two defendants are now working for the prosecution as a result of the gifts given them for saying what the DA needed them to say to make their case against the two defendants.imo

NO one but Riccio had the recorder until it was given to le.Caldwell.
someone other then the defendants deleted those files.

[martin II]

What I read is that there were possibly other files removed but since ony two were recovered that's all they can say for sure. It still doesn't change what remains on the recording.

Nope

What they know is that 3-4 files not retreived were deleted by someone. The information on those files is not available. so we have a recording with missing info that was origionally on the tape erassed by someone.Not a complete record of all that happened in that room.

[tv]

Nope

What they know is that 3-4 files not retreived were deleted by someone. The information on those files is not available. so we have a recording with missing info that was origionally on the tape erassed by someone.Not a complete record of all that happened in that room.

What do you think is missing?

[martin II]

What do you think is missing?

i was not in the room but it is my opinion that whoever deleted the files did not want what was on the tape heard.

[martin II]

What do you think is missing?

The 3-4 files are missing right.

[tv]

i was not in the room but it is my opinion that whoever deleted the files did not want what was on the tape heard.

Did the defense say what conversation is missing that might change the outcome of the trial? I'm trying to find out what Riccio is supposed to have deleted and why he would do that. It's hard to figure out why if we don't know what.

[martin II]

Did the defense say what conversation is missing that might change the outcome of the trial? I'm trying to find out what Riccio is supposed to have deleted and why he would do that. It's hard to figure out why if we don't know what.

The defense only knew that a tape was made and some files were not heard. there is no way to know what conversations were missing because the deleter made sure they were not heard. What the jury knows is that more coversation took place that they did not hear because someone made sure they heard only part of the coversation that took place.So they convicted on only part of the tape evidence.It is simular to convicting on a 1/2 completed DNA test. hahaha

[martin II]

Did the defense say what conversation is missing that might change the outcome of the trial? I'm trying to find out what Riccio is supposed to have deleted and why he would do that. It's hard to figure out why if we don't know what.

Riccio, his partner and le are the only ones that had the tape according to Riccio.Riccios partner did something with the tapes when he downloaded them to his computer. one of the three had the opportunity to erase conversations on the tape and one of the three did delete those files.

[weezer]

Riccio, his partner and le are the only ones that had the tape according to Riccio.Riccios partner did something with the tapes when he downloaded them to his computer. one of the three had the opportunity to erase conversations on the tape and one of the three did delete those files.

this is a very serious and dangerous accusation you're making martin. please provide links to substantiate what you're saying.

[weezer]

http://casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=175147

". . .The court then heard from a duo of technical experts this afternoon, as prosecutors continued to work through their list of witnesses.

Prosecutors set out to prove the validity of the audio recording that Riccio claims is an audio account of the highly-disputed events that took place inside his hotel room last year.

The fourth witness of the day was Jason Abramowitz, a Quantico, Va.-based forensic examiner and electric engineer with the FBI.

Abramowitz told the court that the Las Vegas FBI field office contacted him earlier this year and sent an Olympus 410 digital audio recorder to his office for inspection.

The recorder in question was the one Thomas Riccio says he used to capture audio of the meeting in the off-Strip casino-hotel between Simpson, Stewart, five of their associates and two memorabilia dealers who claim they were robbed at gunpoint last year.

Abramowitz told the court that while he does not analyze or enhance audio files, he is trained to look for and retrieve files from audio recorders like Riccio's.

After analyzing the recorder, he said he found nine audio files: seven in the main file folder and two more that had been deleted but weren't completely erased. While he was able to retrieve the two deleted files, he noted that it was impossible to know how many other files had been previously marked for deletion and subsequently recorded over.

Abramowitz said the device showed no physical or technical signs of tampering.

Once he extracted the audio, he copied the files onto two CDs and sent them to FBI audio analyst, Kenneth Marr, for further inspection.

After Abramowitz left the stand, Marr addressed the court through a video deposition.

He was unable to testify in person because of travel arrangements and commitments that were made prior to his being asked to attend court. He was cross-examined three weeks ago, on Aug. 25, and today Judge Jackie Glass began playing the video for the jury.

In the recording, Marr explained he received nine audio files from Abramowitz that had been extracted from Riccio's voice recorder.

"My assignment was to conduct the enhancement and the copying of these files," he said.

Marr told the court that the first disc he received had seven audio files on it, file numbers three, four, five, six, eight, nine and 10. He said the second disc contained the two files that Riccio appears to have tried to delete, which were saved to the recorder's disc as "bin 011" and "bin 012."

Judge Jackie Glass paused the video deposition at 5:30 p.m., just as Marr was about to explain his analysis of the audio files. She adjourned for the day, leaving the remaining three-and-a-half hours of Marr's videotaped testimony for tomorrow. . ."

[tv]

Riccio, his partner and le are the only ones that had the tape according to Riccio.Riccios partner did something with the tapes when he downloaded them to his computer. one of the three had the opportunity to erase conversations on the tape and one of the three did delete those files.OJ Simpson and Yale Galanter had access to the tapes. Why didn't OJ Simpson tell Mr. Galanter what was missing from the tapes that could help his case?

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson and Yale Galanter had access to the tapes. Why didn't OJ Simpson tell Mr. Galanter what was missing from the tapes that could help his case?

It is highly probable that he did, which is why they knew things were missing. However, Simpson could not be compelled to testify. Having exercised his 5th Amendment rights, it was virtually impossible to prove what was deleted, except through the witnesses that testified, which the consensus of opinion is that they were all of the canine variety, as evidenced by a lot of unintelligible and inconsistent barking from the witness stand and on the tapes. :)

[William Anthony]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What in this amendment says that a witness can not be called to testify for himself? It seems that a strict construction of the amendment means that an accused could testify for himself and not subject himself to cross examination. Perhaps, all criminal defendants, who have been cross examined, should raise the issue of the Constitutionality of that cross examination. I understand the common law reasoning for allowing cross of a defendant but is that allowance repugnant to the Constitution?

[martin II]

OJ Simpson and Yale Galanter had access to the tapes. Why didn't OJ Simpson tell Mr. Galanter what was missing from the tapes that could help his case?

Example
Fumong testified that someone. Suggesting it was oj, said on the room tape."PUT THE GUN DOWN" when the tape were played those words were not on the tape.
Caldwell attributed voices to some people on the room tape that were wrong.
Since three of the prosecutions tape persons could not verify the authenticy of the tapes i thought the judge would not allow them in.But she did.However
since the other witnesses testimony was not believable, the gobbeled and deleted tapes was all the prosecution had to offer as proof.

[martin II]

this is a very serious and dangerous accusation you're making martin. please provide links to substantiate what you're saying.

nonsense

Riccio made the tapes
Riccio gave the tapes to his business partner who loaded them on his computer.
Riccio then gave the tapes to le.

see Riccios testimony.

[martin II]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What in this amendment says that a witness can not be called to testify for himself? It seems that a strict construction of the amendment means that an accused could testify for himself and not subject himself to cross examination. Perhaps, all criminal defendants, who have been cross examined, should raise the issue of the Constitutionality of that cross examination. I understand the common law reasoning for allowing cross of a defendant but is that allowance repugnant to the Constitution?

Good point.

[martin II]

http://casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=175147

". . .The court then heard from a duo of technical experts this afternoon, as prosecutors continued to work through their list of witnesses.

Prosecutors set out to prove the validity of the audio recording that Riccio claims is an audio account of the highly-disputed events that took place inside his hotel room last year.

The fourth witness of the day was Jason Abramowitz, a Quantico, Va.-based forensic examiner and electric engineer with the FBI.

Abramowitz told the court that the Las Vegas FBI field office contacted him earlier this year and sent an Olympus 410 digital audio recorder to his office for inspection.

The recorder in question was the one Thomas Riccio says he used to capture audio of the meeting in the off-Strip casino-hotel between Simpson, Stewart, five of their associates and two memorabilia dealers who claim they were robbed at gunpoint last year.

Abramowitz told the court that while he does not analyze or enhance audio files, he is trained to look for and retrieve files from audio recorders like Riccio's.

After analyzing the recorder, he said he found nine audio files: seven in the main file folder and two more that had been deleted but weren't completely erased. While he was able to retrieve the two deleted files, he noted that it was impossible to know how many other files had been previously marked for deletion and subsequently recorded over.

Abramowitz said the device showed no physical or technical signs of tampering.

Once he extracted the audio, he copied the files onto two CDs and sent them to FBI audio analyst, Kenneth Marr, for further inspection.

After Abramowitz left the stand, Marr addressed the court through a video deposition.

He was unable to testify in person because of travel arrangements and commitments that were made prior to his being asked to attend court. He was cross-examined three weeks ago, on Aug. 25, and today Judge Jackie Glass began playing the video for the jury.

In the recording, Marr explained he received nine audio files from Abramowitz that had been extracted from Riccio's voice recorder.

"My assignment was to conduct the enhancement and the copying of these files," he said.

Marr told the court that the first disc he received had seven audio files on it, file numbers three, four, five, six, eight, nine and 10. He said the second disc contained the two files that Riccio appears to have tried to delete, which were saved to the recorder's disc as "bin 011" and "bin 012."

Judge Jackie Glass paused the video deposition at 5:30 p.m., just as Marr was about to explain his analysis of the audio files. She adjourned for the day, leaving the remaining three-and-a-half hours of Marr's videotaped testimony for tomorrow. . ."


So more people than Riccio his partner and le handeled the tapes.

[martin II]

Did the defense say what conversation is missing that might change the outcome of the trial? I'm trying to find out what Riccio is supposed to have deleted and why he would do that. It's hard to figure out why if we don't know what.

If i made a tape that contained information that i did not want others to hear
i would either deleted those files or record over them.Otherwise there would be no reason for me to deleted or recorded over any files and the tapes would be in their original form.

[weezer]

again with the conspiracy theories! orenthal planned and executed an armed robbery. he was caught. he's been found guilty. he's going to prison.

nothing anyone else did or didn't do absolves orenthal's participation and/or guilt.

imo

[William Anthony]

Good point.

Thank you. Perhaps, if the strict construction or original intent was used to interpret the Constitution, Simpson could have testified to what was deleted from the tapes and showed there was exculpatory evidence that had been deleted. However, under the current state of the law, should Simpson have testified, questions about his signing of the interrogatories would have inevitably, imho, been asked and used to impugn his credibility. I am truly struggling with the authenticity of those tapes given the fact that some portions may have been deleted.

[William Anthony]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Simpson said on the deleted portions that he did not want to go through with the plan and to call the police but Riccio and others told him the property was there now, so were they and to man up? Before anyone begins the conspiracy tirade, the point is that others may have wanted to minimize their involvement.

[tv]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What in this amendment says that a witness can not be called to testify for himself? It seems that a strict construction of the amendment means that an accused could testify for himself and not subject himself to cross examination. Perhaps, all criminal defendants, who have been cross examined, should raise the issue of the Constitutionality of that cross examination. I understand the common law reasoning for allowing cross of a defendant but is that allowance repugnant to the Constitution?

I understand no one can be forced to testify against one's self. However, a defendant has the right to do so if he feels it will help his case. Obviously, he thought testifying would be more damaging than allowing the part of tape where he heroically protests what was happening be brought to light.

If Beardsley was being so truthful why didn't he say what was deleted from the tapes?

[tv]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Simpson said on the deleted portions that he did not want to go through with the plan and to call the police but Riccio and others told him the property was there now, so were they and to man up? Before anyone begins the conspiracy tirade, the point is that others may have wanted to minimize their involvement.

I considered it for about 5 seconds. :D

[tv]

If i made a tape that contained information that i did not want others to hear
i would either deleted those files or record over them.Otherwise there would be no reason for me to deleted or recorded over any files and the tapes would be in their original form.

You're telling me that CJ Stewart and OJ Simpson would rather go to prison than reveal what was on the tapes that would exonerate them? Riiight.:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

I considered it for about 5 seconds. :D

Didn't take you long, did it? :)

[William Anthony]

I understand no one can be forced to testify against one's self. However, a defendant has the right to do so if he feels it will help his case. Obviously, he thought testifying would be more damaging than allowing the part of tape where he heroically protests what was happening be brought to light.

If Beardsley was being so truthful why didn't he say what was deleted from the tapes?

If a defendant takes the stand under the law's current conditions, he could be asked about other things to impugn his credibility. However, under the strict or original constructionist approach to interpretation, there is nothing in the Constitution that says a defendant should be cross examined. Also, it would be hard to prove what was said when that portion of the tape had been deleted and that would prove true for Beardsley and Simpson. I think that it would call for total recall to say what was said on the deleted portions of the tapes. Beardsley was not privy to the planning of the armed robbery (as proven under Nevada law). I don't know how he could truthfully say that he heard Simpson say let's abandon the plan and call the police and others say man up you coward, we are here let's carry this out, if he was not present. If you are saying that he listened to the tapes (I really don't know if he did or not), do you think he did so before Riccio deleted portions?

[tv]

Didn't take you long, did it? :)

Nope.

[tv]

If a defendant takes the stand under the law's current conditions, he could be asked about other things to impugn his credibility. However, under the strict or original constructionist approach to interpretation, there is nothing in the Constitution that says a defendant should be cross examined. Also, it would be hard to prove what was said when that portion of the tape had been deleted and that would prove true for Beardsley and Simpson. I think that it would call for total recall to say what was said on the deleted portions of the tapes. Beardsley was not privy to the planning of the armed robbery (as proven under Nevada law). I don't know how he could truthfully say that he heard Simpson say let's abandon the plan and call the police and others say man up you coward, we are here let's carry this out, if he was not present. If you are saying that he listened to the tapes (I really don't know if he did or not), do you think he did so before Riccio deleted portions?I really don't know if or when he listened. You give reasons for him not taking the stand but how do you think the decision to not take the stand is working for him? He could hardly be in a worse position.

If Simpson said call the police etc. then Beardsley could have testified to that. He didn't because it didn't happen. Beardsley would have done anything to get Simpson out of this jam.

[martin II]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Simpson said on the deleted portions that he did not want to go through with the plan and to call the police but Riccio and others told him the property was there now, so were they and to man up? Before anyone begins the conspiracy tirade, the point is that others may have wanted to minimize their involvement.

yes
martin

[martin II]

You're telling me that CJ Stewart and OJ Simpson would rather go to prison than reveal what was on the tapes that would exonerate them? Riiight.:rolleyes:

no. didn't say that.
someone deleted files on the tape because they did not want those files to be heard.very simple.

[tv]

no. didn't say that.
someone deleted files on the tape because they did not want those files to be heard.very simple.

If that's the case and the deleted files could have changed the outcome of the case why didn't the information come out? They could have asked Beardsley or Fromong about it without putting either defendant on the stand. If there were some files deleted I don't believe it was anything that could help them. Were the files that were recovered any help to the defendants?

Did you ever consider that the files could have been recorded at another time and had nothing to do with this case?

[William Anthony]

I really don't know if or when he listened. You give reasons for him not taking the stand but how do you think the decision to not take the stand is working for him? He could hardly be in a worse position.

If Simpson said call the police etc. then Beardsley could have testified to that. He didn't because it didn't happen. Beardsley would have done anything to get Simpson out of this jam.

Under the current state of the law it is a precarious decision for a defendant to decide whether or not to take the stand. It is like gambling-sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

You assume that Beardsley would have been privy to the conversation, if one like that took place. I do not think Beardsley was around at any time the robbery (under Nevada law) was being planned.

[William Anthony]

How does one prove he said something that was deleted from a tape? It would simply be a matter of credibility. The jury found none of the inconsistent barking coming from the stand credible. I do not believe they would have found Simpson's whining credible.

[tv]

Under the current state of the law it is a precarious decision for a defendant to decide whether or not to take the stand. It is like gambling-sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

You assume that Beardsley would have been privy to the conversation, if one like that took place. I do not think Beardsley was around at any time the robbery (under Nevada law) was being planned.

Beardsley was present during the robbery. If Simpson had protested he would have testified to that. Nothing like that came out at the trial.

[tv]

How does one prove he said something that was deleted from a tape? It would simply be a matter of credibility. The jury found none of the inconsistent barking coming from the stand credible. I do not believe they would have found Simpson's whining credible.

It would have been worth a try to give the jury a reason to doubt the tapes. It wasn't done because it never happened. Besides, you've said many times the burden of proof is on the state. All the defense had to do was say how it reasonably could have happened. See what a good learner I am?

[Redmama]

You're telling me that CJ Stewart and OJ Simpson would rather go to prison than reveal what was on the tapes that would exonerate them? Riiight.:rolleyes:

Here is my thought on the missing pieces of the tape. If it was obvious that 2 parts of the tape were deleted and they found the way to retrieve them, why would have other parts of the tape be deleted in a different way. It is not like if you know the technology, you would delete different portions in different ways....don't know....just a thought.

[weezer]

Here is my thought on the missing pieces of the tape. If it was obvious that 2 parts of the tape were deleted and they found the way to retrieve them, why would have other parts of the tape be deleted in a different way. It is not like if you know the technology, you would delete different portions in different ways....don't know....just a thought.

I don't think anyone believes the audio was manipulated -- from reading the testimony, it sounds like they are saying the recorder had been used and erased and re-used. :shrug: I don't know why that's so scarey to some folks.

at any rate, orenthal knew weeks before there was an audio recording of his raging that he was going to pull his own 'sting' -- the fact that it was caught on tape was his bad karma. imo

[William Anthony]

Beardsley was present during the robbery. If Simpson had protested he would have testified to that. Nothing like that came out at the trial.

I think you misunderstood my point. The point was whether the tapes that were deleted contained exculpatory evidence, or maybe I said it wrong, mitigating evidence. The point is that Beardsley could not have heard, if Simpson did say that the plan should be abandoned. I am not saying he said it in the room but at sometime before they entered the room and should the tapes have been used at trial given that portions were deleted.

[William Anthony]

It would have been worth a try to give the jury a reason to doubt the tapes. It wasn't done because it never happened. Besides, you've said many times the burden of proof is on the state. All the defense had to do was say how it reasonably could have happened. See what a good learner I am?

You do learn quick but you misunderstood or I was not clear enough. It would not have made Simpson not guilty. However, it might be considered as a mitigating circumstance at the time of sentencing. There is no doubt that he was in the hotel room. However, if Riccio was taping Simpson unwittingly and he was reluctant about committing the crime and Riccio said something to persuade him to follow through and was subsequently looking to make a plea bargain, he may very well have erased those statements. The point is that, without putting Simpson on the stand and the fact that others had been given deals, it would be hard to prove what was deleted on the tapes. Given the feeling of most about Simpson and the knowledge about the signing of the interrogatories in the civil trial, which required verification, if I had been his lawyer I would have advised him not to take the stand.

[martin II]

If that's the case and the deleted files could have changed the outcome of the case why didn't the information come out? They could have asked Beardsley or Fromong about it without putting either defendant on the stand. If there were some files deleted I don't believe it was anything that could help them. Were the files that were recovered any help to the defendants?

Did you ever consider that the files could have been recorded at another time and had nothing to do with this case?

no because riccio baught the recorder for this event.

[martin II]

It would have been worth a try to give the jury a reason to doubt the tapes. It wasn't done because it never happened. Besides, you've said many times the burden of proof is on the state. All the defense had to do was say how it reasonably could have happened. See what a good learner I am?

all defense objections about the tape were overuled by the judge and Galenter was steaming.Also Stewarts lawyer.

[martin II]

Here is my thought on the missing pieces of the tape. If it was obvious that 2 parts of the tape were deleted and they found the way to retrieve them, why would have other parts of the tape be deleted in a different way. It is not like if you know the technology, you would delete different portions in different ways....don't know....just a thought.
Caldwell said he tried to retreive all deleted files but could get only two.
Maby his method did not work that well.But it remains that 3-4 files were not retreived.SO that info was lost and the jury did not get a full recording.imo

[martin II]

Here is my thought on the missing pieces of the tape. If it was obvious that 2 parts of the tape were deleted and they found the way to retrieve them, why would have other parts of the tape be deleted in a different way. It is not like if you know the technology, you would delete different portions in different ways....don't know....just a thought.

maby Caldwell had a reason not to retreive the others.

[martin II]

I don't think anyone believes the audio was manipulated -- from reading the testimony, it sounds like they are saying the recorder had been used and erased and re-used. :shrug: I don't know why that's so scarey to some folks.

at any rate, orenthal knew weeks before there was an audio recording of his raging that he was going to pull his own 'sting' -- the fact that it was caught on tape was his bad karma. imo

Any change in the tape from its origional recorded sound is manipulation.
The jury was given a unauthenticated tape with deleted files to use in delierations.imo

[martin II]

If that's the case and the deleted files could have changed the outcome of the case why didn't the information come out? They could have asked Beardsley or Fromong about it without putting either defendant on the stand. If there were some files deleted I don't believe it was anything that could help them. Were the files that were recovered any help to the defendants?

Did you ever consider that the files could have been recorded at another time and had nothing to do with this case?

Riccio baught the recorder, started recording at the pool and ended in the room recording the cops in the hotel room.The recorder original packing was presented in court to show he had just purchased it. It had not been used before.

[martin II]

If that's the case and the deleted files could have changed the outcome of the case why didn't the information come out? They could have asked Beardsley or Fromong about it without putting either defendant on the stand. If there were some files deleted I don't believe it was anything that could help them. Were the files that were recovered any help to the defendants?

Did you ever consider that the files could have been recorded at another time and had nothing to do with this case?

The information on the recovered files does not tell us what was on the ones not recovered.imo

[tv]

maby Caldwell had a reason not to retreive the others.

What do you do when you need emergency help? I can't imagine that you would call 911.

[weezer]

Any change in the tape from its origional recorded sound is manipulation.
The jury was given a unauthenticated tape with deleted files to use in delierations.imo

martin, martin, martin. orenthal planned the armed robbery weeks before he carried it out. there is nothing about the tapes that exonerate his criminal behavior.

[tv]

I think you misunderstood my point. The point was whether the tapes that were deleted contained exculpatory evidence, or maybe I said it wrong, mitigating evidence. The point is that Beardsley could not have heard, if Simpson did say that the plan should be abandoned. I am not saying he said it in the room but at sometime before they entered the room and should the tapes have been used at trial given that portions were deleted.Even if Simpson scrapped the robbery plans before they entered the room the fact is that he and the others carried them through once they were in the room. I haven't seen anything that points to another scenario.

[weezer]

The information on the recovered files does not tell us what was on the ones not recovered.imo

this reminds me of another orenthal trial -- :eek:

the orenthal apologists are interjecting their words/thoughts as facts when even their hero doesn't dispute the circumstances or what was said on the tapes. it doesn't matter what was on the portions of the tape that were not recoverable. the portions that were recoverable were enough.

[tv]

You do learn quick but you misunderstood or I was not clear enough. It would not have made Simpson not guilty. However, it might be considered as a mitigating circumstance at the time of sentencing. There is no doubt that he was in the hotel room. However, if Riccio was taping Simpson unwittingly and he was reluctant about committing the crime and Riccio said something to persuade him to follow through and was subsequently looking to make a plea bargain, he may very well have erased those statements. The point is that, without putting Simpson on the stand and the fact that others had been given deals, it would be hard to prove what was deleted on the tapes. Given the feeling of most about Simpson and the knowledge about the signing of the interrogatories in the civil trial, which required verification, if I had been his lawyer I would have advised him not to take the stand.

He didn't take the stand and you see where he is now. I think he was kept off the stand because he was such an unconvincing witness when he was questioned in the civil trial. Yale Galanter didn't think he would be believable and he's probably right. Plus, who knows what else might have come out. :)

[weezer]

He didn't take the stand and you see where he is now. I think he was kept off the stand because he was such an unconvincing witness when he was questioned in the civil trial. Yale Galanter didn't think he would be believable and he's probably right. Plus, who knows what else might have come out. :)

right? like the talking he did during his civil trial depositions. . . .isn't that what his family and friends said he is known for? not being able to shut up!

[tv]

this reminds me of another orenthal trial -- :eek:

the orenthal apologists are interjecting their words/thoughts as facts when even their hero doesn't dispute the circumstances or what was said on the tapes. it doesn't matter what was on the portions of the tape that were not recoverable. the portions that were recoverable were enough.

Deja vu. When all else fails blame LE.

[tv]

right? like the talking he did during his civil trial depositions. . . .isn't that what his family and friends said he is known for? not being able to shut up!

During the civil trial he talked on and on and on...

[tv]

Hi JB! Tomorrow is the 19th. We're getting close. :)

[martin II]

Here is my thought on the missing pieces of the tape. If it was obvious that 2 parts of the tape were deleted and they found the way to retrieve them, why would have other parts of the tape be deleted in a different way. It is not like if you know the technology, you would delete different portions in different ways....don't know....just a thought.

What happened with your investigation of your company taping notification in nevada?

[martin II]

this reminds me of another orenthal trial -- :eek:

the orenthal apologists are interjecting their words/thoughts as facts when even their hero doesn't dispute the circumstances or what was said on the tapes. it doesn't matter what was on the portions of the tape that were not recoverable. the portions that were recoverable were enough.

Spoken like a oj hater. imo

[martin II]

He didn't take the stand and you see where he is now. I think he was kept off the stand because he was such an unconvincing witness when he was questioned in the civil trial. Yale Galanter didn't think he would be believable and he's probably right. Plus, who knows what else might have come out. :)

The jury did not believe any of the prosecutions witnesses/ hahaha

[tv]

The jury did not believe any of the prosecutions witnesses/ hahaha

From the outcome they didn't believe any of the defense witnesses either.

[martin II]

What do you do when you need emergency help? I can't imagine that you would call 911.

What i think is you may be wrong about that as you are about other things:cool:

[martin II]

From the outcome they didn't believe any of the defense witnesses either.

There was only 1-2.
They used a unauthenticated tape with deleted info. Like half a story.:cool:

[tv]

What i think is you may be wrong about that as you are about other things:cool:

Just wondering. :shrug:

[tv]

There was only 1-2.
They used a unauthenticated tape with deleted info. Like half a story.:cool:

Are you saying the truthfulness of the defense witnesses didn't matter because there were only a few of them?

[Redmama]

I don't think anyone believes the audio was manipulated -- from reading the testimony, it sounds like they are saying the recorder had been used and erased and re-used. :shrug: I don't know why that's so scarey to some folks.

at any rate, orenthal knew weeks before there was an audio recording of his raging that he was going to pull his own 'sting' -- the fact that it was caught on tape was his bad karma. imo

That would be easy to believe - If Riccio taped all of his encounters, he would probably reuse tapes.

[Redmama]

What happened with your investigation of your company taping notification in nevada?

It is not there now. That does not mean they cannot ask not to be recorded...it just takes longer to get to a representative and then ask to be sent to a rep that does not record. Those reps may be able to turn the recording off on their call once it gets there, not sure.

All of the states we do business in, have the capability of no recording, but it is only California state law that requires us put the choice on the up-front announcement to not be recording. I'm guessing that if it was law in Nevada, it would be there.

[martin II]

That would be easy to believe - If Riccio taped all of his encounters, he would probably reuse tapes.

The problem with that is Riccio purchased this recorder in vegas a day before
the pool recording and it was new. He gave a dated Radio Shack receipt and original packaging to le when he gave the tape.
Sorry, no prior use of the recorder or the tape.IMO

[martin II]

That would be easy to believe - If Riccio taped all of his encounters, he would probably reuse tapes.

I think he lied about that so as not to been as untrustworthy or the cheap trickster he is.

[martin II]

Are you saying the truthfulness of the defense witnesses didn't matter because there were only a few of them?

no you said that

[Redmama]

I think he lied about that so as not to been as untrustworthy or the cheap trickster he is.

I agree - he is just scum (did I just say that out loud?)...

The first time he opened his mouth, I new he was a trickster...

[martin II]

It is not there now. That does not mean they cannot ask not to be recorded...it just takes longer to get to a representative and then ask to be sent to a rep that does not record. Those reps may be able to turn the recording off on their call once it gets there, not sure.

All of the states we do business in, have the capability of no recording, but it is only California state law that requires us put the choice on the up-front announcement to not be recording. I'm guessing that if it was law in Nevada, it would be there.

So you don't know.:cool:

[tv]

no you said that
No, I didn't.

[Redmama]

So you don't know.:cool:

Actually I do, I was just tgrying to soften my statement so it didn't cause some huge argument. Guess that doesn't work with you.

[martin II]

Actually I do, I was just tgrying to soften my statement so it didn't cause some huge argument. Guess that doesn't work with you.

A answer works for me. If i understand as far as Nevada is concerned you made a guiess if that is not correct please inform.

[Redmama]

A answer works for me. If i understand as far as Nevada is concerned you made a guiess if that is not correct please inform.

Again, just trying to soften - it is not a law in our area of business.

[martin II]

The prosecutions witnesses could not authenticate the tapes and the judge allowed the jury to use them.

[tv]

The prosecutions witnesses could not authenticate the tapes and the judge allowed the jury to use them.

I think you said that already. It kind of reminds me of OJ Simpson being in charge of putting on the gloves. We had to take his word that they didn't fit. I guess that's the way it goes.

[William Anthony]

Even if Simpson scrapped the robbery plans before they entered the room the fact is that he and the others carried them through once they were in the room. I haven't seen anything that points to another scenario.

You are not going to worry me, woman.:) I am not saying that Simpson is not guilty. I am saying that there may have been something on the tape that would amount to mitigating circumstances for the court to consider when imposing sentence and that I have concerns due to the deletions.

[William Anthony]

He didn't take the stand and you see where he is now. I think he was kept off the stand because he was such an unconvincing witness when he was questioned in the civil trial. Yale Galanter didn't think he would be believable and he's probably right. Plus, who knows what else might have come out. :)

Exactly. However, if the 5th amendment is strictly interpreted, that might prevent all of that.

[William Anthony]

That would be easy to believe - If Riccio taped all of his encounters, he would probably reuse tapes.

Why would you tape over something you intended to sell?

[tv]

You are not going to worry me, woman.:) I am not saying that Simpson is not guilty. I am saying that there may have been something on the tape that would amount to mitigating circumstances for the court to consider when imposing sentence and that I have concerns due to the deletions.

What makes you think I'm trying to worry you? ;) I'm saying that if there was anything deleted from the tapes that could help his case, Yale Gallanter would have found a way to bring it out in court. You seem much more concerned than OJS or his attorney.

[tv]

Exactly. However, if the 5th amendment is strictly interpreted, that might prevent all of that.

I think the choice was wise not to put him on the stand. He doesn't know when to be quiet and he huffed and puffed and rolled his eyes while on the stand in the civil trial.

[William Anthony]

What makes you think I'm trying to worry you? ;) I'm saying that if there was anything deleted from the tapes that could help his case, Yale Gallanter would have found a way to bring it out in court. You seem much more concerned than OJS or his attorney.

You gave Galanter more credit by calling him brilliant, when he was simply gallant. Let's remember that he spend endless hours arguing and trying to prove a defense that was not applicable to Nevada law. It is just the lawyer in me striving to come out. I think we should find ways to apply the law in creative ways.

[William Anthony]

I think the choice was wise not to put him on the stand. He doesn't know when to be quiet and he huffed and puffed and rolled his eyes while on the stand in the civil trial.

Yes, I think he probably knew that the socio-political production or basically a civil murder trial was a done deal.

[tv]

You gave Galanter more credit by calling him brilliant, when he was simply gallant. Let's remember that he spend endless hours arguing and trying to prove a defense that was not applicable to Nevada law. It is just the lawyer in me striving to come out. I think we should find ways to apply the law in creative ways.If I recall I was being a little sarcastic when I called him brilliant. Worthy, perhaps, but not brilliant. Gallant maybe. Do you have any idea how he came to be OJ Simpson's lawyer in Florida? Maybe he could get a new trial by citing inadequate counsel?

[tv]

Yes, I think he probably knew that the socio-political production or basically a civil murder trial was a done deal.The facial expressions and sounds of exasperation were in direct response to Mr. Petrocelli when he had him backed into a corner.

[tv]

You gave Galanter more credit by calling him brilliant, when he was simply gallant. Let's remember that he spend endless hours arguing and trying to prove a defense that was not applicable to Nevada law. It is just the lawyer in me striving to come out. I think we should find ways to apply the law in creative ways.

Are you talking about loopholes?

[Redmama]

Why would you tape over something you intended to sell?

I was thinking more of old tapes that you knew wouldn't be used for anything. I know I've done it with tapes and with my video recorder tapes numberous times.

[William Anthony]

If I recall I was being a little sarcastic when I called him brilliant. Worthy, perhaps, but not brilliant. Gallant maybe. Do you have any idea how he came to be OJ Simpson's lawyer in Florida? Maybe he could get a new trial by citing inadequate counsel?

I would think via a retainer fee. I would not say he was inadequate and we shall see if he preserved the Constitutionality argument on appeal.

[William Anthony]

I was thinking more of old tapes that you knew wouldn't be used for anything. I know I've done it with tapes and with my video recorder tapes numberous times.

I understand. However, Riccio purpose in making the tapes was to sell them. I would think he would have been smart enough to take caution with them but maybe not or he listen to them and decided to delete certain portions that incriminated him.

[William Anthony]

Are you talking about loopholes?

No, I am talking about interpretation of an inexact means of communication.:)

[William Anthony]

The facial expressions and sounds of exasperation were in direct response to Mr. Petrocelli when he had him backed into a corner.

Where did you see the trial? It was not televised in my area. Did you win any money while you were in Vegas for those 13 days? :)

[William Anthony]

Are you talking about loopholes?

Allow me to correct my previous response to this post? I guess Simpson has been in so many courtrooms that I got the location confused. What I meant to say was that the socio-political production was not televised in my area and were you in California when what the judge called, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial" was produced. :)

[martin II]

I think you said that already. It kind of reminds me of OJ Simpson being in charge of putting on the gloves. We had to take his word that they didn't fit. I guess that's the way it goes.

The differance is we saw oj try to put those small gloves on his big mitts.No one saw what Rizzio or others did with the tapes.

[martin II]

The facial expressions and sounds of exasperation were in direct response to Mr. Petrocelli when he had him backed into a corner.


You saw the civil trial on tv??

[martin II]

I was thinking more of old tapes that you knew wouldn't be used for anything. I know I've done it with tapes and with my video recorder tapes numberous times.

Again, the recorder and tapes were NEW .Riccio started his taping the day before at the pool and ended at the hotel.No other events were tapped in between.

[Kayleighjo]

Allow me to correct my previous response to this post? I guess Simpson has been in so many courtrooms that I got the location confused. What I meant to say was that the socio-political production was not televised in my area and were you in California when what the judge called, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial" was produced. :)

No less of a production than the mass soap opera we call the criminal trial.

[martin II]

Why would you tape over something you intended to sell?

And may i add the purpose of Riccio taping a transcation last week would be to have a record for the future possible disagreements. Why would he tape over last weeks transaction this week and destroy that record.Makes no sense.imo

[weezer]

The differance is we saw oj try to put those small gloves on his big mitts.No one saw what Rizzio or others did with the tapes.

and even though there were criminal jurors who 'knew those gloves fit' -- they let him walk. someone else posted what I also believe: orenthal apologists would continue to defend orenthal even if they had watched the video of him butchering Ron and Nicole. Now, they have audio tapes of his planning, executing, laughing about his kidnapping and armed robbery and they STILL defend him. Go figure. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

No less of a production than the mass soap opera we call the criminal trial.

There are a couple of major differences. Those differences being the standard of proof and the fact that the criminal trial related to the charges he was charged with and did not try to turn a play into a movie. Good to hear from you again.

[William Anthony]

I don't read your posts. Sorry. Someone else will fill me in on the details.

Hey Joe,

What you know? I see you do know the date. The fact that you did not have details has not stopped your from posting in the past. I am pleased to know that you now want to learn things. Bully for you!

[Kayleighjo]

There are a couple of major differences. Those differences being the standard of proof and the fact that the criminal trial related to the charges he was charged with and did not try to turn a play into a movie. Good to hear from you again.

Definitely gotta disagree with you there - I think alot of the key "players" did their very best to be movie stars with their 15 minutes.

[William Anthony]

Definitely gotta disagree with you there - I think alot of the key "players" did their very best to be movie stars with their 15 minutes.

I don't think we have a disagreement when you compare a civil trial to a criminal one. The players in a criminal trial are making a movie, while some of the actors in a civil trial seemed to forget the theme of their play.

[Kayleighjo]

Hey Joe,

What you know? I see you do know the date. The fact that you did not have details has not stopped your from posting in the past. I am pleased to know that you now want to learn things. Bully for you!

LOL, gosh the two of you have it in for each other!

[William Anthony]

LOL, gosh the two of you have it in for each other!

Why Kaleighjo, whatever do you mean? When I am feeling down and out I look for his posts on this board. They always make me feel immediately better. They say laughter is the best medicine. However, it is sometimes beneficial to humble yourself and give thanks to God, by remembering-there but by the grace of God, go I. :)

[tv]

Where did you see the trial? It was not televised in my area. Did you win any money while you were in Vegas for those 13 days? :)

I've read various accounts of eye witnesses to the civil trial which was not held in Vegas by the way.

[tv]

You saw the civil trial on tv??No, I must have missed it. Did you see it on tv?

[tv]

The differance is we saw oj try to put those small gloves on his big mitts.No one saw what Rizzio or others did with the tapes.

That's true. We saw him faking the gloves not fitting with our own eyes. There is only speculation that Riccio removed anything from the tapes that would be important to the trial.

[tv]

I would think via a retainer fee. I would not say he was inadequate and we shall see if he preserved the Constitutionality argument on appeal.

You know I wasn't talking about a retainer fee. I thought maybe you knew if he was referred to him or they had a prior relationship. I should have known better than to try to get a straight answer. I don't think he was inadequate; I was wondering if you did.

[William Anthony]

I've read various accounts of eye witnesses to the civil trial which was not held in Vegas by the way.

I understand now. You have no direct information.:)

[tv]

I understand now. You have no direct information.:)

I guess all the people that described Simpson's demeanor during the trial were lying -- that figures because the whole world is against him.

[William Anthony]

I guess all the people that described Simpson's demeanor during the trial were lying -- that figures because the whole world is against him.

No, you misunderstand. They probably saw what they saw but that does not mean that what they saw was because of the reasons they gave. :)

[martin II]

No, I must have missed it. Did you see it on tv?

So you were just ah kinda slipping in the comments about ojs facial expressions and how he looked in the civil trial under Petrols questIoning.right??
hahaha

[martin II]

I guess all the people that described Simpson's demeanor during the trial were lying -- that figures because the whole world is against him.

You may be surprised that the whole world you speak of was only a small part of the whole WORLD. That is if you include the WHOLE WORLD.

[William Anthony]

You know I wasn't talking about a retainer fee. I thought maybe you knew if he was referred to him or they had a prior relationship. I should have known better than to try to get a straight answer. I don't think he was inadequate; I was wondering if you did.

See what I mean by an inexact language. I don't think he was inadequate or ineffective. I think he took a calculated risk but the jury instructions sealed his fate. What I don't think he could do, without putting Simpson on the stand, although he tried gallantly, was to tell Simpson's story in a sympathetic way. I really believe he was trying to get him acquitted on some of the charges.

[martin II]

See what I mean by an inexact language. I don't think he was inadequate or ineffective. I think he took a calculated risk but the jury instructions sealed his fate. What I don't think he could do, without putting Simpson on the stand, although he tried gallantly, was to tell Simpson's story in a sympathetic way. I really believe he was trying to get him acquitted on some of the charges.

He may have thought the biased jurors would judge the case unbiased as they promised but we know what happened with that.imo

[William Anthony]

I guess all the people that described Simpson's demeanor during the trial were lying -- that figures because the whole world is against him.

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

-- William Shakespeare"

[Redmama]

And may i add the purpose of Riccio taping a transcation last week would be to have a record for the future possible disagreements. Why would he tape over last weeks transaction this week and destroy that record.Makes no sense.imo

I wasn't talking last weeks - I was talking months or probably years old - I've grabbed tapes like that when I didn't have one.

[weezer]

I wasn't talking last weeks - I was talking months or probably years old - I've grabbed tapes like that when I didn't have one.

I've done the same. Anyone know what the specifications were on riccio's recording for hours that could be recorded without being recorded over the top of?

[martin II]

I wasn't talking last weeks - I was talking months or probably years old - I've grabbed tapes like that when I didn't have one.

Riccio purchased the recorder and the tapes the day before his first taping at the Plams Hotel pool.He taped that day and the next at the Palace Station.

He produced receits for both so NO. Caldwell testified both appeared new.

He did not grab any old tape.

[tv]

No, you misunderstand. They probably saw what they saw but that does not mean that what they saw was because of the reasons they gave. :)

I'm talking about what he would do when responding to questioning by the plaintiff's attorneys. Is OJ Simpson so crazy and out of touch with reality that he makes noises and facial expressions out of context? Maybe he should have gone for the insanity defense in the Vegas trial.