Nevada Case Discussion Only

[Its just me]

I can’t help myself but to picture myself in that situation. I would feel like I had no choice but to stay there. OJ, as big as he is, would be a very menacing figure. I sure hope no law makes it ok for someone to come into my home – for whatever reason. I know testimony was different, but in that moment – they had to be scared and felt trapped – sounds like kidnapping to me.

I agree plus It was four men against two...IIRC one of the six was hospitalized after the incident. I do wonder if what transpired had something to do with that. I can be wrong and got the wrong case and admit I don't know if it was a victim that went to the hospital but I think he may have been. Please excuse me if I am wrong.

Elsewhere we were discussing 2 robberies close to my home. Both had teenagers in the home who hid. I am changing my habit of feeling safe in my home and if someone does come in I plan on them not walking out. fep

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson Ordered To Pay Restitution

O.J. Simpson and his co-defendants have been ordered to pay restitution to one of the victims in last year's Palace Station robbery incident. On Friday, District Judge Jackie Glass ruled that Simpson and all five of his original co-defendants must pay a total of $3,560 to memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong. The money is to cover Fromong's hospital bills and the cost of memorabilia that was stolen from him. Fromong was outraged with the ruling, saying he's out between $75,000 and $100,000 from the stolen memorabilia alone. Meanwhile, Judge Glass ordered all Simpson memorabilia items that were held in evidence to be turned over to the L.A. County Sheriff's Office. Proceeds from those items will likely go to the family of Ron Goldman, as part of a civil judgment against Simpson for his 1995 murder case.


TM & Copyright 2008 KXNT Radio Inc.

[weezer]

That'll pay about $2,600 in medical bills Fromong claimed after he was pushed into a chair while being robbed at gunpoint Sept. 13, 2007, in a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec19/0,4670,OJSimpsonRestitution,00.html

[Its just me]

O.J. Simpson Ordered To Pay Restitution

O.J. Simpson and his co-defendants have been ordered to pay restitution to one of the victims in last year's Palace Station robbery incident. On Friday, District Judge Jackie Glass ruled that Simpson and all five of his original co-defendants must pay a total of $3,560 to memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong. The money is to cover Fromong's hospital bills and the cost of memorabilia that was stolen from him. Fromong was outraged with the ruling, saying he's out between $75,000 and $100,000 from the stolen memorabilia alone. Meanwhile, Judge Glass ordered all Simpson memorabilia items that were held in evidence to be turned over to the L.A. County Sheriff's Office. Proceeds from those items will likely go to the family of Ron Goldman, as part of a civil judgment against Simpson for his 1995 murder case.


TM & Copyright 2008 KXNT Radio Inc.

Maybe the small restitution had something do with who OJ is. :shrug: Pun intended.

Thanks for the post. I thought it was one of the victims in this case that had to be hospitalized. fep

[William Anthony]

I can’t help myself but to picture myself in that situation. I would feel like I had no choice but to stay there. OJ, as big as he is, would be a very menacing figure. I sure hope no law makes it ok for someone to come into my home – for whatever reason. I know testimony was different, but in that moment – they had to be scared and felt trapped – sounds like kidnapping to me.

It may sound like kidnapping to you but the Nevada law has said what amounts to kidnapping and that was not it. If someone came into your home and intended to rob you, they would keep you there to accomplish their intentions. They may even tie you up to make their escape and, according to Nevada law that would not be kidnapping. Simpson did not tie anyone up and left them with a cell phone. I have posted where the legal scholars and professionals do not believe the kidnapping charges will stand. I think that is because they have researched the law.

[William Anthony]

Maybe the small restitution had something do with who OJ is. :shrug: Pun intended. fep

I think it had more to do with who Fromong and Beardsley are, pun intended:).

[weezer]

Maybe the small restitution had something do with who OJ is. :shrug: Pun intended. fep

LOL -- I remember reading that the majority of it was for medical (a shoulder hurt during the armed robbery and kidnapping) and the rest (I think) was for some baseballs that never showed back up. :no:

seems the ownership is going to have to be decided elsewhere since no one at the 'sting' had receipts. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

I think if the courts disagrees with any argument OJ's defense puts forth they will have the necessary argument to explain why and will explain. I doubt OJ's name will be a part of the argument. Granted it being OJ may make them do more researching but I don't know that and neither does anyone else. At this time we don't even know who will be presiding over an appeal.
It's sad to me anytime someone puts their self in a position where they stand a chance of going to prison. When the gun was taken into the room and the people were told not to leave that room OJ and crew put their self into that position and yes that has lots to do with who OJ is. imhoo fep

ETA: Not only does the accused have a right for due process but the victims have a right for justice to be served. OH Lawd, in this case I'm not sure there is morally a real victim. The whole bunch is next to pure gangsters in my opinion based on what I've "heard" and you also know how that can be.

I must disagree as to Simpson's name being part of the appeal as it is rumored that a part of the appeal will be on judge J. Glass' lack of impartiality, the issues with the jury foreman and the Batson challenge.

[William Anthony]

I agree plus It was four men against two...IIRC one of the six was hospitalized after the incident. I do wonder if what transpired had something to do with that. I can be wrong and got the wrong case and admit I don't know if it was a victim that went to the hospital but I think he may have been. Please excuse me if I am wrong.

Elsewhere we were discussing 2 robberies close to my home. Both had teenagers in the home who hid. I am changing my habit of feeling safe in my home and if someone does come in I plan on them not walking out. fep

Would that be because you feel you have the right to protect and defend what is yours?

[Its just me]

Would that be because you feel you have the right to protect and defend what is yours?

Yes it does....but if by some miracle the person does leave my house with stolen goods I don't have a right to go get it carrying my gun...even if I would want to. fep

[William Anthony]

I agree plus It was four men against two...IIRC one of the six was hospitalized after the incident. I do wonder if what transpired had something to do with that. I can be wrong and got the wrong case and admit I don't know if it was a victim that went to the hospital but I think he may have been. Please excuse me if I am wrong.

Elsewhere we were discussing 2 robberies close to my home. Both had teenagers in the home who hid. I am changing my habit of feeling safe in my home and if someone does come in I plan on them not walking out. fep

Why not let them take what they wanted, pray that the don't hurt you and pray that LE does it's job or do you suspect they wouldn't, because you were some weird celebrity case as they explained not wanting to get into the report of property stolen from Simpson. In the event that you found your stuff and the statute of limitations had not run out, you could file a civil suit as LE allegedly suggested for Simpson to do.

[William Anthony]

Yes it does....but if by some miracle the person does leave my house with stolen goods I don't have a right to go get it carrying my gun...even if I would want to. fep

Well, I don't think that is correct in every state, so I will do some research. I have done some previously and I do not want to test anyone's ire but it was done in connection with the right of the slave owner to reclaim his property, even in states were slavery was not allowed. Before anyone tells me that the slaves were freed and that law is not applicable, let me say that the type of property was not allowed but the dicta of the case said that the slave was like any other type of property. Therefore, the argument would be that a property owner is allowed to use force to reclaim his property. However, I will look to see if there are more recent cases on point.

[William Anthony]

I have done some research on the issue and this is what I found, which it seems the law is unsettled on that issue. I will look to see what the Supreme Court had to say.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9cEKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=legal+decisions+on+the+right+of+property+owners +to+use+force+to+reclaim+personal+property&source=web&ots=M8WKR8FyUl&sig=dtMo7MpTXbAU793SzNvIcV6TQpU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA257,M1

[Its just me]

Why not let them take what they wanted, pray that the don't hurt you and pray that LE does it's job or do you suspect they wouldn't, because you were some weird celebrity case as they explained not wanting to get into the report of property stolen from Simpson. In the event that you found your stuff and the statute of limitations had not run out, you could file a civil suit as LE allegedly suggested for Simpson to do.

That would be the best thing to do if I knew they would only steal my property. It's not my property that's my concern... that can be replaced but I'm concened about my own arse which can't be replaced if I'm dead.
OJ would not be in the mess he is in if he had taken the advise of the LE and filed a civil suit....if that actually happened. I'd just imagine greed played a part in OJ's decision about any civil suit over property of any value...it would expose something that he would most likely loose because of the other civil case but it looks like that happened anyway. My opinion is all LE is stretched beyond their limits and OJ's stuff was not their top priority and it should not have been. If the LE wouldn't go after what was stolen from me I'd me mad as H*ll but it still would not justify me to go get it with my buds carrying a gun. fep

[Its just me]

I have done some research on the issue and this is what I found, which it seems the law is unsettled on that issue. I will look to see what the Supreme Court had to say.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9cEKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=legal+decisions+on+the+right+of+property+owners +to+use+force+to+reclaim+personal+property&source=web&ots=M8WKR8FyUl&sig=dtMo7MpTXbAU793SzNvIcV6TQpU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA257,M1

You might find some wiggle room if the robber was still in sight...but I'd really like to know if a law allows me to go get my stuff that has been stolen in the past. It's long past the hands of the thug who stole it but I might can track it down. ;) fep

[William Anthony]

That would be the best thing to do if I knew they would only steal my property. It's not my property that's my concern... that can be replaced but I'm concened about my own arse which can't be replaced if I'm dead.
OJ would not be in the mess he is in if he had taken the advise of the LE and filed a civil suit....it that actually happened. I'd just imagine greed played a part in OJ's decision about any civil suit over property of any value...it would expose something that he would most likely loose because of the other civil case but it looks like that happened anyway. My opinion is all LE is stretched beyond their limits and OJ's stuff was not their top priority and it should not have been. If the LE wouldn't go after what was stolen from me I'd me mad as H*ll but it still would not justify me to go get it with my buds carrying a gun. fep

There is a statute of limitations. What was reportedly said was that they did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity cases, not that they were stretched beyond their limits.

[William Anthony]

You might find some wiggle room if the robber was still in sight...but I'd really like to know if a law allows me to go get my stuff that has been stolen in the past. It's long past the hands of the thug who stole it but I might can track it down. ;) fep

I have provided the link.

[William Anthony]

Here is another link and what it says, which is why I would argue the need for uniformity of the laws.

On Monday, the state's high court said defendants in theft cases can claim
a good-faith belief in the right to reclaim their property -- even
violently -- in some circumstances.

The 1850 state law against theft, and the 1872 law against forcible
robbery, both require proof of an intent to steal, which is ``inconsistent
with a good-faith belief that the specific property taken is one's own,''
said the opinion by Justice Marvin Baxter.

Although the ``claim of right'' defense has been attacked as an endorsement
of ``self-help through force or violence,'' it can be abolished only by the
Legislature, Baxter said.

He said the defense applies only to defendants claiming specific property,
and not to those who take money that they claim the victims owed them -- a
broader defense that the court had accepted in 1967.

He also noted that defendants who use violence can usually be convicted of
other charges, such as the battery and spousal abuse charges against
defendant Halaliku Tufunga.

I erased the link by mistake. This is a California case and Nevada and California are in the ninth circuit.

[Its just me]

There is a statute of limitations. What was reportedly said was that they did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity cases, not that they were stretched beyond their limits.

Point taken. At least it's good to know they were not interested in the spotlights like some are.
Probably some of the arguments made in all directions is right but I personally am glad OJ is in jail because if I have ever known of a person that has been a long time threat to society....it's OJ. I'm not afraid of much but I would be afraid to live by OJ and there is history to back up why I would be afraid. I do believe in justice and Due Process and I hope in the end justice prevails in everything including OJ's Due Process if it hasn't already happen. Good Night. fep

[Its just me]

I have provided the link.

I know but I didn't see anything that I could relate to the subject at hand.

[William Anthony]

Point taken. At least it's good to know they were not interested in the spotlights like some are.
Probably some of the arguments made in all directions is right but I personally am glad OJ is in jail because if I have ever known of a person that has been a long time threat to society....it's OJ. I'm not afraid of much but I would be afraid to live by OJ and there is history to back up why I would be afraid. I do believe in justice and Due Process and I hope in the end justice prevails in everything including OJ's Due Process if it hasn't already happen. Good Night. fep

Do you have some of the memorabilia?:)

[William Anthony]

I know but I didn't see anything that I could relate to the subject at hand.

Have a good night's sleep.

[Its just me]

Do you have some of the memorabilia?:)

Is is allowed to be posted. :D fep

[weezer]

You might find some wiggle room if the robber was still in sight...but I'd really like to know if a law allows me to go get my stuff that has been stolen in the past. It's long past the hands of the thug who stole it but I might can track it down. ;) fep

orenthal was in a real pickle of the 'stuff' he was claiming was stolen from him: 1. he never reported anything stolen and 2. he couldn't report anything stolen -- :D

[Its just me]

orenthal was in a real pickle of the 'stuff' he was claiming was stolen from him: 1. he never reported anything stolen and 2. he couldn't report anything stolen -- :D

Ha, if OJ had no record of his stuff being stolen....that may have been why the LE wasn't interested in hunting down his stuff. I feel sure there is much more to the story than LE refusing to help Mr. Simpson :D with his stuff. Thanks for the info. fep

[weezer]

Ha, if OJ had no record of his stuff being stolen....that may have been why the LE wasn't interested in hunting down his stuff. I feel sure there is much more to the story than LE refusing to help Mr. Simpson :D with his stuff. Thanks for the info. fep

I've questioned why once orenthal knew the stuff was there and the 'thiefs' were in a room waiting to sell it, why didn't he contact LV LE then and have them go with him? and if LE wouldn't, why not the press? Oh that's right -- he couldn't.

I also question why orenthal was adamant that he not carry anything out of the casino and was very vocal in letting everyone know that he didn't carry anything. Seems he was concerned about being caught on tape hauling his 'heirlooms'. Is it just me or does it not seem odd to anyone else that IF he honestly believed he was only retrieving his 'stolen' stuff, that he certainly was overly concerned about being seen with it?

orenthal's life only works if all the bad behavior on his part can be blamed on someone (anyone) else. :shrug:

[Its just me]

You have given a strong moral argument, with which it is hard to disagree.:)

I have put forth a legal argument, which the court may disagree, and I feel they will, because it is Simpson. That may be the saddest part.[/quote]

[quote=Its just me;9154319]I think if the courts disagrees with any argument OJ's defense puts forth they will have the necessary argument to explain why and will explain. I doubt OJ's name will be a part of the argument. Granted it being OJ may make them do more researching but I don't know that and neither does anyone else. At this time we don't even know who will be presiding over an appeal.
It's sad to me anytime someone puts their self in a position where they stand a chance of going to prison. When the gun was taken into the room and the people were told not to leave that room OJ and crew put their self into that position and yes that has lots to do with who OJ is. imhoo fep

ETA: Not only does the accused have a right for due process but the victims have a right for justice to be served. OH Lawd, in this case I'm not sure there is morally a real victim. The whole bunch is next to pure gangsters in my opinion based on what I've "heard" and you also know how that can be.
Your last reply:
I must disagree as to Simpson's name being part of the appeal as it is rumored that a part of the appeal will be on judge J. Glass' lack of impartiality, the issues with the jury foreman and the Batson challenge.

I admit I just woke up in the middle of the night and most of the time I'm not in a very good mood. But william....and I know you like to argue and be right but argue about something I've actually said. How you got what you are disagreeing and trying to be right about with what I posted....Dang if I know. Either me or you fell off the turnip truck and I think its the latter. Sorry but if you ain't gonna "play" fair I ain't either and trust me you don't want that. fep

[martin II]

That's why OJ messed up by not taking the plea deal. Any time you go to court you chance getting a biased jury and/or a bad judge. OJ should have known this. I'm not saying that happened....I don't know because I'm not familar with what happened in the court room. OJ will have a chance to prove any wrong doings in the appeals court. fep

Since Stewart rejected the plea it did not matter if oj wanted to accept as the deal was that both had to accept. i never heard of that type plea before.

ps

judge glass did not have to agree with the pleas even if both had accepted.

[martin II]

Ha, if OJ had no record of his stuff being stolen....that may have been why the LE wasn't interested in hunting down his stuff. I feel sure there is much more to the story than LE refusing to help Mr. Simpson :D with his stuff. Thanks for the info. fep

Riccio testified that at a meeting with the FBI on a matter of celebrity stuff he was selling he informed them that he knew someone that was trying to sell ojs stolen stuff.when he informed them it was ojs stuff they informed him they were not interested.he made it sound like they were interested until he told them it was ojs stuff.

the plan was to bring Access Holywood in with cameras but for some reason this not done at the last minute. It would have been a better idea to ask vegas le to meet them in the lobby and go in the room with them.
if it had been reported that drugs or stolen jewelry ,diamonds, not previously reported was being offered for sale in the room, i am sure le would have investigated.

[William Anthony]

You have given a strong moral argument, with which it is hard to disagree.:)

I have put forth a legal argument, which the court may disagree, and I feel they will, because it is Simpson. That may be the saddest part.


Your last reply:


I admit I just woke up in the middle of the night and most of the time I'm not in a very good mood. But william....and I know you like to argue and be right but argue about something I've actually said. How you got what you are disagreeing and trying to be right about with what I posted....Dang if I know. Either me or you fell off the turnip truck and I think its the latter. Sorry but if you ain't gonna "play" fair I ain't either and trust me you don't want that. fep

You are mistaken about me liking to be right. I only like to win. :) I do not know for a fact, which legal argument is correct, but I want to have the most persuasive one.

I was saying that I thought that Simpson's name will be part of the appeal, as argument is part of the appeal process and is made in the accompanying brief in support of the motion and against the motion for appeal. Not a morning person, I see. I don't see how the court could explain without saying appellant Simpson did this by the evidence or words to that effect. I can envision one statement in particular, The evidence is insufficient to conclude that Judge J. Glass' harbored any bias against defendant Simpson or that defendant Simpson's alleged prior bad acts played any part in the sentencing of defendant Simpson, or words to that effect.

[William Anthony]

Riccio testified that at a meeting with the FBI on a matter of celebrity stuff he was selling he informed them that he knew someone that was trying to sell ojs stolen stuff.when he informed them it was ojs stuff they informed him they were not interested.he made it sound like they were interested until he told them it was ojs stuff.

the plan was to bring Access Holywood in with cameras but for some reason this not done at the last minute. It would have been a better idea to ask vegas le to meet them in the lobby and go in the room with them.
if it had been reported that drugs or stolen jewelry ,diamonds, not previously reported was being offered for sale in the room, i am sure le would have investigated.

Did LE contact Simpson to see if his property had been stolen?

[martin II]

orenthal was in a real pickle of the 'stuff' he was claiming was stolen from him: 1. he never reported anything stolen and 2. he couldn't report anything stolen -- :D

What i learned from the trial testimony is that Fumong could never present cancelled chacks or cash receipts to prove he had a legal right to have the goods.

[martin II]

Did LE contact Simpson to see if his property had been stolen?

Riccio did not say they did but he did say oj agreed that he ask le for help in his meeting.

[William Anthony]

What i learned from the trial testimony is that Fumong could never present cancelled chacks or cash receipts to prove he had a legal right to have the goods.

That is why I couldn't understand judge J. Glass paying him any restitution for missing items, because she had not checked all the bases to see if the receipts were in left field or gone to buy some popcorn and ... with the baseballs at the baseball game. All puns intended to lighten the mood.

[William Anthony]

Riccio did not say they did but he did say oj agreed that he ask le for help in his meeting.

So, as I understand it, LE did not, after receiving the information of stolen property, contact Simpson to see what had been reported was true, but did convey to the person reporting the theft that they were not interested. They did not want to pursue the possibility that Riccio could be charged with filing a false police report. Those poor underpaid LE officers.

[William Anthony]

This is a perfect opportunity for me to explain what I meant about being more persuasive. The Nevada burglary statue says that someone must enter with the intent to commit a felony. Suppose for instance, I was invited to someone's home and when I arrived the door was open but no one was home and I decided to enter to see if anything was wrong. Immediately, upon entry I saw 1,000 dollars under a table. I got weak and took the money (which I assure you would never happen, as I am not that curious and would not have entered). Anyway, my argument would be that I had not committed burglary, because I had not intended on taking the money before entering or upon entering, because I had no idea it was there and only entered out of concern for the safety of the inhabitants. I can see an argument being made that I formed the intent after entering and the time of the intent should not control and I would counter argue that the opposing argument was not in line with the statute.

[William Anthony]

Riccio did not say they did but he did say oj agreed that he ask le for help in his meeting.

Did LE tell Riccio to have Simpson make the report?

[martin II]

Did LE tell Riccio to have Simpson make the report?

According to Riccio le only response was we are not interested. He did not testify to any other response by le.

[William Anthony]

According to Riccio le only response was we are not interested. He did not testify to any other response by le.

They were probably stretched to the limit and did not have time or the manpower to assign those that were getting pastries and coffee to look into the matter, smile.

[martin II]

That is why I couldn't understand judge J. Glass paying him any restitution for missing items, because she had not checked all the bases to see if the receipts were in left field or gone to buy some popcorn and ... with the baseballs at the baseball game. All puns intended to lighten the mood.

I think the judge just allowed fumong to say he paid for the stuff without having to present any type proof in court.

[Its just me]

[quote=Its just me;9154456]

You are mistaken about me liking to be right. I only like to win. :) I do not know for a fact, which legal argument is correct, but I want to have the most persuasive one.

I was saying that I thought that Simpson's name will be part of the appeal, as argument is part of the appeal process and is made in the accompanying brief in support of the motion and against the motion for appeal. Not a morning person, I see. I don't see how the court could explain without saying appellant Simpson did this by the evidence or words to that effect. I can envision one statement in particular, The evidence is insufficient to conclude that Judge J. Glass' harbored any bias against defendant Simpson or that defendant Simpson's alleged prior bad acts played any part in the sentencing of defendant Simpson, or words to that effect.
Mind you It's still morning: Like I said William I don't think I'm the one that fell off the turnip truck. This is your post that started this conversation we are disagreeing about. I have put forth a legal argument, which the court may disagree, and I feel they will, because it is Simpson. That may be the saddest part.

No where did you say anything close to what you are trying to sell. Sorry William you may like to win but you DON'T win on this one. Good Morning by the way. fep

[martin II]

They were probably stretched to the limit and did not have time or the manpower to assign those that were getting pastries and coffee to look into the matter, smile.

All they had to do is call a cop car at Dunkin Donut near Fumongs house.

[Its just me]

Since Stewart rejected the plea it did not matter if oj wanted to accept as the deal was that both had to accept. i never heard of that type plea before.

ps

judge glass did not have to agree with the pleas even if both had accepted.

Can you show me where Stewart rejected the plea and OJ didn't want to reject it. "I think"...You are correct the judge did not have to accept the plea but most of the time that is worked out before it's offered.

[William Anthony]

[quote=William Anthony;9154460]
Mind you It's still morning: Like I said William I don't think I'm the one that fell off the turnip truck. This is your post that started this conversation we are disagreeing about. I have put forth a legal argument, which the court may disagree, and I feel they will, because it is Simpson. That may be the saddest part.

No where did you say anything close to what you are trying to sell. Sorry William you may like to win but you DON'T win on this one. Good Morning by the way. fep

This is what started the discussion and it seems that I posted to myself in the one you are referencing but here is the correct order.

Originally Posted by Its just me View Post
I think if the courts disagrees with any argument OJ's defense puts forth they will have the necessary argument to explain why and will explain. I doubt OJ's name will be a part of the argument. Granted it being OJ may make them do more researching but I don't know that and neither does anyone else. At this time we don't even know who will be presiding over an appeal.
It's sad to me anytime someone puts their self in a position where they stand a chance of going to prison. When the gun was taken into the room and the people were told not to leave that room OJ and crew put their self into that position and yes that has lots to do with who OJ is. imhoo fep

ETA: Not only does the accused have a right for due process but the victims have a right for justice to be served. OH Lawd, in this case I'm not sure there is morally a real victim. The whole bunch is next to pure gangsters in my opinion based on what I've "heard" and you also know how that can be.

Your last reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
I must disagree as to Simpson's name being part of the appeal as it is rumored that a part of the appeal will be on judge J. Glass' lack of impartiality, the issues with the jury foreman and the Batson challenge.

[William Anthony]

OK William, You make me sick. You think you know it all but even I know you are half crazy at times plus you are mean as h*ll for making fun of my opinion about LE being stretched.

You and Martin can continue to waste your time defending OJ but the world knows who and what OJ is. If you want to be a lawyer I suggest you get you tail off this computer and study because you would look like a jackass in a court room.

I am out of here because I was taught and I practice not to deal with fools. Hope the thread continues but I won't stoop to be a part of it. fep

Because I am criticizing the conduct of others, does not mean I am defending Simpson. I am not worried about your opinion of how I would look in a courtroom but will take the advice of those lawyers, not attorneys, who have expressed that I should become a lawyer and that they respect me after seeing me conduct myself in courtrooms. I will take the sentiments of my instructors who told me that I would make a fine lawyer. I have recently finished cum laude with a bachelor's degree with legal studies as my major. I hope you will allow me to take some time off to relax and devote my undivided attention to whatever I should so choose, as my attention was divided between School, other things and this board.

I took no offense at your mentioning that I fell off some kind of truck and am man enough to understand that people say things and can joke about things I say. Sometimes I laugh at myself. I have found that, when I stay up too late or arise too early, I may make mistakes and laugh at them. I don't expect others to share that but I think the proper amount of rest may help people's moods. I am half crazy all the time and fully crazy at times, smile.

[William Anthony]

I guess when some try to lighten the mood all do not find it humorous.

[martin II]

OK William, You make me sick. You think you know it all but even I know you are half crazy at times plus you are mean as h*ll for making fun of my opinion about LE being stretched.

You and Martin can continue to waste your time defending OJ but the world knows who and what OJ is. If you want to be a lawyer I suggest you get you tail off this computer and study because you would look like a jackass in a court room.

I am out of here because I was taught and I practice not to deal with fools. Hope the thread continues but I won't stoop to be a part of it. fep

Most of the time i try to post facts of the case. I am not angry with you because we have different opinions of the case so i don't know why you seem to be.:seeya:

[martin II]

Can you show me where Stewart rejected the plea and OJ didn't want to reject it. "I think"...You are correct the judge did not have to accept the plea but most of the time that is worked out before it's offered.

That was reported by some media outlet. i can look for the article if want me to. It was reported that Stewart rejected it so there was no reason for oj to do anything after Stewarts rejection as the prosecution required both to agree. I think stewarts lawyer would talk to ojs lawyer.

[martin II]

OK William, You make me sick. You think you know it all but even I know you are half crazy at times plus you are mean as h*ll for making fun of my opinion about LE being stretched.

You and Martin can continue to waste your time defending OJ but the world knows who and what OJ is. If you want to be a lawyer I suggest you get you tail off this computer and study because you would look like a jackass in a court room.

I am out of here because I was taught and I practice not to deal with fools. Hope the thread continues but I won't stoop to be a part of it. fep

Now you are doing some serious name calling because some don't agree with you.imo

[William Anthony]

That was reported by some media outlet. i can look for the article if want me to. It was reported that Stewart rejected it so there was no reason for oj to do anything after Stewarts rejection as the prosecution required both to agree. I think stewarts lawyer would talk to ojs lawyer.

I just recently re-posted that link.

[Redmama]

According to Riccio le only response was we are not interested. He did not testify to any other response by le.

Even if it is proved that LE was wrong, it doesn't make what OJ and the others did right.

[martin II]

Can you show me where Stewart rejected the plea and OJ didn't want to reject it. "I think"...You are correct the judge did not have to accept the plea but most of the time that is worked out before it's offered.

Based on the set up of the jury and how Glass managed the trial i doubt she would have approved any sentence shorter than what she had planned to issue.imo

[martin II]

Even if it is proved that LE was wrong, it doesn't make what OJ and the others did right.

i agree but having found no le help i guess riccio and oj thought they had no choice but to try their way.

[martin II]

Even if it is proved that LE was wrong, it doesn't make what OJ and the others did right.

The problem is only oj and stewart got put in jail all the other gansters were set free.

[Redmama]

i agree but having found no le help i guess riccio and oj thought they had no choice but to try their way.

I would agree with that if it was a life or death situation - but not for a bunch of stuff. He could have tried a bit harder to get through to LE. I'm sure he wishes he would have now.

[William Anthony]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Redmama]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The way I look at it - OJ wasn't denied, his friend was. I get that he was asking on OJ's behalf, but I would have to ask for myself before making the choice to barge into someone's hotel room.

[Redmama]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That law does not go on to say that a crime can be committed if a person is denied.

[Redmama]

The problem is only oj and stewart got put in jail all the other gansters were set free.

I agree, I think they should ALL should be in jail.

[William Anthony]

That law does not go on to say that a crime can be committed if a person is denied.

Formed since 2000, Ranch Rescue is a still functioning organization in the southwest United States ranchers call upon to forcibly remove illegal aliens and squatters off their property.

It seems the law decides, who and under what circumstances force can be used by vigilantes and who will be called vigilantes or criminals.

[William Anthony]

http://www.weneedafence.com/news/read/4

Interesting about the Ranch Rescue organization was not tried under the Ricco Act and the one, who was tried, was only convicted of a weapons charge. I will try to find the case and read the language contained therein. It seems that Simpson did nothing of this caliber. I have seen a trial in which Morris Dees was a lawyer and I liked his skills.

[martin II]

OK William, You make me sick. You think you know it all but even I know you are half crazy at times plus you are mean as h*ll for making fun of my opinion about LE being stretched.

You and Martin can continue to waste your time defending OJ but the world knows who and what OJ is. If you want to be a lawyer I suggest you get you tail off this computer and study because you would look like a jackass in a court room.

I am out of here because I was taught and I practice not to deal with fools. Hope the thread continues but I won't stoop to be a part of it. fep


On second thought this may some effort at comedy RIGHT?

[Redmama]

http://www.weneedafence.com/news/read/4

Interesting about the Ranch Rescue organization was not tried under the Ricco Act and the one, who was tried, was only convicted of a weapons charge. I will try to find the case and read the language contained therein. It seems that Simpson did nothing of this caliber. I have seen a trial in which Morris Dees was a lawyer and I liked his skills.

Maybe what they did was called the Riccio act - hee hee.

[William Anthony]

Maybe what they did was called the Riccio act - hee hee.

Maybe so. I like that one.:)

[William Anthony]

On second thought this may some effort at comedy RIGHT?

I found some of the comments comedic but then I am half crazy. Some think Riccio is half crazy and he came out the best of all.

[Redmama]

I found some of the comments comedic but then I am half crazy. Some think Riccio is half crazy and he came out the best of all.

I agree. What do you think of plea deals, in general? I know it is an everyday occurrence, but I'm not sure how I feel about whether they are right or wrong...just an interesting question to me.

[William Anthony]

I agree. What do you think of plea deals, in general? I know it is an everyday occurrence, but I'm not sure how I feel about whether they are right or wrong...just an interesting question to me.

If they are offered to one person for a less serious offense, then I do not have the problem I have with them when they are offered to one to turn on others for the more serious offenses.

[Redmama]

If they are offered to one person for a less serious offense, then I do not have the problem I have with them when they are offered to one to turn on others for the more serious offenses.

I agree, although until the whole case is exposes...it might be hard to know if they are telling the truth...since they are usually involved in something illegal - who knows who is telling the whole story.

[William Anthony]

I agree, although until the whole case is exposes...it might be hard to know if they are telling the truth...since they are usually involved in something illegal - who knows who is telling the whole story.

I think that is the problem the jury had and why the relied on the tapes, which might have been inadmissible.

[FDInLaw]

OK William, You make me sick. You think you know it all but even I know you are half crazy at times plus you are mean as h*ll for making fun of my opinion about LE being stretched.

You and Martin can continue to waste your time defending OJ but the world knows who and what OJ is. If you want to be a lawyer I suggest you get you tail off this computer and study because you would look like a jackass in a court room.

I am out of here because I was taught and I practice not to deal with fools. Hope the thread continues but I won't stoop to be a part of it. fep
:( You are one of my favorite posters and I was excited to see you posting in this forum. This isn't the easiest group, granted. . . but I hope you will keep posting.

[William Anthony]

:( You are one of my favorite posters and I was excited to see you posting in this forum. This isn't the easiest group, granted. . . but I hope you will keep posting.

I hope that the poster will come back without the name calling. However, if that won't be the case, we should respect the decision as some of us are interested in keeping the thread open.

[William Anthony]

Here is one of the problems with the law and I do believe it all stems from interpretation. The case law says that in order to support a dual conviction on robbery and kidnapping the force used must be "substantially excessive" than that used to commit the associated crime. The following courts are called upon to determine what that means. Thus, the force used can be excessive and not allow for a conviction but not substantially excessive. That is exactly why I have no aspirations to be a judge. I do not think that the force used to commit the robbery was substantially excessive and does not allow for conviction on kidnapping.

[William Anthony]

I have struggled with the notion that a defendant, who did not raise a Constitutional objection during trial, may loose the right to make it on appeal and have found this link on plain error.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p051.htm

I learned of the doctrine while reading some of the case law. I will research to see how it applies to the failure to raise a Constitutional objection under Nevada law. It is interesting that the import of the plain error doctrine was expressed in a ninth circuit opinion, which Nevada is a part of. IIRC, the ninth circuit is said to be the most liberal.



http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:tJvMPx-l37gJ:www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/NinthCircuitCourt0404.pdf+the+most+liberal+of+the+ federal+circuit+courts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[William Anthony]

This is what I have found about the application of the plain error doctrine to the failure to raise a Constitutional objection.

"b. Respondent does not dispute this Court's observation in Yakus v.
United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944), that "(n)o procedural
principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional
right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the
failure to make timely assertion of the right before the tribunal
having jurisdiction to determine it." And respondent offers no reason
why the plain error rule should be applied more leniently when
constitutional claims are involved. Indeed, that has not been the
Court's practice. In Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), for
example, the Court agreed with the defendant that under the Fourteenth
Amendment he should not have been required to stand trial in prison
garb. Nevertheless, because defense counsel had raised no objection
at trial to the practice, the Court refused to reverse the defendant's
conviction. While reluctant to find a "relinquishment of a
fundamental right * * * absent a showing of a conscious surrender of a
known right" (id. at 508 n.3), the Court explained (ibid.) that it
"has not * * * engaged in this exacting analysis with respect to
strategic and tactical decisions, even those with constitutional
implications, by a counseled accused." Quoting the Second Circuit's
decision in United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276, 280 (1965),
cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907 (1966), the Court observed (ibid.) that
"(f)ederal courts, including the Supreme Court, have declined to
notice (alleged) errors not objected to below even though such errors
involve a criminal defendant's constitutional rights." And the Court
noted (425 U.S. at 508 n.3) that "(t)he reason for this rule is clear:
if the defendant has an objection, there is an obligation to call the
matter to the court's attention so the trial judge will have an
opportunity to remedy the situation." See also id. at 513-515 (Powell,
J., concurring). /2/

c. Respondent offers no support for his contention (Resp. Br.
47-50) that the prosecutor's summation in this case constituted plain
error in the required sense: a "'particularly egregious error'" that
"seriously affect(ed) the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
(the) judicial proceedings" (United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15
(1985) (citations omitted)). /3/ Respondent suggests (Resp. Br. 49)
that "the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming"; but, as our
statement of facts shows, the proof at trial was extraordinarily
strong. It is hard to imagine a stronger circumstantial case than
this one.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1987/sg870406.txt

I do not recall what Galantar said in response to the prosecution's continued objection to the claim of right defense. I do not think an appellate court will find it particularly egregious that seriously affected the fairness...of the trial, on that issue. I suppose that it must depend on whether or not Galantar raised a Constitutional objection, meaning, at least, that Galanter said it was unfair and the defense was denied a defense. I know that has been said it was a general claim of the defense.

[martin II]

I have struggled with the notion that a defendant, who did not raise a Constitutional objection during trial, may loose the right to make it on appeal and have found this link on plain error. This issue if considered by the appeals court may give the defense the cover they need on the Tapes. thanks for this william.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p051.htm

I learned of the doctrine while reading some of the case law. I will research to see how it applies to the failure to raise a Constitutional objection under Nevada law. It is interesting that the import of the plain error doctrine was expressed in a ninth circuit opinion, which Nevada is a part of. IIRC, the ninth circuit is said to be the most liberal.


http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:tJvMPx-l37gJ:www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/NinthCircuitCourt0404.pdf+the+most+liberal+of+the+ federal+circuit+courts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

The 9th circuit is well know for how they rule.
martin II

[martin II]

This is what I have found about the application of the plain error doctrine to the failure to raise a Constitutional objection.

"b. Respondent does not dispute this Court's observation in Yakus v.
United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944), that "(n)o procedural
principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional
right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the
failure to make timely assertion of the right before the tribunal
having jurisdiction to determine it." And respondent offers no reason
why the plain error rule should be applied more leniently when
constitutional claims are involved. Indeed, that has not been the
Court's practice. In Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), for
example, the Court agreed with the defendant that under the Fourteenth
Amendment he should not have been required to stand trial in prison
garb. Nevertheless, because defense counsel had raised no objection
at trial to the practice, the Court refused to reverse the defendant's
conviction. While reluctant to find a "relinquishment of a
fundamental right * * * absent a showing of a conscious surrender of a
known right" (id. at 508 n.3), the Court explained (ibid.) that it
"has not * * * engaged in this exacting analysis with respect to
strategic and tactical decisions, even those with constitutional
implications, by a counseled accused." Quoting the Second Circuit's
decision in United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276, 280 (1965),
cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907 (1966), the Court observed (ibid.) that
"(f)ederal courts, including the Supreme Court, have declined to
notice (alleged) errors not objected to below even though such errors
involve a criminal defendant's constitutional rights." And the Court
noted (425 U.S. at 508 n.3) that "(t)he reason for this rule is clear:
if the defendant has an objection, there is an obligation to call the
matter to the court's attention so the trial judge will have an
opportunity to remedy the situation." See also id. at 513-515 (Powell,
J., concurring). /2/

c. Respondent offers no support for his contention (Resp. Br.
47-50) that the prosecutor's summation in this case constituted plain
error in the required sense: a "'particularly egregious error'" that
"seriously affect(ed) the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
(the) judicial proceedings" (United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15
(1985) (citations omitted)). /3/ Respondent suggests (Resp. Br. 49)
that "the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming"; but, as our
statement of facts shows, the proof at trial was extraordinarily
strong. It is hard to imagine a stronger circumstantial case than
this one.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1987/sg870406.txt

I do not recall what Galantar said in response to the prosecution's continued objection to the claim of right defense. I do not think an appellate court will find it particularly egregious that seriously affected the fairness...of the trial, on that issue. I suppose that it must depend on whether or not Galantar raised a Constitutional objection, meaning, at least, that Galanter said it was unfair and the defense was denied a defense. I know that has been said it was a general claim of the defense.


Question for all.

If the appeals court rules in favor of a appeals issue raised by Stewarts lawyers do that mean that they automatically rule for Oj Simpson on that issue?

[William Anthony]

The 9th circuit is well know for how they rule.
martin II

The issue of the tapes is very interesting, since the jury is the trier of fact, and they said they did not find any of the witnesses credible. I don't know, if Riccio testified that he did not delete any portion of the tapes but the jury did not believe him, which means they thought he did, imho. The expert testified that he was unable to determine, if portions of the tapes were deleted, which, according to the statements they did not find credible, which means they thought he could make that determination, imho. Thus, the state of the record is that the tapes lacked the requisite authentication, imho, and the jury relied on evidence that was inadmissible, imho.

I suppose that there will be the exception raised to the tapes that they were created in the normal course of business and therefore have an inherent credibility. However, when Riccio sold the tapes, the argument would be that they were not created as a record related to his regular course of business, imho.

[martin II]

This is what I have found about the application of the plain error doctrine to the failure to raise a Constitutional objection.

"b. Respondent does not dispute this Court's observation in Yakus v.
United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944), that "(n)o procedural
principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional
right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the
failure to make timely assertion of the right before the tribunal
having jurisdiction to determine it." And respondent offers no reason
why the plain error rule should be applied more leniently when
constitutional claims are involved. Indeed, that has not been the
Court's practice. In Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), for
example, the Court agreed with the defendant that under the Fourteenth
Amendment he should not have been required to stand trial in prison
garb. Nevertheless, because defense counsel had raised no objection
at trial to the practice, the Court refused to reverse the defendant's
conviction. While reluctant to find a "relinquishment of a
fundamental right * * * absent a showing of a conscious surrender of a
known right" (id. at 508 n.3), the Court explained (ibid.) that it
"has not * * * engaged in this exacting analysis with respect to
strategic and tactical decisions, even those with constitutional
implications, by a counseled accused." Quoting the Second Circuit's
decision in United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276, 280 (1965),
cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907 (1966), the Court observed (ibid.) that
"(f)ederal courts, including the Supreme Court, have declined to
notice (alleged) errors not objected to below even though such errors
involve a criminal defendant's constitutional rights." And the Court
noted (425 U.S. at 508 n.3) that "(t)he reason for this rule is clear:
if the defendant has an objection, there is an obligation to call the
matter to the court's attention so the trial judge will have an
opportunity to remedy the situation." See also id. at 513-515 (Powell,
J., concurring). /2/

c. Respondent offers no support for his contention (Resp. Br.
47-50) that the prosecutor's summation in this case constituted plain
error in the required sense: a "'particularly egregious error'" that
"seriously affect(ed) the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
(the) judicial proceedings" (United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15
(1985) (citations omitted)). /3/ Respondent suggests (Resp. Br. 49)
that "the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming"; but, as our
statement of facts shows, the proof at trial was extraordinarily
strong. It is hard to imagine a stronger circumstantial case than
this one.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1987/sg870406.txt

I do not recall what Galantar said in response to the prosecution's continued objection to the claim of right defense. I do not think an appellate court will find it particularly egregious that seriously affected the fairness...of the trial, on that issue. I suppose that it must depend on whether or not Galantar raised a Constitutional objection, meaning, at least, that Galanter said it was unfair and the defense was denied a defense. I know that has been said it was a general claim of the defense.


William i want to personally thank you for your efforts to bring clarity to the discussion on the court issues as i find your post on the legal aspects to be very informative and helpful. imo

[martin II]

The issue of the tapes is very interesting, since the jury is the trier of fact, and they said they did not find any of the witnesses credible. I don't know, if Riccio testified that he did not delete any portion of the tapes but the jury did not believe him, which means they thought he did, imho. The expert testified that he was unable to determine, if portions of the tapes were deleted, which, according to the statements they did not find credible, which means they thought he could make that determination, imho. Thus, the state of the record is that the tapes lacked the requisite authentication, imho, and the jury relied on evidence that was inadmissible, imho.

I suppose that there will be the exception raised to the tapes that they were created in the normal course of business and therefore have an inherent credibility. However, when Riccio sold the tapes, the argument would be that they were not created as a record related to his regular course of business, imho.


William
From memory i believe the le TAPE EXPERT testified that 3-4 files had been deleted that he was not able to retreive.imo

[William Anthony]

William
From memory i believe the le TAPE EXPERT testified that 3-4 files had been deleted that he was not able to retreive.imo

Thank you for correcting me as my view of the trial was scant due to studying for midterms. This argues stronger for the inadmissibility of the tapes, imho, but the jury did not believe him, :) and, at the same time did not believe Riccio, if he testified he did not delete portions, :).

I am researching you other questions. I know that sometimes a court will say that the evidence is admissible to one of the defendant's and not the others. I will continue to look. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I have not been able to find a case on point but it seems that the question will be whether the evidence resulted in prejudice to one or both of the defendants. I do not recall judge J. Glass' giving any limiting instruction.

[martin II]

Thank you for correcting me as my view of the trial was scant due to studying for midterms. This argues stronger for the inadmissibility of the tapes, imho, but the jury did not believe him, :) and, at the same time did not believe Riccio, if he testified he did not delete portions, :).

I am researching you other questions. I know that sometimes a court will say that the evidence is admissible to one of the defendant's and not the others. I will continue to look. Thanks.

CORRECTION

The le tape expert terstified that there were several deleted files on Riccios tape. 2-3 he did retreive the data. 2-3 he was not able to retreive the data.imo

[William Anthony]

CORRECTION

The le tape expert terstified that there were several deleted files on Riccios tape. 2-3 he did retreive the data. 2-3 he was not able to retreive the data.imo

Simpson expressed a sense of frustration at not being able to do anything about his property being sold. There have been many posts that he should have done more and followed the rules/laws. I think we have seen some demonstrations of how frustration or alleged frustration can lead to a breaking of the rules/laws. While neither are acceptable, imho, it appears that such conduct is common.

[William Anthony]

I think judge J. Glass' frustration with Galantar and Simpson caused her to break her own ruling when she referred to Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers.

[martin II]

I think judge J. Glass' frustration with Galantar and Simpson caused her to break her own ruling when she referred to Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers.

I had thought that when glass made that comment she was tossing fred a bone of recognition as he sat in the court room. Otherwise i see no reason for her comment. imo

[William Anthony]

I had thought that when glass made that comment she was tossing fred a bone of recognition as he sat in the court room. Otherwise i see no reason for her comment. imo

It may have been a little of both.

[socaldiva]

CORRECTION

The le tape expert terstified that there were several deleted files on Riccios tape. 2-3 he did retreive the data. 2-3 he was not able to retreive the data.imo

So, which is it? :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I have a firm belief that we will have to wait for martin's answer until tomorrow, as it is my profound belief that he is attending the most, imho, monumental and momentous occasion.

[socaldiva]

It is my "profound belief" that political postings are OT. I am glad that Martin managed to tear himself away from the OJ board for a day. That's rather profound.

[William Anthony]

I have not seen a political posting on this forum, although I would agree that today's event is a monumental and momentous occasion.

[socaldiva]

If the swearing in of the President isn't a political event, I don't know what is & it's got nothing to do with the OJ Simpson case, which the rest of us are harped on to stick to. Once again, different rules depending on who's posting.

Of course you "agree that it's a "monumental and momentous occasion". You are agreeing with your own post.

This board is disappearing & it's on account of 2 posters, who it seems want to sit here & post to each other & pat each other on the back all day & argue with anyone else. What a pity that it's allowed.

[William Anthony]

There is not an argument, as it is known in the vulgar vernacular, unless there is an uncivil disagreement, which happens when one poster will not or does not respect the views of others, with whom they disagree. I think a post was made with an accusation that political posts were not allowed, with which I agree but mentioned that I saw no political post. The only thing that led me to believe that someone could have considered it as a political post was the use of the words momentous and monumental occasion. I then said that today's event was a monumental and momentous occasion and any day that we are alive and can give thanks to God for our blessings is a monumental and momentous occasion, imho. I did not see a post about the swearing in of the President, except one. I know how devoted martin is to this thread, which is why I said that there must be a monumental and momentous occasion that caused him to not post and that we would have to wait until tomorrow for the answer and we may have to wait longer than that. I remember when he had another monumental and momentous occasion when he visited Africa. Perhaps, he is visiting another part of the world, experiencing the birth of a grandchild or simply giving thanks to God.

That tendency that you are speaking of has been demonstrated by all the regulars posters on this board. I remember an entire thread that was devoted to just such tactics. In any event, let's discuss the Nevada case. Thanks.

[weezer]

speaking of momentous and monumental on this board was orenthal james simpson being sentenced to prison. yep -- and I even liked his outfit.

[William Anthony]

I fully appreciate the fact that some see Simpson's sentencing to prison as a monumental and momentous occasion, as a potential mammoth miscarriage of justice.

[socaldiva]

speaking of momentous and monumental on this board was orenthal james simpson being sentenced to prison. yep -- and I even liked his outfit.


:beer::beer::D

[William Anthony]

:beer::beer::D

speaking of momentous and monumental on this board was orenthal james simpson being sentenced to prison. yep -- and I even liked his outfit.



"This board is disappearing & it's on account of 2 posters, who it seems want to sit here & post to each other & pat each other on the back all day & argue with anyone else. What a pity that it's allowed.":):)

[William Anthony]

I have looked to the wording of the Nevada statute on coercion and wonder why judge J. Glass dropped the charges.

"NRS 207.190 Coercion.

1. It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:

(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of his family, or upon his property, or threaten such violence or injury;

(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder him in the use thereof; or

(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force.

2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 shall be punished:

(a) Where physical force or the immediate threat of physical force is used, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.

(b) Where no physical force or immediate threat of physical force is used, for a misdemeanor.

[1911 C&P § 475; RL § 6740; NCL § 10424]—(NRS A 1967, 522; 1979, 1455; 1995, 1239)"

Does this mean that there was insufficient evidence to show that Fromong and Beardsley had the right to sell the memorabilia?

[weezer]

I highlighted my favorite part: :D

http://nz.entertainment.yahoo.com/081208/6/9omh.html

"Tuesday December 9, 09:41 AM
OJ's set for income while behind bars

Former NFL great OJ Simpson is set to rake in the cash during his prison stint for armed robbery and kidnapping.
Lawyers familiar with his financial affairs have revealed his pension alone will continue to make him GBP 15,000 a month, according to the Palm Beach Post.

OJ, 61, also has a GBP 500,000 Miami home and although he's now facing hefty legal bills, the former Buffalo Bills running back will be far from broke after his jail time in Nevada, US.

"He still has his house and his NFL pension," says Florida-based lawyer Lisa Schiller, who represented OJ when the family of his murdered ex-wife, Nicole Brown, tried to make him pay up.

"He's got plenty of assets, and most of them are protected by the law.

"Of course, he's going to have to pay some legal bills now, but I don't see him come out of prison broke. Far from it.

"Think of this as a long trip somewhere that he's taking."

That "trip" will last somewhere between nine and 33 years, the sentence handed down by a Las Vegas court last week.

Simpson was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping in connection with a 2007 incident in which he claimed he was trying to reclaim some of his memorabilia."

[William Anthony]

I highlighted my favorite part: :D

http://nz.entertainment.yahoo.com/081208/6/9omh.html

"Tuesday December 9, 09:41 AM
OJ's set for income while behind bars

Former NFL great OJ Simpson is set to rake in the cash during his prison stint for armed robbery and kidnapping.
Lawyers familiar with his financial affairs have revealed his pension alone will continue to make him GBP 15,000 a month, according to the Palm Beach Post.

OJ, 61, also has a GBP 500,000 Miami home and although he's now facing hefty legal bills, the former Buffalo Bills running back will be far from broke after his jail time in Nevada, US.

"He still has his house and his NFL pension," says Florida-based lawyer Lisa Schiller, who represented OJ when the family of his murdered ex-wife, Nicole Brown, tried to make him pay up.

"He's got plenty of assets, and most of them are protected by the law.

"Of course, he's going to have to pay some legal bills now, but I don't see him come out of prison broke. Far from it.

"Think of this as a long trip somewhere that he's taking."

That "trip" will last somewhere between nine and 33 years, the sentence handed down by a Las Vegas court last week.

Simpson was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping in connection with a 2007 incident in which he claimed he was trying to reclaim some of his memorabilia."

I highlighted my favorite part in regard to the burglary charge, the dismissal of the coercion charges and Due Process/the denial of the claim of right defense questions.

[weezer]

I highlighted my favorite part in regard to the burglary charge, the dismissal of the coercion charges and Due Process/the denial of the claim of right defense questions.

here's the problem with this particular felon claiming this particular defense:

"Nobody leaves this room!" and "I'll send back what isn't mine."

[William Anthony]

here's the problem with this particular felon claiming this particular defense:

"Nobody leaves this room!" and "I'll send back what isn't mine."

You are quite correct. The "nobody leaves the room" in connection with the dismissal of the coercion charges shows there was insufficient evidence to prove that he prevented someone from doing something they had a right to do. The, "I'll send back what isn't mine" shows that there was no intent to commit a robbery. IMHO.

[weezer]

You are quite correct. The "nobody leaves the room" in connection with the dismissal of the coercion charges shows there was insufficient evidence to prove that he prevented someone from doing something they had a right to do. The, "I'll send back what isn't mine" shows that there was no intent to commit a robbery. IMHO.

that was negated when he took stuff that he knew wasn't his -- hence the statement that he would send back what wasn't his. do we need to add here that he, in fact, did not send back the stuff that he decided wasn't his? do we also add here that on the tape after the armed robbery, he is heard laughing about scaring the victims and telling his co-conspirators that he doesn't care what happens to the stuff?

[William Anthony]

that was negated when he took stuff that he knew wasn't his -- hence the statement that he would send back what wasn't his. do we need to add here that he, in fact, did not send back the stuff that he decided wasn't his? do we also add here that on the tape after the armed robbery, he is heard laughing about scaring the victims and telling his co-conspirators that he doesn't care what happens to the stuff?

I think that he may have been interested in getting out of there as soon as possible without anyone being harmed and intended to send the stuff back. With the alleged deletions, we do not know, if the co-defendants said that there would be problems, if he tried to return the other stuff. Remember, they had guns. The victims testified that they were not afraid, which the jury chose to ignore as not credible. The deletions on the tape cause some concern and there are always more ways than one to look at something. You seem to be discussing robbery, when my expressed concern was to the dismissal of the coercion charge in regard to burglary and intent and the denial of the claim of right defense.

In order for the other charges to stick, imho, the jury must have found the other elements of coercion, "(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of his family, or upon his property, or threaten such violence or injury;(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder him in the use thereof; or(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force."

It also came to me, although I believe that the case law will not support a conviction on kidnapping, that there must be coercion in regard to the kidnapping charge, as it is only logical that to support the charge, Simpson must have compelled the victims to refrain from doing something they had a right to do.

[martin II]

You are quite correct. The "nobody leaves the room" in connection with the dismissal of the coercion charges shows there was insufficient evidence to prove that he prevented someone from doing something they had a right to do. The, "I'll send back what isn't mine" shows that there was no intent to commit a robbery. IMHO.

Or oj saying 'DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE"

[martin II]

that was negated when he took stuff that he knew wasn't his -- hence the statement that he would send back what wasn't his. do we need to add here that he, in fact, did not send back the stuff that he decided wasn't his? do we also add here that on the tape after the armed robbery, he is heard laughing about scaring the victims and telling his co-conspirators that he doesn't care what happens to the stuff?


Oj did not remove anything from the hotel room.Cashmore took the montana items and was told to take them back to the hotel but he decided not to return them.

Alexander had fumongs cell phone and fumong said "that is my cell phone" Oj told Alexander 'Give him his phone back" Alexander kept the phone as he left the hotel room.
imo

[martin II]

I have a firm belief that we will have to wait for martin's answer until tomorrow, as it is my profound belief that he is attending the most, imho, monumental and momentous occasion.

yes. monumental, momentous and experience of a life time. Big fun.

[William Anthony]

yes. monumental, momentous and experience of a life time. Big fun.

You were missed.:)

[martin II]

I just think that "NO BODY LEAVES THE ROOM" was streatched by the prosecution and the jury to equal being tied up, removed from the room and ransom request to support kidnapping. imo

[martin II]

CORRECTION

The le tape expert terstified that there were several deleted files on Riccios tape. 2-3 he did retreive the data. 2-3 he was not able to retreive the data.imo


Since the le expert testified that 2-3 deleted files could not be retrieved, it seems that this information was not available to the jury so the jury only had a part on the taped evidence available during deliberations.

[weezer]

I think that he may have been interested in getting out of there as soon as possible without anyone being harmed and intended to send the stuff back. With the alleged deletions, we do not know, if the co-defendants said that there would be problems, if he tried to return the other stuff. Remember, they had guns. The victims testified that they were not afraid, which the jury chose to ignore as not credible. The deletions on the tape cause some concern and there are always more ways than one to look at something. You seem to be discussing robbery, when my expressed concern was to the dismissal of the coercion charge in regard to burglary and intent and the denial of the claim of right defense.

In order for the other charges to stick, imho, the jury must have found the other elements of coercion, "(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of his family, or upon his property, or threaten such violence or injury;(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder him in the use thereof; or(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force."

It also came to me, although I believe that the case law will not support a conviction on kidnapping, that there must be coercion in regard to the kidnapping charge, as it is only logical that to support the charge, Simpson must have compelled the victims to refrain from doing something they had a right to do.

Not sure why you want to waste time debating what didn't happen; i.e., coercion charge/conviction and claim of right defense. :shrug:

maybe you can show us where in the Nevada kidnapping statute it says coercion is an element?

listening to the tapes before and after the armed robbery certainly supports your claim that orenthal wanted out of there as quickly as possible AND he was very concerned about being caught on tape carrying anything. :eek:

[weezer]

Or oj saying 'DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE"

but he knew stuff that didn't belong to him was taken martin. hence the statement, 'I'll return anything that isn't mine.' now we know that that was an untrue statement to the victims from listening to the tapes and orenthal telling his gang of thugs that he didn't care what happened to the stuff AND the stuff not returned. In fact, orenthal said he would leave the cell phone at the front desk -- do you know whether or not he did?

[weezer]

CORRECTION

The le tape expert terstified that there were several deleted files on Riccios tape. 2-3 he did retreive the data. 2-3 he was not able to retreive the data.imo


Since the le expert testified that 2-3 deleted files could not be retrieved, it seems that this information was not available to the jury so the jury only had a part on the taped evidence available during deliberations.

LOL -- so you think that negates the portions that were there?

[William Anthony]

Not sure why you want to waste time debating what didn't happen; i.e., coercion charge/conviction and claim of right defense. :shrug:

maybe you can show us where in the Nevada kidnapping statute it says coercion is an element?

listening to the tapes before and after the armed robbery certainly supports your claim that orenthal wanted out of there as quickly as possible AND he was very concerned about being caught on tape carrying anything. :eek:

It is not what did not happen but why it did not happen and should it have happened in connection with the charges and the appeal.

I thought I had showed you. However, the coercion statue says to compel a person to restrain from doing something they have a right to do. I think we can agree that the alleged victims (I guess it is more appropriate at this point to say victims, due to the convictions) had the right to leave the room, unless by the case law, their containment was incidental to the robbery. The only thing that I can immediately think of is that there was insufficient evidence to show that the victims had the right to sell the property. This is where the denial of the claim of right defense may play a crucial part in the burglary and robbery convictions, if vehemently argued under a Due Process violation, imho.

As usual there are two ways of looking at things and Simpson may have wanted to decrease the possibility of any harm coming to the victims. He said in his pre-sentencing statement that was his intent was to not harm anyone. His laughter thereafter may have been his glee at the fact that no one was harmed. There are always more than one way of looking at things.

[weezer]

It is not what did not happen but why it did not happen and should it have happened in connection with the charges and the appeal.

I thought I had showed you. However, the coercion statue says to compel a person to restrain from doing something they have a right to do. I think we can agree that the alleged victims (I guess it is more appropriate at this point to say victims, due to the convictions) had the right to leave the room, unless by the case law, their containment was incidental to the robbery. The only thing that I can immediately think of is that there was insufficient evidence to show that the victims had the right to sell the property. This is where the denial of the claim of right defense may play a crucial part in the burglary and robbery convictions, if vehemently argued under a Due Process violation, imho.

As usual there are two ways of looking at things and Simpson may have wanted to decrease the possibility of any harm coming to the victims. He said in his pre-sentencing statement that was not his intent. His laughter thereafter may have been his glee at the fact that no one was harmed. There are always more than one way of looking at things.

the 'what didn't happen' only matters in an appeal IF it was an error. since there was not a conviction on coercion, I still do not understand why you are debating the issue.

do you not think that 'my stuff' and whether or not he had a legal right to it will be a argument to his 'claim of right'? I'm not even sure why we're continuing the 'claim of right' debate since it is not an element to the crimes. :shrug:

you are 'streatching' when you post ". . .his glee at the fact that no one was harmed. . ." -- he was very clear on the tape as to why he was laughing -- he had scared the victims and thought that that was funny. ;)

[William Anthony]

the 'what didn't happen' only matters in an appeal IF it was an error. since there was not a conviction on coercion, I still do not understand why you are debating the issue.

do you not think that 'my stuff' and whether or not he had a legal right to it will be a argument to his 'claim of right'? I'm not even sure why we're continuing the 'claim of right' debate since it is not an element to the crimes. :shrug:

you are 'streatching' when you post ". . .his glee at the fact that no one was harmed. . ." -- he was very clear on the tape as to why he was laughing -- he had scared the victims and thought that that was funny. ;)

In an appeal, the court is normally called upon to review the entire record. It is an argument that can be made as to the sufficiency of the evidence and to an apparent inconsistency, which may be an error. I think the argument will be made, if that issue is brought up on appeal, that the court and the prosecution was within their discretion to dismiss the charges. I have not said that it will be a winning argument but it might be.

I thought I had thoroughly explained my position on the denial of the claim of right defense as it pertains to the burglary charge and the specific intent factor and the need for consistency in the criminal law. I have also commented, imho, of the vagueness of the robbery statute, as with the band aid example. I think it relevant to discuss all issues that may be brought up on appeal.

It might be stretching the point about his laughter but all people do not react the same to events. The victims testified they were not scared. He may have been extremely happy that no one was harmed and about getting the property he thought was his back. He may have been laughing at who some call victims and he thought of as thieves. There are several ways of looking at events.

[weezer]

for those who would like to put orenthal's laughter and glee into perspective:

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Riccio_Transcripts/McClinton%20transcript.pdf

[weezer]

and don't you love this part when it comes to your 'claim of right' defense?

"Simpson: I gave it to my lawyer say I said you all can have all of this, I just didn't want them to have it."

"Simpson: And I knew, to be honest with you. I knew now the Goldman's would get it and sell it and so I, I told these guys do whatever you wana do with it."

my, my, my -- all those family heirlooms. . .;)

[martin II]

for those who would like to put orenthal's laughter and glee into perspective:

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Riccio_Transcripts/McClinton%20transcript.pdf

It seems that all agreed that Tom Riccio was the master conspiritor as he was the person that set up the entire meeting between the group and the 'SELLERS OF STOLEN STUFF.

[weezer]

It seems that all agreed that Tom Riccio was the master conspiritor as he was the person that set up the entire meeting between the group and the 'SELLERS OF STOLEN STUFF.

now to look at it from a different perspective -- riccio was used by orenthal to set up the armed robbery.

Seems to me that before someone is called 'sellers of stolen stuff', it should at least be established that anything was 'stolen' -- don't you?

[William Anthony]

for those who would like to put orenthal's laughter and glee into perspective:

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Riccio_Transcripts/McClinton%20transcript.pdf

And this proves what? That Simpson was happy and gleeful at successfully retrieving his property from some that had possession of it through theft and was elated that no one was physically harmed, which is another way of viewing it, aside from the fact that the transcript was not evidence and a creation of the prosecution as to who said what. I do thank you for posting the information, as we look at it from a different perspective.

[weezer]

And this proves what? That Simpson was happy and gleeful at successfully retrieving his property from some that had possession of it through theft and was elated that no one was physically harmed, which is another way of viewing it, aside from the fact that the transcript was not evidence and a creation of the prosecution as to who said what.

nope -- what it proves is that orenthal committed armed robbery, thought it was funny that the victims were scared, and didn't give a hoot about what happened to the 'stuff' once he took it.

orenthal was happy and gleeful because that's the kind of person (character) he is: sociopath. imo

[William Anthony]

nope -- what it proves is that orenthal committed armed robbery, thought it was funny that the victims were scared, and didn't give a hoot about what happened to the 'stuff' once he took it.

orenthal was happy and gleeful because that's the kind of person (character) he is: sociopath. imo

I understand that is what you believe it proves. However, based on the known errors in the transcripts, which were technically not evidence, then they prove nothing or should not have, as the jury should not have relied on them but should have relied on what they heard. I think judge J. Glass instructed the jury to that. However, that is your belief and I have offered a different perspective, as transcripts cannot show demeanor or tone, if you will.

[weezer]

I understand that is what you believe it proves. However, based on the known errors in the transcripts, which were technically not evidence, then they prove nothing or should not have, as the jury should not have relied on them but should have relied on what they heard. I think judge J. Glass instructed the jury to that. However, that is your belief and I have offered a different perspective, as transcripts cannot show demeanor or tone, if you will.

the jury listened to the tapes --

[William Anthony]

the jury listened to the tapes --

You are correct. The jury listened to the evidence and the evidence is what proves the facts. Therefore, I have said that you believe what the transcripts prove, when in fact they prove nothing and why I offered a different perspective. You may chose to believe one thing and others are free to believe another. The question on appeal is should that evidence have been admitted, imho.

[martin II]

now to look at it from a different perspective -- riccio was used by orenthal to set up the armed robbery.

Seems to me that before someone is called 'sellers of stolen stuff', it should at least be established that anything was 'stolen' -- don't you?

What i think is that if Riccio had not looked for a seller of ojs goods and found Beadsley he would not have been able to call oj in Florida and inform him that he would be able to bring oj face to face with the sellers of his stolen goods.

Riccio in his interaction with Beadsley and Fumong came to tyhe conclusion that they were selling stolen goods. Fumong verified this when he told oj OJ I DID NOT TAKE IT MIKE TOOK IT.

If goods are not reported stolen it does not mean that they were not stolen.:cool:

[weezer]

You are correct. The jury listened to the evidence and the evidence is what proves the facts. Therefore, I have said that you believe what the transcripts prove, when in fact they prove nothing and why I offered a different perspective. You may chose to believe one thing and others are free to believe another. The question on appeal is should that evidence have been admitted, imho.

did you not have the opportunity to listen to the tapes? I'm not quite sure why you are making the transcripts an issue. obviously you are at odds with orenthal's attorney who was more than happy to have the tapes admitted into evidence. so you now believe he's going to say 'never mind' -- 'I take it back.' and that makes it appealable (is that a word)? hmmm

[weezer]

What i think is that if Riccio had not looked for a seller of ojs goods and found Beadsley he would not have been able to call oj in Florida and inform him that he would be able to bring oj face to face with the sellers of his stolen goods.

Riccio in his interaction with Beadsley and Fumong came to tyhe conclusion that they were selling stolen goods. Fumong verified this when he told oj OJ I DID NOT TAKE IT MIKE TOOK IT.

If goods are not reported stolen it does not mean that they were not stolen.:cool:

and you believe orenthal is so very stupid that all it took was someone pointing him in the direction and off he went to commit felony crimes? LOL
riiiiiiight

there was never a report filed by orenthal regarding any stolen goods -- he couldn't. :D

[martin II]

now to look at it from a different perspective -- riccio was used by orenthal to set up the armed robbery.

Seems to me that before someone is called 'sellers of stolen stuff', it should at least be established that anything was 'stolen' -- don't you?

not possible as riccio was the first to set up the meeting of both fumong and oj.no way to get around that fact as it is supported by riccios testimony.

[martin II]

and you believe orenthal is so very stupid that all it took was someone pointing him in the direction and off he went to commit felony crimes? LOL
riiiiiiight

there was never a report filed by orenthal regarding any stolen goods -- he couldn't. :D

when riccio set up the meeting between the two parties oj decided to take advantage of riccios arrangement to get his stuff back.. it was a mistake on ojs part to trust riccio but that was his mistake.

[weezer]

not possible as riccio was the first to set up the meeting of both fumong and oj.no way to get around that fact as it is supported by riccios testimony.

no one is disputing riccio contacted orenthal about the stuff BUT everything after that was all orenthal. From rounding up his gang of thugs, to saying where and what time, to taking everything in the room. . . .

yep. orenthal james simpson convicted felon. how sweet it is.

[weezer]

when riccio set up the meeting between the two parties oj decided to take advantage of riccios arrangement to get his stuff back.. it was a mistake on ojs part to trust riccio but that was his mistake.

LOL -- ahh yes -- orenthal's lament: it was someone else's fault. hasn't that pretty much been the outcry for all of his bad behavior?

except of course, the thugs that orenthal took with him on his Las Vegas crime spree were HIS acquaintances -- Oh......gosh......that puts a little different slant on it. :eek:

[William Anthony]

did you not have the opportunity to listen to the tapes? I'm not quite sure why you are making the transcripts an issue. obviously you are at odds with orenthal's attorney who was more than happy to have the tapes admitted into evidence. so you now believe he's going to say 'never mind' -- 'I take it back.' and that makes it appealable (is that a word)? hmmm

You posted a link to the transcripts, making the transcript an issue as to what they allegedly prove. I don't know if you recall and I did not see the part where the expert testified. However, here is a link that says the defense did object.

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/nv-vs-simpson-filters-tapes-and-boring-jobs/

[weezer]

You posted a link to the transcripts, making the transcript an issue as to what they allegedly prove. I don't know if you recall and I did not see the part where the expert testified. However, here is a link that says the defense did object.

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/nv-vs-simpson-filters-tapes-and-boring-jobs/

I posted the link to the transcripts because I do not have a link to audio of the tapes.

". . .So, of course, then we had Mr. Bryson, one of the defense attorneys for Mr. Stewart on cross examination just throwing everything and anything he could at the wall and seeing what would stick. Bryson challenged everything from the guy’s credentials to what size shoe he wore. He argued integrity of the tape, authenticity of the tape, chain of custody of the tape, just anything and everything for hour after hour.

And in the end, did it make any difference? No, of course it made no difference, because you *know* these tapes are coming in as evidence, right? There’s no way they aren’t.

So the judge made a compromise deal - she lets the tapes in and she lets the transcripts of the tapes in only as “aides” not “evidence”, which is really no big yank, anyway, because when are the transcripts of tapes ever really “evidence” anyway? Transcription is always subject to personal interpretation and hearing - that ain’t evidence. The judge will always tell a jury “If the transcript says something different than the way you interpret it from the tape - the tape is the best evidence.” So having the transcripts as “aides” isn’t such a loss. . ."

[martin II]

no one is disputing riccio contacted orenthal about the stuff BUT everything after that was all orenthal. From rounding up his gang of thugs, to saying where and what time, to taking everything in the room. . . .

yep. orenthal james simpson convicted felon. how sweet it is.

riccio found sellers og ojs stolen goods. contacted oj and guarranteed a face to face meeting so of could get his stuff from these chumps that was trying tp sell his stolen goods. he maintained contact with both parties and moved both to his rented hotel room so as to be able to tape record all meetings and conversations so he could sell the tapes for money. which he did.no one knew the extent of riccios scheme but riccio.he should have been charges as the others were BUT HE WAS NOT THE TARGET BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OJ.WHO WAS.

[martin II]

I posted the link to the transcripts because I do not have a link to audio of the tapes.

". . .So, of course, then we had Mr. Bryson, one of the defense attorneys for Mr. Stewart on cross examination just throwing everything and anything he could at the wall and seeing what would stick. Bryson challenged everything from the guy’s credentials to what size shoe he wore. He argued integrity of the tape, authenticity of the tape, chain of custody of the tape, just anything and everything for hour after hour.

And in the end, did it make any difference? No, of course it made no difference, because you *know* these tapes are coming in as evidence, right? There’s no way they aren’t.

So the judge made a compromise deal - she lets the tapes in and she lets the transcripts of the tapes in only as “aides” not “evidence”, which is really no big yank, anyway, because when are the transcripts of tapes ever really “evidence” anyway? Transcription is always subject to personal interpretation and hearing - that ain’t evidence. The judge will always tell a jury “If the transcript says something different than the way you interpret it from the tape - the tape is the best evidence.” So having the transcripts as “aides” isn’t such a loss. . ."

The le expert testified that the transcript was not accurate and the judge ruled it could not be entered as evidence. so posting the transcript not entered into evidence makes no sense and should ignored.

[weezer]

The le expert testified that the transcript was not accurate and the judge ruled it could not be entered as evidence. so posting the transcript not entered into evidence makes no sense and should ignored.

LOL -- orenthal and/or his attorney has never disputed HIS voice on the tapes. . . .

[weezer]

riccio found sellers og ojs stolen goods. contacted oj and guarranteed a face to face meeting so of could get his stuff from these chumps that was trying tp sell his stolen goods. he maintained contact with both parties and moved both to his rented hotel room so as to be able to tape record all meetings and conversations so he could sell the tapes for money. which he did.no one knew the extent of riccios scheme but riccio.he should have been charges as the others were BUT HE WAS NOT THE TARGET BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OJ.WHO WAS.

pssst -- it wasn't riccio that brought his gang of thugs and guns to the hotel -- it was orenthal james simpson, the now convicted felon.

[martin II]

LOL -- orenthal and/or his attorney has never disputed HIS voice on the tapes. . . .

Others disputed many of the voice assignments le made. hahaha

[martin II]

pssst -- it wasn't riccio that brought his gang of thugs and guns to the hotel -- it was orenthal james simpson, the now convicted felon.

riccio was in the group that came to the hotel to get ojs stuff. he opened the door so the others could enter.

[William Anthony]

I posted the link to the transcripts because I do not have a link to audio of the tapes.

". . .So, of course, then we had Mr. Bryson, one of the defense attorneys for Mr. Stewart on cross examination just throwing everything and anything he could at the wall and seeing what would stick. Bryson challenged everything from the guy’s credentials to what size shoe he wore. He argued integrity of the tape, authenticity of the tape, chain of custody of the tape, just anything and everything for hour after hour.

And in the end, did it make any difference? No, of course it made no difference, because you *know* these tapes are coming in as evidence, right? There’s no way they aren’t.

So the judge made a compromise deal - she lets the tapes in and she lets the transcripts of the tapes in only as “aides” not “evidence”, which is really no big yank, anyway, because when are the transcripts of tapes ever really “evidence” anyway? Transcription is always subject to personal interpretation and hearing - that ain’t evidence. The judge will always tell a jury “If the transcript says something different than the way you interpret it from the tape - the tape is the best evidence.” So having the transcripts as “aides” isn’t such a loss. . ."

I have taken the opportunity to place in bold the most relevant portions of what you posted, imho. I will now place in bold the most portion most relevant to my point, which you omitted.

"The bombshell in the testimony came when he actually admitted to the State that no, he couldn’t really say for sure that the recordings weren’t tampered with. This gave the defense all they needed to hear to object to the admissibility of the tapes."

The point is whether it was clearly erroneous and harmful error to admit the tapes that lacked the proper authentication, which the jury allegedly solely relied on.

[William Anthony]

riccio was in the group that came to the hotel to get ojs stuff. he opened the door so the others could enter.

Martin,

Can you imagine the egg on the face of the prosecution, if the tapes had been deemed inadmissible, after they had given Riccio immunity? Arguably, the master conspirator or the most active co-conspirator would have walked away with a dozen cracked egg shells, while the prosecution dripped yoke onto the floor.

[martin II]

Martin,

Can you imagine the egg on the face of the prosecution, if the tapes had been deemed inadmissible, after they had given Riccio immunity? Arguably, the master conspirator or the most active co-conspirator would have walked away with a dozen cracked egg shells, while the prosecution dripped yoke onto the floor.

which is why glass decided it was Her responsibility to get the tapes in REGARDLESS.

[William Anthony]

which is why glass decided it was Her responsibility to get the tapes in REGARDLESS.

I wish we had the transcripts of this trial. I would love to see the points at which judge J. Glass showed her questionable behavior.

[weezer]

Martin,

Can you imagine the egg on the face of the prosecution, if the tapes had been deemed inadmissible, after they had given Riccio immunity? Arguably, the master conspirator or the most active co-conspirator would have walked away with a dozen cracked egg shells, while the prosecution dripped yoke onto the floor.

you know what's nice? I don't have to imagine the look on orenthal's face when he was judged guilty and when he was sentenced -- :eek:

of course, there was the pre-sentence whine but he didn't look anything but pathetic for that one.

[weezer]

I wish we had the transcripts of this trial. I would love to see the points at which judge J. Glass showed her questionable behavior.

I'm surprised you don't have the transcripts -- hmmmm.

[William Anthony]

you know what's nice? I don't have to imagine the look on orenthal's face when he was judged guilty and when he was sentenced -- :eek:

of course, there was the pre-sentence whine but he didn't look anything but pathetic for that one.

I think some will disagree and say that he looked remorseful. I wonder how he will look if some of the charges are dismissed on appeal and his sentence greatly reduced.

[William Anthony]

I'm surprised you don't have the transcripts -- hmmmm.

Do you? I thought they might be your bedtime story.

[weezer]

Do you? I thought they might be your bedtime story.

actually I have enjoyed reading them -- I sometimes skip to the end just because I like it so very much. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

actually I have enjoyed reading them -- I sometimes skip to the end just because I like it so very much. :tongue:

I am not surprised as you seem to miss much that is contained in the plot. The final chapter has yet to be written.

[weezer]

I am not surprised as you seem to miss much that is contained in the plot. The final chapter has yet to be written.

the crimes committed by orenthal in Las Vegas were nothing unique. only orenthal and his apologists believe that he was/is so special that his actions and crimes warrant a different set of rules than any other common criminal. a jury and judge said "NO" -- ;)

[William Anthony]

the crimes committed by orenthal in Las Vegas were nothing unique. only orenthal and his apologists believe that he was/is so special that his actions and crimes warrant a different set of rules than any other common criminal. a jury and judge said "NO" -- ;)

You completely misunderstand. I do not apologize for Simpson or think that the laws should be applied to him differently. In fact, I would argue that all are entitled to both procedural and substantive Due Process and would seek to have all cases where the claim of right defense was denied in regard to the crimes of burglary and robbery, under Nevada law, remanded and or reversed, and where defendants were convicted on inadmissible evidence.

[weezer]

You completely misunderstand. I do not apologize for Simpson or think that the laws should be applied to him differently. In fact, I would argue that all are entitled to both procedural and substantive Due Process and would seek to have all cases where the claim of right defense was denied in regard to the crimes of burglary and robbery, under Nevada law, remanded and or reversed, and where defendants were convicted on inadmissible evidence.

that's a noble stand william -- good for you. of course, the attorney willing to make that argument may want to build his argument where there aren't a bunch of tape recordings featuring the defendant planning, executing, and rehashing the crimes. just a thought.

[William Anthony]

that's a noble stand william -- good for you. of course, the attorney willing to make that argument may want to build his argument where there aren't a bunch of tape recordings featuring the defendant planning, executing, and rehashing the crimes. just a thought.

I already addressed that with the procedural due process argument. I think that the admission of evidence that should have been excluded (the tapes) is a somewhat strong argument. Of course, he may have to appeal the decision of the intermediate appellate court.

[William Anthony]

Here are some of the problems related to the admissibility of the tapes. The jury's sole reliance on them to convict indicates to me that they were not admitted over a hearsay objection but, as so many here seem to think, were to prove the matter asserted, robbery, kidnapping and conspiracies. The problem then becomes the fact that they might have been changed, and there is evidence in the form of testimony to support that.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:itEcCji_fXgJ:www.nationalnotary.org/intlforum/pdf/Forum_3_Dunlap.pdf+legal+standard+on+what+it+takes +to+authenticate+recording&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[weezer]

Here are some of the problems related to the admissibility of the tapes. The jury's sole reliance on them to convict indicates to me that they were not admitted over a hearsay objection but, as so many here seem to think, were to prove the matter asserted, robbery, kidnapping and conspiracies. The problem then becomes the fact that they might have been changed, and there is evidence in the form of testimony to support that.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:itEcCji_fXgJ:www.nationalnotary.org/intlforum/pdf/Forum_3_Dunlap.pdf+legal+standard+on+what+it+takes +to+authenticate+recording&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I think it will take a much stronger evidence than 'they might have been changed'. orenthal's statements on the audio were never contested by him or his attorney.

[martin II]

Here are some of the problems related to the admissibility of the tapes. The jury's sole reliance on them to convict indicates to me that they were not admitted over a hearsay objection but, as so many here seem to think, were to prove the matter asserted, robbery, kidnapping and conspiracies. The problem then becomes the fact that they might have been changed, and there is evidence in the form of testimony to support that.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:itEcCji_fXgJ:www.nationalnotary.org/intlforum/pdf/Forum_3_Dunlap.pdf+legal+standard+on+what+it+takes +to+authenticate+recording&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

WOW

The le expersts testified that they could not authenticate the tapes which is required and that there were files that had been deleted that they were not able to retrieve for the court. so upon what basis did the judge allow the tapes entered into evidence for the jury to hear.?

[martin II]

I think it will take a much stronger evidence than 'they might have been changed'. orenthal's statements on the audio were never contested by him or his attorney.

the tapes were not authenticated by le experts as required by law.

[William Anthony]

I think it will take a much stronger evidence than 'they might have been changed'. orenthal's statements on the audio were never contested by him or his attorney.

That was my statement that "they might have been changed". Martin has pointed out to what the expert testified. The point is that there is grounds that the tapes themselves were inadmissible to include what was on them. I posted the link where it is said the defense objected and Bryson conducted a thorough cross examination of the expert. If Galantar said I object to there admissibility based on the expert's testimony, then that was enough to preserve the issue on appeal, imho. The value of any evidence is its trustworthiness. The jury seemed to have relied on evidence that was not authenticated and, consequently, untrustworthy or, if you will, insufficient. I think that is a basis for reversal, although I see reprimand as the more likely resolution.

[weezer]

That was my statement that "they might have been changed". Martin has pointed out to what the expert testified. The point is that there is grounds that the tapes themselves were inadmissible to include what was on them. I posted the link were is said the defense objected and Bryson conducted a thorough cross examination of the expert. If Galantar said I object to there admissibility based on the expert's testimony, then that was enough to preserve the issue on appeal, imho. The value of any evidence is its trustworthiness. The jury seemed to have relied on evidence that was not authenticated and, consequently, untrustworthy or, if you will, insufficient. I think that is a basis for reversal, although I see reprimand as the more likely resolution.

ain't nuthin' going to happen over the tapes

[weezer]

the tapes were not authenticated by le experts as required by law.

martin, can you post for us that law and the requirement?

[William Anthony]

ain't nuthin' going to happen over the tapes

That's not the question and I agree. Something is likely to happen about the tapes.

[weezer]

That's not the question and I agree. Something is likely to happen about the tapes.

so the tapes are replaced with orenthal's statements about planning and executing the robbery, his co-conspirators testify that he recruited them and asked them to bring guns -- can't see much changing for him. . .:shrug:

[William Anthony]

so the tapes are replaced with orenthal's statements about planning and executing the robbery, his co-conspirators testify that he recruited them and asked them to bring guns -- can't see much changing for him. . .:shrug:

The tapes cannot be replaced with Simpson's statements, because they were not a part of the trial that the jury considered, meaning they were not evidence. The jury did not find any of the witnesses credible, according to their statements. Thus, they may have relied solely on evidence that wasn't admissible.

[weezer]

The tapes cannot be replaced with Simpson's statements, because they were not a part of the trial that the jury considered, meaning they were not evidence. The jury did not find any of the witnesses credible, according to their statements. Thus, they may have relied solely on evidence that wasn't admissible.

orenthal's statements were on the tapes --

[martin II]

martin, can you post for us that law and the requirement?
William has posted info on authentication of evidence, did you miss his post.

[martin II]

I think it will take a much stronger evidence than 'they might have been changed'. orenthal's statements on the audio were never contested by him or his attorney.

the tape machine was purchased new at Radio Shack according to rioccio.He made his taspes and gave the recorder to his business partner who loaded the info on his computer. imo
when le experts examined the tapes it was determined that several files had been deleted. 2 or 3 of the files were retreived by the experts. 2 or 3 of the other deleted files could not be retrieved.

So the questions are why were any files deleted , what was on the deleted files that could not be retrieved, who deleted those files and for what reason.imo

[martin II]

the tape machine was purchased new at Radio Shack according to rioccio.He made his taspes and gave the recorder to his business partner who loaded the info on his computer. imo
when le experts examined the tapes it was determined that several files had been deleted. 2 or 3 of the files were retreived by the experts. 2 or 3 of the other deleted files could not be retrieved.

So the questions are why were any files deleted , what was on the deleted files that could not be retrieved, who deleted those files and for what reason.imo

According to court testimony Riccio, his business opartner and le experts were the only people that had posession of the recorder/tapes.This is the only opportunity availble for the tape files to have deleted.

[martin II]

orenthal's statements were on the tapes --

i am sure you would agree that if the appeals court toss the tapes then everything on them is tossed.

[martin II]

so the tapes are replaced with orenthal's statements about planning and executing the robbery, his co-conspirators testify that he recruited them and asked them to bring guns -- can't see much changing for him. . .:shrug:

the jury stated that they did not use witness testimony in deliberations so what anyone testifed to about guns was not considered by the jury.

[weezer]

William has posted info on authentication of evidence, did you miss his post.

evidently I did miss that post -- if in fact there was one. You are the one making the statement as a matter of fact, I assume you have access to the information to backup what you are saying. link please.

[weezer]

the jury stated that they did not use witness testimony in deliberations so what anyone testifed to about guns was not considered by the jury.

now you're just being silly -- :punch:

[weezer]

the tape machine was purchased new at Radio Shack according to rioccio.He made his taspes and gave the recorder to his business partner who loaded the info on his computer. imo
when le experts examined the tapes it was determined that several files had been deleted. 2 or 3 of the files were retreived by the experts. 2 or 3 of the other deleted files could not be retrieved.

So the questions are why were any files deleted , what was on the deleted files that could not be retrieved, who deleted those files and for what reason.imo

remember our friend who always said: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[martin II]

now you're just being silly -- :punch:

since the jury did not believe or use the witness testimony i think it is silly for you to continue to try to use it.

[martin II]

remember our friend who always said: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Who deleted the files and why did they delete them is the question. obviously you have nothing to contribute on this question.

[martin II]

evidently I did miss that post -- if in fact there was one. You are the one making the statement as a matter of fact, I assume you have access to the information to backup what you are saying. link please.

i have no control over what you assume but i had access to williams post
and took advantage of it. sorry.

[martin II]

remember our friend who always said: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"it aint over till its over"
Yogi berra

[William Anthony]

orenthal's statements were on the tapes --

What are you trying to say??? This is your statement, "so the tapes are replaced with orenthal's statements about planning and executing the robbery,..". Simpson did not testify. The tapes cannot be replaced by his statements. The jury said they did not find any of the witnesses credible. If the tapes are deemed inadmissible, there is no evidence to support the original conviction. ???? are you trying to do, have your cake and eat it to.

[William Anthony]

remember our friend who always said: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

??? In this case you have evidence of absence. The expert testified that some of the tapes were deleted, which he could not retrieve but the jury found that not credible, according to their statements. Therefore, you have evidence of absence, which is evidence of absence, whether or not the jury believed that evidence is another thing. It is truly not the same as saying there is an absence of evidence to show that they were not there. The evidence is they were there and were deleted.

[weezer]

??? In this case you have evidence of absence. The expert testified that some of the tapes were deleted, which he could not retrieve but the jury found that not credible, according to their statements. Therefore, you have evidence of absence, which is evidence of absence, whether or not the jury believed that evidence is another thing. It is truly not the same as saying there is an absence of evidence to show that they were not there. The evidence is they were there and were deleted.

william, show me where the expert testified that some of the tapes were deleted -- :no:

[weezer]

"it aint over till its over"
Yogi berra

"tell that to orenthal"
fbgweezer

[William Anthony]

william, show me where the expert testified that some of the tapes were deleted -- :no:

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/nv-vs-simpson-fromong-returns/

[martin II]

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/nv-vs-simpson-fromong-returns/

The above link shows why the jury may not have believed any of fumongs testimony.After several meetings with the prosecution he finally remembers hearing hearing OJ say PUT THE GUN DOWN. The problem with this is no where on the tape are these words heard by anyone.

Next was fumong identifying the people in the room as 4-5 black guys and no whites in the room.He also testified that it was oj that had his phone when in fact it was Alexander that had his phone and oj that told Alexander to GIVE HIM HIS CELL PHONE BACK before they left the room.Alexander being the petty thief he is kept the phone.
Also when Fumong faked his heart attack and was on his back in the hospital he gave a interview to CNN.
fUmong also testified that he did not want money from the goods after he had origionally said he WANTED BIG BUCKS from the deal.

Ojs defense offer a reason as to why 3-4 people came with oj to the room. Fumong had originnally told Beadsley that he had THOUSANDS of ojs personal items. So oj brought others to help carry the expected large amount of stuff away.When fumong opened his truck for beadsley and Riccio they saw only a small amount of ojs sutff and asked him DON'T YOU HAVE MORE THAN THIS. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE STUFF YOU SAID YOU HAD.

What a mess fumong is.imo

[William Anthony]

The above link shows why the jury may not have believed any of fumongs testimony.After several meetings with the prosecution he finally remembers hearing hearing OJ say PUT THE GUN DOWN. The problem with this is no where on the tape are these words heard by anyone.

Next was fumong identifying the people in the room as 4-5 black guys and no whites in the room.He also testified that it was oj that had his phone when in fact it was Alexander that had his phone and oj that told Alexander to GIVE HIM HIS CELL PHONE BACK before they left the room.Alexander being the petty thief he is kept the phone.
Also when Fumong faked his heart attack and was on his back in the hospital he gave a interview to CNN.
fUmong also testified that he did not want money from the goods after he had origionally said he WANTED BIG BUCKS from the deal.

Ojs defense offer a reason as to why 3-4 people came with oj to the room. Fumong had originnally told Beadsley that he had THOUSANDS of ojs personal items. So oj brought others to help carry the expected large amount of stuff away.When fumong opened his truck for beadsley and Riccio they saw only a small amount of ojs sutff and asked him DON'T YOU HAVE MORE THAN THIS. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE STUFF YOU SAID YOU HAD.

What a mess fumong is.imo

Riccio's obvious reason for making the tapes was to make money. He admitted to deleting two files, although he claims they were only those where he tested the equipment. Why delete that? Those facts, imho, make the tapes inherently untrustworthy and the testimony of the expert that he couldn't tell if the tapes had been changed only makes them more untrustworthy, imho. However, judge J. Glass', who ruled that the civil trial wasn't a part of the case but commented on Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers, did not see the tapes in the same light as I did.

[martin II]

Riccio's obvious reason for making the tapes was to make money. He admitted to deleting two files, although he claims they were only those where he tested the equipment. Why delete that? Those facts, imho, make the tapes inherently untrustworthy and the testimony of the expert that he couldn't tell if the tapes had been changed only makes them more untrustworthy, imho. However, judge J. Glass', who ruled that the civil trial wasn't a part of the case but commented on Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers, did not see the tapes in the same light as I did.

So who is telling the truth, riccio who admitted to deleting two files or le experts that said several files were deleted. judge glass's comments in the trial showed how easy it was for her biase to slip out of her mouth.

[weezer]

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/nv-vs-simpson-fromong-returns/

you know william -- if you're going to post links, it would be better if they weren't to sites where a blogger uses foul language to broadcast his/her impression/opinion. :punch:

[weezer]

So who is telling the truth, riccio who admitted to deleting two files or le experts that said several files were deleted. judge glass's comments in the trial showed how easy it was for her biase to slip out of her mouth.

she's a judge -- of course the defendant and his apologists are going to think she's biased. geez

[weezer]

Riccio's obvious reason for making the tapes was to make money. He admitted to deleting two files, although he claims they were only those where he tested the equipment. Why delete that? Those facts, imho, make the tapes inherently untrustworthy and the testimony of the expert that he couldn't tell if the tapes had been changed only makes them more untrustworthy, imho. However, judge J. Glass', who ruled that the civil trial wasn't a part of the case but commented on Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers, did not see the tapes in the same light as I did.

you do understand of course, that once orenthal was found guilty, the judge was within the law to consider EVERYTHING about orenthal -- including his past.

[martin II]

she's a judge -- of course the defendant and his apologists are going to think she's biased. geez


Deleted files.
Who is telling the truth riccio or the le experts? that is the question.

[martin II]

you do understand of course, that once orenthal was found guilty, the judge was within the law to consider EVERYTHING about orenthal -- including his past.

you think that is true

[weezer]

you think that is true

martin, it's not a matter of what I think -- it's a matter of law. :tongue:

[weezer]

Deleted files.
Who is telling the truth riccio or the le experts? that is the question.

I think orenthal was -- loud and clear on the tapes!

[martin II]

I think orenthal was -- loud and clear on the tapes!

I think you are evading the question.
riccio said he deleted two files. le said severa files 4 were deleted. who is telling the truth?

[martin II]

martin, it's not a matter of what I think -- it's a matter of law. :tongue:

you will have to wait and see if the appeals court agrees with you. that is the law.

[weezer]

I think you are evading the question.
riccio said he deleted two files. le said severa files 4 were deleted. who is telling the truth?

I wasn't evading the question -- both riccio and LE said files were 'deleted' (overwritten). so?

I believe you are incorrect in the number of files LE said they were unable to recover.

do you believe that galanter can now come back and say 'forget what I said about being glad the tapes were coming in'? riiiiight

but, with all that aside, we do know that it was orenthal on the tapes planning, executing, and re-telling with joy the crimes.

[weezer]

you will have to wait and see if the appeals court agrees with you. that is the law.

okay -- I hear the average time for appeals to be heard in Nevada is a year and a half.

[William Anthony]

you know william -- if you're going to post links, it would be better if they weren't to sites where a blogger uses foul language to broadcast his/her impression/opinion. :punch:

Is that why we differ on the importance of the tapes, because you could not stand to listen to the foul language and turned off your tv set?

[William Anthony]

I wasn't evading the question -- both riccio and LE said files were 'deleted' (overwritten). so?

I believe you are incorrect in the number of files LE said they were unable to recover.

do you believe that galanter can now come back and say 'forget what I said about being glad the tapes were coming in'? riiiiight

but, with all that aside, we do know that it was orenthal on the tapes planning, executing, and re-telling with joy the crimes.

Did you forget the expert who said he could not say the tapes weren't changed and that is when the defense objected? They objected based on the concept of authentication. Not overwritten, "deleted".

[weezer]

Is that why we differ on the importance of the tapes, because you could not stand to listen to the foul language and turned off your tv set?

no william -- we differ on the importance of the tapes because you refuse to accept the fact that your hero was caught on tape acting his sociopathic self. I do however object to you posting a link to a blogger's site that uses foul language to broadcast their opinion.

the rules of the board are that when asked to back up a statement of fact with a link, that means a credible link.

[weezer]

Did you forget the expert who said he could not say the tapes weren't changed and that is when the defense objected? They objected based on the concept of authentication. Not overwritten, "deleted".

oh geez william -- no I didn't forget the testimony -- so what?

link to 'deleted' please.

[William Anthony]

oh geez william -- no I didn't forget the testimony -- so what?

link to 'deleted' please.

Authentication that's what.

I already provided the link.

[William Anthony]

no william -- we differ on the importance of the tapes because you refuse to accept the fact that your hero was caught on tape acting his sociopathic self. I do however object to you posting a link to a blogger's site that uses foul language to broadcast their opinion.

the rules of the board are that when asked to back up a statement of fact with a link, that means a credible link.

My heroes are Jesus Christ, Martin Luther king, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Barrack Obama, Morris Dees, the magnificent one, F. Lee Bailey and my father to name a few. Simpson is not one. You say caught on tapes that some files were deleted and we do not know if they were changed.

You had no objection to posting a link that started with the words "rumor has it", IIRC.

[weezer]

My heroes are Jesus Christ, Martin Luther king, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Barrack Obama, Morris Dees, the magnificent one, F. Lee Bailey and my father to name a few. Simpson is not one. You say caught on tapes that some files were deleted and we do not know if they were changed.

You had no objection to posting a link that started with the words "rumor has it", IIRC.

I can never carry on a civil debate with you because you are not capable of it. you are just simply hell-bent on getting this board shut down aren't you? well william, go for it. :seeya:

[martin II]

I wasn't evading the question -- both riccio and LE said files were 'deleted' (overwritten). so?

I believe you are incorrect in the number of files LE said they were unable to recover.

do you believe that galanter can now come back and say 'forget what I said about being glad the tapes were coming in'? riiiiight

but, with all that aside, we do know that it was orenthal on the tapes planning, executing, and re-telling with joy the crimes.

The issue was riccio saying he deleted 2 files. le said they retrieved 2 files and 2 or 3 other deleted files they were not able to retrieve. So who deleted the files that riccio SAID he did not delete? imo

[William Anthony]

I can never carry on a civil debate with you because you are not capable of it. you are just simply hell-bent on getting this board shut down aren't you? well william, go for it. :seeya:

There was nothing uncivil in my post. There was just a reminder that you broke what you claimed was the rule that a "credible link" must be supplied. If I was incorrect and it was some other poster, all you had to do was say so, as opposed to making an uncivil and false accusation.

[martin II]

My heroes are Jesus Christ, Martin Luther king, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Barrack Obama, Morris Dees, the magnificent one, F. Lee Bailey and my father to name a few. Simpson is not one. You say caught on tapes that some files were deleted and we do not know if they were changed.

You had no objection to posting a link that started with the words "rumor has it", IIRC.

i agree
posting rummors is not fact to most.imo

[William Anthony]

i agree
posting rummors is not fact to most.imo

See post #646. Rumors certainly aren't credible.

[martin II]

okay -- I hear the average time for appeals to be heard in Nevada is a year and a half.

unless something changes we all will be posting here then.

[martin II]

weezer
i remember your post from a gossip blog that admitted it was based on RUMMOR. I did not take it as fact.imo

[martin II]

I can never carry on a civil debate with you because you are not capable of it. you are just simply hell-bent on getting this board shut down aren't you? well william, go for it. :seeya:

weezer
you think you could find a way not to refer to posters that question the oj verdict as OJ APOLOGIST. Most posters would not like to given labels by you.
It shows a lack of respect for others that don't agree with you.imo

[William Anthony]

weezer
you think you could find a way not to refer to posters that question the oj verdict as OJ APOLOGIST. Most posters would not like to given labels by you.
It shows a lack of respect for others that don't agree with you.imo

The amazing point is that I am not disagreeing with anyone. I am questioning the fairness of the process in which the verdict was rendered. Everyone is provided an opportunity to state their reasons why they think the verdict against them was in some manner legally improper. I see no reason to deny Simpson that right, because he is Simpson. I simply offered a different view of how things can be looked at. I am not saying that the court will agree with my view. I have simply stated what I think the arguments may be. Perhaps, his appellate lawyers may not see those same arguments or choose not to argue them based on the probability of success.

I do not think that looking at all the circumstances that led up to the trial and what happened at the different stages of the trial is offering an apology for Simpson. I do not know him well enough to presume that I could apologize for him. I do believe he deserved a fair trial by an impartial trier of fact and a judge and a fair defense.

[martin II]

The amazing point is that I am not disagreeing with anyone. I am questioning the fairness of the process in which the verdict was rendered. Everyone is provided an opportunity to state their reasons why they think the verdict against them was in some manner legally improper. I see no reason to deny Simpson that right, because he is Simpson. I simply offered a different view of how things can be looked at. I am not saying that the court will agree with my view. I have simply stated what I think the arguments may be. Perhaps, his appellate lawyers may not see those same arguments or choose not to argue them based on the probability of success.

I do not think that looking at all the circumstances that led up to the trial and what happened at the different stages of the trial is offering an apology for Simpson. I do not know him well enough to presume that I could apologize for him. I do believe he deserved a fair trial by an impartial trier of fact and a judge and a fair defense.


Thanks william for your post.

Assigning negative labels to posters that express different opinions is name calling and should be against the rules if it is not already.imo

[William Anthony]

Thanks william for your post.

Assigning negative labels to posters that express different opinions is name calling and should be against the rules if it is not already.imo

I think that civility is required and, if a poster is inclined to break a rule and may have, they should not be upset when another poster allegedly breaks the same rule.

Here is another point that seems to be some confusion. I was under the impression that appeals may be brought on errors of law and upheld if they were clearly erroneous and harmful and I think I posted that language from a case. However, see this.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/FEDERAL/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1455.html

"In conducting such de novo review, the reviewing court may consider not only the trial court record but also, where appropriate, sources outside the record, including legal and scientific articles, as well as court
opinions from other jurisdictions. See Miller, 173 Ill. 2d at 203 (McMorrow, J., concurring). “

The Federal Circuit reviews questions of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; questions of law are subject to full and independent review (sometimes referred to as "de novo" or "plenary" review). Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 762-64, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417, 1421-23 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989)(Findings of fact of a judge are subject to the "clearly erroneous rule"; any "issue of law is subject to independent plenary review and determination."). The issue of the scope of various Headings of the HTSUS is a question of law subject to full and independent review by this court. Simod Am. Corp. v. United States, 872 F.2d 1572, 1576, 7 Fed. Cir. (T) 82, 86 (1989)("[T]he definition of a classification term is a question of law which [the court is] free to determine."). The factual question of whether imported items are within the scope of various Headings of HTSUS is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Id"

But see this.

http://www.harmfulerror.com/2007/09/incredible_decision_by_9th_cir.html


"The Circuit then concluded that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict and granted habeas relief as a result."

I am not clear if any of the cases originated from a summary judgment motion but the concept that the jury, absent a bench trial, was the trier of fact and that the judge determines the law but that concept was eroded in civil procedure with the summary judgment motion and a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal trial. Is it no wonder that the law is confusing? I will be interesting to see which standard of review is utilized by the appellate court in the Simpson case or, If the court will further blur the line.

It appears that the Polk case was a jury trial.

[William Anthony]

Here is a link to an interesting discussion on the weight of the evidence, which seems to acknowledge that the trial judge has the right to weigh the evidence. It is a somewhat difficult read. What I took from it was more that the court was concerned in the judge's ability to consider whether he had improperly admitted or excluded evidence, in connection with the concept of weight, and a return that deference should be given to the jury on the issues of weighing the evidence in connection with credibility. I know I would not like this justice questioning me during a trial.:)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/99-1953.pdf

See what I mean? I got sidetracked reading it. The point is which standard should apply on appeal and on what issues and the lawyers seemed to be arguing both in the link, one on the issue of abuse of discretion and the other on the issue of damages. I had not even considered the issue of appealing judge J. Glass' restitution ruling as excessive.

[martin II]

From your most informative post it seems that the defense can direct the appeals court to the issues they wish the court to examine/consider.

[weezer]

Nah, I think he & Martin are hell-bent on running everyone else off this board, so they can sit here alone & yammer on about their own theories. Thus far, they've managed to run off most posters :mad:

I guess now we wait to see how long it takes for CL to figure out william and martin are using the board for their own personal chat room. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
I can never carry on a civil debate with you because you are not capable of it. you are just simply hell-bent on getting this board shut down aren't you? well william, go for it.

Nah, I think he & Martin are hell-bent on running everyone else off this board, so they can sit here alone & yammer on about their own theories. Thus far, they've managed to run off most posters

I guess now we wait to see how long it takes for CL to figure out william and martin are using the board for their own personal chat room.

LOL, at least Martin and I do not make posts to talk about other posters. However, the above quotes are nothing more than false accusatory off topic posts, imho. Let's discuss the Nevada case.

[William Anthony]

From your most informative post it seems that the defense can direct the appeals court to the issues they wish the court to examine/consider.

Yes, but the point is that the case law has now mixed the standard and allowed the trial judge to be a trier of fact, when the theory is that the jury gives weight and credibility to the evidence. It will be of interest to see which standard, de novo or plenary, the appellate court exercises as it is in their discretion. The justice asked the question in the link I supplied as to a credibilty determination being made by the judge and there seemed to me no argument against it, or a vague one. I will have to reread the arguments. It usually applies to civil case and directed verdicts in criminal trials are seldom granted. However, the standard is set, which seems to mean that a judge can take the verdict away from a jury by ruling that the evidence was such that no reasonable jury could decide a certain way.

The justice speaks of evidence that was improperly admitted as going against the great weight of the evidence in the context of being clearly erroneous. This may have a decisive impact on the tape issues. I will try to find how the Supreme Court ruled after hearing the arguments. Perhaps their opinion will shed further light on the probability of the success or failure of the appeal.

[William Anthony]

I was able to find how the Supreme Court decided the issue and the conflict in standards. They didn't.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-1953P.ZPC

I was also able to find the issues presented more specifically.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/glances/jan_01.html


“Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal trial judge’s decision to grant a new trial is widely discretionary. The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in actions at law, and prohibits judicial re-examination of any fact tried by a jury. Some federal courts hold that the Seventh Amendment does not restrict a trial judge’s discretion, but that it does restrict appellate review to an "abuse of discretion" standard; others apply a “more sweeping” appellate inquiry. “

I will try to find what standard the ninth circuit uses and that may be a mixture. :)

[William Anthony]

Want to get really confused as to what standard will be used in the appeal? Read this.

http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2007/08/01/en-banc-ninth-circuit-resolves-intra-circuit-split-on-standard-of-review-in-confrontation-clause-challenges/

[martin II]

I guess now we wait to see how long it takes for CL to figure out william and martin are using the board for their own personal chat room. :shrug:

My post are about reading info about the possible appeal of the vegas trial results. i am not interested in arguing with you as a result of your personal comments directed at me. i find the post about the appeal to be informative and interesting and will contine to participate.

[William Anthony]

My post are about reading info about the possible appeal of the vegas trial results. i am not interested in arguing with you as a result of your personal comments directed at me. i find the post about the appeal to be informative and interesting and will contine to participate.

ITA. Oliver Wendell Holmes said that justice is what the courts will likely decide. Therefore, it is important to consider the history of how the courts that will hear the appeal have previously decided issues and what standards they have used. The key word in the Supreme Court's opinion saying that certiorari should not have been given, imho, was, "improvidently". I think that the Justices realized that ruling one way or another might destroy years of precedent as to the abilities of judges. Personally, I have disagreed with the cases of Celotex and Liberty Lobby Inc. I think that appellate courts may be determined to apply whatever standard they choose in order to voice an opinion that is in line with their particular predispositions on certain issues, which will have an impact on Simpson's appeal. The burden of persuasion will loom large in the appeal, imho.

[weezer]

My post are about reading info about the possible appeal of the vegas trial results. i am not interested in arguing with you as a result of your personal comments directed at me. i find the post about the appeal to be informative and interesting and will contine to participate.

your posts are forays into finding everyone responsible EXCEPT the convicted felon orenthal james simpson.

you should keep in mind that just because a 'wanna-be' lawyer thinks something, doesn't make it so. I recommend you venture out to other boards to see what the real possibilities are for appeal. :seeya:

[weezer]

From your most informative post it seems that the defense can direct the appeals court to the issues they wish the court to examine/consider.

pssst -- and the appeals court can dismiss any/all issues they do not wish to examine/consider.

[William Anthony]

your posts are forays into finding everyone responsible EXCEPT the convicted felon orenthal james simpson.

you should keep in mind that just because a 'wanna-be' lawyer thinks something, doesn't make it so. I recommend you venture out to other boards to see what the real possibilities are for appeal. :seeya:

I totally agree that martin should venture to other boards to get other opinions, if that is what he chooses to do. A lawyers' greatest talent, imho, is to understand the developments in the law and to offer creative alternatives.

In regard to being a wanna-be in any field, I think that is tantamount to upholding the desire to fulfill a dream and to keep hope alive and we have all recently seen the sweet fruits of that endeavor displayed in the continued struggle and successful struggle to reach the apex of a mountain. I think that to not be a wanna-be leaves a person in a state of anger, frustration, bitterness and despair and maybe the saddest reminder of a life of complacency. We should all strive to be better and not think that are lives are the best they can be, which might leave a person with nothing to live for than to just resent and criticize the accomplishments of others, imho.

However, let's discuss the Nevada case and not make personal attacks as that would tend to show some culpability in an attempt to get the thread closed, imho.

[weezer]

I'd love to discuss the Nevada case -- can we leave out 'coulda/shoulda/woulda' and deal with the facts of the case?

[William Anthony]

I'd love to discuss the Nevada case -- can we leave out 'coulda/shoulda/woulda' and deal with the facts of the case?

Those things you call shoulda/could/woulda are part of the appellate issues and the moderator has ruled that the discussion of the appeal is allowed. So we are in fact discussing the Nevada case and, as to those shoulda/coulda/ woulda that may or may not be a part of the appeal, such as the conduct of LE in refusing to investigate the report of stolen property, it may be a part of the emotional/persuasive appeal in the appeal. However, as we as posters, form opinions based on the trial, we are allowed to consider the coulda, shoulda, woulda that were involved in the case. Do not forget there was testimony by Riccio that LE refused to investigate the report.

Judge J. Glass ruled that the ownership of the property was not to be considered in the case. I think as posters we are allowed to voice our opinions on whether or not it could/shoulda/woulda have been an issue.

[William Anthony]

pssst -- and the appeals court can dismiss any/all issues they do not wish to examine/consider.

And that issue can be appealed to a circuit court and to the Supreme Court, if based on a Constitutional question.

[weezer]

and this is real life -- not a classroom.

orenthal will not win an appeal based on the tapes and/or ownership of the items. imo

[William Anthony]

and this is real life -- not a classroom.

orenthal will not win an appeal based on the tapes and/or ownership of the items. imo

Life is a classroom, imho. Even employers sometimes recognize life experiences. Your opinion may be right or it may be wrong.

I would go further and argue that a person has a Constitutional right to bail, unless it can be proven that he is a danger to society. There is a concept in the law called a negative pregnant, although mainly used in responses to averments. I would argue that there is one contained in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Here is a definition for a negative pregnant.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n046.htm

I would argue that based on the language of the 8th amendment the intent of the founding forefathers was to promote bail and rely on the negative pregnant principle to show that intent. Here is the language of the 8th Amendment, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I would argue that the language indicates that bail is mandated/required and that only excessive bail is not required. These are some of the things that I have learned to argue after learning certain concepts through life, as the instructors, most of them lawyers, in courses I have had thus far, have not addressed the issue of a negative pregnant. I found it very helpful in one of my motions as a pro se plaintiff in one of the cases, after I had read up on the concept, although it is seldom used, it remains on the books.

[martin II]

I'd love to discuss the Nevada case -- can we leave out 'coulda/shoulda/woulda' and deal with the facts of the case?

weezer
the facts of the case/verdict is what the appeals court will deal with. since the next legal proceeding is the appeal, it is proper to discuss that.
calling william a wanna be is name calling, why do you continue with that line of attack?

[martin II]

and this is real life -- not a classroom.

orenthal will not win an appeal based on the tapes and/or ownership of the items. imo

No one knows what the appeals court will consider but discussing what they may do is certainly interestinf and informative. It is much better than name calling and personal attacks.

[William Anthony]

weezer
the facts of the case/verdict is what the appeals court will deal with. since the next legal proceeding is the appeal, it is proper to discuss that.
calling william a wanna be is name calling, why do you continue with that line of attack?

I have no problem with that, Martin. It shows that I am alive and vibrant, have hopes and dreams and I am working toward a purpose, as opposed to being bitter, frustrated, judgmental, envious and lackadaisical.

[William Anthony]

No one knows what the appeals court will consider but discussing what they may do is certainly interestinf and informative. It is much better than name calling and personal attacks.

Thank you and ITA.

[William Anthony]

It appears that the intent factor of the founding forefather's on the issue of bail was decided by the Supreme Court in 2984.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/01.html

I may or may not make that negative pregnant argument, depending on which court I was in front off.:)

“The Court first tested and upheld under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a state statute providing for preventive detention of juveniles. 20 Then, in United States v. Salerno, 21 the Court upheld application of preventive detention provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 against facial challenge under the Eighth Amendment. The function of bail, the Court explained, is limited neither to preventing flight of the defendant prior to trial nor to safeguarding a court's role in adjudicating guilt or innocence. ''[W]e reject the proposition that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interests through regulation of pretrial release.'' 22 Instead, ''the only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is that the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be 'excessive' in light of the perceived evil.'' 23 Detention pending trial of ''arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no condition of release can dispel'' satisfies this requirement. 24 “

I might express it in front of the most liberal circuit court, smile.

[martin II]

your posts are forays into finding everyone responsible EXCEPT the convicted felon orenthal james simpson.

you should keep in mind that just because a 'wanna-be' lawyer thinks something, doesn't make it so. I recommend you venture out to other boards to see what the real possibilities are for appeal. :seeya:

So which of the accepted standards do you believe the appeals couir will use?

[William Anthony]

But see this.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:l7LhRHJ36CUJ:www.nevadaindex.com/pappas.pdf+in+nevada+a+court+must+write+a+written+ opinion+stating+the+reasons+to+deny+a+new+trial&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Nevada law may preclude the defense from having the actions and the statements of the jury foreman consider on appeal to show how they effected fellow jurors.

[weezer]

So which of the accepted standards do you believe the appeals couir will use?

I believe the only area he has any hope in is the kidnapping charge --

[William Anthony]

I believe the only area he has any hope in is the kidnapping charge --

And which standard do you belief the court will use in reviewing the kidnapping charge?

[martin II]

I believe the only area he has any hope in is the kidnapping charge --

How and why did you come to that conclusion??

[William Anthony]

I believe the only area he has any hope in is the kidnapping charge --

Are you indicating that you believe that judge J. Glass was wrong when she did not allow a retrial on the kidnapping charge or say that the jury's conviction on that charge went against the great weight of the evidence?

[William Anthony]

What about this?

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/587/587.F2d.956.77-2612.77-2611.html

“The burden is properly on the offering party here the Government "to produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity and accuracy as a foundation for the admission of . . . recordings . . . ." United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967). Accord, United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 1975).”

Sometimes, it is better to stay where you are and rely on someone to do reliable research than to move to alleged greener pastures, only to find that the pasture is merely weeds. I think this may play an important part in determining whether judge J. Glass properly admitted the surreptitious tapes.

[Redmama]

Life is a classroom, imho. Even employers sometimes recognize life experiences. Your opinion may be right or it may be wrong.

I would go further and argue that a person has a Constitutional right to bail, unless it can be proven that he is a danger to society. There is a concept in the law called a negative pregnant, although mainly used in responses to averments. I would argue that there is one contained in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Here is a definition for a negative pregnant.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n046.htm

I would argue that based on the language of the 8th amendment the intent of the founding forefathers was to promote bail and rely on the negative pregnant principle to show that intent. Here is the language of the 8th Amendment, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I would argue that the language indicates that bail is mandated/required and that only excessive bail is not required. These are some of the things that I have learned to argue after learning certain concepts through life, as the instructors, most of them lawyers, in courses I have had thus far, have not addressed the issue of a negative pregnant. I found it very helpful in one of my motions as a pro se plaintiff in one of the cases, after I had read up on the concept, although it is seldom used, it remains on the books.

I've been working a lot, so forgive me if I'm not reading your intention right here, but in regards to bail, are you saying that you believe he should be granted bail now, or should have somewhere along the way...I'm confused.

[martin II]

From my readings on other cases some convicted defendants have been granted bail pending appeals. Some have had to surrender passports and remain free until appeals while others have been given house arrest waiting appeals.

[martin II]

What about this?

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/587/587.F2d.956.77-2612.77-2611.html

“The burden is properly on the offering party here the Government "to produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity and accuracy as a foundation for the admission of . . . recordings . . . ." United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 440 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967). Accord, United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 1975).”

Sometimes, it is better to stay where you are and rely on someone to do reliable research than to move to alleged greener pastures, only to find that the pasture is merely weeds. I think this may play an important part in determining whether judge J. Glass properly admitted the surreptitious tapes.


Considering that the le expert testified to the judge that they could not authenticate Riccios tapes i am puzzeled as to why she allowed the unauthenticated tapes to be placed into evidence.imo

Additionally the le expert used unscientific methods to identify certain voices
speaking on the tapes which caused him to misidentify and wrongly assign some voices to the wrong defendant.imo.

[William Anthony]

I've been working a lot, so forgive me if I'm not reading your intention right here, but in regards to bail, are you saying that you believe he should be granted bail now, or should have somewhere along the way...I'm confused.

No, I was saying that was an argument that I would make based on the concept of a negative pregnant in the Eighth Amendment. However, upon further review, I saw that the intent of the frames was considered in 1984 and ruled upon by the Supreme Court. I might contemplate making that argument before the ninth circuit, which is purported to be the most liberal circuit.

[William Anthony]

Considering that the le expert testified to the judge that they could not authenticate Riccios tapes i am puzzeled as to why she allowed the unauthenticated tapes to be placed into evidence.imo

Additionally the le expert used unscientific methods to identify certain voices
speaking on the tapes which caused him to misidentify and wrongly assign some voices to the wrong defendant.imo.

I don't think the prosecution came close to meeting the clear and convincing standard.

[William Anthony]

I've been working a lot, so forgive me if I'm not reading your intention right here, but in regards to bail, are you saying that you believe he should be granted bail now, or should have somewhere along the way...I'm confused.

Redmama,

Tell your boss that I said you need more breaks,:). It is just that wanna-be lawyer thing in me. I believe that a lawyer must represent his client's best interest in every aspect, while not loosing credibility with the court, which is why I said I would be selective with where I made the argument, if at all, :).

[serpentsfall]

Considering that the le expert testified to the judge that they could not authenticate Riccios tapes i am puzzeled as to why she allowed the unauthenticated tapes to be placed into evidence.imo

Additionally the le expert used unscientific methods to identify certain voices
speaking on the tapes which caused him to misidentify and wrongly assign some voices to the wrong defendant.imo.

Judge Glass allowed Riccio's tapes because Yale Galanter said Galanter specifically said he had no objection to allowing them in - in fact, he WANTED those tapes in. Stewart's attorney, however, did not agree and I think Stewart will ultimately get a new trial based on that objection being overruled for the "benefit" of honoring the Simpson defense team's position.

[serpentsfall]

I don't think the prosecution came close to meeting the clear and convincing standard.

Again, they didn't have to after Galanter said he had no objection to admission of the tapes and didn't question their authenticity. Galanter had some quibble about the prosecution's transcription of what was said on the tapes, but Galanter WANTED the tapes in saying they would prove OJ's innocence.

[William Anthony]

Judge Glass allowed Riccio's tapes because Yale Galanter said Galanter specifically said he had no objection to allowing them in - in fact, he WANTED those tapes in. Stewart's attorney, however, did not agree and I think Stewart will ultimately get a new trial based on that objection being overruled for the "benefit" of honoring the Simpson defense team's position.

Irrespective of why they were admitted, the question remains as to should they have been admitted as a matter of law. I have supplied the link in which it said the defense objected. I am not sure but I think Galantar may have simply stated an objection and Bryson went more thoroughly into the basis for the objection. In any event, the jury stated they relied on the tapes and, if they are inadmissible, then there is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, imho.