Nevada Case Discussion Only

[William Anthony]

From the link above about the judge's conduct.

"Nevertheless, it is clear that the court has a discretion in this matter. (Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 249-250, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021.) We have carefully examined each instance in which such a colloquy before the jury occurred, and while we think that in one or two instances the court's comments on the respective contentions of the parties should have been less sharp than they were, and that one or two of them were unfortunate in that they brought before the jury matters that it would be better that they had not heard, we cannot find that any of them, or all of them together, were prejudicial, especially in view of the instructions that the court repeatedly gave the jury.
50"

It appears that the court favored the concept of recentcy over primacy. I think that this case may be undoubtedly cited by the prosecution in that the court felt that the judge was able to call back the sound of the bell after it had been rung. I would argue that the court was acting as a trier of fact as opposed to making a determination of law with the above dicta. I would argue that the totality of the circumstances of the judge's demeanor actions and statement, as with judge J. Glass, plainly biased Simpson's and Stewart's chances to receive a fair and impartial trial.

[martin II]

This is how Simpson and Stewart were sentenced, I believe. It may be interesting to consider how an appeal can reduce the sentence.

• Count No. 1: 1 year for conspiracy to commit a crime
• Count No. 2: 12-48 months (concurrent) for conspiracy to commit kidnapping
• Count No. 3: 12-48 months (concurrent) for conspiracy to commit burglary
• Count No. 4: 26-120 months (concurrent) for burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 5: 15 years (concurrent) for first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon. Parole eligibility begins after five years.
• Count No. 6: 15 years (concurrent) for first-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon. Parole eligibility begins after five years.
• Count No. 7: 60-180 months(concurrent) for robbery with use of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 8: 60-180 months(concurrent) for robbery with use of a deadly weapon
• Count No. 9: 18-72 months (consecutive to count No. 8) for assault with a deadly weapon
• Count No. 10: 18-72 months (consecutive to count No. 9) for assault with a deadly weapon


Why each defendant receives two sentences for the same crime. 5-6 and 7-8

[martin II]

From the link above about the judge's conduct.

"Nevertheless, it is clear that the court has a discretion in this matter. (Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 249-250, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021.) We have carefully examined each instance in which such a colloquy before the jury occurred, and while we think that in one or two instances the court's comments on the respective contentions of the parties should have been less sharp than they were, and that one or two of them were unfortunate in that they brought before the jury matters that it would be better that they had not heard, we cannot find that any of them, or all of them together, were prejudicial, especially in view of the instructions that the court repeatedly gave the jury.
50"

It appears that the court favored the concept of recentcy over primacy. I think that this case may be undoubtedly cited by the prosecution in that the court felt that the judge was able to call back the sound of the bell after it had been rung. I would argue that the court was acting as a trier of fact as opposed to making a determination of law with the above dicta. I would argue that the totality of the circumstances of the judge's demeanor actions and statement, as with judge J. Glass, plainly biased Simpson's and Stewart's chances to receive a fair and impartial trial.


I think glass felt that her statement that any comments she makes towards lawyers should not be taken as bias or favor will protect her against bias claims and when she could not UNRING THE BELL.

[martin II]

It looks as though, if all the convictions except the gun charges were reversed, that Simpson would still have to do 5 years, unless he is eligible for parole after 2 1/2?

I don't know how liberal or conservative the Nevada Supreme court is. Or whether they just go along with trial judges or whether they are elected or appointed.

[William Anthony]

Why each defendant receives two sentences for the same crime. 5-6 and 7-8

I believe ones were for Fromong and the others for Beardsley.

[William Anthony]

I think glass felt that her statement that any comments she makes towards lawyers should not be taken as bias or favor will protect her against bias claims and when she could not UNRING THE BELL.

Yes, I believe that will be the reasoning. However, whether or not the bell can be recalled. I believe is a matter of fact rather than law and I believe the judges should be constrained to deciding matters of law. I am against summary judgment motions as they are currently being used.

[William Anthony]

I don't know how liberal or conservative the Nevada Supreme court is. Or whether they just go along with trial judges or whether they are elected or appointed.

The lines are often blurred as to liberal, conservative, fact and law, imho.

[weezer]

I don't know how liberal or conservative the Nevada Supreme court is. Or whether they just go along with trial judges or whether they are elected or appointed.

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/StateDisclosure/iys.aspx?st=NV&sub=judicial

How are Supreme Court judges selected? Non-partisan election

[martin II]

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/StateDisclosure/iys.aspx?st=NV&sub=judicial

How are Supreme Court judges selected? Non-partisan election

thanks.


. How are Supreme Court judges selected?

In 38 states, judges must participate in some type of election to win a seat on a state high court (most commonly called the Supreme Court), according to the American Judicature Society. The election can be non-partisan or involve political parties that nominate candidates. Some states follow a judicial appointment by the governor with a retention election, in which a judge is on the ballot unopposed near the end of a term, and voters decide whether to keep the judge on the court.

[martin II]

I believe ones were for Fromong and the others for Beardsley.

1. it is a good thing that fumong and beadsley did not bring along 3-4 friends.

I don't know if this is by law or judges discretion but it does seem to be overcharging or over sentencing.imo

[weezer]

People never fail to amaze me! Guess he didn't know most reasonable people didn't need help thinking this -- :eek:

"O.J. Witness Says Dr. Phil Made Him Look Like a 'Shady Character'

NBCLosAngeles.com
updated 12:46 p.m. CT, Sat., Feb. 14, 2009

LOS ANGELES -- A memorabilia dealer who was a key witness in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery and kidnapping trial in Las Vegas is suing talk show host Phil McGraw for defamation. . ."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29163644/

[martin II]

People never fail to amaze me! Guess he didn't know most reasonable people didn't need help thinking this -- :eek:

"O.J. Witness Says Dr. Phil Made Him Look Like a 'Shady Character'

NBCLosAngeles.com
updated 12:46 p.m. CT, Sat., Feb. 14, 2009

LOS ANGELES -- A memorabilia dealer who was a key witness in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery and kidnapping trial in Las Vegas is suing talk show host Phil McGraw for defamation. . ."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29163644/

Considering "DR" Phils editing of the hollaway accused tapes on his show and the problems that caused, Riccio should have known better than to appear on Phils show.imo

[martin II]

i don't know why Riccio is complaining about being called the RINGLEADER.

[weezer]

i don't know why Riccio is complaining about being called the RINGLEADER.

did you really thing that orenthal's 'friends' were going to follow riccio's lead? LOL

"noun: a person who leads others, esp. in opposition to authority, law, etc."

[martin II]

did you really thing that orenthal's 'friends' were going to follow riccio's lead? LOL

"noun: a person who leads others, esp. in opposition to authority, law, etc."

If Riccio had not looked for and found two people selling ojs stolen goods and then notified oj that he would set up a meeting with these thiefs or criminals selling stolen goods, there would not have been any need for ojs friends to do any thing but attend a wedding and maby play a round of golf. imo

[weezer]

If Riccio had not looked for and found two people selling ojs stolen goods and then notified oj that he would set up a meeting with these thiefs or criminals selling stolen goods, there would not have been any need for ojs friends to do any thing but attend a wedding and maby play a round of golf. imo

so you're sticking with your theory that orenthal and his 'buds' were all so stupid that they blindly followed riccio? okay then -- I guess you're right -- riccio was the 'ringleader' in your scenario. ;)

[William Anthony]

so you're sticking with your theory that orenthal and his 'buds' were all so stupid that they blindly followed riccio? okay then -- I guess you're right -- riccio was the 'ringleader' in your scenario. ;)


As stupid as Fromong an Beardsley, who allowed themselves to be lured into a hotel room by Riccio.

[weezer]

As stupid as Fromong an Beardsley, who allowed themselves to be lured into a hotel room by Riccio.

no one ever said any one of them was the brightest crayon! :rolleyes:

[martin II]

so you're sticking with your theory that orenthal and his 'buds' were all so stupid that they blindly followed riccio? okay then -- I guess you're right -- riccio was the 'ringleader' in your scenario. ;)

I think Riccio was more of a con man manipulator for money.

[martin II]

so you're sticking with your theory that orenthal and his 'buds' were all so stupid that they blindly followed riccio? okay then -- I guess you're right -- riccio was the 'ringleader' in your scenario. ;)

Do realize how many smart good citizens are conned into doing things they would not normally do but do so when tricked by a good con man manipulator like Rizzio.Look at what Madoff did. Bright crayons are manipulated every day.

[martin II]

As stupid as Fromong an Beardsley, who allowed themselves to be lured into a hotel room by Riccio.

Or as stupid as the prosecution was for allowing Riccio to negoiate a immunity for himself for the tapes when all they had to do was demand that he give them the crime scene tapes he stole from the crime scene and was holding.imo

[weezer]

Or as stupid as the prosecution was for allowing Riccio to negoiate a immunity for himself for the tapes when all they had to do was demand that he give them the crime scene tapes he stole from the crime scene and was holding.imo

martin, those audio tapes belonged to riccio. why in the world would you use the word 'stole'? and I doubt seriously that the immunity was simply for the tapes being turned over.

[weezer]

Do realize how many smart good citizens are conned into doing things they would not normally do but do so when tricked by a good con man manipulator like Rizzio.Look at what Madoff did. Bright crayons are manipulated every day.

ahh but martin those good citizens weren't running around with guns holding people up in hotel rooms. LOL -- please don't tell me you believe any of those losers were bright crayons. . .:eek:

[tv]

so you're sticking with your theory that orenthal and his 'buds' were all so stupid that they blindly followed riccio? okay then -- I guess you're right -- riccio was the 'ringleader' in your scenario. ;)Hi weezer, just dropping in to tell you I love your quote. :)

[One2Snoop]

I know this is Off Topic and perhaps most of you already know this but I found it to be a bit interesting.

This was posted in the "Parade" Section of your Sunday newspaper...

Q Does O.J. Simpson still receive his NFL pension now that he's in prison?

A Yes. O.J. also gets a Screen Actors Guild pension and a private pension. Depending on the market, he earns $15,000 to $60,000 a month, says his lawyer, Yale Galanter. The Goldmans and Browns can't put a lien on O.J.'s cash, he adds, since "these pensions are protected from creditors by federal law."

:confused: I have a question and since I haven't followed this as closely as the rest of you I'm sure someone here has the knowledge in which I'm seeking - exactly how much was the memorbilia worth in the Las Vegas Heist?

[William Anthony]

no one ever said any one of them was the brightest crayon! :rolleyes:

Riccio was smarter than LE and judge J. Glass, imho.

[William Anthony]

ahh but martin those good citizens weren't running around with guns holding people up in hotel rooms. LOL -- please don't tell me you believe any of those losers were bright crayons. . .:eek:

Perhaps, Riccio will set Madoff up and then we will see what happens.

[William Anthony]

I know this is Off Topic and perhaps most of you already know this but I found it to be a bit interesting.

This was posted in the "Parade" Section of your Sunday newspaper...

Q Does O.J. Simpson still receive his NFL pension now that he's in prison?

A Yes. O.J. also gets a Screen Actors Guild pension and a private pension. Depending on the market, he earns $15,000 to $60,000 a month, says his lawyer, Yale Galanter. The Goldmans and Browns can't put a lien on O.J.'s cash, he adds, since "these pensions are protected from creditors by federal law."

:confused: I have a question and since I haven't followed this as closely as the rest of you I'm sure someone here has the knowledge in which I'm seeking - exactly how much was the memorbilia worth in the Las Vegas Heist?

I don't know if any dollar amount has been placed on the items.

[martin II]

I don't know if any dollar amount has been placed on the items.

I think that Fumong said he wanted $100,000.00 for the stuff he thought he was going to sell but for many years no one had baught any of it as he still had it on 6/13.There is plenty of stuff on various sports item sales sites with ojs name or presented as original but i have come to believe this is just knock off stuff from various fakers.

I don't know how the CA judge will sort out ownership and what Fred will do with whatever he receives if he receives any of it.

[martin II]

martin, those audio tapes belonged to riccio. why in the world would you use the word 'stole'? and I doubt seriously that the immunity was simply for the tapes being turned over.

Weezer
Here is what i think. Rizzio put his recorder on that dresser and made recordings. Le arrived and put up yellow tape around the room. This imo caused everything in the room to be crime scene evidence.EVERYTHING.
As le was in the crime scene investigating Rizzio was in the room and WITHOUT their knowledge he removed the recorder from the crime scene.
This is evident by the voices of le officers on the recorder that he removed.

With out the tapes there was no evidence of what happened in the room which is why Rizzio sold a copy to TMZ before the DA came after him.
I think crime scene evidence belongd to the DA.

[martin II]

ahh but martin those good citizens weren't running around with guns holding people up in hotel rooms. LOL -- please don't tell me you believe any of those losers were bright crayons. . .:eek:

You miss my point.
My post was to how many people are dupped and manipulated into doing things they would not normally do by good con men like Rizzio or Madoff.

[martin II]

Riccio was smarter than LE and judge J. Glass, imho.

That is my point. Rizzio knew that the whole focus of the DA was to get oj and that he gambled on them relaxing the crime scene rule to get the tapes.
It worked.

[weezer]

That is my point. Rizzio knew that the whole focus of the DA was to get oj and that he gambled on them relaxing the crime scene rule to get the tapes.
It worked.

okay -- so the tapes are in and they show orenthal's actions and words. Now what? because you believe everyone else should have gone to prison with orenthal are you willing to ignore what orenthal did?

Riccio used the knowledge he had about the location of what orenthal considered his 'stuff' to work a deal for orenthal to sign a bunch of books so he could make money. Not an altruistic plan but I don't think anyone expected anything more of Riccio. Had orenthal not been trying to beat the court order -- and had he not wanted to confront Gilbert -- Riccio would not be a player in this. imo

[weezer]

You miss my point.
My post was to how many people are dupped and manipulated into doing things they would not normally do by good con men like Rizzio or Madoff.

the people that wre duped into doing this crime were orenthal's friends and acquaintances. They didn't know Riccio and/or Maddoff. Not sure why you want to bring Madoff into it -- as far as I know, he wasn't there. :shrug:

[weezer]

Weezer
Here is what i think. Rizzio put his recorder on that dresser and made recordings. Le arrived and put up yellow tape around the room. This imo caused everything in the room to be crime scene evidence.EVERYTHING.
As le was in the crime scene investigating Rizzio was in the room and WITHOUT their knowledge he removed the recorder from the crime scene.
This is evident by the voices of le officers on the recorder that he removed.

With out the tapes there was no evidence of what happened in the room which is why Rizzio sold a copy to TMZ before the DA came after him.
I think crime scene evidence belongd to the DA.

it's my understanding that the tapes are not 'evidence' of the crime but are corroborative evidence.

"FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 901 (A) PROVIDES in general terms that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by proffered proof sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be. A foundation for authentication of sound recordings was established in the federal courts in United States v. McKeever,*1* and upheld in cases such as United States v. McMillan.*2* In McMillan the court ruled that where a government agent testified that he heard the voice .of an informant at all times when he was making a recording of a telephone conversation, that this part of the conversation was accurate, and that immediately after the telephone calls were completed, a tape was replayed by the agent in the informant's presence to verify that the conversation had in fact been recorded and that the instruments were operating correctly, it was sufficiently established that the recordings were true and accurate as a basis for their admission in evidence.

In United States v. Kandiel,*3* the court ruled that any question concerning the credibility of a witness who identifies voices on a tape recording admitted into evidence simply goes to the weight which the jury accords the evidence, not its admissibility. . ."

[weezer]

Hi weezer, just dropping in to tell you I love your quote. :)

hey you! miss your posting.

[William Anthony]

it's my understanding that the tapes are not 'evidence' of the crime but are corroborative evidence.

"FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 901 (A) PROVIDES in general terms that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by proffered proof sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be. A foundation for authentication of sound recordings was established in the federal courts in United States v. McKeever,*1* and upheld in cases such as United States v. McMillan.*2* In McMillan the court ruled that where a government agent testified that he heard the voice .of an informant at all times when he was making a recording of a telephone conversation, that this part of the conversation was accurate, and that immediately after the telephone calls were completed, a tape was replayed by the agent in the informant's presence to verify that the conversation had in fact been recorded and that the instruments were operating correctly, it was sufficiently established that the recordings were true and accurate as a basis for their admission in evidence.

In United States v. Kandiel,*3* the court ruled that any question concerning the credibility of a witness who identifies voices on a tape recording admitted into evidence simply goes to the weight which the jury accords the evidence, not its admissibility. . ."

I will place the relevant parts in bold.

"FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 901 (A) PROVIDES in general terms that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by proffered proof sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be. A foundation for authentication of sound recordings was established in the federal courts in United States v. McKeever,*1* and upheld in cases such as United States v. McMillan.*2* In McMillan the court ruled that where a government agent testified that he heard the voice .of an informant at all times when he was making a recording of a telephone conversation, that this part of the conversation was accurate, and that immediately after the telephone calls were completed, a tape was replayed by the agent in the informant's presence to verify that the conversation had in fact been recorded and that the instruments were operating correctly, it was sufficiently established that the recordings were true and accurate as a basis for their admission in evidence.

Riccio was not a government agent. The Riccio tapes were not played immediately thereafter. The testimony that the instruments were operating accurately was challenged. The expert could not say that the tapes were true and accurate.

The prosecution failed to meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence as a matter of law, imho.

[William Anthony]

okay -- so the tapes are in and they show orenthal's actions and words. Now what? because you believe everyone else should have gone to prison with orenthal are you willing to ignore what orenthal did?

Riccio used the knowledge he had about the location of what orenthal considered his 'stuff' to work a deal for orenthal to sign a bunch of books so he could make money. Not an altruistic plan but I don't think anyone expected anything more of Riccio. Had orenthal not been trying to beat the court order -- and had he not wanted to confront Gilbert -- Riccio would not be a player in this. imo

If people had voted differently, McCain would be our President. Riccio did what he did and duped all involved, including LE and judge J. Glass, imho. If he hadn't, then Simpson would have still been looking for the property he alleges was stolen.

[weezer]

If people had voted differently, McCain would be our President. Riccio did what he did and duped all involved, including LE and judge J. Glass, imho. If he hadn't, then Simpson would have still been looking for the property he alleges was stolen.

hey, don't be blaming me for that first one! I voted for character and integrity.

Riccio didn't dupe anyone -- he's not that smart. imo You do realize that the other tapes were authenticated, right? the poolside planning party and the 'we scared the 'sh*t out of them' tapes after?

[martin II]

it's my understanding that the tapes are not 'evidence' of the crime but are corroborative evidence.

"FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 901 (A) PROVIDES in general terms that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by proffered proof sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it to be. A foundation for authentication of sound recordings was established in the federal courts in United States v. McKeever,*1* and upheld in cases such as United States v. McMillan.*2* In McMillan the court ruled that where a government agent testified that he heard the voice .of an informant at all times when he was making a recording of a telephone conversation, that this part of the conversation was accurate, and that immediately after the telephone calls were completed, a tape was replayed by the agent in the informant's presence to verify that the conversation had in fact been recorded and that the instruments were operating correctly, it was sufficiently established that the recordings were true and accurate as a basis for their admission in evidence.

In United States v. Kandiel,*3* the court ruled that any question concerning the credibility of a witness who identifies voices on a tape recording admitted into evidence simply goes to the weight which the jury accords the evidence, not its admissibility. . ."

Can you explain how a potential defendant can remove/steal evidence from a crime scene.haha

[weezer]

Can you explain how a potential defendant can remove/steal evidence from a crime scene.haha

potential defendant? haha

[William Anthony]

hey, don't be blaming me for that first one! I voted for character and integrity.

Riccio didn't dupe anyone -- he's not that smart. imo You do realize that the other tapes were authenticated, right? the poolside planning party and the 'we scared the 'sh*t out of them' tapes after?

So, did most of America.

That remains to be seen. What exactly do you think that those other tapes showed? Are you saying that you now believe that the tapes of the hotel room were improperly admitted?

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/evidence/52.105.html

"Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the result is accurate is sufficient to authenticate the result."

The expert could not say that the result was accurate.

[martin II]

weezer
The guns were considered crime scene edivence so was the stuff. le investigated everyone until they discovered who had the guns and the stuff.They then went and demanded that it be given to them and it was.It was all crime scene evidence as was the tapes.

[William Anthony]

potential defendant? haha

Do you like immunized defendant better?

[martin II]

potential defendant? haha

everyone in the room was a potential defendant. imo

[weezer]

So, did most of America.

That remains to be seen. What exactly do you think that those other tapes showed? Are you saying that you now believe that the tapes of the hotel room were improperly admitted?

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/evidence/52.105.html

"Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the result is accurate is sufficient to authenticate the result."

The expert could not say that the result was accurate.

oh dear -- the expert did NOT say that the results weren't accurate. It then became incumbent on the defense to show where/what/how the tape had been tampered/manipulated. they couldn't.

you do remember that other than a few individual words, orenthal's defense did not object to the tapes being admitted?

[William Anthony]

oh dear -- the expert did NOT say that the results weren't accurate. It then became incumbent on the defense to show where/what/how the tape had been tampered/manipulated. they couldn't.

you do remember that other than a few individual words, orenthal's defense did not object to the tapes being admitted?

Why do you not realize that cross examination is a showing that the evidence cannot be trusted and that the prosecution did not sustain the ultimate prong of its burden? Why do you not accept the links and that Galantar did object on the grounds of further admissibility?

Why don't you accept this, "showing that the result is accurate"?

Do you realize this?

"1. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition."

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/evidence/47.070.html

[weezer]

Why do you not realize that cross examination is a showing that the evidence cannot be trusted and that the prosecution did not sustain the ultimate prong of its burden? Why do you not accept the links and that Galantar did object on the grounds of further admissibility?

Why don't you accept this, "showing that the result is accurate"?

Do you realize this?

"1. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition."

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/evidence/47.070.html

I think the additional tapes (before and after), the testimony of the other defendants, the video tape from the casino, and orenthal's own admission that he had planned and carried out the robbery is pretty sufficient to prove that what was said on the tape was accurate and sufficient.

[William Anthony]

I think the additional tapes (before and after), the testimony of the other defendants, the video tape from the casino, and orenthal's own admission that he had planned and carried out the robbery is pretty sufficient to prove that what was said on the tape was accurate and sufficient.

The jury did not find the witnesses credible. Without the tapes you have nothing placing Simpson or anyone else in the room. Simpson did not take the stand and his lawyer never admitted Simpson committed a robbery.

[weezer]

The jury did not find the witnesses credible. Without the tapes you have nothing placing Simpson or anyone else in the room. Simpson did not take the stand and his lawyer never admitted Simpson committed a robbery.

I don't understand why you continue to argue about the jury not finding the witnesses credible? The tapes (audio, video, media) were enough for the jury to understand orenthal knew he was going to the hotel, asked others to go with him, asked others to bring guns, ranted/raved, harmed, threatened the victims, took stuff that didn't belong to him, thought the whole thing was funny.

[William Anthony]

I don't understand why you continue to argue about the jury not finding the witnesses credible? The tapes (audio, video, media) were enough for the jury to understand orenthal knew he was going to the hotel, asked others to go with him, asked others to bring guns, ranted/raved, harmed, threatened the victims, took stuff that didn't belong to him, thought the whole thing was funny.

Don't you understand that without the tapes, which may have been improperly admitted, considering that the jury is not allowed to impeach itself, there may be nothing to support the convictions?

[martin II]

oh dear -- the expert did NOT say that the results weren't accurate. It then became incumbent on the defense to show where/what/how the tape had been tampered/manipulated. they couldn't.

you do remember that other than a few individual words, orenthal's defense did not object to the tapes being admitted?

Absolutely wrong.imo

[martin II]

I don't understand why you continue to argue about the jury not finding the witnesses credible? The tapes (audio, video, media) were enough for the jury to understand orenthal knew he was going to the hotel, asked others to go with him, asked others to bring guns, ranted/raved, harmed, threatened the victims, took stuff that didn't belong to him, thought the whole thing was funny.

The jury stated that they did not believe or use the prosecutions witnesses.

[weezer]

Don't you understand that without the tapes, which may have been improperly admitted, considering that the jury is not allowed to impeach itself, there may be nothing to support the convictions?

what I understand -- and you seem to have a problem comprehending -- is that orenthal admitting the robbery before he knew about the tapes. Don't you understand that the armed robbery could be proved without the tape from the room?

[weezer]

The jury stated that they did not believe or use the prosecutions witnesses.

"(CNN) -- The jury that convicted O.J. Simpson of robbery and other charges relied mostly on audio and video evidence -- and very little on testimony from prosecution witnesses -- jury members said Sunday.

"We honestly felt we could not rely on that witness testimony," said Michelle R. Lyons, one of seven jurors who spoke to reporters in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Sunday. "There was not one decision we made that was based only on witness testimony."

Jury foreman Paul Connelly said some of the prosecution's witnesses didn't seem trustworthy. At least three former Simpson co-defendants who cut deals to testify in the case had criminal records.

Asked whether the jury trusted the witnesses, Connelly answered: "Not entirely, no."

[weezer]

Absolutely wrong.imo

really? which part?

[martin II]

I don't understand why you continue to argue about the jury not finding the witnesses credible? The tapes (audio, video, media) were enough for the jury to understand orenthal knew he was going to the hotel, asked others to go with him, asked others to bring guns, ranted/raved, harmed, threatened the victims, took stuff that didn't belong to him, thought the whole thing was funny.

The prosecutions witnesses could not even get their stories straight about who was in the room or who said or did what.Without that room tape there would not have been any case.

[weezer]

The prosecutions witnesses could not even get their stories straight about who was in the room or who said or did what.Without that room tape there would not have been any case.

the witnesses -- and tapes before and after -- were more than sufficient to show the planning, robbery, and efforts to cover up the crimes. the video tapes showed orenthal and his gang entering the hotel and leaving with boxes. orenthal's statements to the media after the robbery shows his participation. mcclinton's tape shows orenthal's knowledge of the guns. retrieval of the stuff orenthal took from the victims shows the robbery itself. the room tape was merely the icing to the cake.

[William Anthony]

what I understand -- and you seem to have a problem comprehending -- is that orenthal admitting the robbery before he knew about the tapes. Don't you understand that the armed robbery could be proved without the tape from the room?


Link to Simpson admitting to robbery, please?

Armed robbery may be proved with or without the tape. However, that would call for a new trial, imho. Do you agree and understand?

[William Anthony]

the witnesses -- and tapes before and after -- were more than sufficient to show the planning, robbery, and efforts to cover up the crimes. the video tapes showed orenthal and his gang entering the hotel and leaving with boxes. orenthal's statements to the media after the robbery shows his participation. mcclinton's tape shows orenthal's knowledge of the guns. retrieval of the stuff orenthal took from the victims shows the robbery itself. the room tape was merely the icing to the cake.

Placing aside the tapes that may have been altered, you have some people entering a hotel room and some people carrying out items. You have a hearsay statement that Simpson was reclaiming his property from thieves. McClinton may or may not be believed. You have a circumstantial case that can be argued pro and con robbery.

[weezer]

Link to Simpson admitting to robbery, please?

Armed robbery may be proved with or without the tape. However, that would call for a new trial, imho. Do you agree and understand?

"O. J. Simpson told a reporter he was on a "sting operation" to take back sports memorabilia stolen from him." http://www.newsweek.com/id/40940 (I'm posting this link but every link I found on this reported the same thing) and as we learned during the trial, his reason for taking the stuff is not a defense under Nevada law.

do you not understand that the presentation of evidence would have been different minus the tapes? in your scenario, everything would be the same minus the tapes -- that would not have been.

[weezer]

Placing aside the tapes that may have been altered, you have some people entering a hotel room and some people carrying out items. You have a hearsay statement that Simpson was reclaiming his property from thieves. McClinton may or may not be believed. You have a circumstantial case that can be argued pro and con robbery.

only in your world william! :shrug:

[martin II]

the witnesses -- and tapes before and after -- were more than sufficient to show the planning, robbery, and efforts to cover up the crimes. the video tapes showed orenthal and his gang entering the hotel and leaving with boxes. orenthal's statements to the media after the robbery shows his participation. mcclinton's tape shows orenthal's knowledge of the guns. retrieval of the stuff orenthal took from the victims shows the robbery itself. the room tape was merely the icing to the cake.

without the hotel tapes there is no oj saying NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM.This negates what was used to make the kidnapping charge.It also negates orders given to the thiefs and fumong claiming someone took his cell phone. So the argument then would be by oj and his group. We went to the room, asked for his stuff and the thiefs gave the stuff to us and we left.
No threats and no intemidation. imo.

[weezer]

without the hotel tapes there is no oj saying NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM.This negates what was used to make the kidnapping charge.It also negates orders given to the thiefs and fumong claiming someone took his cell phone. So the argument then would be by oj and his group. We went to the room, asked for his stuff and the thiefs gave the stuff to us and we left.
No threats and no intemidation. imo.

martin, before you go any further, go back and read the statute on kidnapping. It did not require the jury hearing orenthal say NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM.

[martin II]

without the hotel tapes there is no oj saying NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM.This negates what was used to make the kidnapping charge.It also negates orders given to the thiefs and fumong claiming someone took his cell phone. So the argument then would be by oj and his group. We went to the room, asked for his stuff and the thiefs gave the stuff to us and we left.
No threats and no intemidation. imo.

without the tapes there is no proof that any sting actually took place. only planning for oj to go pick up his stuff.

[martin II]

martin, before you go any further, go back and read the statute on kidnapping. It did not require the jury hearing orenthal say NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM.

Then why have you used those workd to prove kidnapping took place.

[weezer]

without the hotel tapes there is no oj saying NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM.This negates what was used to make the kidnapping charge.It also negates orders given to the thiefs and fumong claiming someone took his cell phone. So the argument then would be by oj and his group. We went to the room, asked for his stuff and the thiefs gave the stuff to us and we left.
No threats and no intemidation. imo.

hmmm, would they also say, we may have shoved them around a little and we took stuff that wasn't orenthal's?

[William Anthony]

only in your world william! :shrug:

And not in yours. :shrug:

[weezer]

Then why have you used those workd to prove kidnapping took place.

did I? maybe because they were evidence in the trial?

[William Anthony]

martin, before you go any further, go back and read the statute on kidnapping. It did not require the jury hearing orenthal say NOBODY LEAVES THE ROOM.

Quite correct. It requires Substantial force in excess of the force necessary to complete the associated crime and, without the tapes, you have no force and no crime, imho.

[weezer]

And not in yours. :shrug:

no william, in my world the laws are used to keep innocent men free and guilty men in jail. I'm not much on the 'win at all costs' thing.

[William Anthony]

no william, in my world the laws are used to keep innocent men free and guilty men in jail. I'm not much on the 'win at all costs' thing.

And in my world the laws are in place to make sure that the innocent are not wrongly incarcerrated, even if it means that the guilty sometimes go free and I am not one for winning if the cost is to deprive a person of his Due Process rights.

[weezer]

Quite correct. It requires Substantial force in excess of the force necessary to complete the associated crime and, without the tapes, you have no force and no crime, imho.

actually, that's not what the statute says.

[weezer]

And in my world the laws are in place to make sure that the innocent are not wrongly incarcerrated, even if it means that the guilty sometimes go free and I am not one for winning if the cost is to deprive a person of his Due Process rights.

ahh yes -- the answer from a wannabe defense lawyer. LOL

[William Anthony]

actually, that's not what the statute says.

Ah yes, an answer from someone that wanna be a legislator. The law is more than the statute. It is the case law as lawyers and those with aspirations to become one understand. The case law interprets the statutes that wannabe legislators rely on and give effect to what wannabe lawyers understand.

[William Anthony]

ahh yes -- the answer from a wannabe defense lawyer. LOL

No, not a matter of aspirations, just an difference in how we see things, as with John Wayne (a.k.a The Duke) v. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, St. Thomas Aquinas, Olive Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, et, al..

[weezer]

No, not a matter of aspirations, just an difference in how we see things, as with John Wayne (a.k.a The Duke) v. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, St. Thomas Aquinas, Olive Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, et, al..

hey, hey, hey! you forgot Maxine. . .:tongue:

[weezer]

Ah yes, an answer from someone that wanna be a legislator. The law is more than the statute. It is the case law as lawyers and those with aspirations to become one understand. The case law interprets the statutes that wannabe legislators rely on and give effect to what wannabe lawyers understand.

:confused: WTH

[William Anthony]

hey, hey, hey! you forgot Maxine. . .:tongue:

I'm sorry but Maxine, whoever that is, is not a part of my world. :)

[weezer]

I'm sorry but Maxine, whoever that is, is not a part of my world. :)

you're missing out --

[William Anthony]

:confused: WTH

The Nevada Supreme court has defined what kidnapping is when there is an associated crime and when force is used in that associated crime.

[William Anthony]

you're missing out --

Then supply me with a link, please?

[weezer]

The Nevada Supreme court has defined what kidnapping is when there is an associated crime and force is used in that associated crime.

NRS § 200.310 Degrees.
1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.
2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.
[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05] - (NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)

*Plus sentence extensions for use of gun to commit a crime.

[martin II]

did I? maybe because they were evidence in the trial?

No it was because that was what you believed.But everyone in intited to a flip flop now and then.haha

[martin II]

hmmm, would they also say, we may have shoved them around a little and we took stuff that wasn't orenthal's?

without the tapes it is five agaist two selling stolen goods

[weezer]

No it was because that was what you believed.But everyone in intited to a flip flop now and then.haha

not sure what your point is but . . . orenthal screaming those words in that room only corroborated the facts. if that's a flip flop so be it.

[weezer]

without the tapes it is five agaist two selling stolen goods

really? wouldn't orenthal have to prove ownership first? he couldn't.

[martin II]

hey, hey, hey! you forgot Maxine. . .:tongue:


That is the name of a resturant i used to frequernt in Paris.

[martin II]

ahh yes -- the answer from a wannabe defense lawyer. LOL

What kind of problem do you have with a person aspiring to be a lawyer. exactly what are you.?

[martin II]

really? wouldn't orenthal have to prove ownership first? he couldn't.

Beadsley and fumong admitted the goods were stolen but you seem to want to skip over that.

[weezer]

What kind of problem do you have with a person aspiring to be a lawyer. exactly what are you.?

I don't have a problem with a person wanting to be a lawyer. I think it's excellent that william has set that goal for himself.

pssst -- I'm a human being.

[weezer]

Beadsley and fumong admitted the goods were stolen but you seem to want to skip over that.

no they didn't.

[martin II]

no they didn't.

For some reason you seem to deny facts.

1. Initially Riccio made contact with Beadsley and beadsley told him he had some stolen oj goods for sale.
2. In the hotel room when oj accused fumong of stealing his goods.Fumong shouted NO OJ I DIDN'T STEAL IT MIKE DID.

So both did.

[martin II]

I don't have a problem with a person wanting to be a lawyer. I think it's excellent that william has set that goal for himself.

pssst -- I'm a human being.

Then you should not continue to refer to him in such a nagative way using negative words to describe his asperations.Unless that is just the best you can do.imo

[weezer]

For some reason you seem to deny facts.

1. Initially Riccio made contact with Beadsley and beadsley told him he had some stolen oj goods for sale.
2. In the hotel room when oj accused fumong of stealing his goods.Fumong shouted NO OJ I DIDN'T STEAL IT MIKE DID.

So both did.

1. Beardsley didn't have anything in that room. orenthal robbed him of personal items.

2. no one shouted NO OJ I DIDN'T STEAL IT MIKE DID. you are wrong.

[weezer]

Then you should not continue to refer to him in such a nagative way using negative words to describe his asperations.Unless that is just the best you can do.imo

you're the one taking offense at nothing. is it true william wants to be a lawyer? yes. is it accurate to say william is a wannabe lawyer? yes.

now, that's the best I can do.

[martin II]

you're the one taking offense at nothing. is it true william wants to be a lawyer? yes. is it accurate to say william is a wannabe lawyer? yes.

now, that's the best I can do.

I suggest aspiring lawyer over wannabe lawyer.

[weezer]

I suggest aspiring lawyer over wannabe lawyer.

and someone asked for your suggestion? no

[William Anthony]

NRS § 200.310 Degrees.
1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.
2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.
[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05] - (NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)

*Plus sentence extensions for use of gun to commit a crime.

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
The Nevada Supreme court has defined what kidnapping is when there is an associated crime and force is used in that associated crime.

We are not discussing the statute but what the law is. you do realize that the legislators make the law, LE enforces the law and the courts say what the law is, don't you?

[William Anthony]

really? wouldn't orenthal have to prove ownership first? he couldn't.

No, according to case law, only that he believed the property was his.

[weezer]

No, according to case law, only that he believed the property was his.

not in Nevada.

[weezer]

We are not discussing the statute but what the law is. you do realize that the legislators make the law, LE enforces the law and the courts say what the law is, don't you?

it's not my understanding that's in question. . .

[William Anthony]

you're the one taking offense at nothing. is it true william wants to be a lawyer? yes. is it accurate to say william is a wannabe lawyer? yes.

now, that's the best I can do.

No, that is not accurate. It is accurate to say that William has been a lawyer on four occasions and that he is furthering his ambition to practice law more frequently.

[weezer]

No, that is not accurate. It is accurate to say that William has been a lawyer on four occasions and that he is furthering his ambition to practice law more frequently.

so you've passed the bar and are licensed to practice law? good for you.

[William Anthony]

not in Nevada.

Not quite true. I am surprised that you do not realize this.

[weezer]

Not quite true. I am surprised that you do not realize this.

you should share this with the Nevada courts --

[William Anthony]

so you've passed the bar and are licensed to practice law? good for you.

I have passed the courtroom bar on a few occasions. I am aspiring to get a license to be able to do it more frequently.

[William Anthony]

you should share this with the Nevada courts --

They are aware but you seem not to be.

[weezer]

I have passed the courtroom bar on a few occasions. I am aspiring to get a license to be able to do it more frequently.

LOL -- drinking doesn't count. . .

[weezer]

They are aware but you seem not to be.

then please enlighten me william by posting a link to anything that says Nevada has a 'claim of right' defense to robbery.

[William Anthony]

it's not my understanding that's in question. . .

If your understanding is not in question, then why do you say that is what the statute says? The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that it takes more force than that which is incidental to the commission of the associated crime, when it comes to a kidnapping charge.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- drinking doesn't count. . .

Then you had better stop and realize what I am talking about.

[weezer]

If your understanding is not in question, then why do you say that is what the statute says? The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that it takes more force than that which is incidental to the commission of the associated crime, when it comes to a kidnapping charge.

I would say five men -- two with guns -- in a small hotel room could be considered more force than was incidental to this robbery. I would say shoving one of the victims enough to require medical treatment for a shoulder could be considered more force than was incidental to this robbery. wouldn't you?

[weezer]

Then you had better stop and realize what I am talking about.

LOL -- your reasoning/thinking is not always easy to follow.

[William Anthony]

then please enlighten me william by posting a link to anything that says Nevada has a 'claim of right' defense to robbery.

This was your original post.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
really? wouldn't orenthal have to prove ownership first? he couldn't.

First, let this wannabe lawyer, who has practiced law on four occasions, correct you, if I might. Simpson would not have to prove ownership of the property, only that he believed that the property belonged to him. Second, you do realize I am sure that the claim of right is a defense to burglary under Nevada law.

[weezer]

This was your original post.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
really? wouldn't orenthal have to prove ownership first? he couldn't.

First, let this wannabe lawyer, who has practiced law on four occasions, correct you, if I might. Simpson would not have to prove ownership of the property, only that he believed that the property belonged to him. Second, you do realize I am sure that the claim of right is a defense to burglary under Nevada law.

my, my, my -- take offense to the 'wannabe lawyer' part did ya?

but we all know orenthal didn't have legal ownership of that property don't we?

[William Anthony]

LOL -- your reasoning/thinking is not always easy to follow.

Lay off the alcohol and it will become easier. :) I will take this opportunity to again reiterate that the bar in a courtroom is that area in front of the judge's bench that is usually partitioned in some manner and which only lawyers and the judges courtroom personnel are permitted to pass. That is why lawyers ask out of respect to approach the bench.

[William Anthony]

my, my, my -- take offense to the 'wannabe lawyer' part did ya?

but we all know orenthal didn't have legal ownership of that property don't we?

No, we all don't. Has the court ruled on that issue? Until it has you seem to imply that there is some validity to the defense. Why would I take offense? I Know who I am and what I have accomplished and I can't help it, if others who have not, take offense and try to insult.

[weezer]

Lay off the alcohol and it will become easier. :) I will take this opportunity to again reiterate that the bar in a courtroom is that area in front of the judge's bench that is usually partitioned in some manner and which only lawyers and the judges courtroom personnel are permitted to pass. That is why lawyers ask out of respect to approach the bench.

this is why I think you'll be a decent defense lawyer -- you took a statement and when challenged, switched the meaning. You insinuated that you had passed several bars and was working on getting your license. I should have been more careful in my question: Have you passed any State Bar Exam?

[weezer]

No, we all don't. Has the court ruled on that issue? Until it has you seem to imply that there is some validity to the defense. Why would I take offense? I Know who I am and what I have accomplished and I can't help it, if others who have not, take offense and try to insult.

you know, to be a really good defense lawyer you'll have to have much thicker skin.

[martin II]

my, my, my -- take offense to the 'wannabe lawyer' part did ya?

but we all know orenthal didn't have legal ownership of that property don't we?

no we don't
that is just your idea.

[martin II]

this is why I think you'll be a decent defense lawyer -- you took a statement and when challenged, switched the meaning. You insinuated that you had passed several bars and was working on getting your license. I should have been more careful in my question: Have you passed any State Bar Exam?

What have you passed? and what do you do that can be considered equal to what willim does.

[William Anthony]

I would say five men -- two with guns -- in a small hotel room could be considered more force than was incidental to this robbery. I would say shoving one of the victims enough to require medical treatment for a shoulder could be considered more force than was incidental to this robbery. wouldn't you?

The short answer is no.

[weezer]

What have you passed? and what do you do that can be considered equal to what willim does.

but out martin --

[William Anthony]

you know, to be a really good defense lawyer you'll have to have much thicker skin.

I have found on those occasions that I practiced law lawyers not to be abrasive and the way they phrase statements and questions are not intended to cause harm. I think television does a lot to promote a false concept of what usually occurs in trials. I don't know why you jump to the conclusion that I take offense as opposed to considering the source.

[weezer]

I have found on those occasions that I practiced law lawyers not to be abrasive and the way they phrase statements and questions are not intended to cause harm. I think television does a lot to promote a false concept of what usually occurs in trials. I don't know why you jump to the conclusion that I take offense as opposed to considering the source.

then it might behoove you to take a page from their book --

[William Anthony]

this is why I think you'll be a decent defense lawyer -- you took a statement and when challenged, switched the meaning. You insinuated that you had passed several bars and was working on getting your license. I should have been more careful in my question: Have you passed any State Bar Exam?

I switched no meaning. I thought you understood what a courtroom bar was and, was quite surprised to see you answer it with what you thought was a funny remark. I specifically stated "courtroom bars". You need not always pass a state exam to practice law. I thought you knew this. In any event, let's discuss the Nevada case.

[martin II]

but out martin --

Trying to give orders right. im in.

just answer the question.

[William Anthony]

then it might behoove you to take a page from their book --

I will when dealing with another professional or, if you will, when dealing on a professional level. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

but out martin --

Can you rephrase? :)

[weezer]

I will when dealing with another professional or, if you will, when dealing on a professional level. Thanks.

I at least don't pretend to be what I'm not --

[William Anthony]

I at least don't pretend to be what I'm not --

I commend you on that. There were plenty of people pretending to be what they were not in the Nevada case, imho. LE pretending to be officers sworn to protect and serve; a judge and jury foreman pretending to be impartial; a prosecution pretending to be race neutral; thieves posing as memorabilia dealers, and a con man posing as a businessman, imho. I don't recall you ever saying that you were a legal professional, although you have tried to do some legal research, which I also commend. I had to start somewhere.

[weezer]

I switched no meaning. I thought you understood what a courtroom bar was and, was quite surprised to see you answer it with what you thought was a funny remark. I specifically stated "courtroom bars". You need not always pass a state exam to practice law. I thought you knew this. In any event, let's discuss the Nevada case.

then you were deliberately deceptive -- that's okay -- I hear it's taught in defense lawyer 101. ;)

[William Anthony]

then you were deliberately deceptive -- that's okay -- I hear it's taught in defense lawyer 101. ;)

What is taught in introduction to law 101 is legal terminology and courtroom structure, inter alia. The defendant always sits on the side closest to the jury. I would assume that means that Stewart and Simpson were seated in that position for a reason and that reason was so that the jury could observe them. Least I forget, you are taught to pay attention to the question and the answer.

[weezer]

I commend you on that. There were plenty of people pretending to be what they were not in the Nevada case, imho. LE pretending to be officers sworn to protect and serve; a judge and jury foreman pretending to be impartial; a prosecution pretending to be race neutral; thieves posing as memorabilia dealers, and a con man posing as a businessman, imho. I don't recall you ever saying that you were a legal professional, although you have tried to do some legal research, which I also commend. I had to start somewhere.

you forgot thugs, thieves, liars and at least one murderer!

nope -- I chose not to use my degree -- but then I wasn't up to filing grievances. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

you forgot thugs, thieves, liars and at least one murderer!

nope -- I chose not to use my degree -- but then I wasn't up to filing grievances. :shrug:

I thought you were speaking of the Nevada case.

If you don't use it, you will lose it is one of my favorite sayings. I do admire a domestic technician and think of them as professionals in their chosen career paths.

[martin II]

I at least don't pretend to be what I'm not --

Well you have attacked william for his profession so share with us what your is.

[weezer]

What is taught in introduction to law 101 is legal terminology and courtroom structure, inter alia. The defendant always sits on the side closest to the jury. I would assume that means that Stewart and Simpson were seated in that position for a reason and that reason was so that the jury could observe them. Least I forget, you are taught to pay attention to the question and the answer.

tsk, tsk, tsk

Quote: Originally Posted by William Anthony
No, that is not accurate. It is accurate to say that William has been a lawyer on four occasions and that he is furthering his ambition to practice law more frequently.
so you've passed the bar and are licensed to practice law?

fbgweezer
Criime Library Supreme Member
good for you.
__________________

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
so you've passed the bar and are licensed to practice law? good for you.

William Anthony
Quote:
I have passed the courtroom bar on a few occasions. I am aspiring to get a license to be able to do it more frequently.
__________________
Doc Holiday


Originally Posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- your reasoning/thinking is not always easy to follow.

William Anthony
Quote:
Lay off the alcohol and it will become easier. I will take this opportunity to again reiterate that the bar in a courtroom is that area in front of the judge's bench that is usually partitioned in some manner and which only lawyers and the judges courtroom personnel are permitted to pass. That is why lawyers ask out of respect to approach the bench.
__________________
Doc Holiday

[weezer]

anybody for discussing the case? either case?

[William Anthony]

Pay attention to the statement.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer
so you've passed the bar and are licensed to practice law? good for you.

William Anthony
Quote:
I have passed the courtroom bar on a few occasions. I am aspiring to get a license to be able to do it more frequently.

This is the what is taught in Introduction to law 101. You should never assume that you have asked a question in a manner that you have the only correct answer for. It comes with practical experience, as I gathered on those occasions in which I represented myself, four times in a court of law, and six times in administrative hearings. you may have heard me say that the sign of a good lawyer is anticipation and preparation.

[William Anthony]

anybody for discussing the case? either case?

If I might, may I direct your attention to post #1877, I think.

[martin II]

anybody for discussing the case? either case?

Earlier william suggested that we discuss the nevada case, you continued to try to degrade him. now that the magic question has been asked of you, you want to discuss any case. hahaha. cop out.

[weezer]

I thought you were speaking of the Nevada case.

If you don't use it, you will lose it is one of my favorite sayings. I do admire a domestic technician and think of them as professionals in their chosen career paths.

I've never worked as a domestic technician but I do remember you posting that you had. Hence the admiration?

[weezer]

Earlier william suggested that we discuss the nevada case, you continued to try to degrade him. now that the magic question has been asked of you, you want to discuss any case. hahaha. cop out.

what 'magic question' is that martin? the ONLY person who hasn't answered a question is william. I've not tried to degrade him -- I applaude anyone who tries to better themselves -- even the ones who choose to be defense lawyers. :D

[William Anthony]

I've never worked as a domestic technician but I do remember you posting that you had. Hence the admiration?

You are sadly mistaken. In that area my experience is solely in supervising and I will admit to sometimes giving assistance, if the work is not getting done quickly enough to satisfy me. I do usually cook for myself as I have a different appetite than others in the home and my wife does work. Shall we discuss the Nevada case?

[William Anthony]

anybody for discussing the case? either case?

We are still limited to the Nevada case, according to my understanding.

[martin II]

what 'magic question' is that martin? the ONLY person who hasn't answered a question is william. I've not tried to degrade him -- I applaude anyone who tries to better themselves -- even the ones who choose to be defense lawyers. :D

Where did you tell us what you do professionally?

[weezer]

We are still limited to the Nevada case, according to my understanding.

that's not my understanding. my understanding is that it is the simpson cases (criminal, civil, criminal) just not race, victim/family bashing, etc. ;)

[weezer]

Where did you tell us what you do professionally?

get away from me --

[William Anthony]

that's not my understanding. my understanding is that it is the simpson cases (criminal, civil, criminal) just not race, victim/family bashing, etc. ;)

I think you may need to go back and read the moderator's instructions and race is most definitely a part of the Nevada case, as it pertains to the appeal and the Batson challenge. Victim/family bashing etc. is what I have not engaged in. In any event, I think that we have thus far reached a tentative agreement that the hotel tapes may not be admissible and the kidnapping charge may be dropped, correct?

[weezer]

I think you may need to go back and read the moderator's instructions and race is most definitely a part of the Nevada case, as it pertains to the appeal and the Batson challenge. Victim/family bashing etc. is what I have not engaged in. In any event, I think that we have thus far reached a tentative agreement that the hotel tapes may not be admissible and the kidnapping charge may be dropped, correct?

this is what the moderator has posted at the top of this forum: "O.J. Simpson The criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman."

I do not believe the tapes were inadmissible.

I do believe the actions in the room fell within the strict Nevada definition of 'kidnapping' but I've wondered why they didn't charge 'false imprisonment' --

I don't believe orenthal will prevail in an appeal. I don't know about stewart -- I keep going back to what the jury said about him rounding up the others, going into the room, carrying the stuff out, taking stuff to his home, etc. . .

[martin II]

get away from me --


Weezer

Does your post suggest that your skin may not as thick as you suggest williams should be?

We are confined to posting not on any case but only to the vegas case so lets do only that.:seeya:

[weezer]

Weezer

Does your post suggest that your skin may not as thick as you suggest williams should be?

We are confined to posting not on any case but only to the vegas case so lets do only that.:seeya:

because I won't answer your personal questions of me? please. get away from. no. really.

[martin II]

this is what the moderator has posted at the top of this forum: "O.J. Simpson The criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman."

I do not believe the tapes were inadmissible.

I do believe the actions in the room fell within the strict Nevada definition of 'kidnapping' but I've wondered why they didn't charge 'false imprisonment' --

I don't believe orenthal will prevail in an appeal. I don't know about stewart -- I keep going back to what the jury said about him rounding up the others, going into the room, carrying the stuff out, taking stuff to his home, etc. . .


you may want to revierw this

Case Discussion Only

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

A last chance thread for the OJ Forum (please read announcement)

[martin II]

because I won't answer your personal questions of me? please. get away from. no. really.

Thats great so maby you should not ask personal questions of others if you don't want them asked of you.

[William Anthony]

this is what the moderator has posted at the top of this forum: "O.J. Simpson The criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman."

I do not believe the tapes were inadmissible.

I do believe the actions in the room fell within the strict Nevada definition of 'kidnapping' but I've wondered why they didn't charge 'false imprisonment' --

I don't believe orenthal will prevail in an appeal. I don't know about stewart -- I keep going back to what the jury said about him rounding up the others, going into the room, carrying the stuff out, taking stuff to his home, etc. . .

This is not a forum and by some complaining the other threads in this forum were closed. If you remember, there was a grass roots efforts led by a poster to have the entire forum closed. In any event, please see post #50.

Because the definition of kidnapping is so strict, is why the Nevada Supreme Court has reversed kidnapping convictions.

Simpson may not prevail in an appeal simply because he is Simpson.

Do you believe that the state presented clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate?

[martin II]

that's not my understanding. my understanding is that it is the simpson cases (criminal, civil, criminal) just not race, victim/family bashing, etc. ;)




just not race, victim/family bashing, etc. ;)[/QUOTE]

the above is not in any moderators post so please don't try to indicate it was.

if one side is bashed everyone gets to be bashed. no discrimination allowed.

[martin II]

this is what the moderator has posted at the top of this forum: "O.J. Simpson The criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman."

I do not believe the tapes were inadmissible.

I do believe the actions in the room fell within the strict Nevada definition of 'kidnapping' but I've wondered why they didn't charge 'false imprisonment' --

I don't believe orenthal will prevail in an appeal. I don't know about stewart -- I keep going back to what the jury said about him rounding up the others, going into the room, carrying the stuff out, taking stuff to his home, etc. . .

weezer

you may want to look at post #51.

[martin II]

This is not a forum and by some complaining the other threads in this forum were closed. If you remember, there was a grass roots efforts led by a poster to have the entire forum closed. In any event, please see post #50.

Because the definition of kidnapping is so strict, is why the Nevada Supreme Court has reversed kidnapping convictions.

Simpson may not prevail in an appeal simply because he is Simpson.

Do you believe that the state presented clear and convincing evidence that the tapes were accurate?

I previously posted info on the high number of overturned kidnapping cases in nevada. but those did not involve simpson.

[William Anthony]

As it relates to the burglary conviction, I did not see an instruction telling the jury that they could find the defendants' not guilty, if the defendants asserted a defense that negated the specific intent to commit burglary.

[William Anthony]

I previously posted info on the high number of overturned kidnapping cases in nevada. but those did not involve simpson.

The court may use a different standard when it comes to Simpson.

[martin II]

this is what the moderator has posted at the top of this forum: "O.J. Simpson The criminal and civil trials of OJ Simpson in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman."

I do not believe the tapes were inadmissible.

I do believe the actions in the room fell within the strict Nevada definition of 'kidnapping' but I've wondered why they didn't charge 'false imprisonment' --

I don't believe orenthal will prevail in an appeal. I don't know about stewart -- I keep going back to what the jury said about him rounding up the others, going into the room, carrying the stuff out, taking stuff to his home, etc. . .

Stewart was nothing but a person added as a final defendant so it would look like oj was the only one out of all those involved that cimmited a crime.that is sad.

[William Anthony]

Maybe, the FBI will charge Fromong and Beardsley with violations of the Hobbs Act.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/367/367.F3d.1148.02-30216.html

“The Hobbs Act defines commerce as, inter alia, "all commerce between any point in a State ... and any point outside thereof; [and] all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3). To establish the interstate commerce element of a Hobbs Act charge, the government need only establish that a defendant's acts had a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Phillips, 577 F.2d 495, 501 (9th Cir.1978). The decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), holding unconstitutional the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1994), which outlawed the possession of guns in local school zones, did not require a change in the de minimis standard. Atcheson, 94 F.3d at 1242. The interstate nexus requirement is satisfied "by proof of a probable or potential impact" on interstate commerce. United States v. Huynh, 60 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted). The government need not show that a defendant's acts actually affected interstate commerce. Id. at 1389-90.
23

As Atcheson pointed out: "This court has consistently upheld convictions under the Hobbs Act":
24

even where the connection to interstate commerce was slight. See, e.g., [United States v. Pascucci, 943 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir.1991)] (defendant threatened to deliver embarrassing audio tapes to his victim's employer, a corporation engaged in interstate commerce); United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir.1982) (defendant robbed three undocumented alien farm workers, affecting the movement of labor across borders); United States v. Phillips, 577 F.2d 495, 501 (9th Cir.1978) (defendant's extortion "threatened the depletion of resources from a business engaged in interstate commerce").”

[martin II]

Maybe, the FBI will charge Fromong and Beardsley with violations of the Hobbs Act.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/367/367.F3d.1148.02-30216.html

“The Hobbs Act defines commerce as, inter alia, "all commerce between any point in a State ... and any point outside thereof; [and] all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3). To establish the interstate commerce element of a Hobbs Act charge, the government need only establish that a defendant's acts had a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Phillips, 577 F.2d 495, 501 (9th Cir.1978). The decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), holding unconstitutional the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1994), which outlawed the possession of guns in local school zones, did not require a change in the de minimis standard. Atcheson, 94 F.3d at 1242. The interstate nexus requirement is satisfied "by proof of a probable or potential impact" on interstate commerce. United States v. Huynh, 60 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted). The government need not show that a defendant's acts actually affected interstate commerce. Id. at 1389-90.
23

As Atcheson pointed out: "This court has consistently upheld convictions under the Hobbs Act":
24

even where the connection to interstate commerce was slight. See, e.g., [United States v. Pascucci, 943 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir.1991)] (defendant threatened to deliver embarrassing audio tapes to his victim's employer, a corporation engaged in interstate commerce); United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir.1982) (defendant robbed three undocumented alien farm workers, affecting the movement of labor across borders); United States v. Phillips, 577 F.2d 495, 501 (9th Cir.1978) (defendant's extortion "threatened the depletion of resources from a business engaged in interstate commerce").”


Well fumong definitely brought that stuff from CA to nevada and when state lines are crossed that brings in the FBI.

[William Anthony]

Well fumong definitely brought that stuff from CA to nevada and when state lines are crossed that brings in the FBI.

Providing they do not want to get involved in any weird celebrity cases, :).

[weezer]

Well fumong definitely brought that stuff from CA to nevada and when state lines are crossed that brings in the FBI.

Fromong is a Las Vegas resident -- can you give us a link that says he was the one that brought the stuff from California?

[martin II]

Fromong is a Las Vegas resident -- can you give us a link that says he was the one that brought the stuff from California?

Well according to Beadsley/Riccio the deal was origionally suppose to have been done in LA which is why Riccio contacted la le.I think there was some warehouse that they planned to use or where the goods were held.
Oj did not like the idea of LA and Riccio agreed not to set it up there. When oj informed Riccio that he would be in vegas at that wedding, beadsley agreed to set it up in vegas.

The goods were in LA origionally, If Fumong or some one brought them to vegas then Fumong or someone brought them to la for the origional sales place.When that place was rejected then the goods must have been brought back to fumongs home/place in vegas.

If Mike took it, (the goods) according to fumong, them at some time he gave the goods to Fumong.Since the goods have been in someones hands for 13 years, and Fumong is the one that showed up with them then i believe it was Fumong that transported the goods back and forth across Nevada and CA state lines.
Unless you believe it was mike doing the transporting back and forth.
At any rate someone most likely Fumong commited a crime by the transporting stolen goods across state lines.

[William Anthony]

Well according to Beadsley/Riccio the deal was origionally suppose to have been done in LA which is why Riccio contacted la le.I think there was some warehouse that they planned to use or where the goods were held.
Oj did not like the idea of LA and Riccio agreed not to set it up there. When oj informed Riccio that he would be in vegas at that wedding, beadsley agreed to set it up in vegas.

The goods were in LA origionally, If Fumong or some one brought them to vegas then Fumong or someone brought them to la for the origional sales place.When that place was rejected then the goods must have been brought back to fumongs home/place in vegas.

If Mike took it, (the goods) according to fumong, them at some time he gave the goods to Fumong.Since the goods have been in someones hands for 13 years, and Fumong is the one that showed up with them then i believe it was Fumong that transported the goods back and forth across Nevada and CA state lines.
Unless you believe it was mike doing the transporting back and forth.
At any rate someone most likely Fumong commited a crime by the transporting stolen goods across state lines.

It would be good to have those questions answered in a court of law, imho.

[serpentsfall]

Well according to Beadsley/Riccio the deal was origionally suppose to have been done in LA which is why Riccio contacted la le.I think there was some warehouse that they planned to use or where the goods were held.
Oj did not like the idea of LA and Riccio agreed not to set it up there. When oj informed Riccio that he would be in vegas at that wedding, beadsley agreed to set it up in vegas.

The goods were in LA origionally, If Fumong or some one brought them to vegas then Fumong or someone brought them to la for the origional sales place.When that place was rejected then the goods must have been brought back to fumongs home/place in vegas.

If Mike took it, (the goods) according to fumong, them at some time he gave the goods to Fumong.Since the goods have been in someones hands for 13 years, and Fumong is the one that showed up with them then i believe it was Fumong that transported the goods back and forth across Nevada and CA state lines.
Unless you believe it was mike doing the transporting back and forth.
At any rate someone most likely Fumong commited a crime by the transporting stolen goods across state lines.

"OJ did not like the idea of LA"...and why was that again?

"If Fumong or some one brought them to vegas then Fumong or someone brought them to la for the origional sales place." Admit it, Martin. You don't know where the items were before they came to that Las Vegas room or who brought them there. Was it Beardsley - who lived in CA, or Fromong who lived in Las Vegas? The only thing anyone knows for sure is that the items were brought from somewhere else to that Las Vegas room under false pretenses: for potential sale of the items to a buyer who the victims were assured would NOT be OJ Simpson.

Also, whenever you talk about that prince of a man, Riccio, going to police about OJ's "stolen" items, you seem to gloss over the part where Riccio was also telling police he intended to tape the "sting" - hopefully for profit.

I know you and William don't like the law that makes ownership of items immaterial to this case. What I don't understand is why either of you you think it should ever be ok under the law for one citizen to lure a fellow citizen to a private place for the purpose of using force/intimidation to not let them leave unless or until they do whatever you want them to do (in this case, give up the memorabilia.)

Once Simpson's posse had the men cornered in that room, anything could have happened. What did happen was an armed robbery & burglary. Had one of the men tried to leave, it might have been a beating or shooting. I know you think what "might have been" doesn't matter, but it goes to what the victims might have reasonably believed could have happened had they refused to give up the items. If Simpson's "message" to his posse was that it would be OK if police were summoned, why was the room's phone line pulled from the wall? Simpson's voice on those tapes didn't indicate that he knew there was nothing illegal about what he had planned; rather his statements showed he was using the same mindset as a child molester; he thought he could get away with it because he didn't think his victims would tell. A child often won't tell out of shame or because they've been "groomed" by their perp. OJ was counting on the inarguably questionable ownership of the items to keep his victims mum about what's happened to them. That's probably why the law is written the way it is: because it doesn't make what happens to the victims any less of a crime.

[William Anthony]

"OJ did not like the idea of LA"...and why was that again?

"If Fumong or some one brought them to vegas then Fumong or someone brought them to la for the origional sales place." Admit it, Martin. You don't know where the items were before they came to that Las Vegas room or who brought them there. Was it Beardsley - who lived in CA, or Fromong who lived in Las Vegas? The only thing anyone knows for sure is that the items were brought from somewhere else to that Las Vegas room under false pretenses: for potential sale of the items to a buyer who the victims were assured would NOT be OJ Simpson.

Also, whenever you talk about that prince of a man, Riccio, going to police about OJ's "stolen" items, you seem to gloss over the part where Riccio was also telling police he intended to tape the "sting" - hopefully for profit.

I know you and William don't like the law that makes ownership of items immaterial to this case. What I don't understand is why either of you you think it should ever be ok under the law for one citizen to lure a fellow citizen to a private place for the purpose of using force/intimidation to not let them leave unless or until they do whatever you want them to do (in this case, give up the memorabilia.)

Once Simpson's posse had the men cornered in that room, anything could have happened. What did happen was an armed robbery & burglary. Had one of the men tried to leave, it might have been a beating or shooting. I know you think what "might have been" doesn't matter, but it goes to what the victims might have reasonably believed could have happened had they refused to give up the items. If Simpson's "message" to his posse was that it would be OK if police were summoned, why was the room's phone line pulled from the wall? Simpson's voice on those tapes didn't indicate that he knew there was nothing illegal about what he had planned; rather his statements showed he was using the same mindset as a child molester; he thought he could get away with it because he didn't think his victims would tell. A child often won't tell out of shame or because they've been "groomed" by their perp. OJ was counting on the inarguably questionable ownership of the items to keep his victims mum about what's happened to them. That's probably why the law is written the way it is: because it doesn't make what happens to the victims any less of a crime.

Since you have seen necessary to put my name in your post, which I do not mind, I fell it necessary to offer my response. It seems that you want to criticize Martin for his speculation about the items being brought to Las Vegas by Fromong but, yet you do the same thing, in your last sentence, where you indicate the law was probably written the way it was.

What I feel about the law is that in its current rendition it is vague and overly broad. It is exactly for that reason that I would argue, as did the lawyer in my link, there needs to be some uniformity so that the element of intent is statutorily concrete as it pertains to the intent required to convict a person of robbery and the defenses applicable thereto that crime.

Your comparison of Simpson's conduct to that of a child molester is somewhat askew, imho. A child has done nothing to warrant an attack by a molester. Arguably, Fromong's and Beardsley's conduct, which was aided by LE's failure to investigate, imho, placed them in the position they found themselves.

[tv]

hey you! miss your posting.

Thanks! I get a little homesick from time to time and then I stop in and see that the OJ defenders are still of the mindset that the Vegas crime was okay because the victims got what they deserved and then it's adios time again. Poor OJ Simpson -- he's just a misunderstood crimefighter. Too bad he doesn't have spidey powers! :D

[tv]

In case you did not notice in your absence the subject or discussion has centered around various law issues as they relate to the crimes commited
pro and con as per the nevada law and the Nevada appeals court and specific issues of the trial.
Try to lurk slower and maby you will have a better understanding.imo:cool:Don't concern yourself with the speed of my lurking or my understanding of the case. OJ Simpson is a murderer and a common thug. At least you're finally admitting that what OJ Simpson and his pals did was a crime. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

What is a citizen to do when LE won't investigate reports of crime?

[martin II]

In the oj simpson Nevada case A notice of appeal has been filed.

[William Anthony]

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/advOpinions/124NevAdvOpNo97.html

“A jury’s failure to follow a district court’s instruction is intrinsic juror misconduct.[22] When the district court denies a motion for a mistrial based on such misconduct, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion.[23] “[A] new trial must be granted unless it appears, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no prejudice has resulted” from the jury misconduct.[24] The defendant must prove the nature of the jury misconduct and that there is a reasonable possibility that the misconduct affected the verdict.[25] The defendant may only prove the misconduct using objective facts and not the “state of mind or deliberative process of the jury.”[26]

In this case, the jury committed misconduct by failing to follow the oral bifurcation instruction, which the court and prosecutor gave during jury selection, and the district court’s written response to the jury’s question about penalty deliberations. The jury foreperson’s statement that the jury had decided Valdez’s sentence was objective evidence of the misconduct.[27] Thus, the jury’s actions constituted intrinsic jury misconduct.”

I do not think it follows that a jury foreman has the right to say that he wanted a verdict reached by this particular jury. I think the relevant issue would be that the jury considered all the evidence and reached a verdict on the evidence, regardless if the deliberations required an alternative juror. There may be an argument that his statement reflected on his state of mind. However, I think that it may be argued that it is objective evidence of this juror's misconduct in that he wanted a particular verdict by a particular jury, to include all the other information about this foreman.

[martin II]

What is a citizen to do when LE won't investigate reports of crime?

Ask le why they plaster CRIME STOPPER phone numbers all over town asking citizens to report crimes if they are too busy to investigate as one person thinks they are.

[William Anthony]

The foreman's alleged lie on the jury questions is objective evidence of jury misconduct, imho.

[martin II]

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/advOpinions/124NevAdvOpNo97.html

“A jury’s failure to follow a district court’s instruction is intrinsic juror misconduct.[22] When the district court denies a motion for a mistrial based on such misconduct, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion.[23] “[A] new trial must be granted unless it appears, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no prejudice has resulted” from the jury misconduct.[24] The defendant must prove the nature of the jury misconduct and that there is a reasonable possibility that the misconduct affected the verdict.[25] The defendant may only prove the misconduct using objective facts and not the “state of mind or deliberative process of the jury.”[26]

In this case, the jury committed misconduct by failing to follow the oral bifurcation instruction, which the court and prosecutor gave during jury selection, and the district court’s written response to the jury’s question about penalty deliberations. The jury foreperson’s statement that the jury had decided Valdez’s sentence was objective evidence of the misconduct.[27] Thus, the jury’s actions constituted intrinsic jury misconduct.”

I do not think it follows that a jury foreman has the right to say that he wanted a verdict reached by this particular jury. I think the relevant issue would be that the jury considered all the evidence and reached a verdict on the evidence, regardless if the deliberations required an alternative juror. There may be an argument that his statement reflected on his state of mind. However, I think that it may be argued that it is objective evidence of this juror's misconduct in that he wanted a particular verdict by a particular jury, to include all the other information about this foreman.


This is very interesting.

[martin II]

Don't concern yourself with the speed of my lurking or my understanding of the case. OJ Simpson is a murderer and a common thug. At least you're finally admitting that what OJ Simpson and his pals did was a crime. :seeya:

OJ SIMPSON has never been convicted of murder in any court in case you don't know that.

[weezer]

OJ SIMPSON has never been convicted of murder in any court in case you don't know that.

not exactly true. 1. civil court and 2. public opinion

[William Anthony]

not exactly true. 1. civil court and 2. public opinion

Speaking strictly professionally, neither of these are true. Let's Discuss the Nevada Case.

[weezer]

Speaking strictly professionally, neither of these are true. Let's Discuss the Nevada Case.

I want to discuss all cases -- thanks anyway.

[martin II]

I want to discuss all cases -- thanks anyway.

I think we should wait for the moderators response.

[weezer]

I think we should wait for the moderators response.

I think I'll go ahead on good faith of what I believe the moderator's intentions to be.

you said an appeal had been filed -- do you have a link?

[weezer]

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/highProfile/

[weezer]

http://www.google.com/custom?q=simpson&safe=vss&cof=GL%3A0%3B&domains=www.nvsupremecourt.us&sitesearch=www.nvsupremecourt.us

[weezer]

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/documents/cases/52343.petition.pdf

[William Anthony]

http://www.google.com/custom?q=simpson&safe=vss&cof=GL%3A0%3B&domains=www.nvsupremecourt.us&sitesearch=www.nvsupremecourt.us

This has nothing to do with the Nevada case, as I can see.

[weezer]

This has nothing to do with the Nevada case, as I can see.

really? maybe you need to look again?

[William Anthony]

really? maybe you need to look again?

Maybe, you link isn't working for me.

[weezer]

Maybe, you link isn't working for me.

ahh -- sorry about that -- try this one:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=simpson&safe=vss&cof=GL%3A0%3B&domains=www.nvsupremecourt.us&sitesearch=www.nvsupremecourt.us

[William Anthony]

ahh -- sorry about that -- try this one:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=simpson&safe=vss&cof=GL%3A0%3B&domains=www.nvsupremecourt.us&sitesearch=www.nvsupremecourt.us

Nah, I don't think so.

[weezer]

Nah, I don't think so.

okay -- I can't post the link that takes you directly to the filed documents -- guess it's too long -- so. . .

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/

type in 'simpson' or 'stewart' in the search box on the left

[martin II]

i cannot open them either.

[weezer]

i cannot open them either.

my apologies to the board -- the only thing I can figure is that the link is too long.

martin, did you try the link above?

[weezer]

I assume the judge will/may use the civil judgement list of turnover items.i think this list has a price level attatched to the items.High end items were to be turned and cheaper items oj could keep.i don't know what the cut off amount was. the cut off amount for jewelry was i think $6,000.00
I am sure Fred will be present to try to get the judge to give him whatever if any item oj is awarded but if the items awarded oj were not on the turnover list, what happens then?

then I guess the games begin! and a bunch of people are going to have to explain what they're doing with the stuff when they swore to the court that they didn't have any of it -- orenthal included.

[weezer]

In the oj simpson Nevada case A notice of appeal has been filed.

link please to the appeal --

[serpentsfall]

What is a citizen to do when LE won't investigate reports of crime?

In this case, the citizen not only could but should have followed LE's recommendation to pursue the issue of contested ownership and possession of the items in civil court.

[weezer]

In this case, the citizen not only could but should have followed LE's recommendation to pursue the issue of contested ownership and possession of the items in civil court.

now that might apply to the rest of us but in orenthal's world, he believed he was above following the law.

[martin II]

then I guess the games begin! and a bunch of people are going to have to explain what they're doing with the stuff when they swore to the court that they didn't have any of it -- orenthal included.

Fumong in court changed his story to i paid for that stuff. but he had no purchase receipts to prove it.
What i am thinking is whoever claims ownership excluding oj will have to prove it by some kind of paper receipt.
Fred will be to the side to try to get whatever is awarded oj.

[tv]

Fumong in court changed his story to i paid for that stuff. but he had no purchase receipts to prove it.
What i am thinking is whoever claims ownership excluding oj will have to prove it by some kind of paper receipt.
Fred will be to the side to try to get whatever is awarded oj.

Why excluding OJ Simpson? All memoriabilia doesn't necessarily belong to the person that is memorialized on the items.

[martin II]

now that might apply to the rest of us but in orenthal's world, he believed he was above following the law.

Weezer
why do you think le has CRINE STOPPER programs where the ask citizens to call them to report crimes? They offer rewards when convictions are made.

[weezer]

Fumong in court changed his story to i paid for that stuff. but he had no purchase receipts to prove it.
What i am thinking is whoever claims ownership excluding oj will have to prove it by some kind of paper receipt.
Fred will be to the side to try to get whatever is awarded oj.

Frumong doesn't have to prove the items are his. what he will have to do is answer why he lied on the turn over order! same for Gilbert. now orenthal, on the other hand, is a whole different issue. he swore he didn't have any assets OR maybe he wants to say he was getting the things back so they could be turned over to satisfy the judgement. riiiiight! oh wait! that won't work either because we heard him on the tapes saying he didn't care what happened to them as long as the Goldmans didn't get them. oh my what a tangled web we weave. . .

[martin II]

Frumong doesn't have to prove the items are his. what he will have to do is answer why he lied on the turn over order! same for Gilbert. now orenthal, on the other hand, is a whole different issue. he swore he didn't have any assets OR maybe he wants to say he was getting the things back so they could be turned over to satisfy the judgement. riiiiight! oh wait! that won't work either because we heard him on the tapes saying he didn't care what happened to them as long as the Goldmans didn't get them. oh my what a tangled web we weave. . .

If Fumong claims ownership then the judge will ask him to prove it.Same for Mike.
If neither can prove legal ownership then the judge may trace ownership to the origin of the goods which has ojs name and likeness as per past award events.If oj is proven the owner, then the issue is whether the judge will award all ,any or some to fred. imo

This will not be a trial only a hearing to decide disposition. The stuff you are talking about on the tapes from the previous trial will not come into play in CA.IMO

[weezer]

If Fumong claims ownership then the judge will ask him to prove it.Same for Mike.
If neither can prove legal ownership then the judge may trace ownership to the origin of the goods which has ojs name and likeness as per past award events.If oj is proven the owner, then the issue is whether the judge will award all ,any or some to fred. imo

martin, the 'goods' do not automatically revert to orenthal just because someone doesn't have a receipt. Fromong and Gilbert don't have to prove their ownership but they will have to explain how/why they have the stuff since they swore to the court that they didn't have anything. once the judgment was awarded, orenthal no longer owned those assets so he won't be able to claim them. the story is that the stuff in the storeroom was bought when orenthal didn't pay the rent.

do you think arnelle's moved into the master suite at daddy's yet? if I was orenthal, that's the stuff I'd be worried about.

[weezer]

If Fumong claims ownership then the judge will ask him to prove it.Same for Mike.
If neither can prove legal ownership then the judge may trace ownership to the origin of the goods which has ojs name and likeness as per past award events.If oj is proven the owner, then the issue is whether the judge will award all ,any or some to fred. imo

This will not be a trial only a hearing to decide disposition. The stuff you are talking about on the tapes from the previous trial will not come into play in CA.IMO

the stuff can't be orenthal's -- he swore just months before the robbery that he had no assets. now you know that an upright citizen like him wouldn't lie about such a thing don't you?

[tv]

the stuff can't be orenthal's -- he swore just months before the robbery that he had no assets. now you know that an upright citizen like him wouldn't lie about such a thing don't you?I read that in 2002 a cable network offered him money to take a lie detector test and he turned it down. Hmm...he doesn't mind exploiting the death of the mother of his children to sell books...wonder what made him turn this down?

[William Anthony]

In this case, the citizen not only could but should have followed LE's recommendation to pursue the issue of contested ownership and possession of the items in civil court.

In this case LE should have performed their duty after receiving a report of stolen property and investigated to prevent any crime, imho.

[serpentsfall]

martin, the 'goods' do not automatically revert to orenthal just because someone doesn't have a receipt. Fromong and Gilbert don't have to prove their ownership but they will have to explain how/why they have the stuff since they swore to the court that they didn't have anything. once the judgment was awarded, orenthal no longer owned those assets so he won't be able to claim them. the story is that the stuff in the storeroom was bought when orenthal didn't pay the rent.

do you think arnelle's moved into the master suite at daddy's yet? if I was orenthal, that's the stuff I'd be worried about.

I think perhaps you're confusing the family photos that were purchased at the sale of OJ's mom's unpaid storage with the OJ memorabilia presented in the Las Vegas hotel room. OJ's explanation was that Gilbert had many of the items taken from OJ's Rockingham house the day before the cops came to serve the turnover oder, that Gilbert later delivered some of the "missing" items to OJ in Florida but not everything. Per Gilbert, Fromong and Beardsley, Gilbert kept some of the items as barter payment for management services rendered by unpaid by OJ. If OJ had a problem with that, he should have filed a civil action when Gilbert didn't return the items to him in FL. It's clear from his own statements that OJ knew who took the items removed from Rockingham and why. It's not likely OJ was paying for the storage of the "missing" items, because that would have left a paper trail for Goldman's attorney. For those of you who love to look up the laws, what usually happens to personal property that has been placed in another person's care when the owner doesn't pay for its storage and claims in public he no longer owns the property? After a certain length of time, if the original owner makes no effort to reclaim the items, doesn't the law say the holder of the property is free to do with it what they want? If OJ wasn't in agreement with Gilbert's items in lieu of payment plan, he should have filed in civil court asking for the return of the items.

[serpentsfall]

In this case LE should have performed their duty after receiving a report of stolen property and investigated to prevent any crime, imho.

What part of Riccio went to LE, not OJ, do you insist on not considering? Riccio did not have any first-hand knowledge regarding what agreements might have been made between Simpson and Gilbert or Gilbert and Fromong! If OJ was the person who had gone to LE to ask for help and LE refused to investigate what would then be a legitimate, albeit probably much too late, stolen property report, I might agree with your opinion. Riccio had his own reasons for going to LE; first to find out if the items were classified as stolen because he didn't want to get caught dealing in stolen merchandise and secondly to try to get LE to participate in a staged "sting" he was planning to tape for sale/profit. LE saw Riccio for who exactly who he was: a money-hungry opportunist. I don't see how you can blame LE for having the good sense to turn down an opportunity to "star" in Riccio's production. And you tend to overlook evidence that OJ himself going to LE probably wouldn't have changed anything; he'd already been told by an attorney not to do the sting, but he did it anyway. Why? Because in the end the evidence showed this incident was far more about OJ exacting payback against Gilbert for dissing him than reclaiming ownership of memorabilia.

[martin II]

the stuff can't be orenthal's -- he swore just months before the robbery that he had no assets. now you know that an upright citizen like him wouldn't lie about such a thing don't you?

if oj swore that he had NO assets then the judge must have known he was kidding or the question related to specific kinds of assets as at that time oj had a Florids house full of assets.imo

[martin II]

I read that in 2002 a cable network offered him money to take a lie detector test and he turned it down. Hmm...he doesn't mind exploiting the death of the mother of his children to sell books...wonder what made him turn this down?

ot
martin

[martin II]

martin, the 'goods' do not automatically revert to orenthal just because someone doesn't have a receipt. Fromong and Gilbert don't have to prove their ownership but they will have to explain how/why they have the stuff since they swore to the court that they didn't have anything. once the judgment was awarded, orenthal no longer owned those assets so he won't be able to claim them. the story is that the stuff in the storeroom was bought when orenthal didn't pay the rent.

do you think arnelle's moved into the master suite at daddy's yet? if I was orenthal, that's the stuff I'd be worried about.

There seems to be 2-3 lots of items in question and you may be mixing them.
If fumong and gilbert do not have to prove ownership to back up their claim then anyone could claim ownership.

The moderator had warned against musings about family members so you may want to consider that. imo

[martin II]

Why excluding OJ Simpson? All memoriabilia doesn't necessarily belong to the person that is memorialized on the items.

OJ can prove that certain items were given to him by teams and the NFL etc. It will be up to those that now claim ownership fumong gilbert to prove how they got ownership.imo

[weezer]

OJ can prove that certain items were given to him by teams and the NFL etc. It will be up to those that now claim ownership fumong gilbert to prove how they got ownership.imo

if I'm not mistaken, those are exactly the things orenthal had to give up --

[One2Snoop]

my apologies to the board -- the only thing I can figure is that the link is too long.

martin, did you try the link above?


There's nothing wrong with the links fbgweezer. They work for me. I guess they don't work if someone doesn't want them too. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

There's nothing wrong with the links fbgweezer. They work for me. I guess they don't work if someone doesn't want them too. :rolleyes:

thank you --

[William Anthony]

Let' discuss the Nevada case.

[tv]

We have been instructed to discuss the Nevada case only.I was making the point that the only money making venture he's reported to have turned down over the years is the offer to be paid to take a lie detector test. I'm sorry you don't see the correlation of his history as a liar to his credibility in the Vegas case.

[tv]

There's nothing wrong with the links fbgweezer. They work for me. I guess they don't work if someone doesn't want them too. :rolleyes:

They work fine for me too.

[William Anthony]

I was making the point that the only money making venture he's reported to have turned down over the years is the offer to be paid to take a lie detector test. I'm sorry you don't see the correlation of his history as a liar to his credibility in the Vegas case.

A lie detector test is inherently untrustworthy and the results not admissible in any trial. If you are making the correlation of inadmissible evidence, then I would tend to agree.

[William Anthony]

What part of Riccio went to LE, not OJ, do you insist on not considering? Riccio did not have any first-hand knowledge regarding what agreements might have been made between Simpson and Gilbert or Gilbert and Fromong! If OJ was the person who had gone to LE to ask for help and LE refused to investigate what would then be a legitimate, albeit probably much too late, stolen property report, I might agree with your opinion. Riccio had his own reasons for going to LE; first to find out if the items were classified as stolen because he didn't want to get caught dealing in stolen merchandise and secondly to try to get LE to participate in a staged "sting" he was planning to tape for sale/profit. LE saw Riccio for who exactly who he was: a money-hungry opportunist. I don't see how you can blame LE for having the good sense to turn down an opportunity to "star" in Riccio's production. And you tend to overlook evidence that OJ himself going to LE probably wouldn't have changed anything; he'd already been told by an attorney not to do the sting, but he did it anyway. Why? Because in the end the evidence showed this incident was far more about OJ exacting payback against Gilbert for dissing him than reclaiming ownership of memorabilia.

None, as it is irrelevant as to who reports a crime to LE. Riccio suspected the goods were stolen and LE is sworn to investigate suspected crimes. Irrespective of Riccio's motives, he reported a crime or a suspected one. I blame LE for a failure to do their sworn duty. There is no doubt that Simpson performed a sting that was called a robbery, under Nevada law. The defense of claim of right was precluded, which I would argue was a due process violation and point to the vagueness, ambiguity and over breath of the Nevada statute to support my argument, as well as the intent factor and the need for uniformity of the laws.

[weezer]

I was making the point that the only money making venture he's reported to have turned down over the years is the offer to be paid to take a lie detector test. I'm sorry you don't see the correlation of his history as a liar to his credibility in the Vegas case.

and here we were all thinking he hadn't learned anything from the murder trial! after failing the lie detector test for that trial, he learned not to go near another one. although I have to confess, I didn't think there wasn't much he wouldn't do for money.

[William Anthony]

and here we were all thinking he hadn't learned anything from the murder trial! after failing the lie detector test for that trial, he learned not to go near another one. although I have to confess, I didn't think there wasn't much he wouldn't do for money.

Let's discuss the Nevada case.

[William Anthony]

what were they going to investigate from the report of I might know, could be, at sometime. . . .LOL LE gave the correct and good advice -- talk to an attorney and go through the civil channels. Anybody wonder why-- if LE was sooooo out to get orenthal, why didn't they use this opportunity?

". . .under Nevada law. . ." is the important part. The pontificating about claim of right, vagueness, etc is silly. . . .

The report of someone being in possession and trying to sell property belonging to Simpson. I guess you believe that it is alright for LE to say, we don't believe a crime was committed, so we are not going to investigate. Get Simpson for what, failing to file a police report?

The important part is whether the Nevada law deprives citizens of Due Process. Considering all things pertinent to a deprivation of rights, is silly only to those who do not understand the importance of liberty, imho.

[weezer]

Let's discuss the Nevada case.

can the government force a convicted felon to take a lie detector test?

[weezer]

The report of someone being in possession and trying to sell property belonging to Simpson. I guess you believe that it is alright for LE to say, we don't believe a crime was committed, so we are not going to investigate. Get Simpson for what, failing to file a police report?

The important part is whether the Nevada law deprives citizens of Due Process. Considering all things pertinent to a deprivation of rights, is silly only to those who do not understand the importance of liberty, imho.

that wasn't the report. the reporter didn't know the name(s) of the person(s) who alledgedly had the property. the reporter didn't know when, where, or how the property was going to exchange hands. what did you want them to investigate? there was nothing to investigate.

no, the important part remains Nevada law and under Nevada law orenthal committed multiple crimes and is now a convicted felon. Your pontificating about him being deprived of his due process is stilly. orenthal ain't never been deprived of anything in his life. which may be why his sister fainted in the courtroom?

[William Anthony]

can the government force a convicted felon to take a lie detector test?

For you edification. https://antipolygraph.org/blog/index.php?s=it%C3%A2

It seems that LE may be forced to. Does that mean that they lie more than suspects? In any event, I think that should be the case in the Simpson Nevada case for the reason they gave for not wanting to get involved.

[William Anthony]

that wasn't the report. the reporter didn't know the name(s) of the person(s) who alledgedly had the property. the reporter didn't know when, where, or how the property was going to exchange hands. what did you want them to investigate? there was nothing to investigate.

no, the important part remains Nevada law and under Nevada law orenthal committed multiple crimes and is now a convicted felon. You ideology about him being deprived of his due process is stilly. orenthal ain't never been deprived of anything in his life. which may be why his sister fainted in the courtroom?

According to my understanding, he had been in contact with those trying to sell the property and in contact with Simpson.

Musings about the family is off topic. The law once was that women weren't allowed to vote and remained that way for some time. However, when more intelligent heads prevailed, the law was changed and those who thought the change was silly proved to be "stilly". I guess you meant let those who had been silly be silent.

[serpentsfall]

The report of someone being in possession and trying to sell property belonging to Simpson. I guess you believe that it is alright for LE to say, we don't believe a crime was committed, so we are not going to investigate. Get Simpson for what, failing to file a police report?

The important part is whether the Nevada law deprives citizens of Due Process. Considering all things pertinent to a deprivation of rights, is silly only to those who do not understand the importance of liberty, imho.

William, why do you act like Riccio's discussion with LE about OJ's "missing" items was some new revelation? The Goldmans going after OJ's "If I Did It" book was in the news at the time, and the fact that items, including the Heisman, had come up "missing" from Rockingham years before as a result of a civil matter. No matter how you try to spin it, Riccio was NOT reporting the theft of the "missing" items to LE; he was reporting his intent to stage a "sting" for profit using the missing items as bait and was advised not to do it.

[William Anthony]

William, why do you act like Riccio's discussion with LE about OJ's "missing" items was some new revelation? The Goldmans going after OJ's "If I Did It" book was in the news at the time, and the fact that items, including the Heisman, had come up "missing" from Rockingham years before as a result of a civil matter. No matter how you try to spin it, Riccio was NOT reporting the theft of the "missing" items to LE; he was reporting his intent to stage a "sting" for profit using the missing items as bait and was advised not to do it.

Why can you not realize that it does not matter the manner of report but the substance is what counts. Let me see if I can put it this way, I tell LE I saw a stranger leaving your house with property of yours and I knew you were on vacation and give the police the license number and tell them were the car is and a description of the occupants, or better yet, I visited a home and saw some furniture in the home that belonged to you which you had informed me and others was stolen some time ago. I identified the furniture by a unique marking you had placed on your furniture and drove straight to the police station and reported my observations. Should the police not investigate under any of the above scenarios? In the discussions I have reported crimes.

[weezer]

Why can you not realize that it does not matter the manner of report but the substance is what counts. Let me see if I can put it this way, I tell LE I saw a stranger leaving your house with property of yours and I knew you were on vacation and give the police the license number and tell them were the car is and a description of the occupants, or better yet, I visited a home and saw some furniture in the home that belonged to you which you had informed me and others was stolen some time ago. I identified the furniture by a unique marking you had placed on your furniture and drove straight to the police station and reported my observations. Should the police not investigate under any of the above scenarios? In the discussions I have reported crimes.

hmmm -- did anyone but the two of you know the stuff was missing?

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- did anyone but the two of you know the stuff was missing?

Yes, everyone we told, to include my discussion with LE, and the thieves.

[tv]

Why can you not realize that it does not matter the manner of report but the substance is what counts. Let me see if I can put it this way, I tell LE I saw a stranger leaving your house with property of yours and I knew you were on vacation and give the police the license number and tell them were the car is and a description of the occupants, or better yet, I visited a home and saw some furniture in the home that belonged to you which you had informed me and others was stolen some time ago. I identified the furniture by a unique marking you had placed on your furniture and drove straight to the police station and reported my observations. Should the police not investigate under any of the above scenarios? In the discussions I have reported crimes.I think it would make more sense to let her know you saw her long ago stolen furniture and let her handle it herself.

[William Anthony]

I think it would make more sense to let her know you saw her long ago stolen furniture and let her handle it herself.

I am one of those that believe crimes should be handle by LE. Let me give you another example. I am at a coffee shop and start a discussion with the police, telling them that 10 years ago I killed someone that was never reported missing, as they were homeless, tell them how I did it and where I buried the body. Is it your belief that LE should just sit by finishing their coffee as I leave?

[tv]

I am one of those that believe crimes should be handle by LE. Let me give you another example. I am at a coffee shop and start a discussion with the police, telling them that 10 years ago I killed someone that was never reported missing, as they were homeless, tell them how I did it and where I buried the body. Is it your belief that LE should just sit by finishing their coffee as I leave?Your little dig at LE spending too much time in a coffee shop didn't go unnoticed. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a few doughnuts while you were at it.

I'll clarify since you dont seem to understand what I meant -- tell the owner of the furniture what you saw and let her contact LE.

[William Anthony]

Your little dig at LE spending too much time in a coffee shop didn't go unnoticed. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a few doughnuts while you were at it.

I'll clarify since you dont seem to understand what I meant -- tell the owner of the furniture what you saw and let her contact LE.

Why would I want to do that when I could contact LE myself. Are you familiar with the term good samaritan? You did not answer about my scenario involving the coffee shop.

[serpentsfall]

Why can you not realize that it does not matter the manner of report but the substance is what counts. Let me see if I can put it this way, I tell LE I saw a stranger leaving your house with property of yours and I knew you were on vacation and give the police the license number and tell them were the car is and a description of the occupants, or better yet, I visited a home and saw some furniture in the home that belonged to you which you had informed me and others was stolen some time ago. I identified the furniture by a unique marking you had placed on your furniture and drove straight to the police station and reported my observations. Should the police not investigate under any of the above scenarios? In the discussions I have reported crimes.

OK, and news of that "stranger" leaving my house with my property has been in all the papers and its public knowledge that I'm in the middle of a messy divorce and the "stranger" is my brother who is hiding assets for me (with my knowledge) so my husband can't get them. The determination of what will happen to the items you saw in my home that I reported stolen by my dirty snake of a husband is a matter to be decided in divorce (civil) court. LE is not likely to arrest my husband if they know there is a civil court already involved - they'll tell me to tell it to the judge. OJ never reported the items stolen. He acknowledged publicly that he was actively trying to keep his possessions out of Goldman's hands. Like my husband who thought he had right of possession of my furniture, OJ thought he could pick and choose some items (aka the Heisman) he'd divert to his children as payment towards their portion of the civil award. The judge set him straight: any transfer of assets would have to go thru the court. Much as it applies to an allocation of assets in a messy divorce.

[tv]

Why would I want to do that when I could contact LE myself. Are you familiar with the term good samaritan?

I'm very familiar with the concept of overstepping one's bounds. Since the deed occurred a long time ago and no one was in danger the sensible thing to do would be to contact the owner and let her know. She could then proceed to notify LE or decide the furniture wasn't worth recovering.

Since your scenario doesn't resemble the Vegas crime very closely I think I'll get back on topic. I think you're the one that keeps repeating that we've been instructed to only discuss the Vegas case.

[tv]

Why would I want to do that when I could contact LE myself. Are you familiar with the term good samaritan? You did not answer about my scenario involving the coffee shop.

Your scenario involving the coffee shop is so off topic from the Vegas case that I don't have an answer.

[William Anthony]

OK, and news of that "stranger" leaving my house with my property has been in all the papers and its public knowledge that I'm in the middle of a messy divorce and the "stranger" is my brother who is hiding assets for me (with my knowledge) so my husband can't get them. The determination of what will happen to the items you saw in my home that I reported stolen by my dirty snake of a husband is a matter to be decided in divorce (civil) court. LE is not likely to arrest my husband if they know there is a civil court already involved - they'll tell me to tell it to the judge. OJ never reported the items stolen. He acknowledged publicly that he was actively trying to keep his possessions out of Goldman's hands. Like my husband who thought he had right of possession of my furniture, OJ thought he could pick and choose some items (aka the Heisman) he'd divert to his children as payment towards their portion of the civil award. The judge set him straight: any transfer of assets would have to go thru the court. Much as it applies to an allocation of assets in a messy divorce.

Yes, and LE investigated to find out it was your brother. Riccio did not say the Goldmans were selling the property or those who were were acting on behalf of the Goldmans. He was not reporting a problem with Mr. Goldman trying to get items pursuant to a civil judgment.

[William Anthony]

Your scenario involving the coffee shop is so off topic from the Vegas case that I don't have an answer.

I beg to differ. Since it was discussed during the Nevada case that Riccio had reported the items alleged to have been stolen to the FBI and local LE. A poster wanted to set the report in a discussion atmosphere and I chose the coffee shop to set the atmosphere.

[tv]

I beg to differ. Since it was discussed during the Nevada case that Riccio had reported the items alleged to have been stolen to the FBI and local LE. A poster wanted to set the report in a discussion atmosphere and I chose the coffee shop to set the atmosphere.If you don't see that your scenario doesn't relate to the Vegas case I can't help you. Just for starters, there's a big difference between alleged theft of memorabilia 13 years prior and a murder confession.

[William Anthony]

If you don't see that your scenario doesn't relate to the Vegas case I can't help you. Just for starters, there's a big difference between alleged theft of memorabilia 13 years prior and a murder confession.

Oh, but it was not a murder confession it was a discussion of an alleged murder.

[tv]

Oh, but it was not a murder confession it was a discussion of an alleged murder.Nitpicking.

[William Anthony]

Why me. I wasn't the one that said Riccio was having a discussion.

[tv]

Why me. I wasn't the one that said Riccio was having a discussion.
Because it's YOUR off topic scenario.

[serpentsfall]

Why would I want to do that when I could contact LE myself. Are you familiar with the term good samaritan? You did not answer about my scenario involving the coffee shop.

Are you familiar with the terms "nosy neighbor" or "busybody"? In spite of your good intentions, you're adding 2 plus 2 and getting 3 because all you know is what you saw and heard. Riccio testified that LE listened to what he had to say, left the room for awhile and after they came back they told him ownership of the items was a civil matter.

[William Anthony]

Because it's YOUR off topic scenario.

The scenario only exposes that a crime can be reported as the substance of a discussion with LE.

[William Anthony]

Are you familiar with the terms "nosy neighbor" or "busybody"? In spite of your good intentions, you're adding 2 plus 2 and getting 3 because all you know is what you saw and heard. Riccio testified that LE listened to what he had to say, left the room for awhile and after they came back they told him ownership of the items was a civil matter.

Are you familiar with the term investigation? LE did not say they investigated and concluded it was a civil matter. They said they did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity case.