Finally a home for OJ's suit

[weezer]

The argument is whether or not there is legal precedent to say that Nevada's denial of the claim of right to Simpson is unconstitutional and I contend that there is based on the Supreme Court's prior decision concerning the property rights of slave holders and the fact that slaves, rightly or wrongly, were simply considered property with no unique status.

I certainly hope that's the argument they present william --

[William Anthony]

I certainly hope that's the argument they present william --

I do too. It may seem silly but the fact is that the precedent was established that a property owner could use force and violence in order to reclaim his property, and, while we might abhor the measures taken by Simpson, the question remains was there precedent to say his Constitutional rights were violated, he acted lawfully and the decision should be overturned-that is the argument I would make only more passionately.

[weezer]

I do too. It may seem silly but the fact is that the precedent was established that a property owner could use force and violence in order to reclaim his property, and, while we might abhor the measures taken by Simpson, the question remains was there precedent to say his Constitutional rights were violated, he acted lawfully and the decision should be overturned-that is the argument I would make only more passionately.

orenthal had no 'right' to take that stuff -- it wasn't even all his. and when he saw it wasn't his, he didn't say, "Oh, geez. sorry guys. I thought I was getting my personal stuff." but instead he said, "Take it all. I don't care what you do with it."

nope, I'm afraid orenthal is going to be carrying that bucket uphill.

[William Anthony]

orenthal had no 'right' to take that stuff -- it wasn't even all his. and when he saw it wasn't his, he didn't say, "Oh, geez. sorry guys. I thought I was getting my personal stuff." but instead he said, "Take it all. I don't care what you do with it."

nope, I'm afraid orenthal is going to be carrying that bucket uphill.

Now, you have hit upon another legal argument, which is intent. The question then becomes what was his intent when he entered the room-going to the burglary charge. The burglary charge required specific intent, while the robbery statute only required general intent. The comments that are attributed to him, only say that he would not stop others from committing robbery. I do not know if Nevada had a "Good Samaritan" law but Simpson was not charged with violating it. I think this conversation may be more appropriate at this point for the appeals thread.

[weezer]

Now, you have hit upon another legal argument, which is intent. The question then becomes what was his intent when he entered the room-going to the burglary charge. The burglary charge required specific intent, while the robbery statute only required general intent. The comments that are attributed to him, only say that he would not stop others from committing robbery. I do not know if Nevada had a "Good Samaritan" law but Simpson was not charged with violating it. I think this conversation may be more appropriate at this point for the appeals thread.

good try but no. orenthal planned and put together the people who went with him. once there, he threatened with guns, cursed, and robbed them of everything they could carry out of the room. just because he didn't carry any of the stuff means nothing. he knew about the guns and that trumps everything. . .

[William Anthony]

good try but no. orenthal planned and put together the people who went with him. once there, he threatened with guns, cursed, and robbed them of everything they could carry out of the room. just because he didn't carry any of the stuff means nothing. he knew about the guns and that trumps everything. . .

He repeatedly said that his intent was to reclaim his property. We are currently discussing whether or not he was deprived of that Constitutional right to use violence and threats to reclaim what he believed was his property. The Nevada burglary statute requires specific intent to commit a robbery at the time of entry. He could not have had that specific intent, if he believed he was reclaiming his property at the time he entered the room. Those who may be guilty of robbery, since none of the property belonged nor could they reasonably believe it belonged to them, were his co-defendant who were granted immunity.

[weezer]

He repeatedly said that his intent was to reclaim his property. We are currently discussing whether or not he was deprived of that Constitutional right to use violence and threats to reclaim what he believed was his property. The Nevada burglary statute requires specific intent to commit a robbery at the time of entry. He could not have had that specific intent, if he believed he was reclaiming his property at the time he entered the room. Those who may be guilty of robbery, since none of the property belonged nor could they reasonably believe it belonged to them, were his co-defendant who were granted immunity.

intent does not have a timeframe in which it takes place. orenthal worked on the armed robbery details for weeks before the armed robbery. he collected his thugs and gave them instructions. He had no constitutional right to threaten someone and rob them. as far as his co-defendants, they wouldn't have been there except for orenthal recruiting them. and I'm sure you know the old addage: first one on the bus gets to take the ride. as usual, orenthal thought his ride was going to be free. his mistake.

[William Anthony]

intent does not have a timeframe in which it takes place. orenthal worked on the armed robbery details for weeks before the armed robbery. he collected his thugs and gave them instructions. He had no constitutional right to threaten someone and rob them. as far as his co-defendants, they wouldn't have been there except for orenthal recruiting them. and I'm sure you know the old addage: first one on the bus gets to take the ride. as usual, orenthal thought his ride was going to be free. his mistake.

I will copy your post and address it on the Appeals thread.

[bflobill]

OJ's suit arrived at the Newseum this week. Later this year there will be an exhibit marking the 15th anniversary of his acquittal.
http://skunkpost.com/news.sp?newsId=2265

[martin II]

i think the only planning oj did in the weeks before he arrived in vegas was approve riccio reporting the stolen goods and AB plan to the fbi and lapd.
the only one he knew befor that was alxander. imo

[tv]

i think the only planning oj did in the weeks before he arrived in vegas was approve riccio reporting the stolen goods and AB plan to the fbi and lapd.
the only one he knew befor that was alxander. imo

What does this have to do with the suit being donated to the museum? Did I miss something?

[weezer]

What does this have to do with the suit being donated to the museum? Did I miss something?

I was wondering the same thing. LOL -- can't wait to see the crowd that's going to line up to look at that suit!

[tv]

I was wondering the same thing. LOL -- can't wait to see the crowd that's going to line up to look at that suit!

No kidding. Forget 'peopleofwalmart.com'. How about 'peopleviewingthesuit.com'?

[socaldiva]

The article said that the suit is in a "preparation" area & they "hope to have it ready by October". What the heck do you suppose they are going to do to it that takes 6 months?

[tv]

The article said that the suit is in a "preparation" area & they "hope to have it ready by October". What the heck do you suppose they are going to do to it that takes 6 months?

Stuff it? Have it decontaminated?

[weezer]

Stuff it? Have it decontaminated?

clean the brown spot off the backside?

[tv]

clean the brown spot off the backside?

[socaldiva]

clean the brown spot off the backside?

Hysterical

[SaraSidle]

I know I am not familiar with this case but the adoring of the suit escapes me.
was it sewn with gold and I missed it? was the owner a big hero who is gone and I missed it??? really strange IMO

[William Anthony]

I know I am not familiar with this case but the adoring of the suit escapes me.
was it sewn with gold and I missed it? was the owner a big hero who is gone and I missed it??? really strange IMO

The murder case and things connected with it seem, for some reason, to cause a rather unique interest in some, even bordering on obsession. Maybe, the thought is that the suit has some mystical power.

[weezer]

I know I am not familiar with this case but the adoring of the suit escapes me.
was it sewn with gold and I missed it? was the owner a big hero who is gone and I missed it??? really strange IMO

I think the same people who bought memorabilia from Gacy and Dahmer will want to see the suit. My guess is it won't be on display long --

[William Anthony]

I think the same people who bought memorabilia from Gacy and Dahmer will want to see the suit. My guess is it won't be on display long --

"LOS ANGELES (AP) — The tan Armani suit, white shirt and gold tie that O.J. Simpson wore on the day he was acquitted of murder have been acquired by the Newseum in Washington, D.C., for a display exhibit on the "trial of the century", the curator of the museum of news said Tuesday.

"For us, it's a piece of news history that we will include in our collection of objects relating to the trial," said Carrie Christofferson, the curator who was involved in negotiations to obtain the suit.

Mike Gilbert, Simpson's former manager who has had possession of it, said he will fly to Washington and hand deliver the ensemble to the Newseum next week.

"I hope it will be displayed in a way that will help people ponder the legal system and celebrity," said Gilbert. "I'm happy that it will go somewhere where people can see it and remember where they were that day in history."

The acquisition ends a 13-year legal battle between Gilbert and Fred Goldman, the father of the man Simpson was charged with killing in 1994.

Both men claimed the right to the clothing Simpson was wearing Oct. 3, 1995, when he was acquitted of killing ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman, after a televised trial that riveted the nation. The acquittal was viewed by millions on live TV.

Gilbert came up with the idea of a donation to a museum. He has kept the suit, shirt and tie in storage since shortly after Simpson's acquittal.

The suit was first offered to the Smithsonian Institution, but the museum said it was not appropriate for its collection. Gilbert said the Museum of Crime and Punishment in Washington also had been trying to acquire the suit, but the parties decided the appropriate venue was the Newseum.

Christofferson said it will be shown along with a collection of newspaper headlines, press passes, reporters' notebooks and equipment used to televise the notorious trial.

"It will help us tell the story of this massive trial of the last century," she said.

Goldman's attorney, David Cook, said he was pleased with the resolution in which no one will profit from the suit.

"People will ask me what Fred Goldman gets from this," Cook said. "It's not money, it's not vengeance. It's the enshrinement of the painfully inexplicable.

"It does further Fred Goldman's goals because it keeps the story in front of America and, to that degree, it's a success, as much as one can find any success in this terrible story," Cook said.

Simpson attorney Ronald P. Slates said the former football star and actor, who is in prison in Nevada, was kept informed and agreed to the donation.

"We are very happy to have participated in this amicable resolution of this lawsuit," said Slates. "This is an important part of the history of American jurisprudence. This way, nobody profits and the American public gets to view a centerpiece of this historic event."

Ironically, Simpson, 62, is serving a minimum nine-year prison sentence in a case indirectly involving the suit. He was convicted of robbery and kidnapping in Las Vegas in October 2008 after a botched heist to retrieve his memorabilia he said was stolen by dealers. Witnesses said Simpson believed the suit was among the items offered for sale in a hotel room but it was not there.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press."

There are reasons offered in the link that started this thread as to the interest in the suit and I did not see anyone express a morbid interest in seeing the suit, although there may be by some.

[tv]

"LOS ANGELES (AP) — The tan Armani suit, white shirt and gold tie that O.J. Simpson wore on the day he was acquitted of murder have been acquired by the Newseum in Washington, D.C., for a display exhibit on the "trial of the century", the curator of the museum of news said Tuesday.

"For us, it's a piece of news history that we will include in our collection of objects relating to the trial," said Carrie Christofferson, the curator who was involved in negotiations to obtain the suit.

Mike Gilbert, Simpson's former manager who has had possession of it, said he will fly to Washington and hand deliver the ensemble to the Newseum next week.

"I hope it will be displayed in a way that will help people ponder the legal system and celebrity," said Gilbert. "I'm happy that it will go somewhere where people can see it and remember where they were that day in history."

The acquisition ends a 13-year legal battle between Gilbert and Fred Goldman, the father of the man Simpson was charged with killing in 1994.

Both men claimed the right to the clothing Simpson was wearing Oct. 3, 1995, when he was acquitted of killing ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman, after a televised trial that riveted the nation. The acquittal was viewed by millions on live TV.

Gilbert came up with the idea of a donation to a museum. He has kept the suit, shirt and tie in storage since shortly after Simpson's acquittal.

The suit was first offered to the Smithsonian Institution, but the museum said it was not appropriate for its collection. Gilbert said the Museum of Crime and Punishment in Washington also had been trying to acquire the suit, but the parties decided the appropriate venue was the Newseum.

Christofferson said it will be shown along with a collection of newspaper headlines, press passes, reporters' notebooks and equipment used to televise the notorious trial.

"It will help us tell the story of this massive trial of the last century," she said.

Goldman's attorney, David Cook, said he was pleased with the resolution in which no one will profit from the suit.

"People will ask me what Fred Goldman gets from this," Cook said. "It's not money, it's not vengeance. It's the enshrinement of the painfully inexplicable.

"It does further Fred Goldman's goals because it keeps the story in front of America and, to that degree, it's a success, as much as one can find any success in this terrible story," Cook said.

Simpson attorney Ronald P. Slates said the former football star and actor, who is in prison in Nevada, was kept informed and agreed to the donation.

"We are very happy to have participated in this amicable resolution of this lawsuit," said Slates. "This is an important part of the history of American jurisprudence. This way, nobody profits and the American public gets to view a centerpiece of this historic event."

Ironically, Simpson, 62, is serving a minimum nine-year prison sentence in a case indirectly involving the suit. He was convicted of robbery and kidnapping in Las Vegas in October 2008 after a botched heist to retrieve his memorabilia he said was stolen by dealers. Witnesses said Simpson believed the suit was among the items offered for sale in a hotel room but it was not there.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press."

There are reasons offered in the link that started this thread as to the interest in the suit and I did not see anyone express a morbid interest in seeing the suit, although there may be by some.

I don't see it as morbid interest. Viewing the murder clothing would be morbid but this is just an expensive suit worn by a man on trial 15 years ago. To me, viewing it would be a waste of time -- but each to his own.

[William Anthony]

I don't see it as morbid interest. Viewing the murder clothing would be morbid but this is just an expensive suit worn by a man on trial 15 years ago. To me, viewing it would be a waste of time -- but each to his own.

I think we can agree, since Simpson was found not guilty, and my response was in regard to those, who thought the interest in seeing the suit would be by those "who bought memorabilia from Gacy and Dahmer" Just a joke, perhaps Beardsley and Fromong.

[tv]

I think we can agree, since Simpson was found not guilty, and my response was in regard to those, who thought the interest in seeing the suit would be by those "who bought memorabilia from Gacy and Dahmer" Just a joke, perhaps Beardsley and Fromong.

You're right -- your post was in response to weezer's comment...sorry about that.

[William Anthony]

You're right -- your post was in response to weezer's comment...sorry about that.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[tv]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Usually, around this forum, nothing is gained even when venturing. Just a fact.

[William Anthony]

Usually, around this forum, nothing is gained even when venturing. Just a fact.

The venture is gained.