Larry King

[sassylassy]

Hi all

Just a quick fyi, Larry King wil be discussing the OJ Saga tonight for a full hr.

Kato was on last night & said he would be back (why I have no idea)

but I thought I would let you all know!

Cheers Sassy

[martin II]

Originally Posted by sassylassy

Hi all

Just a quick fyi, Larry King wil be discussing the OJ Saga tonight for a full hr.

Kato was on last night & said he would be back (why I have no idea)

but I thought I would let you all know!

Cheers Sassy

HI SASSY

Miss you a lot. I am sure all is well.

This is about oj. Just like before every one will be getting into the act.
lawyers and talking heads are primping and getting ready for another moment in the tv spotlight.
Maby kato wants to change his testimony again or maby he wants to say something that he forgot during the trials. hahaha
martin II

[Athena]

Originally Posted by martin II

HI SASSY

Miss you a lot. I am sure all is well.

This is about oj. Just like before every one will be getting into the act.
lawyers and talking heads are primping and getting ready for another moment in the tv spotlight.
Maby kato wants to change his testimony again or maby he wants to say something that he forgot during the trials. hahaha
martin II

Nah - he wants to get recruited for another TV Game Show.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Athena

Nah - he wants to get recruited for another TV Game Show.

Cannot figure out what Kato would have to say about this current case.
Feeding frenzy again. All about the guy that many say they are tired of hearing about.
Sounds right to me.

martrin II

[martin II]

Athena
Here is something on the subject secretely recording conversations.
martin II


Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
http://www.parentadvocates.org/index...articleID=3510

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II

HI SASSY

Miss you a lot. I am sure all is well.

This is about oj. Just like before every one will be getting into the act.
lawyers and talking heads are primping and getting ready for another moment in the tv spotlight.
Maby kato wants to change his testimony again or maby he wants to say something that he forgot during the trials. hahaha
martin II

Martin,

I think we all know the implications of having Kato on tv, which is, imho, a reflection of the fact that MOST OF AMERICA wants Simpson to go to jail, not because of the current charges, but, because he was acquitted in the criminal case. Can and will Simpson receive a fair trail on these charges?

[pearyb]

Originally Posted by martin II

Athena
Here is something on the subject secretely recording conversations.
martin II


Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
http://www.parentadvocates.org/index...articleID=3510

Hoover felt that it was OK to record converstions. And most of us know about this guy. I've got two lawyers on a recording making plans involving legal bribery but can't use it for evidence. I can have it myself and play it for people, but its considered illegal in a criminal trial.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by pearyb

Hoover felt that it was OK to record converstions. And most of us know about this guy. I've got two lawyers on a recording making plans involving legal bribery but can't use it for evidence. I can have it myself and play it for people, but its considered illegal in a criminal trial.

thanks for that info.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by pearyb

Hoover felt that it was OK to record converstions. And most of us know about this guy. I've got two lawyers on a recording making plans involving legal bribery but can't use it for evidence. I can have it myself and play it for people, but its considered illegal in a criminal trial.

I'm guessing you were not a party to the conversation?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

I'm guessing you were not a party to the conversation?

The Nevada State Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to tape a conversation without the approval of all parties being taped. From the tapes in the hotel room it seems that there were maby 8-9 people and i did not har anyone say I AM TAPING THIS.

The link to this has been provided above.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Martin,

I think we all know the implications of having Kato on tv, which is, imho, a reflection of the fact that MOST OF AMERICA wants Simpson to go to jail, not because of the current charges, but, because he was acquitted in the criminal case. Can and will Simpson receive a fair trail on these charges?

william

I believe that oj was basically set up to go to that room. I am not sure of the intent of Mr Riccio. It seems that the list that Riccio gave oj of the items that would be in the room was not accurate as some of the items he told oj would be there(very personal items, Pictures Nicole took etc) were not actually there. I have not read any comments that oj knew that someone had a gun in the room. I think that most would have been pissed when finding out that a 'FRIEND' that you had trusted was actually trying to sell your stolen goods.
I also believe that the prosecution has overcharged him with the idea that he will be found guilty of at least one of the charges.

I agree that his may be more about trying to make oj pay for being found not guilty in the crinminal trial than what happened in that room.

We will have to see which charges remain when challanged and which ones do not. A fair trial will depend on the trial judge and the make up of the jury.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

WILLIAM.
DAILY NEWS ARTICLE


O.J. Simpson admits being in the Vegas hotel room when the armed robbery went down. An audiotape puts him at the scene of the crime. And his alleged accomplices are expected to point the finger at him during the trial.

Slam-dunk conviction, right? Not so fast, some of New York's top defense lawyers said.

"The circus-like atmosphere that constantly surrounds O.J. Simpson really casts doubt on all of the legal proceedings that he's involved in," Arthur Aidala said.

"Everybody thought he'd be convicted" of murdering ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, Aidala continued. "He walked out of court a free man. You never know what a jury will do."

Muddling the case, the jury is going to have to convict Simpson based on the testimony of robbery victims and alleged accomplices, all of whom have checkered pasts.

"There have been a lot of pretrial statements that can be used to impeach witnesses later," Aidala said. "The defense has plenty of ammunition."

Jurors will hear that Thomas Riccio — the ex-con who made the damning audiotape — set up the shady meeting. He got Simpson to barge into the Las Vegas room as part of a harebrained scheme to retrieve allegedly stolen sports memorabilia from a pair of shady dealers.

"To a jury, that tape could look like a setup," said defense attorney Murray Richman.


Tbis is from todays WWW.NYDAILYNEWS.COM



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim..._las_vega.html


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim..._las_vega.html

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

*snip*
O.J. Simpson admits being in the Vegas hotel room when the armed robbery went down.

"To a jury, that tape could look like a setup," said defense attorney Murray Richman.

Of course he admits it, his voice is on the audio tape!

As for "setup", no one caused him to bring armed thugs to the room & threaten people. You can "set up" a meeting, but you can't "set up" behavior.