MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22nd

[callmetree]

:seeya: good morning all. let's hope the weekend has us all refreshed and ready for a new day of trial. better yet, let's hope it moves a tad faster!:)

[AnnInOhio]

Why did OJ feel he needed a posse? I know his defense is that he brought them along to carry the stuff out. But if two guys were able to carry it in why would OJ need more than that to carry it out? If OJ was only going to take the stuff if they willingly gave it up, they'd have helped him carry it to his car. Plus he'd have Riccio and Charles the fake buyer and himself so he'd have three to carry out what two brought in. The obvious answer to me is that he brought the extra men for intimidation.

[AnnInOhio]

When during the planning the group is discussing about walking in and walking out. Ehrlich, the most cautious of the posse, apparently thinks his role is going to be to come in, be shown the stuff and leave. OJ says no "we" walk in the room. Stewart is attributed with the voice on the tape saying "You ain't playin my gun, no conversation with them, You just want to see the ****." I don't hear anybody saying "No guns!"

[callmetree]

Why did OJ feel he needed a posse? I know his defense is that he brought them along to carry the stuff out. But if two guys were able to carry it in why would OJ need more than that to carry it out? If OJ was only going to take the stuff if they willingly gave it up, they'd have helped him carry it to his car. Plus he'd have Riccio and Charles the fake buyer and himself so he'd have three to carry out what two brought in. The obvious answer to me is that he brought the extra men for intimidation.

maybe he justs feels the need to have his posse to protect him. afterall, we've only heard of the WOMEN he can man handle. gosh i need my coffee before i get on here. lol i do agree with your answer though.

[JBL]

Why did OJ feel he needed a posse? I know his defense is that he brought them along to carry the stuff out. But if two guys were able to carry it in why would OJ need more than that to carry it out? If OJ was only going to take the stuff if they willingly gave it up, they'd have helped him carry it to his car. Plus he'd have Riccio and Charles the fake buyer and himself so he'd have three to carry out what two brought in. The obvious answer to me is that he brought the extra men for intimidation.

Hey Ann!

"I could while away the hours conferrin' with the flowers,

Consulting with the rain;

And my head I'd be a scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin'

if I only had a brain."

How'd you like OJ's whistling on the Riccio tape. Yea, his thoughts are always busy hatchin'.

It is what it is - a posse. He's OJ like the true legend he is in his own mind.

He needed all this help to carry things because OJ carry's himself. LOL

[AnnInOhio]

Hey Ann!

"I could while away the hours conferrin' with the flowers,

Consulting with the rain;

And my head I'd be a scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin'

if I only had a brain."

How'd you like OJ's whistling on the Riccio tape. Yea, his thoughts are always busy hatchin'.

It is what it is - a posse. He's OJ like the true legend he is in his own mind.

He needed all this help to carry things because OJ carry's himself. LOL

I laughed when Riccio said OJ often hums that ditty to himself.

[AnnInOhio]

Actually they used carts and a bellboy to help carry it in. We also have to remember, OJ was expecting more items than was actually there.
Plus of course he wanted the intimidation factor.


And if it was OJ's stuff, willingly returned, he could've used those same carts and bellboy to take it out, no matter how much stuff there was. OJ needed "muscle" for the same reason he declined notifying hotel security for assistance: he knew he had no more right to those items than Mike Gilbert. I'd still like to see OJ's sister take the stand since she was the one who initially oversaw the removal of these items from Rockingham and was present during discussions of the sting planning.

[JBL]

I laughed when Riccio said OJ often hums that ditty to himself.


HAHAHA! Yep he's crazy like a fox. He likes to switch persona's between his "legendary" self and dumber then a box of rocks and there's been some mistake made when it comes to his azz being putting in the hoosegow.

Those tapes are classics - from Fromong helping with offshore accounts to Fromong being there for the "porn" set up. GEEZ!

It shows his old nasty vulger self as opposed to the clean cut guy running thru the airport for Hertz and all american football star.

It's not every single solitary word or person that needs identified in my opinion but as a whole - it shows what kind of slug he is along with who OJ really is.

[JBL]

And if it was OJ's stuff, willingly returned, he could've used those same carts and bellboy to take it out, no matter how much stuff there was. OJ needed "muscle" for the same reason he declined notifying hotel security for assistance: he knew he had no more right to those items than Mike Gilbert. I'd still like to see OJ's sister take the stand since she was the one who initially oversaw the removal of these items from Rockingham and was present during discussions of the sting planning.

Which brings us back to the same. Were these or were they not OJ's belongings. No police report and his deposition claims he does not OWN any of these belongings.

The bs about no one would help him get his momma's and boyhood pics back (as that's all he wanted but woolah! look at the booty he found HA) and he NEVER NEVER EVER filed a police report. He had Riccio call on his behalf. He can sure come up with the lawyers that are knowedgeable on the law when he's in trouble looking for loop holes. Couldn't find a one to help him retrieve some photo's before the heist? PUHLEEEEZE.

[JBL]

Another thing - OJ KNEW what was on these tapes. He's willing to sink/implicate his sister - his old secretary Cathy Randa - claims of offshore accounts to save his sorry azz today.

That sounds like the Wimpy plan - for a cheeseburger today I will glady pay you next Tuesday. To keep ME out of jail today on this charge .......I will send the others down the pike

[AnnInOhio]

Another thing - OJ KNEW what was on these tapes. He's willing to sink/implicate his sister - his old secretary Cathy Randa - claims of offshore accounts to save his sorry azz today.

That sounds like the Wimpy plan - for a cheeseburger today I will glady pay you next Tuesday. To keep ME out of jail today on this charge .......I will send the others down the pike


And, dare I say it, also implicates Yale Gallanter?

[dmh]

Another thing - OJ KNEW what was on these tapes. He's willing to sink/implicate his sister - his old secretary Cathy Randa - claims of offshore accounts to save his sorry azz today.

That sounds like the Wimpy plan - for a cheeseburger today I will glady pay you next Tuesday. To keep ME out of jail today on this charge .......I will send the others down the pike

:lol:I usually just lurk...But a popeye fan too.
BTY Hello

[dmh]

As for OJ, he should have gone alone and confronted
Beasley. He could have handeled this much better. But that is just OJ's way. He can't go on thinking he is untouchable. JMO

[JBL]

BEASLEY - LOL My sister had a Mrs. Beasley doll - Is this perhaps the Mr.?

J/K I've seen his name written like that alot just thought it was funny and reminds me of the polka dotted Mrs. :cool:

[dmh]

I also what to say, I had someone steal from me. I confronted her and we got things straightened out. I did not go there with thugs and a gun.

[JBL]

they were hard to follow werent they? but they really gave me an insight into OJ that i had only suspected but didnt know for sure. the tapes confirmed for me that he IS the thug i thought he was.

i dont understand the defense saying that it was oj's stuff and he had a right to attack those guys to get it back.

my neighbor borrowed my mixer once and kept it for a few weeks. by oj's thinking, all i had to really do was bust in her apartment with some friends, pull a gun and tell her "give me my mother ******* mixer back!".

you just wait till next time she borrows it. i'm takin my posse to get it back!

"give me my mother ******* mixer back!".

:lol:


Yales in the book

[JBL]

I have to go pull one of the kids out of school for a Dr's appt. then double up on the my work load when I get back so will miss the am trial start.

Will be looking for updates - take notes of interest tx

[AnnInOhio]

Regarding intent, what is the legal position of intent if what OJ intended to do WAS illegal but he didn't THINK it was illegal? Along the lines of ignorance of the law is no excuse. Or if he realized it was illegal but thought he had a good excuse that would excuse his actions (as in joking with cops on Riccio's phone immediately afterward trying to convince them this was being blown out of proportion.)

[AnnInOhio]

Let's hope this doesn't turn into a bomb scare! Or that one side or the other wasn't just caught "secretly" dropping off/leaking documents for the press.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

i dont think he could pull the "i didnt know it was illegal" defense because the cops and fbi both told him to pursue it civilaly didnt they?

I would also ADD that OJ knew he couldnt do it "Civil Action" wise..cause..his stuff he wanted..wasnt his on one hand and on the otherhand..then the location of said stuf would be exposed for the Goldman's attny's toget their hands on..OJ already knew about the "Turnover" orders both Gilbert and Fromong had been served with!!

It all goes to OJ's mindset..HIDE his assets!!

LMShammer

[psbperu]

Hey..Hey Lynda:

Hide the assets! That is what OJ is about. Sure would like to know if "offshore accounts" do exist.

This is some group of characters.

[kennedy06]

Hi I am catching bits of the trial What in the world is going on with this judge? So the lawyers don't have to keep coming up here to talk to me. What is she there for???? She does more talking than the lawyers.

So this Riccio is the one that had the Anna Nicole Diaries well..........

I didn't think I would be interested in this trial but, these guys no matter what side there are on, they seem to be themselves no big put on. This trial is like a guys type trial, everyone seems to be geniunely ticked. JMO

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Hey..Hey Lynda:

Hide the assets! That is what OJ is about. Sure would like to know if "offshore accounts" do exist.

This is some group of characters.

Hi Joan..are you back in Fla now?...Havent seen much of you on the boards..

OJ is indeed a slime..and together with his enablers he has played the 'Shell Game" for over a decade...I also think that these witnesses and tapes just expose the other face of OJ..that the public dont see..even tho many suspected it..It is now proven to them!!

LMS:D

[dmh]

Judge..."number two" Oh s**t

[AnnInOhio]

So OJ's stuff was stolen by his sister, Cathy Randa and Mike Gilbert? Riiiight

[Lqqkout]

Actually they used carts and a bellboy to help carry it in. We also have to remember, OJ was expecting more items than was actually there.
Plus of course he wanted the intimidation factor.

Also Riccio was playing double agent.

[Lqqkout]

Hi I am catching bits of the trial What in the world is going on with this judge? So the lawyers don't have to keep coming up here to talk to me. What is she there for???? She does more talking than the lawyers.

So this Riccio is the one that had the Anna Nicole Diaries well..........

I didn't think I would be interested in this trial but, these guys no matter what side there are on, they seem to be themselves no big put on. This trial is like a guys type trial, everyone seems to be geniunely ticked. JMO

I think the judge really aspired to be a nursery school teacher.

[FrankieBones1]

:seeya: good morning all. let's hope the weekend has us all refreshed and ready for a new day of trial. better yet, let's hope it moves a tad faster!:)Hi, Tree and all. :seeya:

According to HNN news just now, the defense is cross examining Riccio.
Anyone have a link to the live stream?

[dmh]

Maybe the Judge should remind riccio of the five W's Watch..Where...When...Who and Why.

[kennedy06]

I'm listening and at times watching on the Legal Edge site click the red button watch live trial.

http://www.thelegaledge.com/index.php


I hope that helps!

JMO

[bearwds]

Good Mornin' folks...

Just tuning in here on TruTV and Judge Glass has just taken both lawyers "out in the hall", per Jamie. Speculation about speaking objections. Yale seems a bit tighter in his questioning now...lol

I wonder if Yale is a bit antsy that his name will be mentioned by Riccio ??

Thanx Wendy for the breakfast bar. I'm having V8 juice though.
OJ makes me nauseous.


bearwds

[september]

It makes no difference if these were "personal" items, he tried to take them with force.......either muscle or guns he was not giving them any choice and that is against the law. I hope the jury puts themselves in the shoes of the victims when they listen to that tape......it was a very scary situation and that is exactly what OJ intended.

September MOO

[dmh]

uuugh! Riccio is annoying.. If I was the Judge I would have him slapped him up side the head by now:cuss:

[AnnInOhio]

Let's face it. Gilbert didn't steal ANYTHING from OJ's trophy room. He, Cahty Randa and OJ's sister took those items from the trophy room in order to hide them from the Goldmans. Some time later, after OJ had relocated to Florida, Gilbert failed to deliver ALL of OJ's removed items to him in Miami. OJ knew where his stuff was and who had it, but OJ's hands were too dirty to report it stolen.

[september]

I'm sorry that the FBI and local police didn't respond to Riccio's complaints. The Goldmans don't agree with the criminal trial's outcome but they are not taking the law into their own hands as Mr. Simpson feels he has the right to do.

September MOO

[september]

Let's face it. Gilbert didn't steal ANYTHING from OJ's trophy room. He, Cahty Randa and OJ's sister took those items from the trophy room in order to hide them from the Goldmans. Some time later, after OJ had relocated to Florida, Gilbert failed to deliver ALL of OJ's removed items to him in Miami. OJ knew where his stuff was and who had it, but OJ's hands were too dirty to report it stolen.

__________________________________________________ _________

So true Ann , OJ is stealing the Goldman stuff in that hotel room.

[FrankieBones1]

All the links on the Links thread are probably good today. Many of us like www.ktla.com because we like the reporters.
Thanks, it works like a charm. Well, I see that Riccio admits that it was a sting and that he wanted to sell the story (video) to Entertainment Tonight and types of shows like that.

[watchu]

Yale needs to shut up after making his point the first time. The repetition is annoying and it's condescending.

[kmc]

O.J. appears very calm today. No muttering..... rolling eye's. Med's must be working today.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Are you a witness to all of this?

Actually Mike Gilbert has written a book about all this not to mention done many interviews and spoke of all this..so Unless you wish to believe that everybody is lying but OJ..then just maybe there is some truth to al that..
LMS

[Details]

Well one thing for sure, Riccio, he sure is helping the defense. He got him a really sweet deal...:biggrin:He's just babbling on and on - and every word confirms - OJ was in charge, OJ set the plan, and OJ chose how this would go down.

There's not much to this crime. Did OJ plan to go in there and intimidate the victims into letting him take the stuff? Yes - then he's guilty. If he knew about the guns - that's a few more charges. Did he intend to restrain the victims from leaving the room ("Nobody leaves this room")? Then it's kidnapping - a very low degree, but it is kidnapping.

Pretty simple case.

[AnnInOhio]

I'm sorry that the FBI and local police didn't respond to Riccio's complaints. The Goldmans don't agree with the criminal trial's outcome but they are not taking the law into their own hands as Mr. Simpson feels he has the right to do.

September MOO


On another thread I've likened what happened with OJ's assets/stuff as to what happens when a couple divorces and one side hides assets. Do the cops get involved if one spouse hides money from a soon-to-be-ex spouse? No. It's a civil matter. OJ was hiding his own personal assets, assisted by Mike Gilbert. OJ should have sued Gilbert in civil court.

[september]

He's just babbling on and on - and every word confirms - OJ was in charge, OJ set the plan, and OJ chose how this would go down.

There's not much to this crime. Did OJ plan to go in there and intimidate the victims into letting him take the stuff? Yes - then he's guilty. If he knew about the guns - that's a few more charges. Did he intend to restrain the victims from leaving the room ("Nobody leaves this room")? Then it's kidnapping - a very low degree, but it is kidnapping.

Pretty simple case.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely.......he intended to take the Goldman stuff by FORCE.
September
MOO

[september]

Per Beth the defense is depending on JURY NOLIFICATION ! Is a person entitled to two juries ignoring his crime ?

September
MOO

[AnnInOhio]

Are you a witness to all of this?


This stuff was in the pubic forum long before this crime. It all came out when the Goldman's attempted to attach OJ's assets. Remember when Gilbert had to turn over the Heisman? Remember the deal with the piano in OJ's mom's house? If you don't, I can't help it you aren't up on all things OJ. I ofen wish I weren't!

[september]

The Goldman's owned OJ's pictures of his dead child, his dead parents?

They had the rights to even these?:shrug:
---------------------------------------------------------
Those items were NOT there.

OJ has plenty of attornys, why not do this LEGALLY?

September MOO

[Lyndawitha"Y]

The Goldman's owned OJ's pictures of his dead child, his dead parents?

They had the rights to even these?:shrug:

Pictures of OJ's family is not the issue..but the pictures frames are fair game...And since OJ wanted those pictures..he could have gotten them by requesting them provately from them..If they had them to give him..
LMS

[AnnInOhio]

The Goldman's owned OJ's pictures of his dead child, his dead parents?

They had the rights to even these?:shrug:

No. According to Beardsley, the manager of some rock star owns them. He allegedly bought them at auction when rent wasn't paid on a storage facility in OJ's mom's name. That guy wanted Beardsley to find a buyer on the down-low, I think because the guy was worried about OJ's reaction. That's why Beardsley was concerned about OJ finding out.

[Details]

Anything stolen from him that is his legally - call the police and report it stolen when it is stolen, or ask his lawyer to file a simple little suit. No biggie. Very easy to solve.

[september]

Too much whiskey too early Papa? This stuff has been public info for some time!

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

:lol:

September
MOO

[Lqqkout]

I agree with Rikki this morning when she said they didn't sound scared at all. I think they sounded embarrassed that they had these things and now OJ knew that they had them.

They sounded like they were very embarrassed to be caught red handed by OJ trying to sell his stuff. Fromong was whining about his Joe Montana lithos and his new cell phone, not afraid at all. Beardsley was still trying to assure himself that OJ wasn't mad at him..not afraid. The first thing out of Riccio's mouth when they left with the stuff is that they had taken his bag and how much money it was worth. All these guys cared about was $$$$ and that their selling of stolen property got busted. This is nothing but a set up first with these conmen and secondly with the LE trying to make a name for themselves. Sham!!!

[Details]

Ha Right there the judge prevented Galanter from making the point that
Fromung heard/knew Beardslee said the stuff was 'stolen'.

Talk about bias in favor of the Prosecution!!!!:no:She stopped Yale from creating a false impression Fromong was in the conversation when Beardsly said the stuff was stolen. Answering the question as stated, as the witness didn't want to do, would create an impression that did not reflect the reality of what he said. He said Beardsly said this when Fromong was on the phone, in and out of the room. Present - but not necessarily listening.

Yale was allowed to ask the whole question, get the whole story out in front of the jury. He was prevented from creating a false impression. That is bias in favor of the truth, which is precisely a judge's job - and nothing anyone looking for the truth to be exposed would be upset about.

[Lqqkout]

Let's face it. Gilbert didn't steal ANYTHING from OJ's trophy room. He, Cahty Randa and OJ's sister took those items from the trophy room in order to hide them from the Goldmans. Some time later, after OJ had relocated to Florida, Gilbert failed to deliver ALL of OJ's removed items to him in Miami. OJ knew where his stuff was and who had it, but OJ's hands were too dirty to report it stolen.

That must be why OJ took the cellphone with Mike's telephone number that OJ so desperately wanted, because OJ knew all along where these family photos were.....NOT

[Lqqkout]

Yale needs to shut up after making his point the first time. The repetition is annoying and it's condescending.

I like him, very intelligent and articulate even with this difficult witness.

[Lqqkout]

The Goldman's owned OJ's pictures of his dead child, his dead parents?

They had the rights to even these?:shrug:

Exactly !!

[Lqqkout]

Has anyone ever found out exactly where these personal pictures/items are?

Another conman memorabilia dealer in San Jose has them.....

[AnnInOhio]

That must be why OJ took the cellphone with Mike's telephone number that OJ so desperately wanted, because OJ knew all along where these family photos were.....NOT

There's been nothing yet except for OJ's assumption to show that Mike Gilbert had anything to do with the whereabouts of OJ's family photos. OJ probably doesn't know where his family photos are, but there's also been nothing to show that they were stolen instead of being legally purchased at the auction of storage contents.

[Details]

He's average, but the Judge was definitely more lenient with
the Prosecutor, allowing Riccio to go on and on and on.

I wouldn't hire this judge to be my attorney for ANY type of legal action, if she was in private practice.The judge pounded on Riccio during the prosecutor's session - same as with this one - trying to get him to answer the question.

She's doing a good job, keeping everyone focused on answering just the question. Like she's doing right now. Keeping Riccio focused on answering Yale's questions.

[Lqqkout]

TY...Guess he wouldn't fall for the same setup would he?

Who knows. They don't seem too smart.

[Lqqkout]

There's been nothing yet except for OJ's assumption to show that Mike Gilbert had anything to do with the whereabouts of OJ's family photos. OJ probably doesn't know where his family photos are, but there's also been nothing to show that they were stolen instead of being legally purchased at the auction of storage contents.

That is just too funny to respond.

[Lqqkout]

So he is saying that he did tell them (OJ and Crew) the other stuff was not there but he didn't record the phone calls where he told them that?

Riccio never told OJ the stuff wasn't there. That would nix Riccio's big chance to get the heist on tape to make big bucks!! Making money off OJ was the ONLY thing on everyone's minds.

[Lqqkout]

Riccio just called Galanter by his first name ... Yale.

How interesting!

He does the same with Chris, the prosecutor..

[CamV]

Yes, he did call Mr. Owens, "Chris", the other day. During the preliminary trial, he called them all by their first names and no one stopped him. Probably this is what he does as a sales person.

[Lqqkout]

I thought that was pretty funny. Did he know him before the incident?
I wonder if he calls Owens Chris...;)

Yes, he called him Chris several times on direct.

[bearwds]

RICCIO: "I don't know Yale, if he knew" (paraphrased)

GILANTER: "Please call me Mr. Galenter. I don't care what you call me outside the court"

Oh Yale...Yale How did the off-shore accounts get accessed ??

Do you have fingerprints over furthering the concealment of assets Mr. Galenter ??


bearwds

[dmh]

Fromong and Beardsley admit that the stuff was stolen! The ball headed guy with the gun clearly behind OJ!!


Not guilty!

Was that on the tape?

[llylabrat]

Apparently he was covering this trial against Dr.'s orders. They think he'll be OK. I noticed it on CNN - as I switch back and forth on CNN from the Brian Nichols trial and the OJ trial.


I hope he will be okay! In his interview with Michel Bryant on The Legal Edge, he said his son was extremely opposed to him travelling and covering this trial, but he-Dominick was thrilled to be there.

[watchu]

Yale just stepped in it. If Riccio received the call from OJ about there being no guns 'immediatley', it had to be OJ trying to get Riccio to lie because there could have been no media coverage at that point...

Yale is annoying the judge with his constant repetition. I'm sure the jury is smart enough to know what he's doing and to also be annoyed.

Riccio a difficult witness :lol:

This guy is helping the defense as much as the prosecution. I can't imagine how repetitive the cross of the co-defendants who turned on OJ will be... THEY will be difficult.....

[Details]

Fromong and Beardsley admit that the stuff was stolen! The ball headed guy with the gun clearly behind OJ!!


Not guilty!Fromong does not admit that - and Beardsly characterizes it that way - which does not make it true. However, even if we pretend it's stolen, even if we forget that neither of the victims stole anything, even if we pretend it's personal photos rather than valuable items subject to OJ's civil judgment - even if we deny all reality - you still are not allowed to go in and take stuff under threat of force (gun, or a large number of large yelling men), PERIOD.

Guilty.


OJ takes stuff that is not his - promises to return it later, and does not do so - he knows it's not his. He takes things he claims are his under threat of force - purely illegal. He plans all of this over several days on tape, is on tape taking the stuff (and ordering that "Nobody leaves this room"), etc. He's in a small room, while a guy is waving a gun all around, and no way did he not know that.


If someone steals my stuff, pure theft, I am not allowed to go to their house with a bunch of thugs, with or without guns, and take it. I could go and ask them to give it back - but if they say No, I cannot take it. If it's recent, unquestionably mine, and I've reported it stolen, I can call police, if it's disputed ownership, I can call a lawyer - I cannot, without going to jail, as OJ is likely to, go in and pick it up.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Fromong and Beardsley admit that the stuff was stolen! The ball headed guy with the gun clearly behind OJ!!


Not guilty!

I so disagree..If OJ was a bankrobber and stood at the tellers wicket with a note demanding money and his gang behind hi had guns..He is just as guilty of armed robbery as the rest..Its the law

LMS

[Details]

They kept saying on the tape 'Mike took it, Mike was the one who stole it'...things to that effect.Saying that to an angry OJ who is insisting the stuff is stolen, they're pointing him to the person they got it from. That's no kind of admission they knew it was stolen - they're just working with what he is saying - he says it's stolen, they say Mike is the one, then, who did it.

You'd do the same - you buy a bike from a guy named George, a little later, some big guy comes in yelling at you, bunch of thugs, how dare you steal my stuff, you think you can get away with stealling my stuff - you'd also be sitting there saying, "It wasn't me - George did it, I got it from George, he stole it!".

[dmh]

They kept saying on the tape 'Mike took it, Mike was the one who stole it'...things to that effect.

Tx I wasn't clear on that

[kennedy06]

ohhhhh, so that is how you hear I was never paid for my interview. OK there are ways. Show me a picture, mention a sponsor. ok, Hmmmmmmm. JMO

[Lqqkout]

Was that on the tape?

On the tape Fromong says "Mike took it". And a discussion ensues about Mike and Fromong offers Mike"s number to OJ (in cell). That is how OJ ended up taking the cell, much to Fromong's dismay to OJ, "Don't break it, it is new" Doesn't sound like a terrified man to me, just one upset about getting caught selling stolen property.

[Details]

My point was they said it on the tape.Yeah, I know - but the point is, the context, when they have an angry OJ swearing at them and telling them the stuff is stolen - that's not an admission they knew it was stolen, that's them pointing OJ at the guy they got it from.

[Details]

Lunchbreak until 1:15

[Details]

I'd assume now it's Stewart's attorney's turn.

[llylabrat]

I so disagree..If OJ was a bankrobber and stood at the tellers wicket with a note demanding money and his gang behind hi had guns..He is just as guilty of armed robbery as the rest..Its the law

LMS


I was going to say if OJ robbed a bank that he had money in, it would be armed robbery, so whether the property was his or not is just a smoke screen, although the jury may see it as a mitigating factor. I have heard so many times he was set up, he wanted to return what wasn't his, the guys he robbed werent scared that I'm starting to believe the jury won't convict.

[Lqqkout]

Was that on the tape?
yes, it is...

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I was going to say if OJ robbed a bank that he had money in, it would be armed robbery, so whether the property was his or not is just a smoke screen, although the jury may see it as a mitigating factor. I have heard so many times he was set up, he wanted to return what wasn't his, the guys he robbed werent scared that I'm starting to believe the jury won't convict.

Its not mitigating to me..His stuff really isnt His Stuff but the Goldmans..JMO of course..but given the gangland approach here..it also show's OJ's mindset..He couldnt get this stuff legally so resorted to robbery..and banked these guys wouldnt call the police..WRONG!!

LMS:shrug:

[llylabrat]

This article is mostly about Dominick Dunne, but does mention Marcia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/fashion/21dunne.html?em

[Lyndawitha"Y]

They usually take about 1 hr. 15 min. I think. Unfoutunately we'll have more from Riccio this afternoon. I want to hear from Mike!

Me too snow....I think Mike Gilbert is going to put this into context and really who has the rights to it..

LMS:read:

[Lqqkout]

On the tape the other night "Charlie" called Riccio right after they all left the room. At that time Riccio told them the cops were being called and that they (Beardsley/Fromong) were saying either "strong armed" or "armed robbery"....

Exactly!!!! When Charlie was told immediately that Beardsley, (major suck up to OJ) had called the police and reported an armed robbery, I would be on the phone immediately if I had not seen a gun and say WHAT are you talking about???

[llylabrat]

Its not mitigating to me..His stuff really isnt His Stuff but the Goldmans..JMO of course..but given the gangland approach here..it also show's OJ's mindset..He couldnt get this stuff legally so resorted to robbery..and banked these guys wouldnt call the police..WRONG!!

LMS:shrug:


I had never even considered that, but OJ probably DID think these guys he robbed wouldn't call the Po-lice.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I had never even considered that, but OJ probably DID think these guys he robbed wouldn't call the Po-lice.

I also believe I read somewhere or heard the testimony in prelim..that OJ was told that Fromong and Beardsley did not possess weapons..

LMS:eek:

[Lqqkout]

Yeah, I know - but the point is, the context, when they have an angry OJ swearing at them and telling them the stuff is stolen - that's not an admission they knew it was stolen, that's them pointing OJ at the guy they got it from.

They were not even afraid at the time. They were upset because they all thought they were going home with tons of cash and they got caught. So, the next way to make money was to blow this out of proportion. These are professional con men. And, yes, Mike "took" it means stole it.

[Grayson]

Hey everyone :seeya:. Sorry but I am kind of out of it, long story. I jsut now got into this case. And I H.A.V.E. to say that I want to hear the invetigators who were on teh stand a week ago, with perfect scaled to size drawings of the room etc. This case is not that complex. And to hear Riccio go on and on in detail the memoroabilia he had, the requests for interveiws, adn then his less than clear recolection of who entered his room, it is just too much for me!!! However I am glad to say that this case has really helped me learn alot about "stealth jurors", that is a really interesting subject to me. I have to thank Court TV for explaining it.:)

[bearwds]

[QUOTE=Details;12165660]Yeah, I know - but the point is, the context, when they have an angry OJ swearing at them.....SNIP
*************************

Oh no, no Details. Didn't you hear Yale say "lecturing" ?? Operative word even though what you can hear with your lying ears.


bearwds

[Lqqkout]

I so disagree..If OJ was a bankrobber and stood at the tellers wicket with a note demanding money and his gang behind hi had guns..He is just as guilty of armed robbery as the rest..Its the law

LMS

This was not a bank robbery. Oranges to apples?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

They were not even afraid at the time. They were upset because they all thought they were going home with tons of cash and they got caught. So, the next way to make money was to blow this out of proportion. These are professional con men. And, yes, Mike "took" it means stole it.

PLEEEZE..GMAB..OJ is just as bad as all of them..even more so because he uses all his contacts to get away with it!!

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

This was not a bank robbery. Oranges to apples?

Its all fruit..just like what OJ did..He took stuff at gunpoint!! better know as robbery..felonious to boot..No matter how you couch it..it's against the law!!No excuses..and OJ has runout of Goodwill!

LMS

[Lqqkout]

I had never even considered that, but OJ probably DID think these guys he robbed wouldn't call the Po-lice.

The reason they would not call the police is because selling stolen property is a crime and they knew it.

[Lqqkout]

I also believe I read somewhere or heard the testimony in prelim..that OJ was told that Fromong and Beardsley did not possess weapons..

LMS:eek:

Well that was wrong, Fromong packs all the time. He admitted that on the stand.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

The reason they would not call the police is because selling stolen property is a crime and they knew it.

BUT they DID call the police..The stuff OJ wanted was not his stuff and he couldnt get it legally..so resorted to armed robbery..Whoops..his personal photos werent there..LOL

Its no different than someone breaking into a house to take something.and got wrong address..They are just as guilty of breaking and entering..even tho the address was wrong..

LMShammer

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Well that was wrong, Fromong packs all the time. He admitted that on the stand.

Fromong did not have a gun in that room and Riccio knew that!! BTW Fromongs gun was in his vehicle..not in that room!! Get your facts straight please..Riccio did not know Fromog until he met him that day about an hour and half before the heist..So how would Roccio know about Fromongs predylications???

LMS

[llylabrat]

The reason they would not call the police is because selling stolen property is a crime and they knew it.

that might be what OJ thought, but he thought wrong, because they did call the police to report they were robbed AT GUNPOINT.

[Lqqkout]

Fromong did not have a gun in that room and Riccio knew that!! BTW Fromongs gun was in his vehicle..not in that room!! Get your facts straight please..Riccio did not know Fromog until he met him that day about an hour and half before the heist..So how would Roccio know about Fromongs predylications???

LMS

I know the gun was in his truck, so don't tell me to get my facts straight, that is very rude. YOU said Fromong and Beardsley did not possess weapons and that is wrong. Possess means own, not carry and Fromong certainly owns a gun.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

It seems to me that where OJ went afoul was when he dissed his agent Mike Gilbert who had covered, hid things and fronted for OJ for years..OJ even said in many interview..keep your enemies even closer..as for Gilbert..he was and is OJ's worst nightmare..as he know all!!..yet either didnt pay Gilbert what was owed, or took for granted Gilbert would admit to his part in all the scams..Once again..OJ was wrong!! OJ's status to his long time enablers lost its luster..and OJ's ego just didnt believe his friends would tattle on him..Once again..Wrong!!

OJ.is indeed the archetect of his own making..No honour among theieves..he above all should have known that..

LMS:cuss:

[Fallen Angel]

OMG


Writer Dominick Dunne hospitalized in Las Vegas


LAS VEGAS - Celebrity crime writer Dominick Dunne has been taken to a Las Vegas hospital after he says he was stricken by pain while watching testimony in the O.J. Simpson armed robbery-kidnapping trial.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_en_ot/people_dunne

[Fallen Angel]

if someone already posted that i'm sorry

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I don't see how they can say this was a breaking and entering here. This was Riccio’s room and he not only invited them in but he led the way.

Where would I find a link that has the exact charges spelled out? Anyone know?

Pia..I was just giving an example of fault in breaking laws..as L..keps referring to silly examples of what is right and fair..goes to apples/oranges..I am not equating this robbery to a breaking and entering..only in mistaken address/persons or items desired..Sorry to confuse you..Me bad I guess

LMShammer

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Testimony by whom? Not Riccio: He didn't really know these guys, but was kinda worried about Beardsley by reputation.

He knew Beardsley..years earlier..as it was Beardsley who contacted Riccio about OJ stuff..but he (Riccio) did not know Fromong..in fact just met him shortly before entering that room...He knew Beardsley..and did not trust him either.....I guess when you travel in that circle you get to know certain bad apples...

BTW Beardsley approached Riccio because he became a household word following the Anna Nicile diarries exposure..but they both knew each other before all this..

LMS

[Lqqkout]

that might be what OJ thought, but he thought wrong, because they did call the police to report they were robbed AT GUNPOINT.

But, at the time, I don't believe he knew there was a gun.

[Fallen Angel]

But, at the time, I don't believe he knew there was a gun.

no doubt in my mind OJ knew about the guns before entering the room.

[Lqqkout]

Pia..I was just giving an example of fault in breaking laws..as L..keps referring to silly examples of what is right and fair..goes to apples/oranges..I am not equating this robbery to a breaking and entering..only in mistaken address/persons or items desired..Sorry to confuse you..Me bad I guess

LMShammer

I have not given ANY examples silly or otherwise. That appears to be your forte.

[llylabrat]

But, at the time, I don't believe he knew there was a gun.

Listening to the 6 minutes during the robbery, OJ is yelling "don't let anyone out of here" and the other guy is yelling "put the effing phone down, put that on the effing bed" Did they think these guys they were yelling at would just do what they said? If the robbers didn't have guns, could they be sure the victims DIDN'T have guns? If the robbers didnt' have guns, why would they think people would just do what they told them to instead of kicking their butts?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Okay we keep hearing Mike stole, something about storage not being paid for, OJ hiding things from the Goldman's etc...

What do we know that is actually true and on record?

The way I see this (from Riccio's tapes) is that OJ was only concerned with the personal pictures/items. Things of that nature. The rest, once they saw what it was, just seemed to be icing on top of the cake so to speak...

So I guess what I am asking is, was everything put into storage to hide from the Goldman's…the memorabilia plus OJ's personal things that were not to be included in the lawsuit?

Was all of this taken out of OJ's home at the same time, was it stored together? Do we know for sure that the storage was not paid for and if so HOW did Mike Gilbert end up with all of this stuff? Did he have the other things that OJ wanted if so is he the one who sold/gave it to the “other conman" in San Jose and who is this other person in San Jose?
I know how the storage auctions work but wouldn’t they have known it was Mike Gilbert bidding on the things if he was the one who put them there in the first place? Why wouldn't he have just paid what was owed?

Goodness pia..It is actually a well documented fact..given Mike Gilbert interviews and book..that he arranged to have all this stuff removed from Rockingham while OJ went golfing to keep out of the hands of those executing the raid by LE to retrieve said items ( OJ had received a ti from someone at the courthouse)...He was working for OJ as an agent..therefore represented OJ in his removal of any valuable items...Purpose..simple..keep out of the hands of the Goldmans. I beliee Gilbert will testify to the change of custody of all of the items removed from Rockingham...It was all taken to a storage unit under the name of Grandma Simpson..thus out of reach for the courts..
The old saying is..Possession is nine tenths of the law..LOL

LMShammer

ETA..Actually if these things had not been removed..then the raid would have taken possession..which the table would then turn..and OJ would have to sue the Goldmans to retrieve personal pictures or whatever>>

[Details]

The prosecutor always sets up the charges to be everything that is possible. That's both to encourage a plea bargain, and because it's up to the jury to decide what the crimes were - the prosecutor shouldn't be making too many judgment calls on that.

Pia, IIRC, the Mike Gilbert stuff wasn't part of the storage stuff. As the story goes (and so many have told it, that I think it's quite solid), OJ gave a bunch of his stuff to some of his buddies, Mike included, to have them hide it from the police for him, so when his house was searched, it would not be found. It went so far that those buddies were under "turn over" orders - ordered legally to hand over any possessions of OJ's they had.

That's where this came from - as the story goes. Now then, for any legal ownership issues - unless OJ had a written contract, it'd be hard to prove that this stuff wasn't just a gift to Mike if he claimed that - a verbal contract, were there any, being worth the paper it is printed on. Of course, if it's OJ's - then it's part of the turn over, and goes to the Goldmans. If it's not OJ's, then there's no problem with Mike doing whatever he liked with the stuff.


Ah - I see someone has given the full Mike Gilbert version of the story. So, the storage unit is involved in some part of it.

[llylabrat]

I agree with that. I don't think he knew it during that time either.

I know we are all waiting to hear from McClinton (sp?) but how can we believe anything either of the four of them say after they have been given deals? I have a really hard time believing things from jailhouse snitches and people who have been given deals, especially when they were the ones with the guns that are in question. The only reason I believe anything Riccio is saying is because he has the tapes to back him up.

BTW was Stewart offered anything to testify?

And on those tapes after the robbery, it was said repeatedly "we were robbed by OJ at gunpoint." No one said "wait a minute, OJ didn't have a gun, he's innocent, he just came for his stuff" Everyone in that room seemed to be in agreement that they were robbed by a group of people-including OJ- at gunpoint.

[bearwds]

RE: Storage of "stuff".

My understanding is the Mike stored goodies in Grandma's storage.

THEN...the goodies ended up in ANOTHER storage in the town of Hanford CA.

I've been to Hanford several times on Biker runs. Sleepy central valley town.

WHO moved them to Hanford ?? Guessing Mike. This is where the storage fees went overdue ??


bearwds

[Details]

My sister was robbed at gunpoint, in a store. Her description is just like the tapes sound. Lots of orders being given, no mention of the gun - you don't have to mention you have a gun, they see it, nor will the victim be saying much other than trying to get the guys with the guns not to be shooting - make them happy, do what they say, placate them, whatever.

When you give orders like that - and no "or else" no nothing needed - that's a sign of knowing you've got all the cards, overwhelming force if needed. May not be a gun - particularly when you've got several large men on your side, versus one old man, and one other guy - but no reason it cannot be.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Lynda
It may be well documented but until this trial I had never heard of Mike Gilbert, never read ANY books on any of this. Not Gilbert’s, OJ’s or any of the others after the murders. I have my own reasons for that but I had no interest in doing anything that would allow anyone to make money off these murders. I think it was sick and disgusting.

Were Gilbert’s interviews before or after his book? And is this book and these interviews the only source of this information? If so, how do we know he is being honest?

Here are some links:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355380,00.html

Interview with Greta


http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/05/12/ex-manager-mike-gilbert-claims-oj-simpson-confessed-to-killing-his-ex-wife-nicole-brown-simpson/

All you need to do is google Mike Gilbert..and no I was not making fun of you ..only shocked you didnt know about this character in OJ's life...But, I think you'll get a clearer picture after Gilbert testifies...

Please forgive me ..didnt mean to appear to chastise..I was just surprised..LOL

PS not sure on his dates..but it looks like the book came out in June of this year..

LMShammer

[llylabrat]

Riccio is sticking to the one word answers, ooooops I wondered how long it would take for him to forget and start talking to much. I still give him 2 more minutes :biggrin:

[Details]

I believe saying Robbed at gunpoint by OJ Simpson was to add to the effect. He never did say that OJ had the gun.This is moments after the robbery - they're not thinking of strategy, effect - they simply haven't had time. Three guys in the room, not one of them says, "oh no, I didn't see a gun" - the statement goes uncorrected - because it's correct. Even Riccio, right after, is saying there was a gun - and it's not in his best interests for that to be so.

[Lqqkout]

I agree with that. I don't think he knew it during that time either.

I know we are all waiting to hear from McClinton (sp?) but how can we believe anything either of the four of them say after they have been given deals? I have a really hard time believing things from jailhouse snitches and people who have been given deals, especially when they were the ones with the guns that are in question. The only reason I believe anything Riccio is saying is because he has the tapes to back him up.

BTW was Stewart offered anything to testify?

Stewart was not offered a deal. When McClinton who was facing a 35 year sentence and supposedly was carrying the gun in his hand as opposed to in his waistband was given a deal to testify against OJ who maintains he didn't even know there was a gun, never mind carry one himself, something doesn't sit right and it won't with the jury either. He will be testifying that OJ told him to bring a gun and that got rid of his 35yr sentence for a lesser charge.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Oh no...I didn't think you were chastising or making fun...:)

There has been so much going on with OJ since the murders, it hard to keep up and hard to believe anything that is said. I just don't want to pretend I know something that I don't know anything about.

Thanks for the links...

YW for the links..and thank goodness you werent slighted..as I didnot intend to..LOL Friends?
LMS;)

[Lqqkout]

Listening to the 6 minutes during the robbery, OJ is yelling "don't let anyone out of here" and the other guy is yelling "put the effing phone down, put that on the effing bed" Did they think these guys they were yelling at would just do what they said? If the robbers didn't have guns, could they be sure the victims DIDN'T have guns? If the robbers didnt' have guns, why would they think people would just do what they told them to instead of kicking their butts?

largely outnumbered? and caught with hand in cookie jar?

[Details]

I may be mistaken but hadn't they already mentioned the media by the time (or at) they made the 911 call?I do believe you are mistaken. The first mention of media is awhile into the 911 call, when Beardsly is frustratedly demanding where are the police, appears to think he's not being taken seriously, and says he'll call NBC, and see if reporters arrive faster than police.


I just reviewed that part of the transcript. Beardsly is the first to say they were just robbed at gunpoint. He keeps repeating it, like he can hardly believe it. And no mention at all of the media. It's said almost right after OJ leaves. He calls the police, when he omits "at gunpoint" once, Fromong adds "at gunpoint" Take a look for yourself. There's no gap, no discussion of media, no time elapsed, no disagreement between victims that this was at gunpoint.

Page 70 http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Riccio_Transcripts/Recording_File_6.pdf

[Lqqkout]

Okay we keep hearing Mike stole, something about storage not being paid for, OJ hiding things from the Goldman's etc...

What do we know that is actually true and on record?

The way I see this (from Riccio's tapes) is that OJ was only concerned with the personal pictures/items. Things of that nature. The rest, once they saw what it was, just seemed to be icing on top of the cake so to speak...

So I guess what I am asking is, was everything put into storage to hide from the Goldman's…the memorabilia plus OJ's personal things that were not to be included in the lawsuit?

Was all of this taken out of OJ's home at the same time, was it stored together? Do we know for sure that the storage was not paid for and if so HOW did Mike Gilbert end up with all of this stuff? Did he have the other things that OJ wanted if so is he the one who sold/gave it to the “other conman" in San Jose and who is this other person in San Jose?
I know how the storage auctions work but wouldn’t they have known it was Mike Gilbert bidding on the things if he was the one who put them there in the first place? Why wouldn't he have just paid what was owed?

Hopefully, we will hear some semblance of truth when Mike testifies if he does at all, but books and interviews? Fiction.

[llylabrat]

largely outnumbered? and caught with hand in cookie jar?

Nice try. I wouldn't buy that.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Have the others been sentenced yet or are they waiting for their testimony for that?
I agree it doesn't set right with me either. That is why this whole thing stinks for me..

No..none of them have been sentenced yet..cause everything hinges on their truthfullness when testifying...but McClinton will do substantial jail time..2 felonies he coped to

LMS:D

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Only $20K from his book...Looks like that went over real well...LOL

LOL..he got 5 times that for the tape...LOL but he claims "Good Reviews"..LOL
LMS

hammer

[Details]

Have the others been sentenced yet or are they waiting for their testimony for that?
I agree it doesn't set right with me either. That is why this whole thing stinks for me..Masterminds are always more responsible than the patsy - even if the patsy carries the gun. The others would not have been there if OJ hadn't asked them to be there.

Sad but true though - bad guys are hard to convict without the testimony of the other bad guys - naturally when you're planning a robbery, you don't pick an upstanding citizen to help you out with it. But the tapes are unbiased.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

So if they get up there and say no OJ didn't have a gun, didn't know there was a gun, didn't want a gun or anything in OJ's favor they will get a longer sentence.

How can one believe someone with conditions like that? How can that be fair to any defendant?

NO..they have to testify to what they said in their statement and deposition...unlike Beardsley.who wants to change his testimony..and even if he does..cannot be held legally accountable..but the tapes would prove him wrong...

LMS

[Details]

That depends on who is listening to them. Most here think they favor the prosecution. Myself and a few others think they favor OJ. :)The tapes are unbiased. The listeners - of course not. But the tapes record only what happened - their testimony is uncorruptible - no matter who they favor.

[Lqqkout]

Have the others been sentenced yet or are they waiting for their testimony for that?
I agree it doesn't set right with me either. That is why this whole thing stinks for me..

Me, too. I just think too much has been manipulated with one goal in mind, to get him. It is sad to watch our justice system at their worse played out for all to see.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

She is way off here. Even I know that is hearsay...

Sorry..dont follow...she??heresay..who??
LMS:shrug:

[legalmania]

Beardsley is a nut case. See article below.

http://www.artharris.com/2008/04/03/oj-simpson-vegas-victim-arrested-again/

[Lqqkout]

Nice try. I wouldn't buy that.

Do you believe they were afraid?

[Ang Disaster]

Riccio's a riot. "I don't exactly remember what I said yesterday" when asked about his testimony at the preliminary hearing. :lol:

[Ang Disaster]

Something about something OJ's sister said...All this back and forth I don't even remember the question.

Basically Riccio said his sister's demeanor was that she thought the whole thing was a bad idea, unless I'm more confused than I thought.

[Details]

So if they get up there and say no OJ didn't have a gun, didn't know there was a gun, didn't want a gun or anything in OJ's favor they will get a longer sentence.

How can one believe someone with conditions like that? How can that be fair to any defendant?Testifying truthfully is what was said - not lying for OJ nor the prosecution. In order to get this deal, they have to testify to committing crimes themselves, which means it'll be impossible for them to go proclaim innocence in their own trials.

Testifying there was a gun lengthens their OWN sentence. They've got no reason to do so - deal or no - except that there was one and it can be proven via testimony and the gun being found, so better to tell the truth both at OJ's trial and their own, and reduce your sentence by being an honest thug.

[Lqqkout]

So if they get up there and say no OJ didn't have a gun, didn't know there was a gun, didn't want a gun or anything in OJ's favor they will get a longer sentence.

How can one believe someone with conditions like that? How can that be fair to any defendant?

That is exactly how it works.
McClinton will testify that OJ told him to bring a gun and he could get probation to 11 yrs instead of 35 years. Gee, what would you say?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Something about something OJ's sister said...All this back and forth I don't even remember the question.

LOL...Pia..but her voice is on the tapes..and Riccio was there to identify her..so what she says..is in fact germaine..good or bad..

LMS:biggrin:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Yes, but how do we know that they are being honest?

Simple Pia..their testimony is on tape and in a written deposition..

LMS:biggrin:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I don't think that is what was being asked though.

LOL..I didnt even know who you were referring to..and you dont even remember the question...things move so fast..huh?

LMS:shrug:

[cherylt]

Only $20K from his book...Looks like that went over real well...LOL

LOL! That is only so far. I just heard a report that Amazon Kindle is abuzzing w/ new sales for "Busted" and they are selling hundreds of books more online.. Mayble he'll make $30K? :)

Either way - he got at least $210,00 off this story (quarter of a million). If he is smart at all, he could live off it (along w/ "side deals" of course....)

[llylabrat]

Do you believe they were afraid?

I think they followed orders because they were being robbed at gunpoint. And yes I think Fromong & Riccio were intimidated...not sure they were in actual fear of their lives because OJ was their friend.

[Details]

Yes, but how do we know that they are being honest?The gun is found, the tapes, the testimony of the victims, the testimony of all the other thugs - it all agrees. Either everyone is lying, or OJ is. Even Stewart says there was a gun - at least his attorney does for him, in the opening statement. He's got no deal - and he's saying there was a gun.

And being honest is AGAINST their own interests. Any of those thugs would love to say there was no gun. They'd be doing a lot less time, be up against much less charges, if any, were there no gun. They'd kill (oops!) to say there was no gun.

So testifying there was a gun is against their own interests. Pretty good indication they're being honest. Even if it's the usual thug type of honesty - telling the truth once the police already know it and have enough evidence to prove it.

[logbump]

even if he didn't know about guns , if they were used, one guilty all guilty IMO

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I am not talking about whether there was a gun or not. We all know there was a gun. The issue is did OJ know it before and/or during...and did he ask for the gun to be there.

Given my recollection of the prelim..McClinton will testify to OJ knowing abot the gun..

LMS

[Details]

This bit that just happened, I think is where sometimes people get up in arms about a judge being pro one side or another - she smacked down the defense attorney for going on and on about his objection - then sustained it. If you're not watching closely, and looking for bias, you'll assume she ruled against him. The judge is smacking down both sides, and witnesses, as needed to keep the courtroom organized, keep the testimony easy for the jurors to hear.

[kennedy06]

A time out.............and like Magic the Dog. This is a serious case where did they get her from weekend traffic court? JMO

[Details]

I am not talking about whether there was a gun or not. We all know there was a gun. The issue is did OJ know it before and/or during...and did he ask for the gun to be there.I've seen people questioning if there was a gun - so I never assume what people do or don't believe.

As to whether OJ knew, before or during - during, no way he didn't know. Small room, Riccio and the tapes have OJ shouting at the victims, the gun is also pointed at the victims - how does he not see this? Yeah.

Before - it's testimony - but consistient testimony, and fits with OJ's statements in the tapes before, when he's talking about bringing his boys, looking his intimidating best, and his language in the room - this is no peaceful request being planned - there never is a request for the stuff.

And I'd still say their testimony about OJ requesting guns is still not going to be in their best interests - it says they did this with planning - not spur of the moment, which will add conspiracy charges to them. If they were able to not admit OJ asked them, they could say they just always bring guns everywhere, and pulled them when they were afraid things might get physical otherwise.

[Lqqkout]

Yes, but how do we know that they are being honest?

We won't. Mcclinton testified for the very first time during the preliminary hearing that OJ told him to bring a gun. He had made an 85 page statement to the police just after the caper and never once mentioned that statement. It was not until AFTER Mc. made the deal with the prosecution that this statement materialized. Yale, I am sure will hammer this home as Mc. is the key witness to OJ's knowledge of the gun.

[Details]

Iiinteresting suggestion I just read on another forum. Riccio is being asked questions that suggest the prosecution think he is changing his story. His immunity deal is based on him telling the truth. If he tells two stories, one must not be true, and he could lose his deal, be able to be prosecuted for his crimes.

[Details]

We won't. Mcclinton testified for the very first time during the preliminary hearing that OJ told him to bring a gun. He had made an 85 page statement to the police just after the caper and never once mentioned that statement. It was not until AFTER Mc. made the deal with the prosecution that this statement materialized. Yale, I am sure will hammer this home as Mc. is the key witness to OJ's knowledge of the gun.Because, as I said - it's not in his best interests to admit he planned to bring the gun, knew in advance it would be needed. And like any thug, his version of "honesty" is admitting whatever the police know and can prove, holding every fact until the last possible moment.

[Details]

Love watching the judge smack the witness down, force him to actually answer the question rather than ramble.

[Details]

I am asking this because I honestly do not know...Details, did Mcclinton change his story from the original statement to when the deal was made as Lqqkout said he did? Is there a place to see his statement?I do not know. I'm certain the defense will bring up any changes in his story during his testimony. I've followed this only lightly, only enough to have heard the tapes and a few tidbits before the trial, so I'm learning as I watch and read too.

I'd expect Lqqkout is probably accurate, just because it fits the usual thug pattern. Over and over again, they'll sit there, acting all sincere and honest, and tell the police exactly what they know, and deny knowledge of anything else - until they find out the police know about it.

But - I really don't see any benefit to him, to put forth a version of his actions, where he's planning to bring a gun to commit a robbery - that makes his crimes far more serious.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Goodness..I think Riccio is now intimidated..he knows he's close to breaking the immunity deal..I can help but believe that the pros..would just love to charge Riccio in the future!!

It is suffice to say..Riccio is on notice..

LMS:D

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I wonder if it is possible that the gun was being put to Riccio's head instead of Fromong or Beardsley because he (Mcclinton) knew that Riccio was in on it....

NOPE..It is clear..Riccio has testified and is heard on the tapes..he had a GUN POINTED AT HIM!!

LMS

[Lqqkout]

This bit that just happened, I think is where sometimes people get up in arms about a judge being pro one side or another - she smacked down the defense attorney for going on and on about his objection - then sustained it. If you're not watching closely, and looking for bias, you'll assume she ruled against him. The judge is smacking down both sides, and witnesses, as needed to keep the courtroom organized, keep the testimony easy for the jurors to hear.

I don't miss those things, but what I an seeing is the judge's exasperation with ANY objection on the def's part. It's like she doesn't want a fair trial where the def objects, she wants the pro to get his testimony in instead of a question. I think Yale is doing a great job not losing his temper with her acting like a child not getting her way.She should be a nursery school teacher.
's

[cherylt]

I bet Riccio wasn't expecting all of this...:)


Maybe Riccio is actually tired of talking after 3 days on the stand?!

LOL! He might not need to talk for weeks after this... :)

[kennedy06]

Obviously I'm new to this trial catching bits and pieces but the jury gets to ask him questions! Wow JMO

Thats not Beardsly (sp) sitting in the courtroom is it? JMO

[kennedy06]

Yeah isn't that cool?:)

Yes, think of the other trials we have watched and what those juries may have asked!! JMO

[legalmania]

Simple Pia..their testimony is on tape and in a written deposition..

LMS:biggrin:

Deposition or preliminary hearing?

[Details]

Details, that is why I have been so adamant about the gun issue. If he changed his story at the time of the deal how can believe him? He has to know by now that others have already said that he is the one with the gun so what is to stop him from trying to help the prosecution so in turn he will be helped...Others saying there is a gun, and he had it - first, he can go with the tried and true defense - they're just thugs, trying to turn responsibility away from themselves. Second, he can say, yes, he had one - but it was just a coincidence, he thought it was going to get physical, so he pulled a gun to keep everything in control - or some other type of sob story. All it takes is one juror who doesn't want to believe the testimony of a bunch of thugs (sound familiar? We've got some people here who could fit that mold) and he'd be off nearly scott free.

You never know how a jury will go - but he's not gaining that much from telling the truth, and he's losing any ability to contest or deny the charges that not only did he have the gun, but that he committed a conspiracy to do an armed robbery - legally, spur of the moment has lighter penalties than planning to do it, bringing a gun along specifically to point at someone - that's pretty huge.

[Ang Disaster]

Is Riccio capable of sitting still and not constantly fidgeting?

[kmc]

Have you noticed how Gallanter's voice has gotten higher and -- shrieker? Seems to go in direct syncopation of Riccio pulling on his whiskers....


"ob jeeeeection your honor" He starts sounding like a little girl.
MOO

[cherylt]

That wasn't my question. I have no doubt that it was pointed at Riccio. I am wondering if Mcclinton pointed at Riccio because he (Mcclinton) knew that Riccio was in on it. Why not point it at the other two that actually had the stuff being taken from them? Could that been something to intimidate the other two knowing that he (Mcclinton) was not going to have to use it?

I cannot wait for these questions....LOL


That was Riccio's interpretation of that event. That McClinton was trying to show Fromong & Beardslesy that Riccio wasn't in on it...

[Details]

Love, love jury questions!

[kennedy06]

A room full of testosterone and there he sits with a lovely bouquet of flowers behind him. :tongue:

[Details]

Little windows into what the jury is taking from the testimony.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Details, that is why I have been so adamant about the gun issue. If he changed his story at the time of the deal how can believe him? He has to know by now that others have already said that he is the one with the gun so what is to stop him from trying to help the prosecution so in turn he will be helped...

Goodness, Pia..I thought you have followed this trial..I guess I was misguided..Hummm??

LMS

[Lqqkout]

I wonder if it is possible that the gun was being put to Riccio's head instead of Fromong or Beardsley because he (Mcclinton) knew that Riccio was in on it....

That is very interesting because he was the one who started this.....I still wish OJ said "Come on Riccio, let's go"

[Details]

Goood question - was the gun pointed at anyone other than you. Was pointed at Fromong and Beardsly when they objected to having property taken. Great question - if the jury hadn't been sure about that, it could make a real difference in deliberations.

[kennedy06]

The Juice doesn't look to happy. JMO

[Details]

Goodness, Pia..I thought you have followed this trial..I guess I was misguided..Hummm??

LMSI don't think that's part of the trial. It's preliminaries, and stuff that often enough never makes it into the trial. I sure didn't follow it.

[cherylt]

Others saying there is a gun, and he had it - first, he can go with the tried and true defense - they're just thugs, trying to turn responsibility away from themselves. Second, he can say, yes, he had one - but it was just a coincidence, he thought it was going to get physical, so he pulled a gun to keep everything in control - or some other type of sob story. All it takes is one juror who doesn't want to believe the testimony of a bunch of thugs (sound familiar? We've got some people here who could fit that mold) and he'd be off nearly scott free.

You never know how a jury will go - but he's not gaining that much from telling the truth, and he's losing any ability to contest or deny the charges that not only did he have the gun, but that he committed a conspiracy to do an armed robbery - legally, spur of the moment has lighter penalties than planning to do it, bringing a gun along specifically to point at someone - that's pretty huge.


I agree w/ your assessment. Why would McClinton add the gun testimony after 1st talking to police? Because it would give him a harsher sentence! Then, oops, people saw me w/ it, I better fess up to my part & tell the truth or I will going away for an even longer time.
IMO - he has no reason to lie now and I sure don't believe the Prosecution is going to make him say "OJ told me to bring it", if indeed it wasn't true....IMO / JMO and all that.

[Details]

Okay with those questions if the gun was pointed at Fromong and Beardsley, I cannot see how OJ did not see it. Unless OJ moved from where they have said he was standing....didn't they say OJ was standing right in front of Fromong and Beardsley?The tapes and the witnesses say OJ was standing right in front of them, yelling at them - I'd imagine possibly turning from one to the other, likely enough sometimes looking at or pointing at stuff on the bed or elsewhere in the room to emphasize his point. But what we know was he was in front of those two guys. And the gun was pointed at them whenever they objected to their stuff being stolen.

No way did he miss it. It'd be strong-arm robbery without the guns - they're taking stuff without permission, but with the guns, it's an additional charge, and no way did he not know.

[cherylt]

Me too....;)

Obviously, me 3!!!

[Lqqkout]

Pia, you are right on target and question motives of people. Do not take things at face value as many do here and do not listen to insults. Actually insults make me dig in so they are a waste.

[CamV]

Yes, he did. He said just a few minutes ago that guns were pointed at Beardsley and Fromong when they started complaining that the guys were taking THEIR stuff.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I don't think that's part of the trial. It's preliminaries, and stuff that often enough never makes it into the trial. I sure didn't follow it.


LOL...BUT..but...isnt the preliminary testimony important in whether impeaching a witness or corroberating a statement made?..So is it not revalent?..and when I see stuff spinned/ignored..I just have to point out what I heard as legal statement or testimony..Sorry'bout that..LOL

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

LOL...Insults don't bother me either. Disguised or otherwise.
Back to Riccio though….Did he ever mention at any other time that the gun(s) were pointed anywhere other than at him?

Dont know if Riccio testified to that fact or not previous..maybe he was never asked that question?..But its suffice to say he saw that gun being waved around.and he testiied to that fact when asked by the jury.....HUMM

LMS

[CamV]

Whoooops! Sorry about that. I'm not sure about before, but I think so. I can't prove it though.

[legalmania]

LegalMania, if you are still around…thanks for the link on the Beardsley/Riccio fiasco…So he was going to boil the family cat huh? If that wasn’t such a cruel thought it would be hilarious….maybe Riccio is right. Maybe he really is a lunatic….

I'm still here somewhere under all these boxes. He also threatened the LE family, not a smart thing to do.

[Details]

LOL...BUT..but...isnt the preliminary testimony important in whether impeaching a witness or corroberating a statement made?..So is it not revalent?..and when I see stuff spinned/ignored..I just have to point out what I heard as legal statement or testimony..Sorry'bout that..LOL

LMSIt's relevant for the attorneys, and good info - but if someone says they're following a trial, I sure don't assume they know the preliminaries, nor anything else that isn't presented in the trial.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

No one is insulting you, once again you are confused. You aren't doing yourself any favors by making it clear that you aren't following this trial.

Your question doesn't make sense.

mho


:biggrin:

LMS..

[Details]

I meant before that...;)I'm unsure. He seems to have been quite outraged and shocked by the gun being pointed at him, so that was his primary focus, but I recall someone - not sure if it was him or Fromong, saying the gun was being waved all around at everyone.

[legalmania]

I just finished reading it..Wow! That is all I can say...:)


I wonder which Beardsly we will see on the stand? I'm sure the prosecutor will make sure he takes his meds before taking the stand.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

It's relevant for the attorneys, and good info - but if someone says they're following a trial, I sure don't assume they know the preliminaries, nor anything else that isn't presented in the trial.

:D..Oh I get it..so I wonder..since many of us saw the premlim..and have read transcrips and understand the history..we shouldnt share??Just askin?
LMS

[Freygea]

Are they taking a break?

[Details]

:D..Oh I get it..so I wonder..since many of us saw the premlim..and have read transcrips and understand the history..we shouldnt share??Just askin?
LMSDefinitely share. Just don't be surprised when some of us don't know it. And of course, the jury will make their decision based on what makes it into the trial. But the background is fascinating, and if a story varies from preliminary and initial statements into trial testimony, it's interesting to see how and if that is brought out by the attorneys.

They're back - Ehrlich.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Are they taking a break?


Yepers..they were to be back almost half an hour ago..but given all the fiewarks..maybe they need to sort out a few things....LOL

LMS:seeya:

[legalmania]

This guy is 54? Man! Some people just do not age well...

Now Now flere.

[cherylt]

It's relevant for the attorneys, and good info - but if someone says they're following a trial, I sure don't assume they know the preliminaries, nor anything else that isn't presented in the trial.

Right & besides the fact, MOST premlins are not recorded and played on TV (in session). There usually aren't even a lot of articles regarding them... OJ was a rare exception where they really covered it from Crime to trial date, inlcuding all those "status meetings."

[legalmania]

Right & besides the fact, MOST premlins are not recorded and played on TV (in session). There usually aren't even a lot of articles regarding them... OJ was a rare exception where they really covered it from Crime to trial date, including all those "status meetings."


I thought that hearing was more like an evidentiary hearing than a preliminary hearing.

[ohgia]

I'm confused - who is the gentleman on the stand right now? Who is the man with the blue suit & red tie? Is this direct or cross examination?

Thanks!

[legalmania]

I'm confused - who is the gentleman on the stand right now? Who is the man with the blue suit & red tie? Is this direct or cross examination?

Thanks!

The attorney is David Rogers for the prosecution.

[JBL]

Interesting. Mr. Charles Ehrlich describes the OJ booty as Merchandise or Memorabilia. NEVER heirlooms.

He also puts a cash figure on it that OJ gave him $100.000

Sing it Charlie tell it like it is.

[cherylt]

I thought this was more like an evidentiary hearing than a preliminary hearing.


I meant all hearings leading up to the actual trial date.

How did your move go? Or are you still moving?

[vonna]

"yes, oh yes, they were waving -- at the two guys -- whose stuff that was rightfully theirs"

I'm pretty sure I got that verbatim.

"that was rightfully theirs" was.

imo<--- because it's da rule...

Isn't it obvious that Riccio is trying to preserve his future relationship with OJ by being devious about whether or not OJ must have seen the gun???? I hope there's something the state can do to him. This creep gives capitalism a bad name and should be the poster child for total selfishness.

[legalmania]

I meant all hearings leading up to the actual trial date.

How did your move go? Or are you still moving?

Thanks for asking, I have moved into a house in Northern Georgia and I am no where near, being done. The movers were a pain. Where do you want this where do you want that. I just had them move the boxes in the garage and had them carry the heavy stuff upstairs. For over 5 grand they should have done a lot more, but I was so tired from the drive, I didn't think it through.

[Details]

I love this exchange: "Can you describe the gun?" "It was a black gun". Just funny compared to someone who is in LE or otherwise knows guns, to the expert testimony we'd often hear given for a murder trial. LE or an expert will answer that question with a paragraph, this guy has one word.

[Lqqkout]

I agree w/ your assessment. Why would McClinton add the gun testimony after 1st talking to police? Because it would give him a harsher sentence! Then, oops, people saw me w/ it, I better fess up to my part & tell the truth or I will going away for an even longer time.
IMO - he has no reason to lie now and I sure don't believe the Prosecution is going to make him say "OJ told me to bring it", if indeed it wasn't true....IMO / JMO and all that.

Why would he add it??? It is obvious. The objective of this sham of a trial is to "get" OJ any way they can. The LE will be famous if they finally bring OJ to his knees. By Michael Mc. adding this tidbit, it first ensures OJ a guilty verdict on gun charges and secondly and most important to Michael is a reduced sentence, possibly even probation. What a great deal, possible probation or 35 years. I'll say anything you want!!! Do you really think the prosecution wear white hats?

[Lqqkout]

The tapes and the witnesses say OJ was standing right in front of them, yelling at them - I'd imagine possibly turning from one to the other, likely enough sometimes looking at or pointing at stuff on the bed or elsewhere in the room to emphasize his point. But what we know was he was in front of those two guys. And the gun was pointed at them whenever they objected to their stuff being stolen.

No way did he miss it. It'd be strong-arm robbery without the guns - they're taking stuff without permission, but with the guns, it's an additional charge, and no way did he not know.

And I say with your description of the scene, OJ definitely did NOT see the gun, not in those cramped quarters. Think of a tiny room with all of these large men standing behind you. Can you really say with 100% certainty that you would see the gun?

[llylabrat]

I have been wondering what all the fuss is about "speaking ojbections" so I looked it up...

"Speaking objections are nothing more than an interruption of opposing counsel with a speech rather than a simple, succinct objection"


http://www.utahbar.org/barjournal/archives/000267.html

[cherylt]

Why would he add it??? It is obvious. The objective of this sham of a trial is to "get" OJ any way they can. The LE will be famous if they finally bring OJ to his knees. By Michael Mc. adding this tidbit, it first ensures OJ a guilty verdict on gun charges and secondly and most important to Michael is a reduced sentence, possibly even probation. What a great deal, possible probation or 35 years. I'll say anything you want!!! Do you really think the prosecution wear white hats?

No, I don't necessarily think they wear white hats, but I refuse to believe this is all a big conspiracy just to get OJ. HE is the one who started it and no one forced him into it. He wanted to get his stuff back. This obviously is MY opinion but I do not think that McClinton would lie because the PROS asked him to. You are free to your opinion. I am free to mine.

[legalmania]

I had forgotten about your move this weekend...
You should have come more southeast...It's not as cold here.:)

When I left Fla. it was about 87 and it was 65 when I got here. I was happy to move in the cooler weather. I am 1,000 feet up. I was so happy to see hills. So tired of flat land. The town I live in has never had a murder or rape and only one child molester. I'm 15 minutes from Atlanta and 20 minutes from Alabama. Downtown is 10 minutes away but when I look I out my window I see trees not buildings. I can breath air not fumes.

[cherylt]

When I left Fla. it was about 87 and it was 65 when I got here. I was happy to move in the cooler weather. I am 1,000 feet up. I was so happy to see hills. So tired of flat land. The town I live in has never had a murder or rape and only one child molester. I'm 15 minutes from Atlanta and 20 minutes from Alabama. Downtown is 10 minutes away but when I look I out my window I see trees not buildings. I can breath air not fumes.


Hey, you could have moved to NW NJ then. Very similar to what your setup is now (except, of course, it is colder here). We are very close to NY state & Pennsylvania. Trees & mountains all over...

What is your take on Ehrlich? Seems to me he is still nervous (understandably for anyone on a witness stand), wonder if he'll be able to calm himself at some point..

[Lqqkout]

LOL...BUT..but...isnt the preliminary testimony important in whether impeaching a witness or corroberating a statement made?..So is it not revalent?..and when I see stuff spinned/ignored..I just have to point out what I heard as legal statement or testimony..Sorry'bout that..LOL

LMS

Preliminary hearings along with any statements are very important in determining whether or not a witness has changed their testimony.

[Lqqkout]

No, I don't necessarily think they wear white hats, but I refuse to believe this is all a big conspiracy just to get OJ. HE is the one who started it and no one forced him into it. He wanted to get his stuff back. This obviously is MY opinion but I do not think that McClinton would lie because the PROS asked him to. You are free to your opinion. I am free to mine.

I agree, but the LE in testimony said "they couldn't get him in California, but we will" or very similar, not verbatim, so my mind always goes to conspiracy especially when fame is the prize.

[legalmania]

Hey, you could have moved to NW NJ then. Very similar to what your setup is now (except, of course, it is colder here). We are very close to NY state & Pennsylvania. Trees & mountains all over...

What is your take on Ehrlich? Seems to me he is still nervous (understandably for anyone on a witness stand), wonder if he'll be able to calm himself at some point..

I have a lease option on the house because I'm not sure if I'll like it or not. I had relative who lived in NJ for years but they just moved to NC because they said NJ was getting bad, Islip is that right?
I think Ehrlich is very nervous. Hope he doesn't get battered by the defense.

[llylabrat]

OMG! did they really say that? That is what I am been saying since this began....:lol:

A lot of people say if this wasn't OJ, the case wouldn't have gone to court. I say if this was Joe Schmoe, he woulda already been in jail serving his term unless he had lots of $$ to hire attorneys. Joe Schmoe with a public defender would have been toast by now.

[legalmania]

Oh well, at least its very pretty up there in most places: kind of like Vermont without all the snow. I hope you love it once you get settled in.


Yes it's very pretty so far, clean it's a new town the house is only 3 years old. 3500 sq.ft 4/3 only 141,000. Not bad and 50% of my rent goes towards the down payment if I want it.

[Lqqkout]

Are the Preliminary Statements coming into evidence?

Preliminary hearings are always evidence when trying to REFRESH one's memory to what was said immediately after the incident.

[cherylt]

I have a lease option on the house because I'm not sure if I'll like it or not. I had relative who lived in NJ for years but they just moved to NC because they said NJ was getting bad, Islip is that right?
I think Ehrlich is very nervous. Hope he doesn't get battered by the defense.

Funny about "getting bad". I am no where near Islip & it's funny what perceptions are. At least 3/4 of the state is BEAUTIFUL. Mountains, shores, trees, but there are a few towns that most people think of that are bad - Paterson, Newark, etc... But Islip, isn't that in NY? :)

Yeah, I agree and hope the defense doesn't beat him up too badly...
At least HE doesn't talk on and on.... :)

[cherylt]

Does she even have a "patience meter" anymore?? :)

[llylabrat]

:biggrin: did you see how erlich looked at rogers with his hand over his mouth and his big eyes looking up quizically? lolololol

[llylabrat]

The judge's drama is to cover her ineptitude!

She is pitiful.


A lot of people praise her, but I am not that impressed. She is trying to maintain control, but it takes too much yelling, cajolling, etc.

[cherylt]

I agree, but the LE in testimony said "they couldn't get him in California, but we will" or very similar, not verbatim, so my mind always goes to conspiracy especially when fame is the prize.

The DA or someone like that said that publicly to the media!?? Well that was certainly inappropriate if he/she did that. This case should have NOTHING to do with 1994 no matter how much people may want him to do jail time for something, ANYthing...

[cherylt]

Islip is on Long Island (NY). Don't know about Long Island but alot of New Jersey is beautiful: famous for peaches.

& tomatoes!!

[cherylt]

i have missed the whole days discussion. yall have been chatty today!

is it me or does erlich seem a little confused?


Confused, nervous, antsy, take your pick! ;)

[legalmania]

Funny about "getting bad". I am no where near Islip & it's funny what perceptions are. At least 3/4 of the state is BEAUTIFUL. Mountains, shores, trees, but there are a few towns that most people think of that are bad - Paterson, Newark, etc... But Islip, isn't that in NY? :)

Yeah, I agree and hope the defense doesn't beat him up too badly...
At least HE doesn't talk on and on.... :)

I am not sure maybe Islip is in New York when I went to visit my relatives they took me all over, I was so lost. We went to Penn. and that is beautiful also. Maybe Islip is upper state NY. I know it was a long drive to Manhattan. My Aunt lives in West New York New Jersey do you know where that is? All I know is you could see the Towers from her house.

[JBL]

I can't believe all the hecklers here. Judge, witness's flowers put down, moves? What the 'ell?

I thought testimony and court was pretty interesting. :shrug:

[cherylt]

Oh my, Yale gave his girlfriend a job! AND

He introduced Yale to a girlfriend years ago. Shouldn't Grasso be doing this cross?????

[cherylt]

I am not sure maybe Islip is in New York ***snipped***All I know is you could see the Towers from her house.


That is one of the more populated areas of the state but the other side of the state from me...couple hours away.

Seriously LM, WHY is YG doing this cross & not Grasso since they have such a history? Now isn't THIS conflict of interest? If nothing else, he may go way easier on him because they are/were friends or acquaintances...

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Are the Preliminary Statements coming into evidence?

Legal eagles will correct me..but it is my understanding that previous statements can and will be used to inpeach or cooroberate..so to that extent they will become part of the trial record..LOL

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Oh my, Yale gave his girlfriend a job! AND

He introduced Yale to a girlfriend years ago. Shouldn't Grasso be doing this cross?????

I agree ..Grasso should be doing this..Yale is showing his true colours..he is attempting to intimidate..and I think the jury will perceive that..it is not a joke..but stragedy..
LMS:punch:

[cherylt]

Well that sidebar must have been complicated - led to a dismissal for the day. END of court day.

Talk to you tomorrow. Have a good evening!!! :seeya:

[Lqqkout]

Does this Jury get to compare the two? Hmmm, the plot thick-ens...

The jury doesn't get a transcript of the prelim hearing, but it is used ALOT to refresh one's memory when testimony waivers from that hearing. Also the original statements are used to refresh when a witness somehow has a different scenario of events.

[legalmania]

That is one of the more populated areas of the state but the other side of the state from me...couple hours away.

Seriously LM, WHY is YG doing this cross & not Grasso since they have such a history? Now isn't THIS conflict of interest? If nothing else, he may go way easier on him because they are/were friends or acquaintances...

He is trying to prove there was no conflict of interest. The only way it would have been a conflict is if Yale represented both OJ and Ehrlich for the same case.

My uncle lived in Islip my Aunt lives in West NY, NJ. In south Fla. where I was living it is bad. I couldn't control it but Iraqis are buying up all the property down there. It was scaring me. They could be nice people but who knows.

[Details]

Wonder what he brought up. But they've had a good long day - finally done with Riccio (at last), and this guy is a pretty easy witness. Defense sure doesn't like his testimony about OJ talking about the guns.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Intimidate? Didn't see that.

Oh, I guess he is going to fire Erlich's (ugh) girlfriend!:D


Not at all..it just suggests..I know sh$$ about you..so you wanna fight? yale shiuld nit be crossing him..Let Grasso do the dirty work
LMShammer

[legalmania]

Not at all..it just suggests..I know sh$$ about you..so you wanna fight? yale shiuld nit be crossing him..Let Grasso do the dirty work
LMShammer


Yale has done nothing wrong. It's best that he cross examine Ehrlich because as I said before he has to have represented both OJ and Ehrlich for the same case. Which when it comes from the mans mouth it sounds and looks better to the jury.

[rulovlaw]

What the defense does not like is the prosecution putting words into his mouth, when they didnt get what they want.
Erlich said he wasnt sure WHO said put that away, they tried to show him where he said it in his statement (Almost a year later) But Erlich was trying to clarify that the detectives brought up "Could it have been OJ and he said it could, but he didnt know. The defense was just saying that Erlich didnt volunteer it was OJ, because he didnt know who said it.

Today the prosecution repeatedley tried to sway/twist statements, and indeed testify for the witness and then try to say the witness said it.


There are too many causes for appeal to count at this point.
Hearsay up the ying yang, Use of non evidence as evidence.. Testifying, and leading testimony. Inflamitory statements by the Lawyers and the judge, The judge allowing re-direct outside the scope of the cross..Etc Etc...
These are the worst witnesses Ive ever seen the way they being allowed to ramble on and on.
Ive never seen a Trial like this where a judge takes obvious offense when a Lawyer rightly objects on behalf of a defendant. The Bias of this judge is glaringly obvious, She alone will be grounds for appeal if OJ is convicted.

This is one wacky trial.. And that judge better get a refund on her plane tickets, I dont see this trial moving too quickly.

JMHO

[Lqqkout]

OMG! did they really say that? That is what I am been saying since this began....:lol:

Pia, Here ya go.....http://www.nypost.com/seven/09182008/news/nationalnews/lawyer__cops_seemed_intent_to_convict_oj_129704.ht m

[Lqqkout]

What the defense does not like is the prosecution putting words into his mouth, when they didnt get what they want.
Erlich said he wasnt sure WHO said put that away, they tried to show him where he said it in his statement (Almost a year later) But Erlich was trying to clarify that the detectives brought up "Could it have been OJ and he said it could, but he didnt know. The defense was just saying that Erlich didnt volunteer it was OJ, because he didnt know who said it.

Today the prosecution repeatedley tried to sway/twist statements, and indeed testify for the witness and then try to say the witness said it.


There are too many causes for appeal to count at this point.
Hearsay up the ying yang, Use of non evidence as evidence.. Testifying, and leading testimony. Inflamitory statements by the Lawyers and the judge, The judge allowing re-direct outside the scope of the cross..Etc Etc...
These are the worst witnesses Ive ever seen the way they being allowed to ramble on and on.
Ive never seen a Trial like this where a judge takes obvious offense when a Lawyer rightly objects on behalf of a defendant. The Bias of this judge is glaringly obvious, She alone will be grounds for appeal if OJ is convicted.

This is one wacky trial.. And that judge better get a refund on her plane tickets, I dont see this trial moving too quickly.

JMHO

ITA It's like she is telling Mr.Galanter to sit there and not interrupt. She might as well put tape over his mouth and this is preventing OJ from getting a fair trial. Also, when she says "Thank you very much. Now sit down", she is insulting him for doing a great job as defense attorney. She truly is the worst judge I've ever watched including Judge Halverson.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I simlpy dont get Yale trying to familiarize himself personally with this witnes..I did some research..Our witness..who seems straight foreward on the stand is not a "Lily White" witness..here's a link to his history...LOL

Charles Ehrlich, 53, a real-estate agent, knew Simpson from Miami, where he also lives. Ehrlich’s criminal record includes a cocaine-trafficking conviction in the 1990s and a 2004 charge of defrauding investors in a Florida stock-buying scheme.


http://www.jurorthirteen.com/GeneralCategories/CurrentTrials/OJSimpsonTrial/tabid/754/Default.aspx

Man oh man..to think that Yale possibly introduced OJ and Charles Ehrlich..HUMMM

LMS:no:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

ITA It's like she is telling Mr.Galanter to sit there and not interrupt. She might as well put tape over his mouth and this is preventing OJ from getting a fair trial. Also, when she says "Thank you very much. Now sit down", she is insulting him for doing a great job as defense attorney. She truly is the worst judge I've ever watched including Judge Halverson.

Please give me a break..your bias is showing..sooo obvious..and the blinders you sport is just so legally innaccurate..It seems you want the prosecution to wear those blindfolds along with mouth gags..and let the defense spew their spin willy nilly..and expect it to float..sorry it just doesnt float in my view..and once more those tapes coorpberate witnesses statements..unless they change their views..and then one would wonder why??and I dont it has a thing to do with the truth of the matter..but what agenda one is following closely.????

And for you to compare Judge Glass to Elizabeth Halverson tells much as well??HUMM


LMS:punch:

[legalmania]

Well I have to start going through boxes. Lucky me. I tried to mark all the boxes, but the movers just piled them on top of each other I just hope they didn't break my china. :seeya:

[legalmania]

What the defense does not like is the prosecution putting words into his mouth, when they didnt get what they want.
Erlich said he wasnt sure WHO said put that away, they tried to show him where he said it in his statement (Almost a year later) But Erlich was trying to clarify that the detectives brought up "Could it have been OJ and he said it could, but he didnt know. The defense was just saying that Erlich didnt volunteer it was OJ, because he didnt know who said it.

Today the prosecution repeatedley tried to sway/twist statements, and indeed testify for the witness and then try to say the witness said it.


There are too many causes for appeal to count at this point.
Hearsay up the ying yang, Use of non evidence as evidence.. Testifying, and leading testimony. Inflamitory statements by the Lawyers and the judge, The judge allowing re-direct outside the scope of the cross..Etc Etc...
These are the worst witnesses Ive ever seen the way they being allowed to ramble on and on.
Ive never seen a Trial like this where a judge takes obvious offense when a Lawyer rightly objects on behalf of a defendant. The Bias of this judge is glaringly obvious, She alone will be grounds for appeal if OJ is convicted.

This is one wacky trial.. And that judge better get a refund on her plane tickets, I dont see this trial moving too quickly.

JMHO

Welcome I see your new to this site. You have some good opinions hope you come back soon. Sometimes you will find yourself in some really strong debates so if you like to argue you've come to the right place.

[rulovlaw]

Welcome I see your new to this site. You have some good opinions hope you come back soon. Sometimes you will find yourself in some really strong debates so if you like to argue you've come to the right place.

Thanks legalmania
I actually used to post here years ago when it was courttv boards and had to re-register after it changed to In Session.
I do enjoy healthy debate, so Im sure I will get my share here.:)
I also know that my point of view is in the minority, but thats ok, I can take it. *lol*
As a resident of Las Vegas, Im hopeful that the jury will be openminded and apply the law without bias.
Ive watched plenty of trials, and have a strong interest in the Court System... But I find myself wanting to reach through my screen and give this judge a good shake, SHE is driving me crazy, She seems oblivious as to the rules of court, Its almost like she is winging it, and very unclear and clueless about how the process works.. She is always on the defensive and bitchy. She cant make a ruling without a long bitchfest or scolding, and half the times forgets to even rule for the record.
I truly think the woman is Bi-Polar from her attitude and behaviour, And unqualified based on her rulings(?).

JMO

[JBL]

Let's face it. Gilbert didn't steal ANYTHING from OJ's trophy room. He, Cahty Randa and OJ's sister took those items from the trophy room in order to hide them from the Goldmans. Some time later, after OJ had relocated to Florida, Gilbert failed to deliver ALL of OJ's removed items to him in Miami. OJ knew where his stuff was and who had it, but OJ's hands were too dirty to report it stolen.

That's the way I see it.

[Wukong]

Islip is on Long Island, about 40 miles from NYC. I grew up there...excellent place.


I am not sure maybe Islip is in New York when I went to visit my relatives they took me all over, I was so lost. We went to Penn. and that is beautiful also. Maybe Islip is upper state NY. I know it was a long drive to Manhattan. My Aunt lives in West New York New Jersey do you know where that is? All I know is you could see the Towers from her house.

[AnnInOhio]

hmm sorry, i dont want it closed,

But would appreciate knowing what is wrong with what I posted and why it would cause the thread to be closed.

I have been posting on CTV for 8 + years, and if this is offensive, it's new and I need to know.

Thanks

I'd guess the b word??

[AnnInOhio]

I don't see how they can say this was a breaking and entering here. This was Riccio’s room and he not only invited them in but he led the way.

Where would I find a link that has the exact charges spelled out? Anyone know?

I don't think they were charged with B&E. They were charged with kidnappng, for inveighling and enticing Fromong & Beardsley to the room under false pretenses in order to rob them.

[JBL]

Two counts of first-degree kidnapping, a felony, carrying the possibility of life in state prison or a definite term of 15 years, depending on the sentencing judge's discretion. Parole eligibility begins after five years.
-
Two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, a felony, is punishible by a mandatory 2-15 years in prison, plus a possible additional 1-15 years for use of a weapon.
-
Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon, a felony, is punishible by 2-15 years in prison.
-
Coercion with use of a deadly weapon, a felony, is punishible by 2-12 years in prison.
-
Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, is punishible by 1-6 years in prison.
-
Conspiracy to commit kidnapping, a felony, is punishible by 1-6 years in prison.
-
Conspiracy to commit robbery, a felony, is punishible by 1-6 years in prison.
-
Conspiracy to commit a crime, a gross misdemeanor, is punishible by 1 year in county jail in prison.