TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23rd

[logbump]

Colorado has the Make My DAY law.

[AnnInOhio]

So who is up next?

[AnnInOhio]

Can you point out where I bashed anyone ?
I was not rude, I simply responded ro this persons statement to ME.
I have no problems with who believes what but Im entitled to point out that a persons opinion is not fact, especially when it goes against testimony or stated facts.How is pointing that out rude?
I dont come here to bash anyone, Just because I see the evidence how Its presented from BOTH sides does not mean I think Simpson is a "great guy" I dont presume know one way or the other, But I do think that those who know him would have a better perspective then anyone who has never met the man.

If I said anything that was taken as "Bashing" It was not intended as such.

For what it's worth, I didn't think you were bashing. On the other hand, I fully understand the other poster's enjoyment of this board being one of the most pleasant OJ Simpson discussions around. Pros and cons have been pretty respectful of each other's viewpoints, mostly because it's been kept to matters of legalities and what's going on with this trial itself, not just a re-hash of the past for sake of argument. I think we're all agreed it would be nice to keep it that way. And I'm sure Coldwater likes having us all playing so nicely together.

[Details]

In my ex state of Florida you can shoot someone if you feel threatened. I don't remember the law verbatim., but it was something like that.I think anywhere has that law - if your life is threatened, you may use deadly force. Of course, in this case, OJ enters with enough guys and guns that the victims cannot hope to defend themselves, even if they did have guns.

[legalmania]

Can you point out where I bashed anyone ?
I was not rude, I simply responded to this persons statement to ME.
I have no problems with who believes what but I entitled to point out that a persons opinion is not fact, especially when it goes against testimony or stated facts.How is pointing that out rude?
I don't come here to bash anyone, Just because I see the evidence how Its presented from BOTH sides does not mean I think Simpson is a "great guy" I don't presume know one way or the other, But I do think that those who know him would have a better perspective then anyone who has never met the man.

If I said anything that was taken as "Bashing" It was not intended as such.

Actually I think everyone here has heard my O.J. story and he was very affable. Everyone around him was laughing and seemed to enjoy his company.

[AnnInOhio]

Yale's dancing around the issue that OJ knew who took his stuff, when, why and could have found it's locations at the time it was taken if he asked...there was no "theft" from Rockingham hence OJ's stuff wasn't "stolen".

[Details]

Actually I think everyone here has heard my O.J. story and he was very affable. Everyone around him was laughing and seemed to enjoy his company.I think there's a difference of perspective here on this. I can see OJ as being affable - as in that in everyday life, when no one is bugging him, he can act quite pleasant and easygoing - affable.

But - my perspective - anyone who is a wife beater, who is a killer, who has a history of violence, is not affable, not pleasant, not a nice person at all. Just because they act that way sometimes, even many times, doesn't make them affable. Just means that's a mask they wear sometimes. I wouldn't be able to use that term about a wife-beater, no matter how pleasant they were to me.

So - to me - it's a term describing a person - not a behavior that happens sometimes.

[legalmania]

I think anywhere has that law - if your life is threatened, you may use deadly force. Of course, in this case, OJ enters with enough guys and guns that the victims cannot hope to defend themselves, even if they did have guns.

I don't know what they were thinking because between the size of that room, and all the people if anybody would have shot it could have ricochet and killed the wrong person, or went through the wall and killed someone else.

[Details]

So why does the state need this guy? What is the point?I'm not entirely sure. I see two reasons.

The first - prosecutor trick, bring up yet again (as if there's a juror who doesn't know this) that OJ was found responsible for Nicole and Ron's deaths.

The second - establishing the background of the stolen items - why Mike Gilbert had them, how he got them, why they were not reported stolen, why OJ might not have chosen to use a lawyer to get them back, were they stolen, and would Fromong and Beardsly have any reason to think them stolen, when indeed all this type of stuff of OJ's was no longer his posession.

The second is legitimate, the first is not. I'm sure both are motives. The defense has been trying to create jury nullification by going on and on about how these things were OJ's, and stolen - I think it's not only legitimate, but likely necessary to establish the real history here.

[AnnInOhio]

So OJ was "negligent" in those deaths, eh?

[legalmania]

Mania, as Judge Glass just said to Galanter, everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's yours.


Period. The End.

Which opinion are you referring to?

[legalmania]

So OJ was "negligent" in those deaths, eh?

A civil suits meaning is it is more likely than not that the person was responsible.

[AnnInOhio]

I think it's relevant that OJ's loss of royalties from his stupid book to the Goldmans were lost in close proximity to the date of this incident which, probably led to the interrogatories, is relevant to OJ's state of mind and motive. If that makes sense to anyone but me.

[AnnInOhio]

A civil suits meaning is it is more likely than not that the person was responsible.

Was he found to be liable or negligent regarding their deaths in civil court? Negligent implies that he failed to do something.

[legalmania]

Thank you...I'm just trying to figure out why this would be important to the states case...

I really feel sorry for this jury...This is only the second week right...:shrug:

I think it's a risky move on the prosecutors part to put this witness on, not only could it cause a mistrial but now their definetly giving grounds for a appeal.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Galanter is sure earning his fee!! wonder IF he will get paid???Oh...forgot there's off shore accounts..Galanter is actually digging a deeper whole for himself..and OJ..cause he is arguing apples and oranges..the bottom line is..OJ talked about the judgement from the Civil Case..and the turnover orders given to Fromong and Gilbert..and OJ knew about them and went on to say CLEARLY.."There is no way the Goldman's are going to get their hands on this stuff."...

As to the Interrogatory (not sure how to spell that) statements..OJ is claiming he has no assets..whether in is immediate possession or has rights to..Simple as that..SO his stuff doesnt even belong to him..he signed away those rights with that stroke of the pen..Galanter is adamant..but I think the evidentary value far outways the prejudicial value..

LMS:punch:

[Details]

Was he found to be liable or negligent regarding their deaths in civil court? Negligent implies that he failed to do something.Responsible for their deaths. As in - he did it, civil judgment for a huge amount of money to pay back the families.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Is this another break?

They are at a side bar..

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

From the sounds of this conversation even Judge Glass is worried something may be "blurted out"...why take that chance?

Judge Glass is going to give Mr. Cook a strong admonishment..and outline the scope of his testimony.and if he knows whats good for him.as an officer of the courts.he better be very careful he doesnot answer with anything beyond the specific testimony..!!

LMS

[legalmania]

Was he found to be liable or negligent regarding their deaths in civil court? Negligent implies that he failed to do something.


I would say liable. Negligence can't be summed up that easily there is mental, physical you have to show intent.

[rulovlaw]

Actually I think everyone here has heard my O.J. story and he was very affable. Everyone around him was laughing and seemed to enjoy his company.

I have also met him once, He was very friendly to me and my daughter.
But that was simply my impression at one chance meeting.
I would presume his friends who have known him for years and family have more insight as to his true personality.And they all seem to suggest he is very friendly and outgoing.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Anyone one know who that lady with the white/platinum blond hair that is sitting behind the defense?..last seat..on the aisle ..LL

LMS

[cherylt]

Is this another break?

I was going to ask one of you that! :) My computer started making "helicopter" noises before it froze really well. by the time, I restarted, I have no audio on cnn.

Oh, & this is day 7 of trial.

[Details]

From the sounds of this conversation even Judge Glass is worried something may be "blurted out"...why take that chance?Because pretty near the entire defense is that OJ was just there to get his stolen personal and sentimental belongings back from some lousy thieves. The prosecution does need to counter that defense by showing that it wasn't family photos, but valuable memorabilia, that it wasn't stolen, it was stuff that should have gone to his creditors that he appears to have decided to hide.

So this is useful testimony, and since the person testifying is an attorney, it's likely they will be sufficiently controlled on the stand not to say anything stupid.


If they don't introduce this, and a juror decides to holdout because they think it's something stolen from his house - that's not good either. Better to risk the appeal.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Lynda, as the gallant Gallanter (sic) just pointed out they didn't get OJ's Rolex....maybe Yale can live it up on that;)

LOL...But that "Rolex" wasnt really a legite Rolex..a fake one...LOL So not worh more than $500.00.LOL Cheepskate...

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Is that John McCain's mother behind OJ or just a look alike?
Tooooo Funnyyyy...LOL

LMS:D

[rulovlaw]

I think it's a risky move on the prosecutors part to put this witness on, not only could it cause a mistrial but now their definetly giving grounds for a appeal.

Yep.. Just another glaring example of this Judge's incompetance.

[cherylt]

i dunno about that. it seems to me that the only people around him, his socalledfriends are all people that make money off him. of course they are going to treat him like he's a king and all that. they keep making money off him.

and I don't think that Nicole would have thought him affable in between 911 calls for wife beating....

[Lyndawitha"Y]

i dunno about that. it seems to me that the only people around him, his socalledfriends are all people that make money off him. of course they are going to treat him like he's a king and all that. they keep making money off him.

He is surrounded by those who can feed his ego..like free golf..free flights..free hotels..and his firends..get compensated by promoting OJ..

It's something known as "Symbiotic Relationships"..Those based soley on what you get from the other..and when that no longer is in play..well..breakup of friendship...LOL...I think Mie Gilbert is just an example of the fallingout of such a relationship!!! He'll (OJ) feed his friends things like autographed footballs, shirts, books..in exchange for favors..LOL>>IF you wash my back...I'll scrub yours..

LMS:biggrin:

[legalmania]

I have also met him once, He was very friendly to me and my daughter.
But that was simply my impression at one chance meeting.
I would presume his friends who have known him for years and family have more insight as to his true personality.And they all seem to suggest he is very friendly and outgoing.

Yes to meet somebody and to know them are totally different. I'm sure that people at work have a different opinion of us than if we lived with them.

[cherylt]

Yes to meet somebody and to know them are totally different. I'm sure that people at work have a different opinion of us than if we lived with them.

Hey LM, are we back in session? All I see is differing views of the courtroom....


ETA - Sound and video on again, so nevermind...:)

[rulovlaw]

Galanter is sure earning his fee!! wonder IF he will get paid???Oh...forgot there's off shore accounts..Galanter is actually digging a deeper whole for himself..and OJ..cause he is arguing apples and oranges..the bottom line is..OJ talked about the judgement from the Civil Case..and the turnover orders given to Fromong and Gilbert..and OJ knew about them and went on to say CLEARLY.."There is no way the Goldman's are going to get their hands on this stuff."...

As to the Interrogatory (not sure how to spell that) statements..OJ is claiming he has no assets..whether in is immediate possession or has rights to..Simple as that..SO his stuff doesnt even belong to him..he signed away those rights with that stroke of the pen..Galanter is adamant..but I think the evidentary value far outways the prejudicial value..

LMS:punch:
He cannot claim it as a possesion if he has no knowledge of its location,who has it, or has any access to it.
He could not have claimed it.
OJ didnt know if the items had been sold,or destroyed until Aug 07.
He knew who had originally stolen it, but not what happened to it afterwards. Not until Riccio told him that Beardsley had access to it and was looking to sell it.

[Details]

I would presume his friends who have known him for years and family have more insight as to his true personality.And they all seem to suggest he is very friendly and outgoing.Friends and family often enough are shocked when their friend turns out to be a serial killer - I wouldn't be so sure. They know the public side of OJ. Those who know the private side - things are sometimes different.

But that aside - here in this trial, we see that his "friends" are all people out to get money via him, use him, there for the fame. Fromong the memorabilia dealer, Riccio the con, Yale the attorney, Ehnlich the ex-con, assorted thugs and hangers on. Those friends say quite a bit by their existence.

[cherylt]

He cannot claim it as a possesion if he has no knowledge of its location,who has it, or has any access to it.
He could not have claimed it.
OJ didnt know if the items had been sold,or destroyed until Aug 07.
He knew who had originally stolen it, but not what happened to it afterwards. Not until Riccio told him that Beardsley had access to it and was looking to sell it.

OR....

OJ told some of his friends to take his valuables & hide them for a while so the Goldman's couldn't get it for part of their judgement. Well, they hid it alright. They stole it right from under him instead of just secreting it; and OJ had no repercussions for that theft. If he went to the Police & they found the stuff it would go to the Goldman's. I think he would rather the stuff be "lost in space" then let the G's get one dime... (IMO/JMO and all that)

[cherylt]

Have a good night...I think I'll stay for a couple more minutes then I'm right behind you..

Me too. If I don't talk to you again later, have a good night & I'll talk to you tomorrow.:seeya:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

He cannot claim it as a possesion if he has no knowledge of its location,who has it, or has any access to it.
He could not have claimed it.
OJ didnt know if the items had been sold,or destroyed until Aug 07.
He knew who had originally stolen it, but not what happened to it afterwards. Not until Riccio told him that Beardsley had access to it and was looking to sell it.

All I will say is we just have to wait for Mr. Gilbert to testify what he knew..when and what he told OJ and when..and the timeline of the possession of all the items removed (by Gilbert and OJ's sister) to various storage units seized for lack of payment for rental fees.then sold at auction..So..we just have to wait and see..

BTW..I think OJ and Gilberts falling out was based on the disperment of those items..just a guess on my part there tho..

LMS:D

[legalmania]

Hey LM, are we back in session? All I see is differing views of the courtroom....


ETA - Sound and video on again, so nevermind...:)

Somebody said to send the jury home. This is not good for them. If these interruptions keep happening the jurors are going to become stressed and start dropping like flies, I've seen it happen before.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I agree with Stewart's attorney here but it might be in their favor for him to be tried right alongside OJ. So far I have only even heard his name when it comes to the defense on cross of the witnesses.

I think you are right there...Mr. Stewart may get lost in this trial.but when jurors deliberate..they will see his true culpability..and decide on that..He was not the planner..he did not bring the heat..But if he was judged separately the whole trial would focus on the strict letter of the law..Yepp..he is guilty to being party to an armed robbery..many years behind bars..I think he'll get a better shake sitting there along side of OJ.

LMS:D

[Details]

Somebody said to send the jury home. This is not good for them. If these interruptions keep happening the jurors are going to become stressed and start dropping like flies, I've seen it happen before.If the trial goes on for longer than anticipated, the jurors will drop even faster. Better to get on with it.

[Details]

I agree with Stewart's attorney here but it might be in their favor for him to be tried right alongside OJ. So far I have only even heard his name when it comes to the defense on cross of the witnesses.I think it's very much in his favor to be tried with OJ. He's not being elevated to being a bigger part than he really is, since the trial has the mastermind in it. If he was in his own trial, he'd be the focus. It's really helping both trials to be fair and accurate having them together.

[rulovlaw]

Friends and family often enough are shocked when their friend turns out to be a serial killer - I wouldn't be so sure. They know the public side of OJ. Those who know the private side - things are sometimes different.

But that aside - here in this trial, we see that his "friends" are all people out to get money via him, use him, there for the fame. Fromong the memorabilia dealer, Riccio the con, Yale the attorney, Ehnlich the ex-con, assorted thugs and hangers on. Those friends say quite a bit by their existence.

No question that he does not aways make good choices in friends or actions... But the statement was about whether or not OJ was affabel (sorry for the earlier misspelling) As was stated in court.. It was then argued here by people who dont know him that Oj was not affable.

Websters Dictionary
affable
One entry found.
Main Entry:
af·fa·ble
Pronunciation:
\ˈa-fə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English affabyl, from Anglo-French, from Latin affabilis, from affari to speak to, from ad- + fari to speak — more at ban
Date:
15th century
1 : being pleasant and at ease in talking to others <an affable host>
2 : characterized by ease and friendliness <an affable manner>

Dictionary.com
affable

5 dictionary results for: affable
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
af·fa·ble [af-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. pleasantly easy to approach and to talk to; friendly; cordial; warmly polite: an affable and courteous gentleman.
2. showing warmth and friendliness; benign; pleasant: an affable smile.
synonyms see gracious
— af·fa·bil·i·ty \ˌa-fə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun

Regardless of personal opinions of Simpsons guilt in this or any other case, Most everyone who has ever MET/KNOWN him (Even those who dont like him) agrees he is "Affable"
I dont understand why people choose to argue against fact, simply because they have strong opinions about the man.:shrug:

JMO
That was my original point

[rulovlaw]

OR....

OJ told some of his friends to take his valuables & hide them for a while so the Goldman's couldn't get it for part of their judgement. Well, they hid it alright. They stole it right from under him instead of just secreting it; and OJ had no repercussions for that theft. If he went to the Police & they found the stuff it would go to the Goldman's. I think he would rather the stuff be "lost in space" then let the G's get one dime... (IMO/JMO and all that)

???? Pure speculation, There is no evidence of that.
A person is tried,convicted or aquitted based on facts, NOT speculation.

[Details]

i think if stewart had his own trial, it would of been over already, he would be NG and the trial would of finished in 3 - 4 days. JMOI think tried alone, he'd be more likely to get a G. Hard to say, of course - but video and audio tape is pretty convincing.

[psbperu]

I am truly appreciative of this feed from KTLA & the comments by the 2 moderators. Can work on the computer whilst listening to them & waiting for a "break" to be over.

Good she sent the jury home.

The breaks seem to be getting longer & longer.

[cherylt]

???? Pure speculation, There is no evidence of that.
A person is tried,convicted or aquitted based on facts, NOT speculation.


And you are just taking OJ's word for it that he was robbed...

Not speculation, his stuff started disappearing right after the Goldman's won their civil suit.

[Details]

...Regardless of personal opinions of Simpsons guilt in this or any other case, Most everyone who has ever MET/KNOWN him (Even those who dont like him) agrees he is "Affable"
I dont understand why people choose to argue against fact, simply because they have strong opinions about the man.:shrug:

JMO
That was my original pointHe acts affable. I won't say he is affable. To me, that's a distinction. Someone who acts nice, but kills baby kittens on the weekends isn't nice - IMO - and I understand others have other definitions - I wouldn't say he is affable. He acts that way at times. And at other times he beats up and kills women. To me, that behavior means that however he acts sometimes, he IS not affable. He merely acts that way at times - even a lot of the time, even most of the time.

I act mellow most of the time out in the real world. I would not say I AM mellow. But I act that way. It's an important distinction - how you act when others are watching, versus what you are inside.

I think that is the reason some disagree with your original point. OJ acts affable - I can agree with that. OJ is affable - I don't agree. Of course, it's entirely fine for us to disagree on that and many other matters - that's the point of the forum.

[legalmania]

Everybody knows that attorneys fill out the interrogatories. Most laypersons don't even know what interrogatories are.

[Details]

Yeah, good stuff. And this attorney is easily able to answer these questions without bringing up irrelevant stuff about murders.

[rulovlaw]

And you are just taking OJ's word for it that he was robbed...

Not speculation, his stuff started disappearing right after the Goldman's won their civil suit.

Not just OJ's word, Fromong and Beardsley said as much as well.
OJ would have no cause.. NONE.. to hide his personal photographs or Items that did not fall within the scope of the judgement.

[legalmania]

Yeah, good stuff. And this attorney is easily able to answer these questions without bringing up irrelevant stuff about murders.

He wasn't part of the criminal case he is only the representative for the civil case.

[Details]

Not just OJ's word, Fromong and Beardsley said as much as well.
OJ would have no cause.. NONE.. to hide his personal photographs or Items that did not fall within the scope of the judgement.There is no such testimony that Fromong said or knew the items were stolen. There is some testimony from Riccio that contradicts the tapes where Beardsly does NOT say it was stolen. Only when faced with guns and OJ telling them the stuff was stolen is there anything with them saying the stuff was stolen. In fact, there's no testimony yet that the items were stolen at all - nothing to establish that.

And this was not personal photos, it was stuff that fit perfectly into the judgement.

[Details]

He wasn't part of the criminal case he is only the representative for the civil case.Yep, but that was the reason why Yale was objecting, that this would bring the murders in too much.

[legalmania]

There is no such testimony that Fromong said or knew the items were stolen. There is some testimony from Riccio that contradicts the tapes where Beardsly does NOT say it was stolen. Only when faced with guns and OJ telling them the stuff was stolen is there anything with them saying the stuff was stolen. In fact, there's no testimony yet that the items were stolen at all - nothing to establish that.

And this was not personal photos, it was stuff that fit perfectly into the judgement.

Doesn't Fromong say on the tape Mike took them? To me it sounds like he knew someone took them, why didn't he say I paid for these legally?

[legalmania]

Yep, but that was the reason why Yale was objecting, that this would bring the murders in too much.

I think he was more worried about the questions behind the interrogatories because the interrogatories were sent to OJ in February of 07' before OJ knew his stuff wasn't gone forever.

[legalmania]

I am tired more tomorrow got to go look through more boxes.:seeya:

[JBL]

You most certainly did. Let me refresh your memory


This would be a lose lose for John Q Public when someone enters your home - walks up to you on a street or wherever with a gun saying to give them what they claim to be their's back.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT! Any place anywhere!
Reply With Quote

You applied it to Mclinton - I never did.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I think he was more worried about the questions behind the interrogatories because the interrogatories were sent to OJ in February of 07' before OJ knew his stuff wasn't gone forever.

I think you are onto something there..Maybe Gilbert can give some context to the timeline of things..

LMS:shrug:

[JBL]

In my ex state of Florida you can shoot someone if you feel threatened. I don't remember the law verbatim., but it was something like that.

HUH? These guys brought guns to intimidate. Now should Fromong got up and shot these guys who came at him with a gun I'd say that was justified.

[Details]

Doesn't Fromong say on the tape Mike took them? To me it sounds like he knew someone took them, why didn't he say I paid for these legally?Read the transcripts or listen to the tapes - Fromong said not a word about them being stolen - up until he's being yelled at by OJ, and OJ tells him they were stolen. Up until that moment, not a word. Then he says he got them from Mike - Mike took them - based on OJ's characterization of these items as stolen.

Fromong bought them from Mike - no reason not to think they were legit - Mike worked for OJ, this would hardly be the first time OJ paid in memorabilia - heck, he was about to pay Riccio in the same coin. And with the civil judgement, they couldn't be OJ's - they'd be subject to the judgement, and not his anymore.


Just imagine yourself in Fromong's shoes. You buy your kid a bike from this guy Mike. All is good until the person who is supposed to be a dinner guest suddenly turns out to be Mikes buddy Sampson, with several large men yelling at you, frisking you, telling you you aren't going to leave, demanding to know how you dared take his stolen bike! What do you say? Do you tell the angry men that you think you own it, because you paid for it? Or do you point them at the guy you got it from - "I got it from Mike - Mike took it, not me!"? That's exactly what the tape sounds like. You've listened to it, right? OJ is not sounding open to reason, he's furious, yelling, how could you steal from me!

Fromong gives not the slightest impression he thinks these items are dirty, stolen. And indeed, when OJ leaves, they call the cops. Thieves, people recieving stolen property don't do that.

[JBL]

Not just OJ's word, Fromong and Beardsley said as much as well.
OJ would have no cause.. NONE.. to hide his personal photographs or Items that did not fall within the scope of the judgement.

Funny how Beardsley is discredited constantly as a nut case but they'll use a statement/s that they cling on to whether this stuff was stolen or not. Makes no sense.

[caphill]

Read the transcripts or listen to the tapes - Fromong said not a word about them being stolen - up until he's being yelled at by OJ, and OJ tells him they were stolen. Up until that moment, not a word. Then he says he got them from Mike - Mike took them - based on OJ's characterization of these items as stolen.

Fromong bought them from Mike - no reason not to think they were legit - Mike worked for OJ, this would hardly be the first time OJ paid in memorabilia - heck, he was about to pay Riccio in the same coin. And with the civil judgement, they couldn't be OJ's - they'd be subject to the judgement, and not his anymore.


Just imagine yourself in Fromong's shoes. You buy your kid a bike from this guy Mike. All is good until the person who is supposed to be a dinner guest suddenly turns out to be Mikes buddy Sampson, with several large men yelling at you, frisking you, telling you you aren't going to leave, demanding to know how you dared take his stolen bike! What do you say? Do you tell the angry men that you think you own it, because you paid for it? Or do you point them at the guy you got it from - "I got it from Mike - Mike took it, not me!"? That's exactly what the tape sounds like. You've listened to it, right? OJ is not sounding open to reason, he's furious, yelling, how could you steal from me!

Fromong gives not the slightest impression he thinks these items are dirty, stolen. And indeed, when OJ leaves, they call the cops. Thieves, people recieving stolen property don't do that.


As a friend of OJ's why didn't Fromong pick up the phone and call OJ to ask him if the items offered to him for purchase were litgit or were stolen?

[caphill]

HUH? These guys brought guns to intimidate. Now should Fromong got up and shot these guys who came at him with a gun I'd say that was justified.

The guys that actually had the guns are not sitting on trial for robbery with a weapon. Why should they escape prosecution? All these deals to get everyone off the hook except OJ is very apparent that this is just a way to "get OJ" and the DA and the lawyers to get their mug on TV.

[Lqqkout]

You applied it to Mclinton - I never did.

That was the point....He was the one with the gun...duh

[JBL]

The guys that actually had the guns are not sitting on trial for robbery with a weapon. Why should they escape prosecution? All these deals to get everyone off the hook except OJ is very apparent that this is just a way to "get OJ" and the DA and the lawyers to get their mug on TV.

:confused:
They didn't escape anything. They haven't been sentenced yet.

Michael McClinton

Pled guilty to robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. He could receive probation or up to 11 years in prison.

Walter Alexander

Pled guilty to felony conspiracy to commit robbery - could face probation or up to six years in prison. (he never took gun out of his waistband)

The only one "escaping" (if that words really appropriate) anything was Riccio. He didn't come in with guys wielding guns.

[JBL]

That was the point....He was the one with the gun...duh

That was your point not mine.

DUH? Get a grip. He didn't walk in alone for his sole benefit. He walked in with a gun on behalf of OJ Simpson just like everyone else. It was all on behalf of OJ SIMPSON and for OJ SIMPSON. It was a group effort. They all took part - all claimed their part with plea deals except for 2.

[Lqqkout]

He wasn't part of the criminal case he is only the representative for the civil case.

very good :beer:

[Lqqkout]

Yep, but that was the reason why Yale was objecting, that this would bring the murders in too much.

No, that's not why. Do you really think anyone needs to be reminded?

[Lqqkout]

There is no such testimony that Fromong said or knew the items were stolen. There is some testimony from Riccio that contradicts the tapes where Beardsly does NOT say it was stolen. Only when faced with guns and OJ telling them the stuff was stolen is there anything with them saying the stuff was stolen. In fact, there's no testimony yet that the items were stolen at all - nothing to establish that.

And this was not personal photos, it was stuff that fit perfectly into the judgement.

Yes, but Riccio told OJ they were the personal photos that were stolen according to testimony. Even after Riccio learned these were not what he had promised OJ, Riccio decided it was in his (Riccio's) best interest $$$$ not to tell him.

[JBL]

No, that's not why. Do you really think anyone needs to be reminded?

They certainly do need to be reminded. They need to be reminded that what OJ claims to be his memorabilia was subject to a turn over order. Was he doing this on behalf of the Goldmans?
That's what OJ took memorabilia subject to a turn over order plus Fromong's items.

Doesn't matter that he accidently took Fromongs items. They were packed up by a group which included two guys with guns. A little late to say oops we didn't mean to steal that once you removed it from the room.

Another oops, they weren't my family photos either?

Tons of stuff out there with OJ's name on it - doesn't mean it's all his.

[JBL]

Yes, but Riccio told OJ they were the personal photos that were stolen according to testimony. Even after Riccio learned these were not what he had promised OJ, Riccio decided it was in his (Riccio's) best interest $$$$ not to tell him.

How did OJ not notice this? There were no family photo's. I guess he missed that like he missed the guns.

Like Riccio - OJ went ahead with his plan also. To be a Big Shot surrounded by a posse.

[Lqqkout]

Read the transcripts or listen to the tapes - Fromong said not a word about them being stolen - up until he's being yelled at by OJ, and OJ tells him they were stolen. Up until that moment, not a word. Then he says he got them from Mike - Mike took them - based on OJ's characterization of these items as stolen.

Fromong bought them from Mike - no reason not to think they were legit - Mike worked for OJ, this would hardly be the first time OJ paid in memorabilia - heck, he was about to pay Riccio in the same coin. And with the civil judgement, they couldn't be OJ's - they'd be subject to the judgement, and not his anymore.


Just imagine yourself in Fromong's shoes. You buy your kid a bike from this guy Mike. All is good until the person who is supposed to be a dinner guest suddenly turns out to be Mikes buddy Sampson, with several large men yelling at you, frisking you, telling you you aren't going to leave, demanding to know how you dared take his stolen bike! What do you say? Do you tell the angry men that you think you own it, because you paid for it? Or do you point them at the guy you got it from - "I got it from Mike - Mike took it, not me!"? That's exactly what the tape sounds like. You've listened to it, right? OJ is not sounding open to reason, he's furious, yelling, how could you steal from me!

Fromong gives not the slightest impression he thinks these items are dirty, stolen. And indeed, when OJ leaves, they call the cops. Thieves, people recieving stolen property don't do that.

Do you honestly feel OJ might have paid Mike with his personal mementos? I think that is a basic fact of the difference of opinions on this board. I believe OJ truly thought he was recovering personal family photos. You believe OJ was robbing these guys of memorabilia that rightfully belongs to the Goldmans/Simpson children. I also feel that when OJ was shouting at Fromong "You stole my stuff", Fromong would have said I bought it from Mike, not "Mike took it" IMO

[JBL]

OJ went in screaming and went directly after Fromong and Beardsley. He never even bothered to see what was there.

That tells me his priority wasn't anything but to rough up these guys and intimidation. The was his #1 priority. He accomplished it.

Anywhere on the tape does OJ ask where's my photos?
Anywhere on the tape does OJ tell the others this is mine, this is mine, that is mine. Nope - he wants these two guys to be intimidated by him while he leaves the dirty work to the other guys. The gun wielders, the carriers of stolen property which is now really stolen accept by the guys who carried it out of the room not in the room.

OJ didn't carry anything out and he didn't have a gun so he should be vindicated by your standards.

:lol:

[Lqqkout]

How did OJ not notice this? There were no family photo's. I guess he missed that like he missed the guns.

Like Riccio - OJ went ahead with his plan also. To be a Big Shot surrounded by a posse.

What????????/:shrug: Did you watch the trial? Riccio found out the family photos weren't there when he was lugging the stuff up to his hotel room w/Fromong and Beardsley. He kept saying over and over, "where is the personal stuff"? The buyer isn't going to want this stuff. He wants the personal stuff" But does he tell OJ this info on the phone just before the heist? No !!! because Riccio wanted $$$$$$$$$ for a tape whatever was on iy. He is the one who belongs in jail, not immunity.

[JBL]

What????????/:shrug: Did you watch the trial? Riccio found out the family photos weren't there when he was lugging the stuff up to his hotel room w/Fromong and Beardsley. He kept saying over and over, "where is the personal stuff"? The buyer isn't going to want this stuff. He wants the personal stuff" But does he tell OJ this info on the phone just before the heist? No !!! because Riccio wanted $$$$$$$$$ for a tape whatever was on iy. He is the one who belongs in jail, not immunity.

Yep watched it alright. Apparently OJ didn't care what was there. Does he not have eyes? That's all he needed to see this. How did this escape OJ while his cronies were carrying the booty out? He walked right past it. He was out for retribution against what he precieved as being wronged. It was PAYBACK. That's all OJ cared about.

[JBL]

Riccio was conducting business. He heard OJ booty was going up for sale and told OJ. Not out of the goodness of his heart. Because he was doing OJ a favor to get a favor in return. Books signed. He was out for a profit from day one.

My stance has really changed on Riccio's part. He did nothing wrong accept conducting business. Bartering which is his line of work.

[JBL]

Do you honestly feel OJ might have paid Mike with his personal mementos? I think that is a basic fact of the difference of opinions on this board. I believe OJ truly thought he was recovering personal family photos. You believe OJ was robbing these guys of memorabilia that rightfully belongs to the Goldmans/Simpson children. I also feel that when OJ was shouting at Fromong "You stole my stuff", Fromong would have said I bought it from Mike, not "Mike took it" IMO

Did OJ go there to rob them no. It turned into an armed robbery. Why? The photos have always been a red herring. He wanted his $$$ memorabilia that he hid. No one was going to profit off of his items he hid. He hid these from the Goldmans. They no longer belonged to anyone in the Simpson clan. He lost them. More important to OJ is no one pulls one over on OJ. That's why things went south. OJ was out for retribution first and foremost. Then the memorabilia.

Last thing noticed THERE WERE NO FAMILY PHOTO'S. That should have been the first thing asked. He went after what was priority on his list. Someone he thought wronged him.

[JBL]

Didn't Riccio say there was nothing of value as memorabilia, really? A pic of OJ with J. Edgar Hoover, A Hall of Fame Certificate, a Game Ball.

If it wasn't valuable to Riccio, then it couldn't have been valuable to
the Goldmans, except for pennies.

Riccio was the puppet master. He knew OJ's book was coming out that day, supposedly. Doing two things here. Hoping to ingratiate himself with OJ and Hoped to get copies signed by OJ. Hoped to make the book more publicity by getting OJ taped doing a 'robbery'. Hoped to keep out of trouble by going to FBI. Hoped to make $$$$$ from TMZ.
Get his face all over TV and promote his business.

OJ is just a stupid, trusting BOZO. The poor guy probably has an IQ of
the character he played in Naked Gun.

OJ is far from a BOZO. IMO he's a very dangerous man who will do anything for retribution to someone he believes wronged him.

He's got an out of control temper that he needs to teach someone a lesson first then ask questions.

Darn right Riccio ingratiates himself onto people he wants to make a deal with. What salesman that wants to eat and have a roof over their head doesn't? He's no puppet master. He wheel/deals barters to make the deal.

[JBL]

If he didn't kill Nicole, then he has been wronged by a whole lot of
people, wouldn't you agree? Maybe that is why he has a chip on his
shoulder.

Nicole did wrong him. She had an affair with his buddy Marcus Allen.

I'm sure that was unbearable. One of many unbearable wrongs I bet to OJ.

He was found not guilty of the murders. Never innocent of the crime. Never cleared. The murderer is still out there.

[JBL]

The Civil suit is the cruxed of the case to how it was possible that someone was able to get there hands on them in the first place.

These items were not OJ's. They were hidden assets. Why were they hidden? Because of the Civil suit turn over order.

It has everything to do with the case.

I admit I was sidetracked about the murders but I don't dwell on it.

And yes it is a fine line. The civil suit came about because of the murders.

It's all connected.

Your separation of these issues are not giving you the entire picture as to why these items ended up how they did. OJ wants them back alright, but he wanted the guys he thinks stole them from his hiding place first.

[rulovlaw]

Just caught up a little and wanted to say something before I head off to bed…

The fact that these items that were taken, legally are now the Goldman’s and why, should be totally irrelevant and left out of THIS trial. No one needs to be reminded of the murders, who committed them, who we think committed or who was acquitted of them; it has nothing to do with this case.

I cannot speak for everyone but for me that is the huge issue here. This case is about an alleged armed robbery. Committed by OJ Simpson and others…allegedly of course. The only reason I can see Mr. Cook’s testimony brought into this is to inflame the jury more so than they already possibly are.

There is probably less than 10% of the people in this country that do not know of the details of the civil case and what should belong to the Goldman family. Way less than that which do not know of the criminal trial and the outcome.

If we listen to the tapes it is very clear that OJ wanted the personal items. Otherwise Riccio would not have been so adamant about them when they were unloading the car. Quite frankly I thought he sounded upset that all this other “crap” as he put it being in the mix. Had OJ wanted this other stuff, I don’t think Riccio would have kept saying ‘personal items’ as much as he did.

What he should have done was let OJ know this before bringing them all to the room…while I am on that subject, why don’t we have a conversation of that meeting right before they all entered the room?
Are we sure that Riccio didn’t have two recorders? I am still confused about when he placed this one on the armoire. Did Beardsley and/or Fromong step out of the room sometime before Riccio went to get the others? We know he had it in his pocket when they were bringing the things into the room, so when did he remove it from his pocket?

Just as others have said, IMO he (Riccio) knew that if OJ knew these other items were not there, he would not have went through with this. As Erhlich (sp?) testified to today, Riccio was insistent it be done “tonight”…why was that? What was the big hurry?

I don’t buy that Riccio had the tapes and cooperated is why he got the immunity deal. He had already sold them by the time he allowed LE to have them. They should have had them subpoenaed as soon as he informed them that he had them. Wasn’t that the very same evening? At least by the next day because they said it took eight days to get them from him.

Right n the money.. Riccio got a little panicky when the items were not the personal photo's that OJ was interested in.
OJ clearly stated on one of the many recordings that he didnt care about the Memorabilia, and only wanted his personal sh!t.
Riccio knew if the original plan happened OJ would probably call it off.
As soon as Charlie looked over the items, came back and told OJ what was in the room It would have been over.
The Infamous book was coming out in 2 days, and Riccio needed this all to go down to sell the tapes, + hopefully get his books signed because they would be more notorious and have a higher value after tis incident.. Riccio could not risk the deal falling though so he prevented that by hurrying into the lobby, and encouraging all the guys to come to the room and take OJ's stuff.. I have no doubt that he assured OJ the items were his.. Again, OJ is guilty of being very stupid and gullable.
Its just too obvious that the "Lobby exchange" was not recorded considering every factor in this case was recorded "Except that".

Was OJ pissed and upset with Fromong?? Yes.. No Doubt.
Did he plan and intend to commit Robbery?? No.
He is on tape stating he didnt even want to enter the room, and that if they didnt give him the stuff, or insist on keeping it they(Simpson and friends) could not take it. To me that is not Robbery.

IMO

[geragoes]

Mr. Erlich,

Thank you for letting us in to the inner OJ circle.

" I'm going to need a bail bondsman."

GAME SET MATCH

:hat:

[JBL]

Okay, let’s say this was just an ordinary ‘alleged’ robbery armed or otherwise…

Say I have been told that someone has my mink coat that is ‘missing’. There is no doubt that at one time I had it in my possession…I have the receipt for it with pictures of me wearing it…It is mine...Or at least in my mind, it is mine. I go to them just like what happened in this case. I take it. I am arrested, put on trial. The prosecutor isn’t going to bring in someone to say why I no longer had possession of it. All he cares about is that I took it back by force. He isn’t even going to care whether or not it was mine in the first place. What he cares about is the fact that someone (my accomplice) got the person that has the coat now to come to a place under pretense of a sale of the coat and then he allowed me to come to that place and take it by force.

The entire picture here does not matter in the sense I think you are meaning. This case is about an armed robbery. It shouldn’t matter about the entire picture because it is irrelevant. If there had not been a civil suit won by the Goldman’s it wouldn’t have made this any more or less of an ‘alleged’ crime.

Whaaat? Incorrect in what I'm meaning. What's your intent. It's yours because in your mind you think it's yours?

What if I robbed a bank with my money in it. I accidently took other peoples money. I didn't want that but in my anger and panic I just started grabbing. I never wanted anyone elses money and that I'd like to return. Am I guilty of armed robbery? Oh and there was a gun involved I told me friend to bring it just to intimidate and pretend to be security incase we are confronted. It was just to scare never to be used.

That doesn't float does it.

Now what if it turns out the way I got the money to begin with was I robbed someone else. That account they wouldn't let me draw from was because it wasn't under my name. I was hiding it there because it really belonged to someone else. I'd lost it to them in a civil suit. I swore they'd never get there hands on it. Because I couldn't get it above board I'd thought of another way. To go and take it with back up and to help me carry it out.

That doesn't float either. It does however open more doors that lead to charges against me from other people who rightfully own that money.

This is complicated but OJ's defense is there was no robbery because it was his. What he took was not his. Actually what he set up others to take for him was not his. They are all culpable and I wouldn't be surprised to see new charges filed by the California Courts and the Goldmans against all of them.

I'll also retract my statement that OJ didn't go there to rob them. That's one of the reasons he went there. His intent was to leave with it. First he was going for payback for a presumed wrong to him. Take back the merchandise and ride away scot free believing they would never call the police as it implicates them for knowingly holding merchandise under a turn over order.

[JBL]

The only thing that doesn't matter is what the civil suit was about. Very important to motive if why it went down the way it did.

[Details]

My thoughts exactly. I was glancing through the transcripts and it does have Riccio and Beardsley before the room but I cannot find a part where they may have been separated while they were in the room... so how could they have not seen him remove it from his pocket before he went to get the guys from the lobby?:shrug:According to him - and backed up by the fact that the tape kept running the entire time, recording robbery, police, everything - he placed it on top of the TV cabinet when they went in. It wouldn't have taken more than a few moments to do so.

It would be quite obvious, and ruin his plans, to tell Beardsly that he was off to lead the buyer up, reach up, grab his recorder, and head down.That is why there is no recording of the lobby. That is why there is a recording of the police - he couldn't get it back with everyone watching.