View Full Version : Wednesday, October 1 Discussion
cherylt
10-01-2008, 06:52 PM
Doh! Caldwell, you ijit! No mistrial NOW?!!!! I think I'm gonna cry or scream... Please judge, just tell the jury to disregard. But if it's a conviction, it will be an easy appellate point. (BIG sigh)
Mistrial ohhhhhhhh no way!
marabeth
10-01-2008, 06:55 PM
Oh my..I do hope this may be cured...
legalmania
10-01-2008, 06:56 PM
Thanks for the reply. I was confused, seems news shows have said that the witnesses against him were laughable or less than credible and I thought I read here earlier that some thought he'd get probation?? Not confused anymore, if you want the real stories, skip, TV or website headlines etc...come to InSession!!! :beer:
Your joking right? You would rather listen to gossip instead of real evidence. Jack, Beth, Jamie, Lisa are all attorneys. They have actually been in a courtroom in front of a judge and jury. They have experts on their shows to give their legal opinions. They have to report accurate news or they could get sued or lose their jobs. Most of the people on these boards are laypersons. Some of the witnesses were not credible at all. Ruccio or I like to refer him to as the rock star wanna be was there for the money. He approached OJ. In the law we refer to this as but for.
Details
10-01-2008, 06:56 PM
I don't see how this is mistrial info - not if true - and it doesn't sound like there's a lot of contention about this being untrue.
Ooooh - Scotto and the bride? LoL - evicted from the court room?
OJ looks like he's gonna barf
Details
10-01-2008, 06:59 PM
No mistrial. Yale accusation the witness did it on purpose, I like prosecution question - how is this worse than testimony about someone placing a hit on witnesses? Judge is going that direction too - extortion, hits - they've all been testified about - this is nothing different.
september
10-01-2008, 07:01 PM
OJ looks worried. This isn't LA.
September MOO
Odd, on the stand this morning you couldn't even hear Scotto. He's a quiet , soft spoken and reserved man he made mention to. Here he was removed from the prelim court room that he was heckling states witness's!
:lol:
The judge is certainly between a rock and a hard place now. Uh-oh.:read:
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 07:03 PM
Odd, on the stand this morning you couldn't even hear Scotto. He's a quiet and reserved man. Here he was removed from the prelim court room that he was heckling states witness's!
:lol:
I thought I watched all the prelim and I don't recall that being addressed. But it was a long time ago and I'm not getting any younger...
Details
10-01-2008, 07:04 PM
They've talked about extortion, testimony for pay, hits on witnesses - no way is someone talking about an attempt to influence testimony anything new in this trial, let alone cause for a mistrial.
Nothing new though - defense attorneys always call for mistrials often. It's part of setting the record to help make an appeal possible.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 07:05 PM
this will be an issue on appeal if oj and steward are found guilty.
Wait and hear the judge's cautionary statement to the jury. I hate that for once I find myself agreeing with Yale Galanter though. I think this witness did this on purpose and knows better.
psbperu
10-01-2008, 07:07 PM
An experienced detective throws a monkey wrench in this trial by talking about Scotto previously being thrown out of the courtroom...
he should know better.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 07:08 PM
this will be an issue on appeal if oj and steward are found guilty.
They have many many issues to appeal, but if OJ is not found NG, at least the jury will be hung.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 07:08 PM
Doh! Caldwell, you ijit! No mistrial NOW?!!!! I think I'm gonna cry or scream... Please judge, just tell the jury to disregard. But if it's a conviction, it will be an easy appellate point. (BIG sigh)
Hey cherylt,
Wow, can you believe this, he knows better. Why would he say that he knows that was way beyond the scope. There is more than enough grounds here for an appeal. The judge admits herself that she has let more testimony in than she should have. The media is gonna have a feeding frenzy with this judge.
Wait and hear the judge's cautionary statement to the jury. I hate that for once I find myself agreeing with Yale Galanter though. I think this witness did this on purpose and knows better. Agreeing with you on this Ann - Galanter knows exactly how to pull the strings - does this sound like "CHICAGO" folks?:)
KTLA says the judge is NOT going to grant a mistrial.
How do they know?:rolleyes:
Details
10-01-2008, 07:12 PM
KTLA says the judge is NOT going to grant a mistrial.
How do they know?:rolleyes:Because she just said so.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 07:14 PM
KTLA says the judge is NOT going to grant a mistrial.
How do they know?:rolleyes:
She just said that, but she said at this time so she may think it over.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 07:15 PM
I can so not believe I didn't get that recorded! hammer
Details
10-01-2008, 07:16 PM
Tampering has been a major undercurrent - from all the questions about witnesses they say offered to sell a change in testimony, plea deal as a reason for false testimony, a hit on a witness - this is nothing new.
And thus, the judge doesn't see any reason why it should case a mistrial.
Judge chewing out the witness, there had better be no other accidental statements.
Did anyone else notice the big "cat that ate the canary grin" on Galanter's face just then?:cuss:
Details
10-01-2008, 07:23 PM
Judge is admonishing jury, Yale is saying Scotto was not removed, wants to call Judge Bonaventure to counter. Might happen, judge says they'll need to talk first. Myself - I think he'd be a fool - might open some big doors about general conduct during that hearing, who knows what might be there to come out.
psbperu
10-01-2008, 07:25 PM
I will bet that this Judge will not allow Judge Bonaventure to be called in this trial.
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:25 PM
Hey cherylt,
Wow, can you believe this, he knows better. Why would he say that he knows that was way beyond the scope. There is more than enough grounds here for an appeal. The judge admits herself that she has let more testimony in than she should have. The media is gonna have a feeding frenzy with this judge.
I really don't believe he did it on purpose and knew it would cause a big mess. He was already on the stand 2 times already and didn't do anything questionable. But, he did say it for whatever reason and there is a problem there. I am glad the judge declined the mistrial if only for my own selfishness of wanting to see the outcome soon! :)
Can you imagine what JFloyd is going to say!? I think I hear her screams from my house....:cool:
Yale Hello POT. How many times has Yale done that GEEZ
Now they're getting testy with the Judge.
I don't care how mad you are you don't diss the Judge.
:no:
CatBallou
10-01-2008, 07:27 PM
Judge is admonishing jury, Yale is saying Scotto was not removed, wants to call Judge Bonaventure to counter. Might happen, judge says they'll need to talk first. Myself - I think he'd be a fool - might open some big doors about general conduct during that hearing, who knows what might be there to come out.
It would be a huge mistake to call Judge Bonaventure, because to question him would bring up the statement that the Detective said, and bring it to the forefront again in the juries minds.
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:28 PM
YALE arguing about the same question being asked that was sustained is quite laughable, considering he did it throughout the trial!!!:cuss:
psbperu
10-01-2008, 07:29 PM
Judge: "thank you Mr. Galanter for your assistance today"
lolol
OH I just saw Deutsch - She didn't look well either.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 07:30 PM
can you tell me where this rule is since you are stating a fact? Do you have a link?
y i k e s !!!
Yale must really want a judgeship job, eh? He's bound and determined to handle Judge Glass' job. Just too funny - I'll be back. I'm going to see if there is any alcohol in my house so I can catch up with these 2 lawyers!
:confused::beer:
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:38 PM
This is INSANE! Yale is PIZZED and the judge is sustaining like crazy and not even admonishing Galanter as to his tone in talking to her. He's on the verge of being a lunatic, IMO. And Judge Glass is trying like crazy to appease him...
Details
10-01-2008, 07:38 PM
Prosecutor got the smackdown this time - kept trying to ask a question, kept getting objected to and all objections sustained, until he finally had to give up on the witness. Good objections - he was trying to get the witness to testify about the phone records and what they meant.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 07:39 PM
I really don't believe he did it on purpose and knew it would cause a big mess. He was already on the stand 2 times already and didn't do anything questionable. But, he did say it for whatever reason and there is a problem there. I am glad the judge declined the mistrial if only for my own selfishness of wanting to see the outcome soon! :)
Can you imagine what JFloyd is going to say!? I think I hear her screams from my house....:cool:
I wonder if Yale is gonna file an appeal tomorrow. He's mad. I don't blame him.
Details
10-01-2008, 07:42 PM
Yale back on the "Scotto kicked out" bit - and sounds like he knows Scotto was in fact kicked out - but not kicked out by the judge. So he's hoping he can ask the judge the narrow question of whether he kicked Scotto out, and give the false impression Scotto was not kicked out at all.
But they're all agreeing Scotto was kicked out.
And it appears the cop reference that because maybe that's how he ended up in the corridor talking to him.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 07:44 PM
This is INSANE! Yale is PIZZED and the judge is sustaining like crazy and not even admonishing Galanter as to his tone in talking to her. He's on the verge of being a lunatic, IMO. And Judge Glass is trying like crazy to appease him...
I think somebody better start passing out chill pills.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 07:48 PM
yeah this is pretty insane
I started reading your quote about babysitter and then saw governor and thought you were a governor and then I realized you were talking about Sarah. I was impressed for a moment.
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:50 PM
I wonder if Yale is gonna file an appeal tomorrow. He's mad. I don't blame him.
Yeah, he has a right to be mad. But I look at it this way: he can afford to be very adamant about a "mistrial" all throught the trial because his client is out on bail. If he happens to get one, the longer OJ has his liberty on the outside. If OJ was IN JAIL pending trial, he would not be so eager for a mistrial since either way OJ would still be in jail and nothing would have been accomplished, IMO...
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:52 PM
I think somebody better start passing out chill pills.
No kidding? xanax for everyone! Especially Yale and Judge who claimed her head was about to spin around, alluding to the Exorcist...
psbperu
10-01-2008, 07:53 PM
Just think how expensive it would be to re-try this case if a mistrial were to be declared.
Perhaps another trial might not even be considered?
legalmania
10-01-2008, 07:54 PM
Yeah, he has a right to be mad. But I look at it this way: he can afford to be very adamant about a "mistrial" all throught the trial because his client is out on bail. If he happens to get one, the longer OJ has his liberty on the outside. If OJ was IN JAIL pending trial, he would not be so eager for a mistrial since either way OJ would still be in jail and nothing would have been accomplished, IMO...
You would think he would want this over with I know I do. I've gained 3 pounds sitting at this computer and eating all the wrong food.
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Yale back on the "Scotto kicked out" bit - and sounds like he knows Scotto was in fact kicked out - but not kicked out by the judge. So he's hoping he can ask the judge the narrow question of whether he kicked Scotto out, and give the false impression Scotto was not kicked out at all.
But they're all agreeing Scotto was kicked out.
And it appears the cop reference that because maybe that's how he ended up in the corridor talking to him.
Was it a Bailiff that walked him out? If so, doesn't the judge have to tell him/her to do that? Just curious if you know.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 07:57 PM
Just think how expensive it would be to re-try this case if a mistrial were to be declared.
Perhaps another trial might not even be considered?
I think that's what he's hoping for because most states and cities are cutting back on expenses. I wonder how much it cost for that model of the room they never used.
Details
10-01-2008, 07:57 PM
I think the defense always likes a mistrial. Because you never know what the jury will rule. A mistrial is more time outside of jail for sure, and a chance the prosecutor will decide it's just not worth it and give up.
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:57 PM
As was the same situation with the Phil Spector Trial
Yeppers! You nailed that one.
Constance
10-01-2008, 07:59 PM
Was Caldwell alluding to actual tampering, or did he just use the wrong word for Scotto's disruptions at the prelim? Did I miss something?
BTW, Gallanter (along with the rest of them), just don't shut up or sit down when the judge asks them to. They totally walk all over her, talk over her, and behave as if she isn't even there 3/4 of the time.
JMO
Details
10-01-2008, 07:59 PM
Was it a Bailiff that walked him out? If so, doesn't the judge have to tell him/her to do that? Just curious if you know.I don't know. However, what I've seen is Yale acknowledging that Scotto was kicked out of the court room, but not by the judge, so I think it must be possible for the Bailiff to do that without the judge telling him to do so. Not sure how that happens - can the prosecutor/defense tell the bailiff they object to a spectator? Are there standard courtroom rules that will cause a bailiff to see some behavior and automatically kick the person out?
And apparently - they didn't really follow up on this - he was talking about some behavior of Scotto's in the spectator zone in the courtroom - actual tampering or just an extreme term for making faces at some witnesses I do not know.
cherylt
10-01-2008, 07:59 PM
i doubt she will declare a mistrial. jmo
sorry - a little off topic: I love your sig. You should add in there that she knows quite a bit about foreign policy because Alaska is so close to Russia...
:lol:
cherylt
10-01-2008, 08:01 PM
I don't know. However, what I've seen is Yale acknowledging that Scotto was kicked out of the court room, but not by the judge, so I think it must be possible for the Bailiff to do that without the judge telling him to do so. Not sure how that happens - can the prosecutor/defense tell the bailiff they object to a spectator? Are there standard courtroom rules that will cause a bailiff to see some behavior and automatically kick the person out?
Maybe Legalmania can help us out????
watchu
10-01-2008, 08:02 PM
Fireworks just before the end of the trial.... Who would've thunk???
The screams of mistrial and the judges reaction was unbelievable. The judge has admonished the jury, but Yale is furious.....
legalmania
10-01-2008, 08:02 PM
y i k e s !!!
Hey Lqqkout,
Things are getting pretty exciting in the courtroom today. Guess that day off gave everybody a little extra strength.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 08:04 PM
i went from 92 lbs to 108 lbs during the phil spector trial... :(
Maybe we should start a computer diet. I'm gonna bring my treadmill up stairs and run as I type.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 08:05 PM
i went from 92 lbs to 108 lbs during the phil spector trial... :(
You are SO breaking my heart!!! :punch:
DHDowney
10-01-2008, 08:05 PM
Yeah, he has a right to be mad. But I look at it this way: he can afford to be very adamant about a "mistrial" all throught the trial because his client is out on bail. If he happens to get one, the longer OJ has his liberty on the outside. If OJ was IN JAIL pending trial, he would not be so eager for a mistrial since either way OJ would still be in jail and nothing would have been accomplished, IMO...
Ok here's the scenarioif OJ is convicted; Galanter will ask for a mistrial and state that the mistrial was caused by the actions of the prosecutor. Double jeopardy will have attached and the case and charges will have to be dismissed with prejudice.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 08:06 PM
Maybe Legalmania can help us out????
Yes, you rang?
i went from 92 lbs to 108 lbs during the phil spector trial... :(
You're too funny - I quit knitting during PS trial - dropped way too many stitches. But I'll be durned if I'll tell how many #'s I put on (as I nibbled any and all food)!
Yippe - here's another one for the Judge!!!!
Details
10-01-2008, 08:09 PM
Mistrial issue all gone!
Detective never said a word about Scotto. He was referring to Mrs. Scotto! Since she's not a witness, there is no issue.
tashi
10-01-2008, 08:10 PM
ahhh...all this drama over a mistake. It was the Missus.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 08:11 PM
I thought the cop said it was Mrs. Scoto! Whew, I'm not nuts.
watchu
10-01-2008, 08:11 PM
Now attacking Mr. Scotto doesn't matter.... according to YG.
Maybe we should start a computer diet. I'm gonna bring my treadmill up stairs and run as I type.
Hey Legalmania I'll join! When is PS's trial? Could we start then and get as skinny as PS?
cherylt
10-01-2008, 08:12 PM
Yes, you rang?
That would be some multi-tasking: type, treadmill, watch... Don't fall while trying to do all that!!
I was wondering if the Bonaventure didn't have Scotto thrown out, can a Bailiff just remove a disruptive person w/out the Judge's say so?
The defense knows they're losing and kicking the water as if they're drowning (and they are, and know it).
OJ will be talking to the Scottos and giving them an earful tonight! "YO B nearly ruined my trial!"
cherylt
10-01-2008, 08:20 PM
I can't believe LegalEdge didn't come back on & I missed the whole thing about the "MRS". I am SO mad. I would have loved to have seen the faces on all of the lawyers!!!:cuss: :flamemad:
I've had some of those but they've always been the wrong nmbr - I hope my fone nmbr isn't wrote up on the wall at the jail!:cuss:
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 08:22 PM
omg, they just showed Ms. Deutsch for quite awhile -- she must be taking shorthand<--- thanks who pointed out earlier what she looked like...
I thought she was sleeping!
Didn't OJ have a no contact order with CJ?
omg, they just showed Ms. Deutsch for quite awhile -- she must be taking shorthand<--- thanks who pointed out earlier what she looked like...they're showing her again, different angle.... My g-grson saw we writing in shorthand yesterday and stopped by the library for a Gregg book - he now wants to learn 2 or 3 languages and be able to take shorthand. That will all probably pass by the age of 12 but I wish it would stick with him. He want's to learn Arabic and Spanish.
Is anyone a little surprised OJ didn't take the stand? I'm not surprised - his best defense is to remain mute now.
My my my did we get cordial after that meltdown or what. heh heh
legalmania
10-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Hey Legalmania I'll join! When is PS's trial? Could we start then and get as skinny as PS?
I got the copyright papers right here. We will call it the legal diet.
I can't believe LegalEdge didn't come back on & I missed the whole thing about the "MRS". I am SO mad. I would have loved to have seen the faces on all of the lawyers!!!:cuss: :flamemad:DITTO Cherylt - I kept 2 windows open: legaledge and Klta - as soon as KLTA came on I executed the other as well and swap back and forth.
Yale had to get that badgering in there. Just can't help himself.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 08:30 PM
Just think how expensive it would be to re-try this case if a mistrial were to be declared.
Perhaps another trial might not even be considered?
I wonder, too about the money spent on behalf of the taxpayers of Nevada to finally bring a murderer to justice. That is what this is all about, right?
Who was who said, "I'm trying to get the DA to cut back on some of these charges." ???
HAW HAW HAW it was OJ
I wonder, too about the money spent on behalf of the taxpayers of Nevada to finally bring a murderer to justice. That is what this is all about, right?
I hope no one bites on your various obvious attempt to cause trouble.
legalmania
10-01-2008, 08:32 PM
That would be some multi-tasking: type, treadmill, watch... Don't fall while trying to do all that!!
I was wondering if the Bonaventure didn't have Scotto thrown out, can a Bailiff just remove a disruptive person w/out the Judge's say so?
Why not I'll add a slip and fall lawsuit against myself. Actually I'll sue OJ it's all his fault. Who said that? Oh legal so inappropriate.
lynbit
10-01-2008, 08:32 PM
Sorry to bother all of you. I mostly watch and only post every now and then. But I had to leave between 6:30-7:00. When I left she had just admonished jury on witness tampering comment. When I came back jury was out again. I've tried to read back to understand what had happened but if someone can clear it up for me I'd appreciate it. TIA
Details
10-01-2008, 08:33 PM
I'm a little surprised - but not very - that OJ didn't take the stand. As I saw it, it was a battle between ego and prudence. I still think it wouldn't be a bad idea - but I just about never see a lawyer suggest their client take the stand.
Interesting bit here - the prosecutor's objection to Yale's questioning and use of the witness to reread evidence is exactly the same as Yale's repeated objection just a few minutes earlier to the prosecutor trying to get Caldwell to make statements about the phone records that were in evidence. Same type of thing. It's all just a game, they all play it, try the same tricks, see what you can get past the other side.
Although, in the prosecutor's credit - he was objecting to Yale misstating that evidence.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 08:33 PM
OJ's thinking to himself "Don't move your lips when you talk to yourself, Juice! The InSession Board will think you're senile! Get that tune out of my head. If I Only Had A...STOP IT JUICE!"
Resting case. I'm ready to rest too.:patriot:
Wait - no questions from the jury again???
Details
10-01-2008, 08:38 PM
Sorry to bother all of you. I mostly watch and only post every now and then. But I had to leave between 6:30-7:00. When I left she had just admonished jury on witness tampering comment. When I came back jury was out again. I've tried to read back to understand what had happened but if someone can clear it up for me I'd appreciate it. TIAYou saw the witness tampering meltdown. So, after the admonishment, they did a bit more testimony, next break, Yale brought that statement up again. They wen to go investigate a bit more of precisely what was said - was it said he was thrown out by judge, or just thrown out (appears that just thrown out would be true, thrown out by judge not true). A review of tapes clears up that the detective actually never said Mr. Scotto was thrown out, he said it about MRS. Scotto. This is a whole different thing, since she's not a witness in this case, and thus no worries about her being thus discredited enough to cause mistrial (although Yale is still saying that statement too could be mistrial material).
So, they reset, now he's not quite in that much trouble, statement is not quite so bad, Yale gets permission to clean up the statement by asking detective if he saw any of this, and make it clear it's Mrs. Scotto (in case any of the jury also misheard). And - all done.
you bit and it showed the post again. :lol:
:rolleyes:
legalmania
10-01-2008, 08:39 PM
i was really hoping this would go to the jury today :cuss:
Almost there just closing statements.
Details
10-01-2008, 08:39 PM
Jury gets a sleep in day - starting at 10:30. Will do jury instructions, lunch break, and closing arguments. We're almost there!
YUK - 10:30? Oh well, I can swap winter/summer clothes out.
ATL1313
10-01-2008, 08:41 PM
No, that is not what this is all about.
It's about bringing to trial a group of armed thugs entering a tourist's hotel room via nefarious means and committing armed robbery.
Nefarious....good word and excellent response.
OH good grief Bryson! Weapons should be stricken from the record McClinton didn't identify them. Was he in the bathroom when they were identified or what?
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 08:43 PM
I hope no one bites on your various obvious attempt to cause trouble.
I am not trying to cause trouble or bait. I feel this trial is ONLY happening because it involves OJ Simpson. And I do feel this entire expensive trial with all of the sweet deals made with the co-defendents to GET OJ is just that, all out to get him for the murders, at all cost.. People do not respect jurors decisions. I do not apologize that I do not share your opinion. I am not an OJ fan, never have been,but I see many problems and extreme bias because of who he is. That is not right! I have great faith in the jurors to do their duty and see the blatant unfairness of this witch hunt. If you feel that you must insult me because I do not agree with you, go right ahead. I am proud of our judicial system and if you are biased due to the murder trial, you would NOT be on the jury.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 08:44 PM
Wait - no questions from the jury again???
She asked. They had none.
lynbit
10-01-2008, 08:44 PM
You saw the witness tampering meltdown. So, after the admonishment, they did a bit more testimony, next break, Yale brought that statement up again. They wen to go investigate a bit more of precisely what was said - was it said he was thrown out by judge, or just thrown out (appears that just thrown out would be true, thrown out by judge not true). A review of tapes clears up that the detective actually never said Mr. Scotto was thrown out, he said it about MRS. Scotto. This is a whole different thing, since she's not a witness in this case, and thus no worries about her being thus discredited enough to cause mistrial (although Yale is still saying that statement too could be mistrial material).
So, they reset, now he's not quite in that much trouble, statement is not quite so bad, Yale gets permission to clean up the statement by asking detective if he saw any of this, and make it clear it's Mrs. Scotto (in case any of the jury also misheard). And - all done.
Details,
Thank you so much. I couldn't figure it out and you have helped me bunches & bunches!
SNOWBIRD will be really upset when she gets back from Memphis and realizes all the fun stuff she missed. Poor gal!:)
Details
10-01-2008, 08:45 PM
There may be more on the record proceedings before the jury is there. Apparently that's when the attorneys will hammer out jury instructions.
Interesting. I just typed the word "h a m m e r" - no : before it, nothing, and it becomes that little icon. Probably not inappropriate to tomorrow's proceedings - but not what I'd intended to display.
:lol: Someone's fishing in the wrong creek!
She asked. They had none.
Thanks so muchAnnInOhio - I was typing so loudly that I couldn't hear (any excuse is better than none, right?):)
legalmania
10-01-2008, 08:50 PM
No, that is not what this is all about.
It's about bringing to trial a group of armed thugs entering a tourist's hotel room via nefarious means and committing armed robbery.
It wasn't a tourist hotel? Ruccio set it all up. He had Fromong come to the room and the bellhop loaded everything from his truck.
She asked. They had none.
Especially none dealing with Mrs. Scotto :chicken:
No, that is not what this is all about.
It's about bringing to trial a group of armed thugs entering a tourist's hotel room via nefarious means and committing armed robbery.
Thanks for putting it back in its realm. Some folks just don't understand they can end up in many court rooms if they feel they're "stars" and everyone loves 'em! Actors, Actresses and even Politicians!
Especially Acorn Politicians:cool:
YaY, we get to see/hear the Jury Instructions!!! Ahhhh...great day tomorrow; and then the debate<--- which should top the day off with a great laugh-fest:patriot:
Oh boy, after today we deserve it~
:beer:
Should we bring kool-aide and popcorn?;)
Should we bring kool-aide and popcorn?;)
NEVER drink public Kool-aide
(though I am rather partial to cherry in a ice filled picture on a hot summer in my own back yard )
You are the one so hung up on the fact that it was Mr. O. J. Simpson and his Merry Mob of Bandits.
Unfortunately, you are not able to look at the big picture. I am -- and there is nothing more to be said.
Have a pleasant evening.:seeya:
I'm with your sentiments there Guernica. Think "outside" the box!
Off to bed - c y'all tomorrow.
I have no doubt Bryson got some Bryson Attorney at Law stationary he's dying to use and will start rifling off letters to every one he can think of still declaring to sever and calling a mistrial.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 09:06 PM
I am not trying to cause trouble or bait. I feel this trial is ONLY happening because it involves OJ Simpson. And I do feel this entire expensive trial with all of the sweet deals made with the co-defendents to GET OJ is just that, all out to get him for the murders, at all cost.. People do not respect jurors decisions. I do not apologize that I do not share your opinion. I am not an OJ fan, never have been,but I see many problems and extreme bias because of who he is. That is not right! I have great faith in the jurors to do their duty and see the blatant unfairness of this witch hunt. If you feel that you must insult me because I do not agree with you, go right ahead. I am proud of our judicial system and if you are biased due to the murder trial, you would NOT be on the jury.
People are brought up, tried and convicted on these charges every day across this country, whether they are OJ Simpson or John Q Public. Deals are made with co-defendents across this country every day. OJ is the only person who thinks he could - or should - get away with kidnapping & robbery. Who OJ is just happens to be a man with a propensity for breaking the law. If you're proud of our judicial system surely you know how it works. This trial has nothing to do with the murder trial. It's not payback. It's based on totally differerent charges, in a different state, in a different decade. The only common denominator is OJ Simpson. Why? Because he conducts himself as a common thug who flaunts our laws and thinks he can continue to charm the cops into not charging him. Just like thousands of others across this country for whom I doubt you and many others would waste your sympathy.
People are brought up, tried and convicted on these charges every day across this country, whether they are OJ Simpson or John Q Public. Deals are made with co-defendents across this country every day. OJ is the only person who thinks he could - or should - get away with kidnapping & robbery. Who OJ is just happens to be a man with a propensity for breaking the law. If you're proud of our judicial system surely you know how it works. This trial has nothing to do with the murder trial. It's not payback. It's based on totally differerent charges, in a different state, in a different decade. The only common denominator is OJ Simpson. Why? Because he conducts himself as a common thug who flaunts our laws and thinks he can continue to charm the cops into not charging him. Just like thousands of others across this country for whom I doubt you and many others would waste your sympathy.
I'm not sure if that's as eloquent as "decaf" but it will suffice.
:lol:
legalmania
10-01-2008, 09:11 PM
You are the one so hung up on the fact that it was Mr. O. J. Simpson and his Merry Mob of Bandits.
Unfortunately, you are not able to look at the big picture. I am -- and there is nothing more to be said.
Have a pleasant evening.:seeya:
Oh another physic what are I'm thinking now?
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 09:14 PM
Nefarious....good word and excellent response.
JBL has a particular affection for the word "Nefarious". I smile every time I hear it.
Bryson, Jones, and Lucherini -- what a trio.
Oh what a joke!
I wonder why he got rid of Moran for these attorneys?
Just goes to prove just because one has a license doesn't make one a good driver.
Same with law practice.
cherylt
10-01-2008, 09:16 PM
Good night all. See ya tomorrow for jury instructions & closings!!!
:seeya:
JBL has a particular affection for the word "Nefarious". I smile every time I hear it.
ha HA! I was holding it in you debil :D
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 09:20 PM
Thanks so muchAnnInOhio - I was typing so loudly that I couldn't hear (any excuse is better than none, right?):)
Been known to do that myself. Doh!
Good night all. See ya tomorrow for jury instructions & closings!!!
:seeya:
.. :patriot: ..
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 09:20 PM
Good night all. See ya tomorrow for jury instructions & closings!!!
:seeya:
Later, tater!
legalmania
10-01-2008, 09:21 PM
People are brought up, tried and convicted on these charges every day across this country, whether they are OJ Simpson or John Q Public. Deals are made with co-defendents across this country every day. OJ is the only person who thinks he could - or should - get away with kidnapping & robbery. Who OJ is just happens to be a man with a propensity for breaking the law. If you're proud of our judicial system surely you know how it works. This trial has nothing to do with the murder trial. It's not payback. It's based on totally differerent charges, in a different state, in a different decade. The only common denominator is OJ Simpson. Why? Because he conducts himself as a common thug who flaunts our laws and thinks he can continue to charm the cops into not charging him. Just like thousands of others across this country for whom I doubt you and many others would waste your sympathy.
Another physic, with so many people on these boards who know what people think it's a wonder we have so many cold cases. New rule, the constitution applies to everyone except OJ.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 09:21 PM
You are the one so hung up on the fact that it was Mr. O. J. Simpson and his Merry Mob of Bandits.
Unfortunately, you are not able to look at the big picture. I am -- and there is nothing more to be said.
Have a pleasant evening.:seeya:
Yes, let's look at the big picture. OJ got away with murder. The jurors who found him NG must be complete idiots and unintelligent, not like you. Maybe professional jurors is the answer to all of your problems, THEY would know that OJ got away with murder and really? Why should there be a trial at all? Disagree with the jury, find out which one is the holdout and let the witch hunt begin. The thing that amazes me the most is that it's your way or the highway and let the insults begin. Because you cannot even think of an opposing opinion, so insults are all you can come back with. It just shows how shallow and closed minded you are. This is the country of freedom of speech, BUT don't have a different opinion from the lock=step TTV (pro prosecution) posters. If you do, you are accused of causing trouble. Sorry, but I have a mind of my own and don't spend every day spewing hate with like people., Someone tried to open a thread for OJ Not Guiltys and the complaints ran rampant. Shut it down!! Freedom of speech remember? Not everyone who disagrees with you is trying to cause trouble, maybe they have a different view and are more open minded. The reason you think when you see an opposing post that the poster is trying to cause trouble is that most posters who feel as I do, can't be bothered with posting their opinion because we know exactly how you biased will react, so why bother? You make me very sad and I hope you never serve on a jury because you must listen to all sides and that is impossible for you. And if you have me banned, that just proves how this message board is a breeding ground for close minded puppets.
Makes one wonder why people do the things they do ... and that includes using words they do not know how to spell.
Or try to verbally relay words they don't know how to pronounce.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 09:23 PM
Another physic, with so many people on these boards who know what people think it's a wonder we have so many cold cases. New rule, the constitution applies to everyone except OJ.
Right On !!!!:beer:
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 09:26 PM
I'm with your sentiments there Guernica. Think "outside" the box!
Off to bed - c y'all tomorrow.
Oiutside the box???????? You're killin' me. You are so IN the box that we didn't even need a trial...Guilty!
legalmania
10-01-2008, 09:26 PM
I am not trying to cause trouble or bait. I feel this trial is ONLY happening because it involves OJ Simpson. And I do feel this entire expensive trial with all of the sweet deals made with the co-defendents to GET OJ is just that, all out to get him for the murders, at all cost.. People do not respect jurors decisions. I do not apologize that I do not share your opinion. I am not an OJ fan, never have been,but I see many problems and extreme bias because of who he is. That is not right! I have great faith in the jurors to do their duty and see the blatant unfairness of this witch hunt. If you feel that you must insult me because I do not agree with you, go right ahead. I am proud of our judicial system and if you are biased due to the murder trial, you would NOT be on the jury.
Well said Lqqkout.
:rolleyes: *yawn* The baiting is getting boring.
Enjoy yourselves!
:seeya:
Maybe we should start a computer diet. I'm gonna bring my treadmill up stairs and run as I type.
I have my Nordic track in front of the tv and I even use my headphones and laptop to work out while watching after hours testimony. :)
Now then....if Fallen Angel is seriously small enough (or young enough) that 92 pounds is an appropriate weight for her, putting on 16 pounds probably made her rather pudgy. (said with a definite wicked glint in my eye)
:biggrin:
legalmania
10-01-2008, 09:48 PM
I have my Nordic track in front of the tv and I even use my headphones and laptop to work out while watching after hours testimony. :)
Now then....if Fallen Angel is seriously small enough (or young enough) that 92 pounds is an appropriate weight for her, putting on 16 pounds probably made her rather pudgy. (said with a definite wicked glint in my eye)
:biggrin:
I haven't been that small since my teens. Glad to hear your taking care of yourself we don't want any sick posters. Oh where are you getting after hours testimony?
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 10:12 PM
:rolleyes: *yawn* The baiting is getting boring.
Enjoy yourselves!
:seeya:
How easy it is to scare you away. You spewed and spewed hate all weekend. It was a love fest of like minded, closed minded people, BUT express an opposing view and it is bait. Not everyone is closed minded and how pitiful that when someone expresses something different than "OJ got away with murder, so let's get him, whatever the cost, whomever we can bribe to testify against him", you are bored. How sad.
I haven't been that small since my teens. Glad to hear your taking care of yourself we don't want any sick posters. Oh where are you getting after hours testimony?
By after hours I mean after CTV/IS goes off the air. :)
And since I am 6' tall and have been since 7th grade...I'm pretty sure I was only 9 or 10 when I last weighed less than 100 pounds.
On the other hand...clothing hangs really nicely on my frame. :)
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 10:14 PM
I'm not sure if that's as eloquent as "decaf" but it will suffice.
:lol:
Am I the only person on this board who ever deals with "real" people who are charged with similar crimes? In the real world if somebody tires to walk off with $100,000 worth of property taken by force, they'd better realize they're probably looking at a long vacation from home sweet home, and the amenities won't be good.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 10:19 PM
Another physic, with so many people on these boards who know what people think it's a wonder we have so many cold cases. New rule, the constitution applies to everyone except OJ.
What is psychic about life in the real world? OJ committed a crime and is being tried for it. What's psychic about THAT?
How easy it is to scare you away. You spewed and spewed hate all weekend. It was a love fest of like minded, closed minded people, BUT express an opposing view and it is bait. Not everyone is closed minded and how pitiful that when someone expresses something different than "OJ got away with murder, so let's get him, whatever the cost, whomever we can bribe to testify against him", you are bored. How sad.
:confused:
I repeat - your baiting is boring me. You have not nor will you ever scare me away from posting. Your attributing to me that OJ is a murdererer so let's get him, lets bribe someone to get him? Love fest?
Some village is missing an idiot.
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 10:34 PM
How easy it is to scare you away. You spewed and spewed hate all weekend. It was a love fest of like minded, closed minded people, BUT express an opposing view and it is bait. Not everyone is closed minded and how pitiful that when someone expresses something different than "OJ got away with murder, so let's get him, whatever the cost, whomever we can bribe to testify against him", you are bored. How sad.
You weren't addressing this to me, but I'm curious where your anger comes from. This case isn't about the murders in 1994. The judge made it very plain that this case was not and would not be about what has gone on before the date of the incident at hand. You're grouping people together and accusing people of things they didn't say and assuming what they believe. And you're calling everybody "psychics". Why?
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 10:36 PM
:confused:
I repeat - your baiting is boring me. You have not nor will you ever scare me away from posting. Your attributing to me that OJ is a murdererer so let's get him, lets bribe someone to get him? Love fest?
Some village is missing an idiot.
Whoa, I must have missed that hate you were spewing, JBL! For an accused psychic I don't seem to be able to see it.
Am I the only person on this board who ever deals with "real" people who are charged with similar crimes? In the real world if somebody tires to walk off with $100,000 worth of property taken by force, they'd better realize they're probably looking at a long vacation from home sweet home, and the amenities won't be good.
Nope, ITA! :cool:
Whoa, I must have missed that hate you were spewing, JBL! For an accused psychic I don't seem to be able to see it.
I didn't. Maybe try tea leaves LOL!
DRJAN
10-01-2008, 10:44 PM
Okay we are all suppose to feel sorry for OJ Simpson, I mean he was found not guilty of double murder and we should let it rest. How could we he writes a book IF I DID IT then another coming out I helped OJ commit murder. So if it was you or me and we found out the stuff was stolen wouldn't common sense tell us to call the police to get a report to let them know stuff was taken. And if we didn't do that and decide to gather some of our friends to go and get it. You know perfectly well we would be in trouble. I don't care who you are. And if Beardlsey didn't want to press charges why so fast to call police and say WE WERE ROBBED BY GUN POINT BY OJ SIMPSON. And start this whole thing rolling. My point is this even if is wasn't OJ. It is still wrong to take stuff by force.
Okay we are all suppose to feel sorry for OJ Simpson, I mean he was found not guilty of double murder and we should let it rest. How could we he writes a book IF I DID IT then another coming out I helped OJ commit murder. So if it was you or me and we found out the stuff was stolen wouldn't common sense tell us to call the police to get a report to let them know stuff was taken. And if we didn't do that and decide to gather some of our friends to go and get it. You know perfectly well we would be in trouble. I don't care who you are. And if Beardlsey didn't want to press charges why so fast to call police and say WE WERE ROBBED BY GUN POINT BY OJ SIMPSON. And start this whole thing rolling. My point is this even if is wasn't OJ. It is still wrong to take stuff by force.
"And if Beardlsey didn't want to press charges why so fast to call police and say WE WERE ROBBED BY GUN POINT BY OJ SIMPSON."
That now seems to be between OJ, Linda Deutsch and Beardsley according to the phone records. :o
Details
10-01-2008, 11:04 PM
It's funny - I don't think anyone who thinks OJ should get off would be nearly so calm if they were robbed at gunpoint - even if it was the next door neighbor getting their lawnmower you borrowed and hadn't returned yet.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 11:20 PM
You weren't addressing this to me, but I'm curious where your anger comes from. This case isn't about the murders in 1994. The judge made it very plain that this case was not and would not be about what has gone on before the date of the incident at hand. You're grouping people together and accusing people of things they didn't say and assuming what they believe. And you're calling everybody "psychics". Why?
psychic? Where did I say that? I am not angry, I am disappointed that so many people have no respect for the jury's decision and want OJ found guilty because they feel he got away with murder. The reason I am sad is because all people are innocent until proven guilty and OJ was presumed guilty by the majority of posters on this board. That makes me sad that the Constitution is not held in the high regard with which it was written.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 11:28 PM
Okay we are all suppose to feel sorry for OJ Simpson, I mean he was found not guilty of double murder and we should let it rest. How could we he writes a book IF I DID IT then another coming out I helped OJ commit murder. So if it was you or me and we found out the stuff was stolen wouldn't common sense tell us to call the police to get a report to let them know stuff was taken. And if we didn't do that and decide to gather some of our friends to go and get it. You know perfectly well we would be in trouble. I don't care who you are. And if Beardlsey didn't want to press charges why so fast to call police and say WE WERE ROBBED BY GUN POINT BY OJ SIMPSON. And start this whole thing rolling. My point is this even if is wasn't OJ. It is still wrong to take stuff by force.
I do not feel sorry for OJ nor do I want to get him. I have no feelings one way or the other. It only comes down to the pro proving their case legally, fairly, and honestly. That is my point.
Lqqkout
10-01-2008, 11:31 PM
It's funny - I don't think anyone who thinks OJ should get off would be nearly so calm if they were robbed at gunpoint - even if it was the next door neighbor getting their lawnmower you borrowed and hadn't returned yet.
That again is my point. Personal feelings have no place in the courtroom. That is my problem with this message board.
Ann,
Time to Kirby your mailbox. :cool:
AnnInOhio
10-01-2008, 11:48 PM
Ann,
Time to Kirby your mailbox. :cool:
The Kirby has sweeped a clean swath through my mailbox!
gaelicpeas
10-01-2008, 11:51 PM
That again is my point. Personal feelings have no place in the courtroom. That is my problem with this message board.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult for any of us to put away personal feelings. That is what the jury selection process is intended to correct as best as it possibly can.
Given that, if OJ was not the defendant in this case, then I think it would have gone to trial if some of the "co-conspirators" did not enter into a plea agreement, but I doubt it would have made national news and I doubt that any of us would have heard a thing about it unless it was in our local area.
And, given that, it still does not negate the fact that a crime was committed, in fact a felony burglary of an estimated $100k worth of stuff. The only reason we are hearing about this is because OJ is a celebrity. Well, I can't blame myself for being prejudiced because OJ is a celebrity.
i know i've said this already today lol BUT i'm still shocked OJ didn't take the stand.
That would have left him open to cross regarding when his items were allegedly taken from him and under what circumstances. He would have perjured himself left and right.
Anyone catch Beardsley on the Jail house phone call with OJ that he was going to gather OJ's stuff and get it all back to him - at least I meant that to be the items he still knows that are out there.
I believe the court ruled they first go to the Goldmans.
gaelicpeas
10-02-2008, 01:10 AM
Just to clarify - yes, I think OJ is guilty. Would we have heard about this case if it had not involved OJ? No.
Given that giant white (sic) elephant in the room, the evidence appears, IMO, to be against the defendants.
didn't OJ take the stand in his road rage case and he was found Not Guilty.
http://www.thepersonalinjury.info/news/yale-gallanter/
"Gallanters clever trial style may have been what saved OJ in the road rage incident, Gallanter said that the placement of OJ’s fingerprint on the other driver’s glasses showed that OJ did not strike the man, but instead was holding his hands up in defense."
Sorry I think that was a blog not actually news. I have read it in other publications virtually saying the same thing.
Here's another one (sorry for so off track but it has to do with OJ testifying on his behalf.)
This I found interesting:
"Finally, Rifkin just cut to the chase. "Do you think you're a good liar?" she asked.
"I could be pretty convincing if I wanted to be," replied Simpson after some thought.
"Especially if your life depended on it?"
"Well, I've never been in that position."
:eek:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojroadrage/102301_ctv.html
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.