Bashing the O.J. jury

[Details]

Wow. They had the same thing in the murder trial, too. Too bad they couldn't have found him guilty back then so we'd be done with her sorry a** today! :seeya: OJ!The murder trial was wrong - but the one thing on the murder trial - DNA was new - today we know how reliable it is - not to mention how impossible it is to plant DNA evidence without a sample of the DNA you wish to plant. But then it was new and unknown.

I think the other fault was letting everything go too long - the prosecution should have condensed their case, and given better info on DNA. But the biggest thing they should have done is picked a better jury - those jurors made it clear afterwards that they never would have convicted, regardless of the evidence.

[rainbo]

I truly had faith in the jury system back during his murder trial, but once that verdict came in and I heard those jurors speak, I lost it all. The state of Nevada has given that faith back to me again. I couldn't care less if he was totally, 100% completely innocent this time--which he isn't--I'm just beyond THRILLED that he was found guilty of SOMETHING, ANYTHING, and will most likely die in prison where he belongs. I'll be the first one to admit that I never once ever gave him the presumption of innocence in this case. I honestly didn't care. I just wanted him to go down, and down he's going. Yay for Nevada! They did indeed do something that California couldn't/didn't do, and we should all be rejoicing about it. :beer::beer::beer:

This is the first and last time that I go into a case without giving someone the presumption of innocence though. It truly is important, except when the defendant is OJ Simpson.

[Details]

Nope. Not nonsense. Sidney and Brook approved of the book. (It is a work of fiction. "IF" he did it means it is fiction.)

You don't know what they were told. I do, however, and it's in the LKL transcripts. They approved of the book.

The link takes you to the LKL transcripts. It's in the transcripts. Keep searching and you'll find it.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=larry+king+live+transcripts&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

mhoNo sale. I found a link discussing it - and it's clearly stated they did not know the contents nor topic of the book - just a work of fiction. And your link is not useful - if such information existed, it'd be findable. I've searched - there is no reference to what you claim existed, and a link to all LK transcripts in existience is not proof. I could claim there's a spot in there where OJ confesses - would you accept that as proof? Yeah - obviously not - not without a link and quote of the exact statement.

I found one LKL discussing the kids and the book - and nowhere in it did they nor represenatives for them nor anyone say they knew what it was and or approved it.

[vonna]

The jury did a great job and arrived at the correct conclusion. They are to be praised; not bashed.

[Details]

Here's the closest I find on LKL - and it says exactly what I've been saying - they didn't know what the book was - it's confirmed -right from the source mccannie suggested!KING: Denise, we have an e-mail question from Tammy in Lonse, Michigan (ph). "Do Sidney and Justin feel betrayed by O.J. now that they know about how he wrote about their mother and murdered her?"

BROWN: They don't know. They don't know what was in the book.

KING: They don't.

BROWN: They have no idea. It was a fiction book and that is all that they know. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/14/lkl.01.html

[Tracian]

Nope. Not nonsense. Sidney and Brook approved of the book. (It is a work of fiction. "IF" he did it means it is fiction.)

You don't know what they were told. I do, however, and it's in the LKL transcripts. They approved of the book.

The link takes you to the LKL transcripts. It's in the transcripts. Keep searching and you'll find it.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=larry+king+live+transcripts&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

mho



I have not found one piece of evidence that Syndey herself said she approved of this book.

[Details]

I have not found one piece of evidence that Syndey herself said she approved of this book.I've found the contrary. First, statements that the kids do not comment on the books to the media, then from Brown, that they did not know - and with no contrary source, she's definitely the closest person to them who is speaking up, so that's the most valid source.

[Details]

The jury did a great job and arrived at the correct conclusion. They are to be praised; not bashed.And mostly - they are. But the bashers are loud, obnoxious and sometimes threatening. It's a courageous thing to take on a case like this, where no verdict will prevent you from being bashed loudly across the country.

[Details]

It's not nonsense as the link will attest to. Keep searching. It may take a while, but it is findable. I didn't say the link was under Sidney and Justin. It is on a link to do with the book. Keep trying. It is there. Good luck. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lar...p=mss&ei=UTF-8

(Where is your link they weren't told, and didn't approve of the book? Or is it from God's mouth to your fingertips? Or are you speaking for them, imagining what they knew or didn't know? )

mhoI posted that a fair number of minutes ago. And if your link was real, you'd be able to find it. I did search - and I found it - and it says the opposite of what you say - that they didn't know. Look a few posts up.

[Details]

They approved of the book.

mhoNot according to the link you yourself recommended.

They signed paperwork to get profits from a fictional book OJ was writing - without knowing what it was about. Just as I said. That's the only story that is out there. That's what was said on LKL. That's all there is.

We all get one wrong sometimes - never any harm in admitting it.

[Tracian]

Oh, I see the way this works: It is acceptable to criticize the jury in the double murder trial, but it is called "bashing" of the jury in the Las Vegas trial. :rolleyes:

mho


A nine month trial with less than four hours of deliberation vs. a 13 day trial with 13 hours of deliberation. I have already offered the proof of my other problem with one of the jurors in the murder trial.

[Details]

That link like the others you've provided, goes nowhere - to a search that is irrelevant. Reality is - there is no such link. I'd have found it - I actually really searched. It's not there. What I quoted is the only thing out there. On Fox news or LKL - there's not a single thing out there saying they knew what the book was, nor that they approved of the book he actually wrote. A hypothetical fiction novel that they didn't know what it was about - that they signed papers to get money from. But there's not a word anywhere saying they knew what the book was.

[Tracian]

That link like the others you've provided, goes nowhere - to a search that is irrelevant. Reality is - there is no such link. I'd have found it - I actually really searched. It's not there. What I quoted is the only thing out there. On Fox news or LKL - there's not a single thing out there saying they knew what the book was, nor that they approved of the book he actually wrote. A hypothetical fiction novel that they didn't know what it was about - that they signed papers to get money from. But there's not a word anywhere saying they knew what the book was.




None of the links offered have any information. I guess I will chalk it up the the opinion rather than fact.

[Details]

There is. They approved of the book. But if you can't find it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you want to drop the search, no problem. I provided you with a link.

mhoYou did not provide me with any link to that information. I completed the searches. No Larry King, no Fox show discussing the book has the information you describe. I did your homework for you - and it does not exist.

They never ever have said, directly nor through a represenative, nor through any family member, even OJ, that they approved of this book. They did sign papers to approve of getting funds from a fictional book without knowing it's contents - as I've said all along. And you've provided no link, no quote, no information to counter that. Merely links to Yahoo searches that do not point to any contrary information.



See - this type of stuff is why I am so focused on looking at REALITY - not what people want to think, not accepting a link without clicking on it, not what someone might claim is out there - but what is really out there, what is the truth. What you say is not the truth - not here - and I've more than proved it.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I simply must commend those who have shown the "patiences of Jobe" ..it's been like hearing, reading and watching a continuous loop of same ol' same ol'..rationale given, and completley ignored facts...Contrates to Details, G....and numerous others..Good job..!

In from work..and read all posts since I left threads last eve..So not too much new...however did read a heads up for interview of jurors on Dr. Phil..I was too late to catch it tho...Anyone get to see it??

I too appreciate the fact they made their decision on the evidence..as it was sure there in spades for them..So often, jurors dont have any tapes, or videos to corrobertate snitches testimony..as I remember, even the police questioned the voracity of the tale they had been told by Fromong and Beardsley...incredulous tho, the tapes backed them up..Amazing to have such hard evidence to prove such a crime.....All those plea bargains were just indicative of they knew the "Gig was up"..so sense in denying it...!!

OJS..will be cooling his heels in lockup..and we dont have to listen about his latest escapades any more for a long time!! I for one am sick of his shenanigans and hurtful mission in life!!

LMS:seeya:

Dr. Phil's interview of jurors anyone??

[Details]

" O.J. Simpson recently admitted he participated in the ill-fated "If I Did It" book and interview project for one reason - personal profit, acknowledging that any financial gain was "blood money".

" This was an opportunity for my kids to get their financial legacy," Simpson said in interviews this week after the book deal was abandoned by its publisher.

" My kids understand. I made it clear that it's blood money, but it's no different than any of the other writers who did books on this case," Simpson said. "

11/24/06:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418127/Outcry-O-J-Simpsons-book-goes-eBay.html

Son, Justin, is now 20. Daughter, Sydney, turns 23 in 10 days. Jason is 38. Arnelle turns 40 in December.

I find it incredible that the 2 younger adults did not know the theme of the book. If other people want to believe those 2 just nodded their heads when Dear Old Dad said he was going to write a book to make a lot of money for them to "get their financial legacy" and did not ask one question, that is OK with me.That doesn't say they approved of it - nor that they knew when they signed papers, and everything else says they did not know. All it says is that he says they understand - now. Not then. And it's him saying the understand - not approve, not endorse, not even that they are OK with it.

How are two young adults supposed to know what the book is about before it's written? Let alone imagine their Dear Old Dad is about to write a description of how their mother was murdered.


However - McCannie owes you a debt for doing her homework for her - even if it isn't the link she claims exists but cannot create.

[Details]

I'd love to hear what happened with the jurors too. Did anyone watch? I know some people were supposed to, but I never heard from them.

I can sure understand the police and everyone being incredulous without proof - it sounds ridiculous. I've just been hacked by Bill Gates, I've just been flashed by President Clinton, I've just been robbed by OJ Simpson - sounds like a gag. But the tapes proved it.

[DebinNv]

I simply must commend those who have shown the "patiences of Jobe" ..it's been like hearing, reading and watching a continuous loop of same ol' same ol'..rationale given, and completley ignored facts...Contrates to Details, G....and numerous others..Good job..!

In from work..and read all posts since I left threads last eve..So not too much new...however did read a heads up for interview of jurors on Dr. Phil..I was too late to catch it tho...Anyone get to see it??

I too appreciate the fact they made their decision on the evidence..as it was sure there in spades for them..So often, jurors dont have any tapes, or videos to corrobertate snitches testimony..as I remember, even the police questioned the voracity of the tale they had been told by Fromong and Beardsley...incredulous tho, the tapes backed them up..Amazing to have such hard evidence to prove such a crime.....All those plea bargains were just indicative of they knew the "Gig was up"..so sense in denying it...!!

OJS..will be cooling his heels in lockup..and we dont have to listen about his latest escapades any more for a long time!! I for one am sick of his shenanigans and hurtful mission in life!!

LMS:seeya:

Dr. Phil's interview of jurors anyone??

What I seen today on Dr. Phil was the Goldmans, for about the last 10 minutes. I guess tommorow they will have some of the jurors on. I believe Lisa Bloom will be on also. I'm going to tivo it. I think it will be interesting!

[Details]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/17/lkl.01.html

95% of the transcripts have nothing to do with the subject at hand. On my monitor, using the right-hand scroll bar, about 1" from the bottom is this:

Kim Goldman: "We're very sensitive to Nicole Brown's family. We were sensitive to the kids. But when we learned that they all knew about it and signed off on it, it made it a little bit easier."

I don't have access to court records but I believe Kim Goldman would. However, her statement is bolstered by my post just above.

Those who want to believe her, OK. Those who do not want to believe her, that's OK, too.I believe Nicole Brown is closer to the kids - and she says they did not know - they signed off on a fiction book without knowing the contents.. I believe Goldman is likely going off of the misleading statement given out at the start that the kids signed off, without knowing that they didn't know the content of the book. Court records won't say what the kids knew - just whether they signed the legal docs to create the fund that the book money went to. I don't know that they'd be asked about it either - seems irrelevant.

No way to be sure - but since the Brown family is part of raising those children, part of their family, they're far more likely to know the truth.

[rainbo]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/17/lkl.01.html

95% of the transcripts have nothing to do with the subject at hand. On my monitor, using the right-hand scroll bar, about 1" from the bottom is this:

Kim Goldman: "We're very sensitive to Nicole Brown's family. We were sensitive to the kids. But when we learned that they all knew about it and signed off on it, it made it a little bit easier."

I don't have access to court records but I believe Kim Goldman would. However, her statement is bolstered by my post just above.

Those who want to believe her, OK. Those who do not want to believe her, that's OK, too.

It's possible that the kids had no real say so in the matter. Has ANYONE ever been able to control OJ Simpson? Even he can't control himself. He got it in his mind that he wanted to do it, so he did it. It's also likely that they thought he was going to write a book about his arrest and trial. How do we know for sure that the kids knew it was going to be "If I Did It"? Maybe now that OJ is going away for the rest of his life (hopefully), the kids will come out and speak out against him and tell what they REALLY think and feel about daddy dearest.

[Details]

How would they know? O.J told them. If they understood and knew it was blood money, they knew the content!

It is on the link I provided, but no need to keep searching: Guernica proved it with the link.

mhoNope. Understood does not mean approved. I understand many of my father's actions without approving of them.

[Details]

In your first sentence, I believe you meant to type Denise Brown; Nicole Brown is the murdered victim.

As for Denise Brown being closer to the kids and even close with their Brown grandparents, Simpson, of course, says differently.

"Couric: “Although, [Denise] she does maintain a relationship with your children, correct?”

Simpson: “Well, I don't know. I recall when she came to Miami once she took them to dinner. And I know that I'm sure when my kids were in California she must see them. I know she sees my son when he's out there.”

Couric: “So, they spend the summer with the Browns?”

Simpson: “Sidney will spend very little time there. She'll go there, say hello and stuff. Then she wants to be her friends in Los Angeles… I mean, the sons of Denise and Dominique are relatively his age. So, he has someone to hang out with. Of course, now as they're getting older they want to stay with their friends, you know, here in Florida. But they will go out and spend some time there. Sidney not so much as Justin. And I just assume since they all live in Laguna that they see Denise. But outside of that, no, she's had no effect one way or the other on their raising.”

Couric Interview, June 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5137198/

You believe Nicole Brown is closer to the kids and that the Brown family has been part of their upbringing.

I do not know. No one really knows. There are always two sides to every situation -- and sometimes 3, 4, and even 5 sides.:)Yes, closer than the Goldmans - I'd say that's obvious. Between Goldman and Brown, who is more likely to know what the kids are saying - Brown.

The interview though - OJ just described normal family life - the teenagers live at home, but spend plenty of time with their friends. Nothing unusual about that, and it sure doesn't imply a lack of connection.


And, yeah, obviously Denise Brown. I'm awful with names.

[Tracian]

Newsweek, 11/17/2006:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/44647/page/1


" Even some of the people closest to Simpson were surprised when they learned about the deal. Galanter, Simpson's lawyer, bluntly admits he's "p---ed" O.J. kept him in the dark about it. He calls the profits "blood money," and says, "I definitely would not have approved this." Galanter says the whole thing is something of a bait-and-switch. Only one of the seven chapters deals with the murder, he says, and nowhere does O.J. admit to killing anyone. Even so, Galanter says, "I wouldn't have done it for a gazillion dollars." Simpson's children evidently don't share his misgivings. Galanter says O.J.'s four grown children--two from a previous marriage, and two he had with Nicole--were among the few people who knew about the deal before last week, and he says they approved. (Simpson's children are not talking publicly about the book.) "

Simpson says all 4 of his children knew about the book in 2006.
Kim Goldman says his children signed off on the book.
Galanter says all 4 knew and approved of the book in 2006.

But Denise Brown says they didn't but she has her own agenda, and her parents have very good reasons to avoid making public statements about the book. And Simpson's children have very good reasons not to talk publicly about the book, too.

And that is the last from me today on this subject.:)

Well, IMO, until I hear it from Sydney or Justin, I will assume that it is more or less speculation. I will also add, that even Gallanter on TRU the other day said he thought the book was a huge mistake that he was not informed of until the deal was made.

:shrug: IMO, it was damage control.

[warhorse46]

But the fact remains he was not a 'criminal" in the robbery and kidnapping UNTIL he was CONVICTED of R and K.

Who said he gets the presumption of innocence on a message board by posters?: In every post of mine I made it abundantly clear I said in court!

As to the preseumption of innocence on a message board, IN MY SPACE on this board all defendants get the presumption of innocence. I am not advocating it for the whole board. I could care less what others feel about this. I am speaking of ONLY my space. This is my right, and my space...and every defendant gets the presumption of innocence. What others do is their business. No discussion will change what goes in my space with regards to presumption off innocence. It is sealed in cement, period.:patriot:

mho



mho


And you never specified you felt OJ was not a criminal in the kidnapping & armed robbery case. You stated he was not a criminal before he was convicted last Friday. We have proven beyond any doubt that he was indeed a criminal under the law before he committed the armed robbery & kidnappings. Once you are convicted of a felony crime that is on your record forever making you a criminal forever unless it is expunged by the courts for some reason.
You certainly do have the right to presume every defendant innocent before trial if that is your wish & I would not try to take that right away from you. But others have the equal right to feel differently than you.

[warhorse46]

Did anyone ever really think he had a chance in heck with this trial of being found not guilty? I know I didn't, I was surprised it took so long to convict him. In my mind he would of been convicted regardless of evidence just based on the fact that everyone wants him to pay for the murders. Point in case is I haven't seen one poster on this messageboard that doesn't refer to him being a criminal for killing Ron and Nicole, oh yeah he was going down no matter what happened this time. In some ways I think it is karma, in other ways I think it is scary that you may be convicted of something because you weren't convicted of a different crime that most people think you have committed.



Produce a post of mine where I accused him of being a criminal in the Nicole & Ron slayings. Yes I believe he is responsible for those two deaths but he was not convicted in a criminal court so in my mind he is not a criminal because of them.

[warhorse46]

Did anyone ever really think he had a chance in heck with this trial of being found not guilty? I know I didn't, I was surprised it took so long to convict him. In my mind he would of been convicted regardless of evidence just based on the fact that everyone wants him to pay for the murders. Point in case is I haven't seen one poster on this messageboard that doesn't refer to him being a criminal for killing Ron and Nicole, oh yeah he was going down no matter what happened this time. In some ways I think it is karma, in other ways I think it is scary that you may be convicted of something because you weren't convicted of a different crime that most people think you have committed.


Yes he had as much of a chance as any defendant of being found not guilty in this trial. He had a top notch defense team, a year to work on the case, adequate funds for investigation, experts, etc. The jury has stated the prior murder trial was NOT a factor in their deliberations, it was not discussed even tho it was entered into evidence. They said they found the witnesses to be noncredible but the tapes with OJ`s own words is what convinced them of his guilt. When your own words are memorialized on tape while committing multiple crimes that tends to convict you.

[warhorse46]

Nope. They approved of the book. They knew the contents and the topic of the book.

I read the book...so I know it's content.


The information is findable. Keep searching this link: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=larry+king+live+transcripts&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Where is the link you found discussing it? TIA

mho


Please provide a direct link to the LKL transcript you are using as your evidence, not one to the yahoo search page listing LKL.

[warhorse46]

It's not nonsense as the link will attest to. Keep searching. It may take a while, but it is findable. I didn't say the link was under Sidney and Justin. It is on a link to do with the book. Keep trying. It is there. Good luck. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lar...p=mss&ei=UTF-8

(Where is your link they weren't told, and didn't approve of the book? Or is it from God's mouth to your fingertips? Or are you speaking for them, imagining what they knew or didn't know? )

mho

If it is findable then YOU find it & post it. YOU are the one making the claim so you are the one responsible for backing it up.

[kennedy06]

He didn't look like a "straight shooter" to me. He twisted and moved around in his seat, and looked like he was about to jump out of his seat or out of his skin.

This is my observation and opinion of this jury:

I don't buy his story about wanting to keep the jury deliberating for fear of an accident or of something happening to them. It is my opinion, he wanted to deliberate 13 hours and get the verdict in on the 13th anniversary. I don't think the jury even knew they were manipulated into the 13. He manipulated them under the guise of having an accident.



mho


I really can't see any one manipulating a jury like that for sake of coincidence. I know #10 in the 1st PS trial was accused of things which made many upset but, this guy in the OJ trial jury trying to align dates and hours for sensationalism? I'm a little resistant to that idea.

JMO

[warhorse46]

I thought it was a civil suit and not a criminal one, as Direct TV sued OJ for pirating. I don't think he was "charged" with anything.


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ojtv1.html


July 28, 2005 03:18am
Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
A US federal judge in Miami has ordered former football superstar OJ Simpson to pay a US$25,000 ($33089) fine to the satellite television firm DirecTV for using unauthorized devices to receive its programming.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16074238-1702,00.html

[Jay]

Your law dictionary no doubt defines many words in very interesting ways that conflict with normal English - any specialized language does that, whether science, engineering, or law (take the scientific definition of "theory" versus the common English one, for an extreme example). But reality is, and a common dictionary will confirm, a criminal is one who has committed a crime. When dealing with legal issues, the legal definition rules - but that doesn't change reality.


So if you get falsely accused of a serious felony, but aquitted, are you still a felon using your logic?


Don't be mad if an employer won't hire you because you are a felon and or a criminal.

And if you say you are not a felon, as you were aquitted, I can apply the same logic you use, you still were charged, so the official adjudication means nothing then?? You ARE a felon as you were charged with a felony? Right?

Say a public online court clerk's web site has you listed as being charged with speeding, but the case was dismissed and another person who has it in for you posts on thier myspace or such you ARE a criminal, that's it. They are not lying, so you would have no right to be upset.

If you are charged with an offense you are an "accused" criminal. You rely on a common dictionary definition to support your position that a person who was aquitted of a felony is still a felon??

I checked several sources and not all dictionaries have your definition, so in that respect your authority is NOT universal in nature.

Different scholars write dictionaries, and not ALL have the same phraseology definition.

You see the definition here under NOUN:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal


IF a law were passed, as you bring up enactments, that anyone simply charged with a felony after the effective date, even IF aquitted, were to be disenfranchised or prohibited from owning a weapon or a professional license, real estate, private detective, etc., etc., would that be right??


You ARE a criminal, why should you be allowed to vote or possess a weapon??

[Jay]

gnm, I also brought up the part about job applications. Some states prohibit certain questions on applications concerning arrest/conviction history.

So while the dictionary may say they are a criminal, even if aquitted, the law may protect them when looking for a job, so now we have an overlap of law and dictionary, hmm!!

If the law has no place in common opinions, then such employment protection should not be passed??

[Velouria]

So if you get falsely accused of a serious felony, but aquitted, are you still a felon using your logic?


Don't be mad if an employer won't hire you because you are a felon and or a criminal.

And if you say you are not a felon, as you were aquitted, I can apply the same logic you use, you still were charged, so the official adjudication means nothing then?? You ARE a felon as you were charged with a felony? Right?

Say a public online court clerk's web site has you listed as being charged with speeding, but the case was dismissed and another person who has it in for you posts on thier myspace or such you ARE a criminal, that's it. They are not lying, so you would have no right to be upset.

If you are charged with an offense you are an "accused" criminal. You rely on a common dictionary definition to support your position that a person who was aquitted of a felony is still a felon??

I checked several sources and not all dictionaries have your definition, so in that respect your authority is NOT universal in nature.

Different scholars write dictionaries, and not ALL have the same phraseology definition.

You see the definition here under NOUN:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal
<respectfully snipped>


By the very definition you posted, a criminal is a person guilty OR convicted of a crime. Guilty of as in "having committed" a crime. Otherwise, the definition would simply state "person convicted of a crime". Have you ever heard of a person convicted as innocent?

You become a criminal upon the commission of a crime, you become a felon upon conviction of a crime.

Pedantic arguments aside, O.J. is both a felon and a criminal now, like it or not.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Oh trust me, this is nothing, Lynda...Were you here during Spector 1?


I realize this is nothing new...LOL..and yes I was around during the PS1..but it still strikes me as odd..

It also stikes me this broken record of LE bashing, or biased jury, or media bashing, or prejudice, or racism as a common them when some post opinions constently bashing these themes yet ignore evidence in the trial. I say this with headshaking frustration because I do listen to the evidence..and have many times felt it has not been proven, or the evidence is presented incorrectly, (i.e. Sommers Case)..so not a Pros. lover nor a defense lover.

For myself, it's the evidence,....... direct, circumstantial, forensical, witnessed..I make my mind up just like any juror does, regarding the credibility, accuracy, possible, probable, likely, reasonable, unlikely, ..in other words...I use both my common sense and life experiences personally and professionally to make such decisions in my mind.

This group of jurors, regardless of how much they knew or felt about OJ's previous Case..worked very hard to reach a decision based on the evidence presented..I said after the closing arguments, that IF the jurors follow the law, OJ and CJ would be found guilty, however nullification by Yale and Gabe which was attempted might have worked if the testimony of all the witnesses had not been corroberated by OJ's own voice on those tapes.

LMS:seeya:

BTW Good Morning..

[warhorse46]

I provided a link. It was the best I could do. I didn't recall exactly which show it was on. And this is over, the information has been on this board. A poster provided a link.

Incorrect! I was not proven wrong. Sidney and Justin approved of the book.

A poster found this:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/44647/page/1


" Even some of the people closest to Simpson were surprised when they learned about the deal. Galanter, Simpson's lawyer, bluntly admits he's "p---ed" O.J. kept him in the dark about it. He calls the profits "blood money," and says, "I definitely would not have approved this." Galanter says the whole thing is something of a bait-and-switch. Only one of the seven chapters deals with the murder, he says, and nowhere does O.J. admit to killing anyone. Even so, Galanter says, "I wouldn't have done it for a gazillion dollars." Simpson's children evidently don't share his misgivings. Galanter says O.J.'s four grown children--two from a previous marriage, and two he had with Nicole--were among the few people who knew about the deal before last week, and he says they approved. (Simpson's children are not talking publicly about the book.) "



mho

Are you purposely leaving out a critical word to twist the meaning to suit your theory or are you just not seeing that critical word? Simpson's children knew about the book DEAL. They did NOT know the content of the book.

[warhorse46]

I realize this is nothing new...LOL..and yes I was around during the PS1..but it still strikes me as odd..

It also stikes me this broken record of LE bashing, or biased jury, or media bashing, or prejudice, or racism as a common them when some post opinions constently bashing these themes yet ignore evidence in the trial. I say this with headshaking frustration because I do listen to the evidence..and have many times felt it has not been proven, or the evidence is presented incorrectly, (i.e. Sommers Case)..so not a Pros. lover nor a defense lover.

For myself, it's the evidence,....... direct, circumstantial, forensical, witnessed..I make my mind up just like any juror does, regarding the credibility, accuracy, possible, probable, likely, reasonable, unlikely, ..in other words...I use both my common sense and life experiences personally and professionally to make such decisions in my mind.

This group of jurors, regardless of how much they knew or felt about OJ's previous Case..worked very hard to reach a decision based on the evidence presented..I said after the closing arguments, that IF the jurors follow the law, OJ and CJ would be found guilty, however nullification by Yale and Gabe which was attempted might have worked if the testimony of all the witnesses had not been corroberated by OJ's own voice on those tapes.

LMS:seeya:

BTW Good Morning..


OJ's voice & words on those tapes is what convinced the jury of his guilt---as it should IMO.

[Buzz#1]

The one juror had to listen to it many times before she could make out what he said at one point. It was mentioned at the press conference.

Now that is pathetic! They take away a man's life based on tapes the one juror had to listen to a number of times. How many times did the other jurors have to listen to it till the convince themselves that is what he said? That is a sad state of affairs.

MHO

Putting some one in jail for the right reason is not taking away some one life,his kids can visit him his girl friend can visit him,probably conjugal visits(eww)..Ron and Nicole:rose: well we know where you have to go to visit them!!!

[Tracian]

His life is over. It doesn't matter how many visits he gets. He will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.

Ron and Nicole have nothing to do with this trial! The fact you connected Ron and Nicole with this trial, proves this trial was more about the 1995 acquittal than the robbery and kidnapping! And he didn't put them in a grave! He was acquitted.

MHO


OJ was found responsible for the deaths; the Browns and Goldmans were awarded a cash amount; OJ attempted to hide 'assets' (i.e. memorabilia) in order to skirt the turn over order by the court. Years later he chose to play mobster and re-claim the property that he should have turned over in the first place.

So in a six degrees of Kevin Bacon kind of way, it does have to do with the murders and his accountablity of those deaths.

[Buzz#1]

His life is over. It doesn't matter how many visits he gets. He will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.

Ron and Nicole have nothing to do with this trial! The fact you connected Ron and Nicole with this trial, proves this trial was more about the 1995 acquittal than the robbery and kidnapping! And he didn't put them in a grave! He was acquitted.

MHO

Acquitted because of Mark Furman!And the stuff he stole wasn't his it should have been turned over to the Goldmans years ago!! So the 95 trial is part of it weather you want to admit it or not....:no:

[Tracian]

It has nothing to do with the 1995 murders! It has to do with the civil case, in which he was found liable. He was acquitted of killing Ron and Nicole.

mho



IF Ron and Nicole were never murdered, there would never have been a civil trial that held OJ accountable.

We all know that he was found 'not-guilty' in the criminal case, but it was because of the murders that a civil case was filed, he was found responsible, which lead to the current conviction.

[DebinNv]

I watched the trial from gavel to gavel. I heard only the recordings that were played during the trial. There was enough evidence on that tape that was very loud and clear -- Meaning you didn't have to listen to it over and over to understand and hear what was being said -- for the jury to find him guilty. Although, I am glad that they did listen to it more than once. To me, that shows integrity.

The only thing that was pathetic was Simpson once again -- in his arrogance -- believing that a jury would find him NG again!

I'm looking forward to watching Dr. Phil today, I have to admit, I don't normally watch his show. Looking forward to hearing from the jury.

[Details]

So if you get falsely accused of a serious felony, but aquitted, are you still a felon using your logic?....You are really funny.

I said I was talking about reality- over and over again I said that - don't know how you missed it. If you are falsely accused of a felony, you are not a felon. An accusation is not the same as reality. This is obvious. If you are falsely accused of grand theft, incorrectly convicted, the whole world thinks you did it - you still aren't a thief, in reality.


Can you point to a single post where I, or anyone else posting on this topic has said a single thing remotely slightly, even barely connected to this bizarre concept you are expounding on, that an accusation is the same thing as having done the crime? Because no one has said anything remotely like that.

So this idea that being accused of a felony makes you a felon is coming out of your head, not mine.

[Details]

...I never said niobody had the equal right as I did. I made that clear in my posts. I made it clear that I don't care what others believe. ...Nonsense again. You've made it clear you care a great deal what others believe because you keep on correcting them when they state, in THEIR SPACE that OJ was a criminal when he committed a crime. That's what is in your posts. And we've spent a rather excessive time on that objection to others saying OJ was a criminal the day he committed a crime. You've got a perfect right to say he wasn't, in your opinion, until conviction - I've got the same perfect right, as does everyone else, to say he was a criminal, in reality, as defined by the dictionary, the moment he committed the crime, whether or not he's ever accused or convicted of that crime.

[JConnolly]

I don't know any tattoo artists. Could the poster who referenced said tattoo please elaborate the knowledge they may possess on what, exactly, the meaning of that tattoo, and note the date of their death in comparison to the meaning of this tattoo. is all about?? TIA.

[Details]

And... we've kind dragged this thread all over the place. Maybe it's time for a new thread? Either a discussion type thread, or separate threads for discussion of the murder and such?

Especially with Dr. Phil having a juror interview today.

[JConnolly]

Hello? Is this thing ON?

[JConnolly]

And... we've kind dragged this thread all over the place. Maybe it's time for a new thread? Either a discussion type thread, or separate threads for discussion of the murder and such?

Especially with Dr. Phil having a juror interview today.
WHEW! Thanks Details! I was beginning to think I was frozen up!

Yes, I agree. Let's start a new thread. I like, "General Discussion." IF CW will allow it... you do it :tongue:

[caphill]

The tattoo is mentioned in "Evidence Dismissed" by Det. Tom Lange and Det. Phillip Vannatter as told to Dan E.Moldea, page 10. The significance of the murder date is mentioned in "His Name Is Ron" by the Goldmans

There may be tattoo artists listed in the phone book where you live. I think they may even give the meaning of the tattoo on the phone.

I want to keep the record straight: Fred and Kim Goldman do not mention the tattoo or the significance of it. All they mention is the strange coincidence of the date of Ron and Nicole's deaths. Nor does Vannatter and Lange mention the significance of the tattoo. I found it out by asking a tattoo artist, and compared it's significance to the date of Ron and Nicole's death.


MHO


I never heard of the tattoo. I would be very interested to hear about it. I never knew a name was out to the bloody fingerprint on the gate that just happen to be lost.

I was blown away about the blood found under Nicole's fingernail that was not hers, not Ron's and not OJ's. That just one of many things about the evidence that no one talks about.

[Shells2]

July 28, 2005 03:18am
Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
A US federal judge in Miami has ordered former football superstar OJ Simpson to pay a US$25,000 ($33089) fine to the satellite television firm DirecTV for using unauthorized devices to receive its programming.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16074238-1702,00.html


That link (from Australia?) says the same thing as the last one you said. I'm asking you to show me where he was crimminally charged with theft and found guilty. I can't find a link. The monetary fine you are talking about was due to the fact that Direct TV sued OJ and won. This wasn't a crimminal charge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8719276/
District Judge Joan Lenard awarded the damages, plus attorneys’ fees and other costs, after granting a motion for summary judgment in a civil suit against Simpson.

[NYGalPal]

WHEW! Thanks Details! I was beginning to think I was frozen up!

Yes, I agree. Let's start a new thread. I like, "General Discussion." IF CW will allow it... you do it :tongue:
I started a new one.

[Shells2]

You mean to tell me they knew about the book deal, but had no idea of it's contents? :lol: Oh, please.



mho
You mean to tell me that because OJ says his kids knew about the book - that makes it a fact..

:lol:Oh please...


your own link says that OJ's children refused to comment on the book. Until they do.. no one can say for certain what OJ's children thought/read/knew about the book.

[Tracian]

You mean to tell me that because OJ says his kids knew about the book - that makes it a fact..

:lol:Oh please...


your own link says that OJ's children refused to comment on the book. Until they do.. no one can say for certain what OJ's children thought/read/knew about the book.


Exactly!!! Well put!!!:beer:

[Tracian]

ITD!

mho


With what? How could OJ be found responsible for two deaths, if they are alive?

:shrug:

[Shells2]

Refusing to comment on the book doesn't mean they didn't approve of it. It clearly states they approved of the book.


On what planet?

So when anyone refuses to comment, that clearly means they approve of whatever they are being asked?

Then why the need for the "no comment" wouldn't it instead be changed to "I clearly agree" if what you are saying is true?

[Details]

You mean to tell me that because OJ says his kids knew about the book - that makes it a fact..

:lol:Oh please...


your own link says that OJ's children refused to comment on the book. Until they do.. no one can say for certain what OJ's children thought/read/knew about the book.OJ says they knew and understood - not approved of the book. They did sign the documents, not knowing it's contents, according to their Aunt, Denise Brown. Galanter - what he says comes from OJ, and I'll take OJ's direct words first on that - and it's also possible that this is attorney speak - "approve" as in "sign off on".


But OJ's statement is quite interesting, because it very clearly does not say they approved of the book. It says they "understood". Classic parent talk - kids understand - doesn't mean they approve. Same type of thing as you say when you tell your kids about getting a divorce, moving away from their friends, etc. "Hey, George, do the kids know yet about the divorce?" "Yeah, I talked to them, explained it. They understand". Understand is not approve, not even close.

[johnielee333]

the jury got it right. he got a fair trial.
OJ got what he deserved. he broke the law. you cannot take the law into your own hands & think thats ok to do so. this trial had nothing to do with his first trial. the jury did the right thing.

[Details]

They were a lucky jury - had one of the easiest cases I've ever seen. Normally you have to piece together what you think happened from a bunch of eyewitnesses - and the prosecution makes them out to be accurate, the defense makes them out to be biased or blind, and you've got to try to decide if there's a truth in there. Maybe you get a bit of extra evidence - stolen property at a thieves home helps a ton, video establishing the location of the suspects around the time of the crime is great.

But to get all of that, then over the top, all of these tapes with the whole plan being made, the event itself, and talking about it after - that just makes their job so easy. They don't have to decide what witnesses are telling how much of the truth - they've got the tapes that have most of the evidence needed to decide all the charges.

Still - they did a good job in a trying case, not because the evidence or case was difficult - but because of the high profile, high emotions on this case. No matter their decision, there will be many people who disagree strongly with them, many people angry with them - and quite possibly some of those people might be inclined to express their disagreement with violence. It's a difficult thing to be involved in. And of course other jurors have that too - when you convict a mob boss, or even just a minor gang member, that can happen too. They're all very courageous to do their jury duty, not try to duck it, and just judge the case on the facts.

[Jay]

You are really funny.

I said I was talking about reality- over and over again I said that - don't know how you missed it. If you are falsely accused of a felony, you are not a felon. An accusation is not the same as reality. This is obvious. If you are falsely accused of grand theft, incorrectly convicted, the whole world thinks you did it - you still aren't a thief, in reality.


Can you point to a single post where I, or anyone else posting on this topic has said a single thing remotely slightly, even barely connected to this bizarre concept you are expounding on, that an accusation is the same thing as having done the crime? Because no one has said anything remotely like that.

So this idea that being accused of a felony makes you a felon is coming out of your head, not mine.


Here is what aubrey said on page 6:

"We are NOT in a court of law. We are on a message board... and a person who commits a crime is a criminal, according to www.dictionary.com -- whether convicted or not".

I was simply asking, not being funny, thank you very much, if simply being charged with a felony makes you a felon, even if aquitted??

From her statement I felt safe to assume that if charged with a felony you are a felon, aquitted or not? I guess you did not see the comparison there??

[Jay]

Have you ever heard of a person convicted as innocent?



Are you familiar with the Innocence Project? It was started by Simpson's own murder trial attorney Barry Scheck!

I can point to many "wrongful imprisonment" suits filed in state courts when a person is released years later after conviction after new evidence comes to light and then sues the state.

You have never heard of a sucessful wrongful imprisonment suit??

[NYGalPal]

Are you familiar with the Innocence Project? It was started by Simpson's own murder trial attorney Barry Scheck!

I can point to many "wrongful imprisonment" suits filed in state courts when a person is released years later after conviction after new evidence comes to light and then sues the state.

You have never heard of a sucessful wrongful imprisonment suit??

Don't they rely on DNA to help the innocent?

Not sure what this has to do with the current case?

[Jay]

Don't they rely on DNA to help the innocent?

Not sure what this has to do with the current case?

I was asked the question, so I responded.

I'll ask you, have you ever heard of a sucessful wrongful imprisonment suit?? I have!!

[NYGalPal]

I was asked the question, so I responded.

I'll ask you, have you ever heard of a sucessful wrongful imprisonment suit?? I have!!

Well goody for you. It won't happen in this case.

omo

[Jay]

Well goody for you.

Was that really necessary? I only asked you a question!

[Details]

Here is what aubrey said on page 6:

"We are NOT in a court of law. We are on a message board... and a person who commits a crime is a criminal, according to www.dictionary.com -- whether convicted or not".

I was simply asking, not being funny, thank you very much, if simply being charged with a felony makes you a felon, even if aquitted??

From her statement I felt safe to assume that if charged with a felony you are a felon, aquitted or not? I guess you did not see the comparison there??Why did you see that in her statement? She said nothing about being charged. She said:


a person who commits a crime is a criminal



Where do you see the word charged? The word accused? There's nothing related to that. The word is commit. As in, if you, in real life, in the real world, in reality, whether anyone knows or not, whether you are accused, suspected, charged or not, COMMIT a crime, you are a criminal. This is about the real world. Reality. Not law enforcement, not courts, reality.

Of course, you replied to me, not her - and I've likewise always been talking about people committing a crime, and about reality, never about accused, charged, nor anything else. Sorry - but it seemed you were being funny - deliberately or no - you took a huge leap that was based on nothing anyone had said, then gave a long rant about how horrible this strawman no one had supported, was.


There are two worlds colliding here. The one that thinks that until a judge says it, it didn't happen, and the one that thinks that there is a real world, and there's no reason to ignore what happened there until it is ruled on by a judge.

[NYGalPal]

Was that really necessary? I only asked you a question!

I answered your question.

omo

[Lyndawitha"Y]

the jury got it right. he got a fair trial.
OJ got what he deserved. he broke the law. you cannot take the law into your own hands & think thats ok to do so. this trial had nothing to do with his first trial. the jury did the right thing.

ITA..OJ was found guilty of this crime..and it was the defenses premise that he did nothing wrong because:

He only wanted his stuff
He was upset and angry at those that stole it
He wanted to intimidate (be menacing) but didnt know about the guns
He had no control over the sting..caper, plan or who did what
He's famous..and above doing something so shameful
He was only prosecuted becaue he is OJ

Out of all the above premises..I see nothing lawfully exculpating him from the crimes of armed robbery, confinement of the "Marks" and taking of items he ( hummmm) didnt intentionly want...even tho he had been advised to seek remedy to go thru his lawyers and courts to retrieve..This case was proven beyond any doubt..not just reasonable doubt!!

LMS

[Kara]

Here is what aubrey said on page 6:

"We are NOT in a court of law. We are on a message board... and a person who commits a crime is a criminal, according to www.dictionary.com -- whether convicted or not".

I was simply asking, not being funny, thank you very much, if simply being charged with a felony makes you a felon, even if aquitted??

From her statement I felt safe to assume that if charged with a felony you are a felon, aquitted or not? I guess you did not see the comparison there??
I gotta add my 2 cents on this topic. I dont' care if a person is actually charged with or convicted of a crime...IMO they become a criminal when they commit criminal acts. An innocent person charged with and convicted of a crime doesn't truly make them a criminal if they did not commit the crime.

Technically a person is already guilty or innocent of a crime long before being charged, suspected or convicted/acquitted.

I know that's not true using the legal definition of some words, but it's the truth of the matter.

[5swab5]

Trying to make sure that my new digs are up and working, so I will just start here.

IF either of US had taken the law into our own hands, IS wouldn't even have a board devoted to us.

OJ is SO passe.

Let the thugs & this set of OJ's friends do their time in peace.

MOO

Swabby

[Mirage]

The tattoo is mentioned in "Evidence Dismissed" by Det. Tom Lange and Det. Phillip Vannatter as told to Dan E.Moldea, page 10. The significance of the murder date is mentioned in "His Name Is Ron" by the Goldmans

There may be tattoo artists listed in the phone book where you live. I think they may even give the meaning of the tattoo on the phone.

I want to keep the record straight: Fred and Kim Goldman do not mention the tattoo or the significance of it. All they mention is the strange coincidence of the date of Ron and Nicole's deaths. Nor does Vannatter and Lange mention the significance of the tattoo. I found it out by asking a tattoo artist, and compared it's significance to the date of Ron and Nicole's death.


MHO



Who the hell cares about a tattoo and what the hell has that to do with the murder? Nothing. Its the chewbacca defence. The prosectution has to show evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, it doesnt need to explain global warming and the theory of evolution along the way. This is the kind of extraneous waffle that allowed a double murderer to go free 13 years ago.

There was so much evidence pointing to simpsons guilt for the murders, that if someone paid you 1 million dollars to invent a longer list, short of video or eye witnesses, it would be extremely hard to do so.