Bashing the O.J. jury

[LYNNS]

These defence lawyers so blatenly bashing this jury, cause things didn't go their way , is the very reason people have such hatred for defence attorneys... how dare they say this jury or any american could not seperate his murder trial from this !! if this is the case, we may as well shut down all jury's ...I think O.J. should have been convicted in his murder trial and I watched this trial and never thought about that once, I'm intelligent enough to know all that was to be decided here was if going into a motel room with guns, forcing people against the wall , removing things, even if they belong to you, is wrong, in any state.....his own words convicted him " don't let any one out of this room" and "you didn't pull the piece out in the hall did ya " was all they needed to prove kidnapping and robbery......if he can't get a fair trial anywhere, should he just be allowed to do whatever he wants and we ignore it " cause he can't get a fair trial ?! seems to me he has a ready excuse for the next idiot move he makes.......I was actually sad to hear that his final years he will be rotting in prison, it's sad to me for anyone to waste their life like that over a few hours and a bad decision, but, O.J. made that decision... he could have went to that wedding, went home and a very nice life ... he chose not to !!!!

[warrkat]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432946,00.html

[grafittix]

Judging from their decision time and less than impressive performance at their press conference, I cannot give this jury a lot of credit for thorough examination of the case. They've uncovered dialogue in the tapes that neither prosecution nor defense experts could? Despite convicting him on a gazillion counts, they'd be satisfied if OJ walked out of jail today? The bald guy chomping on his gum was particularly annoying. Wonder which one will publish first?

[DebinNv]

I agree with the jury's verdict.
Simpson did this to himself -- his own words from that tape is what got him convicted.

Blaming and bashing the jury for following the law, and using the evidence they were given is just plain wrong!

[LYNNS]

so you would've preferred they came out smiling at him and then said he was guilty !! as far as their " courage " they has the " courage " to uphold the laws of the state of nevada..... that's what the trial was about .....

[nsm]

CHEERS TO THE JURY FOR FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF THE LAW

:beer:


wonder what are the chances that we could get the same jury for the Spector trial.??:shrug:

[grafittix]

IMO, if they can look the Press in the face, they should be able to look the Defendant in the face.

[ErinC1973]

What specifically bothers me about the statement that the jurors made regarding the fact that they "heard things on the tape that neither side did" is that they didn't come to an agreement until they played it six or seven times and ALL of them heard the same thing. This tells me that a few of them may have said "he said x, do you hear that?" and then they played it over and over until all of them "heard" it. Talk about the power of suggestion!

JMO!

[grafittix]

What specifically bothers me about the statement that the jurors made regarding the fact that they "heard things on the tape that neither side did" is that they didn't come to an agreement until they played it six or seven times and ALL of them heard the same thing. This tells me that a few of them may have said "he said x, do you hear that?" and then they played it over and over until all of them "heard" it. Talk about the power of suggestion!

JMO!

TOTALLY AGREE. And ALL within a few hours versus the YEAR the experts had.

[warrkat]

What specifically bothers me about the statement that the jurors made regarding the fact that they "heard things on the tape that neither side did" is that they didn't come to an agreement until they played it six or seven times and ALL of them heard the same thing. This tells me that a few of them may have said "he said x, do you hear that?" and then they played it over and over until all of them "heard" it. Talk about the power of suggestion!

JMO!

That IS troublesome, I agree with you. There was enough on the tapes, though, to convict. (imo) I had trouble understanding the words said because I was at work and had to keep the volume low, but my understanding is that they had headphones. They couldn't take their transcripts into the deliberation room, and I'm not real clear on the reasons for that.... seems to me it would be better that way, rather than depending on what someone else thinks they hear.

[DebinNv]

What specifically bothers me about the statement that the jurors made regarding the fact that they "heard things on the tape that neither side did" is that they didn't come to an agreement until they played it six or seven times and ALL of them heard the same thing. This tells me that a few of them may have said "he said x, do you hear that?" and then they played it over and over until all of them "heard" it. Talk about the power of suggestion!

JMO!

Especially, the part where Simpson says --you didn't take your piece out in the hallway -- I can't recall it verbatum.
I heard that loud and clear during the trial. that was powerfully suggestive!

His own words on that tape got him a convicted.

MOO

MOO

[psbperu]

Especially, the part where Simpson says --you didn't take your piece out in the hallway -- I can't recall it verbatum.
I heard that loud and clear during the trial. that was powerfully suggestive!

His own words on that tape got him a convicted.

MOO

MOO


Why do some jurors seem to want their "15 minutes of fame"?

Why can't they just go gracefully into the goodnight & not say anything.

"Oh look, I'm on tv"

[Details]

They were a courageous jury. I'm sure they knew, just as we do, that coming in guilty might cost them some slander at the least, but possibly far worse. Lots of strong emotions, one nutjob out there who feels strongly enough to go hurt those who they percieve as hurting their race, and they could be assaulted or worse.

They deliberated on the facts. And they did precisely what the defense insisted on - did not use the transcripts as evidence, but only what they could hear on the tapes themselves.


Jurors should not have to listen to themselves being slammed as a racist jury without response. And it is a good thing to hear what went on in the jury room. I always love it when a jury comes out and speaks.

[psbperu]

Watched Galanter with Jamie today:

Whine, whine, whine! You lost Yale, suck it up & acknowledge exactly why you lost....your client did the crime.

And the example DeGrasso gave about if OJ went into the bank across the street with a weapon & duct-taped the customers etc. is ridiculous.

There were guns in the room! People were held against their will.
And believe me if someone pulled a gun on me in a situation like that I am not going to say "put the gun away". Are these lawyers for real.

[Shells2]

Of course they are going to whine... their meal ticket is sitting behind bars. Let 'em whine, who cares, it just makes them look ridiculous IMO.

( and a slander suit against them would be hilarious!! I would take offense to the suggestion that I was racist if I were a jury member)

[Tracian]

Why do some jurors seem to want their "15 minutes of fame"?

Why can't they just go gracefully into the goodnight & not say anything.

"Oh look, I'm on tv"


I guess that if the Defense attorneys would not accuse the jurors of not doing their job correctly maybe they would.

I really have to shake my head. 13 years ago, after a nine month trial, the jury came back in roughly 3-4 hours---This trial was 13 days, and the jurors came back in 13 hours, and they are being criticized for not taking enough time.

Amazing.

[grafittix]

Why do some jurors seem to want their "15 minutes of fame"?

Why can't they just go gracefully into the goodnight & not say anything.

"Oh look, I'm on tv"

Exactly. I think the conscientious jurors did their duty, packed their stuff and went on with their lives. The ones who did the press conference were ill-equipped for it, so they've already failed in their quest for fame.

[DebinNv]

Why do some jurors seem to want their "15 minutes of fame"?

Why can't they just go gracefully into the goodnight & not say anything.

"Oh look, I'm on tv"

I think it's a catch 22, if they didn't speak all the TH's would have speculated as to why they didn't.

If they do speak they are criticized.

What should you do as a juror?

MOO

[rainbo]

Good God, Jami Floyd, Yale Galanter and Gabe Grasso really NEED TO GIVE IT A FRIGGIN' BREAK already! I'm so disgusted with them all. If the jury had acquitted OJ SIMPSON/Stewart, they'd be so relieved that the justice system worked, that the jury considered all and found the prosecution theory implausible. They didn't get their way, and now they are trying to pick out all the reasons why the jury was wrong/biased/racially driven/etc. It didn't go OJ's way this time; accept it, get over it and move on. I really abhor Jami Floyd and her bleeding heart rhetoric. This is the idiot that thought Michael Jackson was innocent, too. :flamemad:

[Mandysmom]

Some can put any spin on it that they want..cryin in your beer doesn't effect the outcome tho..

HE'S GONE..DONE..TOAST..YESTERDAY'S NEWS..:D
Yes, and I couldn't be happier. Made my day that the old thug got convicted on this one.

:beer:

[Heyes]

Good God, Jami Floyd, Yale Galanter and Gabe Grasso really NEED TO GIVE IT A FRIGGIN' BREAK already! I'm so disgusted with them all. If the jury had acquitted OJ SIMPSON/Stewart, they'd be so relieved that the justice system worked, that the jury considered all and found the prosecution theory implausible. They didn't get their way, and now they are trying to pick out all the reasons why the jury was wrong/biased/racially driven/etc. It didn't go OJ's way this time; accept it, get over it and move on. I really abhor Jami Floyd and her bleeding heart rhetoric. This is the idiot that thought Michael Jackson was innocent, too. :flamemad:
Poor Yale is going to have a tough time moving on, imo, his only client is locked up.
Grasso is getting his time for whining with Jamie now. I love it!
waaaa waaaaa waaaaa.
Too bad
so sad.

[Cait48]

i think OJ lost because he did do the crime...and they proved it with the tapes! ALSO i do truly believe that people are finally fed up with OJ and his nonsense and arrogance. AND how could the jury ignore the taped info from within the room itself?

so i for one, am thrilled that justice has been done FINALLY!!

to bad a surveillance camera wasn't on, at the walkway leading to the house outside at Nicole and Ron's murder scene.

i hope he goes to the big house for a long time.

and yeah, Maricopa county and that big bad wolf Sheriff out there, don't put up with no baloney! although OJ now is being kept in solitary for 'his' protection! seems we need protection from HIM!

sleep in a tent and NO coffee?? ooooohhh nooooo! that's how it is in Maricopa County!

question: why was the 'VERDICT REACHED IN OJ CASE' thread locked? on the breaking news board?

[rainbo]

Justice? The two people that were actually carrying weapons will walk away. One when originally arrested was latter released on his OR. The other admits to fraud when securing a drivers license by use of an alias.:shrug: This case was all about payback. What a shame.JMO

Those jurors said that they didn't even take the testimony of the witnesses into account because they didn't believe them. They took the words of OJ SIMPSON on the tape, and convicted him based on his own actions and his CLEARLY SPOKEN words. Good on the 'gun carriers' to know that they were going to be convicted and taking their just dues ahead of time. Any idiot knows that if you're guilty, you take a plea to avoid a conviction.

[DebinNv]

Justice? The two people that were actually carrying weapons will walk away. One when originally arrested was latter released on his OR. The other admits to fraud when securing a drivers license by use of an alias.:shrug: This case was all about payback. What a shame.JMO

I thought I heard this morning on IS that the jury didn't give any weight to the testimony of the witnesses. Just the tape. I could be wrong tho.

[rainbo]

i think OJ lost because he did do the crime...and they proved it with the tapes! ALSO i do truly believe that people are finally fed up with OJ and his nonsense and arrogance. AND how could the jury ignore the taped info from within the room itself?

so i for one, am thrilled that justice has been done FINALLY!!

to bad a surveillance camera wasn't on, at the walkway leading to the house outside at Nicole and Ron's murder scene.

i hope he goes to the big house for a long time.

and yeah, Maricopa county and that big bad wolf Sheriff out there, don't put up with no baloney! although OJ now is being kept in solitary for 'his' protection! seems we need protection from HIM!

sleep in a tent and NO coffee?? ooooohhh nooooo! that's how it is in Maricopa County!

question: why was the 'VERDICT REACHED IN OJ CASE' thread locked? on the breaking news board?

Maricopa County? Isn't that in Arizona? OJ is in Nevada in Clark County. Joe Arpaio is the Sheriff in Arizona. What am I missing here?

[psbperu]

Because of this trial I went & looked for photos of the crime scene with Ron Goldman & Nicole Simpson. There was one photo posted that I had never seen before.

I hope Fred Goldman has never looked at the picture of his son in the walkway it is truly horrific as is Nicole's.

I have this feeling that he did see it.

[rainbo]

Let's hope Fred Goldman gets a wonderful birthday present on December 6th. The sentencing is December 5th. What a great day that will be. :beer:

Another one that needs to shut up.....Tom Scotto. What an idiot.

[caphill]

They were a courageous jury. I'm sure they knew, just as we do, that coming in guilty might cost them some slander at the least, but possibly far worse. Lots of strong emotions, one nutjob out there who feels strongly enough to go hurt those who they percieve as hurting their race, and they could be assaulted or worse.

They deliberated on the facts. And they did precisely what the defense insisted on - did not use the transcripts as evidence, but only what they could hear on the tapes themselves.


Jurors should not have to listen to themselves being slammed as a racist jury without response. And it is a good thing to hear what went on in the jury room. I always love it when a jury comes out and speaks.


If would have taken courage for this jury to find him not guilty. After the jurors in the murder trial rendered their verdict, they to this day are vilified. The murder trials jurors are called racist and ignorant .

How do you feel about the jury in the murder trial being slammed as a racist jury? Do you only have respect for a jury if they render a verdict to your likening?

[psbperu]

I think it's a catch 22, if they didn't speak all the TH's would have speculated as to why they didn't.

If they do speak they are criticized.

What should you do as a juror?

MOO


It is far easier to be criticized for not talking...who cares about the TH's. Why open a can of worms?

My opinion is that jurors should keep quiet & not discuss deliberations of the jury.

[Cait48]

Rainbo, yes Maricopa is in Arizona. i was making reference to another post about Joe and i wasn't clear enough, sorry!

[Quinton04]

I'm so sick of Jami Floyd that I just turn the channel when she comes on to whine and bash the jury and the legal process. The defense lawyers are so full of it that they are making morons of themselves going on and on about the jury not having any blacks on it. My hope is that all the appeals are knocked down so fast that their heads will spin.

[Heyes]

Scotto is on with Jamie now...whine, cry, boo hoo.
I'm loving this!
Orenthal has caused more pain to more people. Glad he's locked up and can't hurt anyone anymore!
Bye Bye

[Tracian]

If would have taken courage for this jury to find him not guilty. After the jurors in the murder trial rendered their verdict, they to this day are vilified. The murder trials jurors are called racist and ignorant .

How do you feel about the jury in the murder trial being slammed as a racist jury? Do you only have respect for a jury if they render a verdict to your likening?


The jury in the murder trial heard 9 months of testimony, and took three hours to come back with an acquittal; yet this jury is being slammed by defense attorneys for taking 13 hours after a 13 day trial.

The jury in the murder trial had a juror that flashed the 'black power' sign to OJ once the verdict was read.

I have to agree on one point. If OJ was never found responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, tried to cheat the Goldmans out of the merchandise, he would never have attempted to sneakly take the stuff back, and would not be in the position he is in now.

[Heyes]

The jury in the murder trial heard 9 months of testimony, and took three hours to come back with an acquittal; yet this jury is being slammed by defense attorneys for taking 13 hours after a 13 day trial.

The jury in the murder trial had a juror that flashed the 'black power' sign to OJ once the verdict was read.

I have to agree on one point. If OJ was never found responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, tried to cheat the Goldmans out of the merchandise, he would never have attempted to sneakly take the stuff back, and would not be in the position he is in now.

Yup!
Well Done Goldmans!
This was a giant game and the Goldmans played it well. Who knew that the decisions they made years ago would result in Orenthal's going down today. It worked like a charm Orental has spent the last 10 years hiding assets and now look at the results.
Gotta love it!
IMO

[JConnolly]

My post may be O/T for this thread. I'm posting anyway to reply with my opinion to some of the other posts here... specifically the one(s) that intimate OJ was found guilty of the murders of Ron & Nicole in THIS trial. That is so false.

While many are of that mind-set, so what? Don't forget that he was found LIABLE for their deaths in the civil trial. That jury got it right. IMO, and other's opinions too, the aquittal in his criminal trial was brought forth due to many reasons... poor prosecution, Rodney King fall-out, etc., etc. I truly believe *that* jury was under enormous pressure to give a verdict that would prevent another riot.

OJs actions over the years have proven him to be less than stellar when it comes to abiding by the law. Can anyone dispute that??

The trial/conviction in Las Vegas FINALLY spoke for JUSTICE. You can't say that they convicted him of the murders, he was not on trial for them this time. He's already been found accountable! Thank God there were 12 people who could listen to the evidence of OJs latest escapade and deliver a proper verdict. OJ is indeed guilty of the charges brought against him.

To those OJ fans who refuse to believe he is nothing but a thug who thinks his own s#it don't stink and can live above the law: What is it about this former great football player that you all find so darned fascinating??

[caphill]

Especially, the part where Simpson says --you didn't take your piece out in the hallway -- I can't recall it verbatum.
I heard that loud and clear during the trial. that was powerfully suggestive!

His own words on that tape got him a convicted.

MOO

MOO


Which tape did you clearly hear him say that?

[Details]

If would have taken courage for this jury to find him not guilty. After the jurors in the murder trial rendered their verdict, they to this day are vilified. The murder trials jurors are called racist and ignorant .

How do you feel about the jury in the murder trial being slammed as a racist jury? Do you only have respect for a jury if they render a verdict to your likening?Yep, they're called racist and ignorant - and to my point of view those terms are accurate. A 9 month trial, not even 4 hours of deliberation, and outright admissions they were not going to find him guilty, outright admissions from some of those jurors that they changed their vote because they were afraid of going against the majority.

I have respect for a jury that deserves respect - one that, no matter what verdict they arrive at, looks to the evidence and rules based on what they see there. Whether that's the Peterson jury deciding SP didn't have an intent to kill Connor, or a Blake jury coming back NG, or whatever else.


This jury did that - fitting almost perfectly into the usual standard of deliberations - 1 hour per day of trial. And their ruling is unpopular with people who - as was shown in this trial - tend to be thugs - OJ friends and groupies. It's true for almost any trial where you convict a criminal who has criminal friends - and it's true in this one. They talked of a hit on Alexander - wonder if there's any talk today of a hit on a juror?

[Maranatha]

His 15 minutes were up a yr ago. He should shut up already. Bet ya he'll be writing a book to make money of this case.

in my opinion

He could call it "If I Didn't Do It". :D

[marabeth]

I agree with the jury's verdict.
Simpson did this to himself -- his own words from that tape is what got him convicted.

Blaming and bashing the jury for following the law, and using the evidence they were given is just plain wrong!

The only way OJ could have been found not guilty would have been if the jury ignored the tapes , the evidence and the law...

[Lyndawitha"Y]

The only way OJ could have been found not guilty would have been if the jury ignored the tapes , the evidence and the law...

The jury had the benefit of listening to those tapes..over and over again using headphones..something none of us had..and yet I did hear OJ ask to see McClinton's Weapon permit, then followed by."Youre coming with me"...Defense tried to spin it..but it comes down to common sense..he asked McClinton to come along and bring that concealed weapon!! And it was that weapon that raised all the counts to felonies..Plain and simple..

LMS

[DebinNv]

It is far easier to be criticized for not talking...who cares about the TH's. Why open a can of worms?

My opinion is that jurors should keep quiet & not discuss deliberations of the jury.

I have to say that, when I watch a trial from beginning to end, I like to hear what the jury has to say. I'm always curious to find out what was convincing and credible to them, since the verdict is decided by them.
Sometimes it is overdone tho.

[JConnolly]

These people aren't OJ fans, believe me. They just like the bad people of the world and will swear to you up and down they are innocent even if they witnessed the crime being committed. They blame everyone else instead. If you are a wife and baby killer, they are here supporting you. If you are a long time criminal, they are here supporting you. They are not credible at all. The lies about the jury are most typical from them. It is the same 3-4 posters who have no respect for the law at all.

in my opinion of courseWORD. You are right, of course.

I've said it before on other threads, that the likes of these folks must have come from some type of criminal stock, had relatives that were criminals, or friends who have been convicted of very serious crimes... loved ones that they've supported ... I mean there's got to be some reason they think these convictions are always wrong, wrong, wrong!

JMO

[caphill]

My post may be O/T for this thread. I'm posting anyway to reply with my opinion to some of the other posts here... specifically the one(s) that intimate OJ was found guilty of the murders of Ron & Nicole in THIS trial. That is so false.

While many are of that mind-set, so what? Don't forget that he was found LIABLE for their deaths in the civil trial. That jury got it right. IMO, and other's opinions too, the aquittal in his criminal trial was brought forth due to many reasons... poor prosecution, Rodney King fall-out, etc., etc. I truly believe *that* jury was under enormous pressure to give a verdict that would prevent another riot.

OJs actions over the years have proven him to be less than stellar when it comes to abiding by the law. Can anyone dispute that??

The trial/conviction in Las Vegas FINALLY spoke for JUSTICE. You can't say that they convicted him of the murders, he was not on trial for them this time. He's already been found accountable! Thank God there were 12 people who could listen to the evidence of OJs latest escapade and deliver a proper verdict. OJ is indeed guilty of the charges brought against him.

To those OJ fans who refuse to believe he is nothing but a thug who thinks his own s#it don't stink and can live above the law: What is it about this former great football player that you all find so darned fascinating??


Who cares about the emotion spew of what anyone thinks of OJ one way or the other. What about a factual discussion of the legal merits of the current case.

I can factually dispute the fact that OJ has a criminial past. He did not have any criminal convictions against him.

[Heyes]

Now yales on Ashley bashing the jury, "they were hell bent on convicting him". sheeeeeeesh!
4th issue was Caldwells blurting out, MRS. Scotto blah, blah, blah.
Can you see my eyes rolling?

[Tracian]

Who cares about the emotion spew of what anyone thinks of OJ one way or the other. What about a factual discussion of the legal merits of the current case.

I can factually dispute the fact that OJ has a criminial past. He did not have any criminal convictions against him.



True. He did however, have a civil ruling that he went out of his way to cheat the Goldmans and Browns out of, and that lead to his criminal behavior in this case.

IF OJ really believed that he was robbed, he would do what is expected of citizens, call the police, and have them either do a civil stand by, or file criminal charges. He chose to play the Godfather, and take a bunch of thugs with him to muscle those in possession of property that rightfully belonged to the Goldmans and the Browns.

OJ believes he is above the law, he was mistaken.

[Cait48]

yes, Yale again, in the last 1/2 hour has called the jury 'biased' and 'prejudicial'. excuse me?!

that is such an insult. they did their job and good for them. and yes, he should be sued for slander.

i am only sorry OJ never was convicted for the murder of Ron and Nichole.

since he is so good at 'setting up things', as we now know, perhaps he set the murder up, as i have always believed.

the only decent thing i saw today was that he took his jury lathering like a man. he stood and actually turned and faced the jury, did not shake his head mockingly and was led away without incident.

sorry, but it warms my heart that he couldn't get out today until sentencing as his lawyer wanted.

[rainbo]

The length of deliberations seem rather long to me considering that the jurors said they didn't take most (or any) of the witness testimony into consideration. Their verdict was based strictly on the tapes and video. 13 hours to listen/watch/discuss is a very long time IMO.

Grasso, Galanter and Bryson also claim that Judge Glass was biased against OJ and Stewart based on the way the Judge treated the defense vs. the prosecution. I hope the judge throws the book at both of them. Stewart is just as guilty as OJ. He was playing with fire, and he ended up getting burned. ANYONE who is stupid enough to associate with OJ should expect splash back from anything that is thrown at Simpson. Guilt by association.

Oh good heavens. Jami Floyd is also in agreement. Calling Judge Glass impetuous and biased. Says the Judge hindered the defense at every turn and assisted the prosecution. barf

[DebinNv]

Which tape did you clearly hear him say that?

All the tapes that we heard during the trial, that would be hard to answer because there was so many. IIRC, it was during the prosecution's case. Did anyone else hear that part of the tape? The part where Simson says -- you didn't pull your piece out in the hallway --?
Maybe someone else will remember.
Sorry.

MOO

[rainbo]

All the tapes that we heard during the trial, that would be hard to answer because there was so many. IIRC, it was during the prosecution's case. Did anyone else hear that part of the tape? The part where Simson says -- you didn't pull your piece out in the hallway --?
Maybe someone else will remember.
Sorry.

MOO

I very clearly heard it each and every time it was played. You're not alone in this one. :D

[Lyndawitha"Y]

The length of deliberations seem rather long to me considering that the jurors said they didn't take most (or any) of the witness testimony into consideration. Their verdict was based strictly on the tapes and video. 13 hours to listen/watch/discuss is a very long time IMO.

Grasso, Galanter and Bryson also claim that Judge Glass was biased against OJ based on the way the Judge treated the defense vs. the prosecution. I hope the judge throws the book at both of them. Stewart is just as guilty as OJ. He was playing with fire, and he ended up getting burned. ANYONE who is stupid enough to associate with OJ should expect splashback on anything that is thrown at Simpson. Guilt by association.

Oh good heavens. Jami Floyd is also in agreement. Calling Judge Glass impetuous and biased. Says the Judge hindered the defense at every turn and assisted the prosecution. barf

ITA..Me thinks Yale and Jamie should stop badmouthing the judge..she will be the one to give the sentence on Dec. 5th..Geesh to alienate the jusge at this point is a real stupid tactic..It seems they are spewing to try and sway the public...more than anybody else..They're all Talking Head..creating media ratings..the law is the law..and go after the legislature if you have a beef!! Blaming a jury for following the law is not helpful either..I found it interesting they felt so slighted by the bashing, they were compelled to speak out!! First I dont think the jury was all Caucasian...at least 2 on that panel were NOT WHITE!! Geesh!!

LMShammer

[Lyndawitha"Y]

All the tapes that we heard during the trial, that would be hard to answer because there was so many. IIRC, it was during the prosecution's case. Did anyone else hear that part of the tape? The part where Simson says -- you didn't pull your piece out in the hallway --?
Maybe someone else will remember.
Sorry.

MOO

I think the defense tried to spin the piece as a piece of gum...hum??

LMS:shrug:

[Heyes]

All the tapes that we heard during the trial, that would be hard to answer because there was so many. IIRC, it was during the prosecution's case. Did anyone else hear that part of the tape? The part where Simson says -- you didn't pull your piece out in the hallway --?
Maybe someone else will remember.
Sorry.

MOO

I do remember, the tapes were being played and the witness had 2 transcipts the states said, you didn't pull your piece out in the hall..
the defense's stated....wait for it...... you didn't talk to the police out in the hall.....wth?
Or was I dreaming. I Know I heard this.

imo

[Heyes]

Everything is about the defense today.
How about a round of applause for the prosecution? Hmmmmmm?
Job well done guys!

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Here ya go....

:beer::rose:

LMS

[DebinNv]

I very clearly heard it each and every time it was played. You're not alone in this one. :D

TY! Rainbo, I appreciate your post. I know, I heard it more than once...twice...

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Correct me if I am wrong...but all this jury bashing by TH's today..seems they admit to trying to find biased jurors to their side..and werent able to do that...cause????

Ashley is now going to have jury consultant on..to go into how both sides try to pick (stack) a jury for their side???

The elephant in the room is Juries are chosen, manipulated where they can by consultant's advice, and their past history of reading people's mindsets...hummmmm??

Both sides do it..so defense boo hoo's cause they didnt get the jury staked they way they wanted...and please dont tell me they were trying to find fair and impartial jurors..Head games!!!

LMS:punch:

[LYNNS]

Does he not realize, if he would've been with his " old buddy' pal, friend , that he would be sitting his butt in jail,now,too would o.j. care ? doubt it !!! and how can Yale be so shocked his client was found guilty, did he forget there was a tape of his client commiting the crime !!!! amazing people !!!

[JConnolly]

Who cares about the emotion spew of what anyone thinks of OJ one way or the other. What about a factual discussion of the legal merits of the current case.

I can factually dispute the fact that OJ has a criminial past. He did not have any criminal convictions against him.
Emotional spew? WTH? :confused:

Just because he may not have had any criminal convictions (and all I know for SURE is he has one NOW) against him doesn't mean he's not a criminal for goodness sakes.

Oh, and the last time I looked, we were still free to express our opinions here. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm an open-minded type person.

[DebinNv]

TY so much for your responses, Lyndawitha"y, Heyes, and Hinkleyman!

[grafittix]

The more I see of this jury's press conference, the more I imagine Yale Gallanter is having it transcribed for his appeal. Nearly everytime the bald gum smacker and the poor man's Denise Richards speak, their foot goes firmly in their mouths. And The Other Guy just shrugged and stared when asked "Did you believe Simpson told them to bring the guns?" Um, isn't that a huge point in convicting him?

There's a reason jury deliberations are private. These people should have kept it that way.

[Cait48]

i am in agreement with you...congrats to the prosecution! :beer:

[LYNNS]

this is when you have to know you're state laws, most states say you don't have to be the one with the gun, all you have to do is know that there were gonna be guns, there....... and you are just as guilty as the gunmen.............. before you commit a crime.. know the laws and know your friends !!!!!!!

[Heyes]

The more I see of this jury's press conference, the more I imagine Yale Gallanter is having it transcribed for his appeal. Nearly everytime the bald gum smacker and the poor man's Denise Richards speak, their foot goes firmly in their mouths. And The Other Guy just shrugged and stared when asked "Did you believe Simpson told them to bring the guns?" Um, isn't that a huge point in convicting him?

There's a reason jury deliberations are private. These people should have kept it that way.


"poor man's Denise Richards"

lol lol lol snort

[Heyes]

It might be worthwhile remembering that Mr. Scotto was scheduled to have gone with Simpson, etal. to the Palace Station that evening.

He backed out just hours before -- with Simpson's blessing.

Perhaps Mr. Scotto knows a lot more what went on and what was said in the planning stage than has been made public.

Huh, maybe he's not as stupid as I thought he was.

[Joan-Pa.]

hOPE THIS ISN'T OFF TOPIC, BUT I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING ON THE LINKS PAGE, BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE A LINK TO THE JURY PRESS COFERENCE YESTERDAY?
I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS ON, AND MISSED IT.
HOPE SOMEONE HAS IT, MAYBE EVEN ON 'YOUTUBE'?
THANKS FOR ANY HELP

[Details]

The more I see of this jury's press conference, the more I imagine Yale Gallanter is having it transcribed for his appeal. Nearly everytime the bald gum smacker and the poor man's Denise Richards speak, their foot goes firmly in their mouths. And The Other Guy just shrugged and stared when asked "Did you believe Simpson told them to bring the guns?" Um, isn't that a huge point in convicting him?

There's a reason jury deliberations are private. These people should have kept it that way.If jurors took into account things they shouldn't have - whether it's OJ's first jury and their admissions they were biased out the gate - or this jury and anything they might say to indicate a problem in deliberations - that's something that should be known. And maybe it should be that prosecutors as well can get a retrial in the rare case that there is major problem in deliberations, a failure on the part of every juror to actually deliberate.

But so far - I don't see anything that is an appeals issue. Jury deliberations should be open if the jury likes, because if they convict improperly, or release improperly, we have a great interest in that.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

If jurors took into account things they shouldn't have - whether it's OJ's first jury and their admissions they were biased out the gate - or this jury and anything they might say to indicate a problem in deliberations - that's something that should be known. And maybe it should be that prosecutors as well can get a retrial in the rare case that there is major problem in deliberations, a failure on the part of every juror to actually deliberate.

But so far - I don't see anything that is an appeals issue. Jury deliberations should be open if the jury likes, because if they convict improperly, or release improperly, we have a great interest in that.

TY Details..I was going to respond in same...but you said it far better than I could have!!

LMS:seeya:

[caphill]

I do remember, the tapes were being played and the witness had 2 transcipts the states said, you didn't pull your piece out in the hall..
the defense's stated....wait for it...... you didn't talk to the police out in the hall.....wth?
Or was I dreaming. I Know I heard this.

imo


I also heard or read the differences in interpretation of that comment. That is why I asked what tape was this comment heard.

The question of "you didn't pull your piece out in the hall" was in what context and time frame in the tape? Was this after the so called robbery?

The witnesses who made deals have yet to be sentenced? Since their sentencing was delayed until after OJ verdict, I wonder if this verdict has earned them a suspended sentence and probation. To delay their sentences until after the OJ verdict seems to insure the prosecution that these witnesses didn't flip on them on the stand.

Did the jurors really say they were able to fill in the blanks in tape that were inaudible?

[Details]

I also heard or read the differences in interpretation of that comment. That is why I asked what tape was this comment heard.

The question of "you didn't pull your piece out in the hall" was in what context and time frame in the tape? Was this after the so called robbery?

The witnesses who made deals have yet to be sentenced? Since their sentencing was delayed until after OJ verdict, I wonder if this verdict has earned them a suspended sentence and probation. To delay their sentences until after the OJ verdict seems to insure the prosecution that these witnesses didn't flip on them on the stand.

Did the jurors really say they were able to fill in the blanks in tape that were inaudible?That was after the robbery - as is made clear by the defense's attempt to claim the statement was actually asking if he'd talked to police in the hall - a nonsensical statement, since they didn't hang around in that hall to talk to police.

The witnesses who made deals are sentenced after they testify, since you cannot verify if they have met the terms of their plea agreement, to testify truthfully, until that point.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I also heard or read the differences in interpretation of that comment. That is why I asked what tape was this comment heard.

The question of "you didn't pull your piece out in the hall" was in what context and time frame in the tape? Was this after the so called robbe

snipped to respond specifically:~~~


That tape was from the Buddha Bar post Robbery...and McClinton's answer to that question was "no..no.no"

LMS

[Cornblossom]

What about the "badmouthing" of Judge Ito? GOOMF

mhoI'm glad the jurors didn't let the other trial influence their decision any......Judge Ito didn't have to pronounce any sentence on OJ...I think if my client still had to be sentenced I'd watch what i said about the judge-but I don't think she will let that influence her anyway.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

No lawyer or prosecuter badmouthed Ito..it was SNL and the public who bashed him..not any lawyers involved with that case.. at least I dont recall any of that behavior...It doesnt bode well for lawyers to do that if they want to curry respect from the bench in future trials.


LMShammer

[Tracian]

I also heard or read the differences in interpretation of that comment. That is why I asked what tape was this comment heard.

The question of "you didn't pull your piece out in the hall" was in what context and time frame in the tape? Was this after the so called robbery?

The witnesses who made deals have yet to be sentenced? Since their sentencing was delayed until after OJ verdict, I wonder if this verdict has earned them a suspended sentence and probation. To delay their sentences until after the OJ verdict seems to insure the prosecution that these witnesses didn't flip on them on the stand.

Did the jurors really say they were able to fill in the blanks in tape that were inaudible?


It was not a so-called robbery, it was a robbery. If OJ was attempting to retrieve items that belonged to him, he would have done what any of us would have done, called the police and either filed a report, or asked for a civil stand-by to retrieve his belongings. He could have also filed a small claim, or superior court case against those he claimed unlawfully had his property. He didn't do that because he knew that if the property was found, he would have to follow the court, and turn it over to satisfy in part the judgement against him.

[caphill]

What about the "badmouthing" of Judge Ito? GOOMF

mho


I find it interesting the reaction of lots of people depending on the racial make up of the jury. The OJ murder trial verdict was an unpopular verdict and the jury was called stupid and racist. It is overlooked that jury was was a diversified jury.The judge was also vilified and blamed for the unpopular verdict.

The Michael Jackson verdict was an unpopular verdict that involved the alleged sexual abuse of a child. That jury had no African Americans and they were never bashed and vilified. I couldn't even tell you the judge's name in that case and bet most could name him unless they researched it.

This jury was praised as being unbiased and not racial. How would any of the posters here know that unless they can see in their hearts and minds. The same applies to the OJ murder trial jurors, yet the posters here have no problem calling them racist because the majority of the jury as African Americans.

Who are the racists here? The juries or the people who view them?

[caphill]

That was after the robbery - as is made clear by the defense's attempt to claim the statement was actually asking if he'd talked to police in the hall - a nonsensical statement, since they didn't hang around in that hall to talk to police.

The witnesses who made deals are sentenced after they testify, since you cannot verify if they have met the terms of their plea agreement, to testify truthfully, until that point.

I could as nonsensical that OJ would ask if " the piece was pulled out in the hallway" why would wonder if the piece was pulled out in the hallway after the deed is done and they are leaving with the loot?

LOL. I agree the sentencing is done after if is determined the terms of the deal are met. However in this case "to testify truthfully" is questionable? According to the jury they threw out the testimony of all the witnesses including the so called victims' testimony.

[Tracian]

It is a "so-called" robbery. This case should not have gone to trial, let alone end up in conviction!

O.J Did call the police, but the police would do nothing about it.

mho



Really? Where is the proof of this? Besides, the 'stuff' was not OJ's it belongs to the Goldmans.

[Cornblossom]

It is a "so-called" robbery. This case should not have gone to trial, let alone end up in conviction!

O.J Did call the police, but the police would do nothing about it.

mhoit was a "so-called" robbery,an 'alleged robbery" until he was convicted...now it's a blatant out and out robbery. No,OJ didn't call police..Riccio went to police and FBI but beings OJ didn't do any reporting for HIS stuff-there was nothing they could do-but they did say it was a civil matter-OJ should have brought a civil suit against froming for selling his stolen property. imo

[DebinNv]

It is a "so-called" robbery. This case should not have gone to trial, let alone end up in conviction!

O.J Did call the police, but the police would do nothing about it.

mho

Then he should have filed a civil suit. That's what moral people do.

[Tracian]

Oh, please! History cannot be changed! I have every tape of the O.J. trial, and tapes of the talking heads, and legal analysts. And MOST EVERY lawyer badmouthed Judge Ito. He was mocked, laughed at, nd blamed for the media circus.

I don't like Judge Jackie Glass, and have no respect for her. She shouts, and humiliated Yale Galanter! She plays to the media, and all she needs is a straw hat and cane when she tap dances for the media!


MHO


I have no respect for the juror that flashed the black power sign, after the verdict was read.

[Tracian]

Then he should have filed a civil suit. That's what moral people do.



You forget, OJ is above the law.:rolleyes:

[Tracian]

There is no proof he flashed the black power sign! It is just more media hype!

mho



Wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/03/usa.garyyounge

From link:

Another juror, 44-year-old Lionel Cryer, gave Simpson a clenched-fist black power salute.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-oj-anniv-verdict,0,1664242,full.story

From the link:

Simpson smiled thinly and mouthed the words "thank you" as the not guilty verdicts were read. Two jurors smiled back. Another, Lionel (Lon) Cryer, raised his left fist in a salute toward Simpson as the panel left the courtroom.


I can find more, but I have proved my statement.

[Tracian]

Did I say the poster didn't?
:
As for the rest of your post, did I say the jury didn't find O.J not guilty, or that a civil jury didn't find him responsible? :rolleyes:

mho



Could you then explain your post, because I don't get it, you said that the jury found OJ guilty of murdering Ron and Nicole:

Originally Posted by mcannie1965
Wrong, MS! Get your facts straight! Don't put words in my fingertips! I said he was NOT a criminal BEFORE he got convicted. He became a criminal AFTER the jury found him guilty--of killing Nicole and Ron, IMO!

MHO

[Cornblossom]

There is no proof he flashed the black power sign! It is just more media hype!

mho

Did I say the poster didn't?
:
As for the rest of your post, did I say the jury didn't find O.J not guilty, or that a civil jury didn't find him responsible? :rolleyes:

mho
this is what you said. and Tracian posted links showing that a juror did flash the black power sign. Too bad pictures couldn't be taken of the jury...would you believe that tho?

[tdmac]

...no longer able to manipulate anyone anymore.

[Adalena935]

How many were shouting "slander" when the O.J. jury in the criminal case were blasted? NOBODY! NADA! ZILTCH! Now we hear boo hoos for this jury--who didn't have the courage to look O.J. in the eyes when they convicted him, and took away the rest of his life!

O'J Was NOT a criminal when Yale represented him. He was acquitted in the criminal trial! He is now a criminal because a jury convicted him. He was convicted of the murder of Nicole and Ron, IMO!

MHO

Oh bull. He was a free man. All he had to do was behave himself.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Other legal problems
Simpson has had two other legal problems, the first involving back taxes and the second piracy of satellite television. The State of California claims Simpson owes $1.44 million in past due taxes.[38] A tax lien was filed in his case on September 1, 1999.[39]

In March 2004, satellite television network DirecTV, Inc. accused Simpson in a Miami federal court of using illegal electronic devices to pirate its broadcast signals. The company later won a US$25,000 judgment, and Simpson was ordered to pay US$33,678 in attorneys' fees and costs.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OJ_Simpson

Stealing cable and not paying your taxes aren't crimes either, Caphil?

:rolleyes:

I also heard Yale yelling and shaking his finger when tryng to impeach McClinton for using a false name to obtain a drivers licence..Hummm I guess ya cant have your cake and eat it too..All convictions arnet for murder ya know..convictions are just that..it's capital charges..felonious charges and guilt or midameanour charges..Doesn't matter how you cut it..they are on record as convictions..Am I wrong on that?

We only know that OJ had been convicted of the two charges as cited..then of course the Civil judgement..and now with the exposing by fellow enablers of the past..he played fast and lose with his assets..to fraudulently hide his assets..not proven in court yet.but time will tell..humm

It seems McClinton was such a bad actor Bad bad man..yet his record did not keep him from obtaining a concealed weapon permit....hummm

LMS

[Adalena935]

These defence lawyers so blatenly bashing this jury, cause things didn't go their way , is the very reason people have such hatred for defence attorneys... how dare they say this jury or any american could not seperate his murder trial from this !! if this is the case, we may as well shut down all jury's ...I think O.J. should have been convicted in his murder trial and I watched this trial and never thought about that once, I'm intelligent enough to know all that was to be decided here was if going into a motel room with guns, forcing people against the wall , removing things, even if they belong to you, is wrong, in any state.....his own words convicted him " don't let any one out of this room" and "you didn't pull the piece out in the hall did ya " was all they needed to prove kidnapping and robbery......if he can't get a fair trial anywhere, should he just be allowed to do whatever he wants and we ignore it " cause he can't get a fair trial ?! seems to me he has a ready excuse for the next idiot move he makes.......I was actually sad to hear that his final years he will be rotting in prison, it's sad to me for anyone to waste their life like that over a few hours and a bad decision, but, O.J. made that decision... he could have went to that wedding, went home and a very nice life ... he chose not to !!!!

I hear ya Lynns. My sentiments exactly!

:beer:

[fbgweezer]

All the tapes that we heard during the trial, that would be hard to answer because there was so many. IIRC, it was during the prosecution's case. Did anyone else hear that part of the tape? The part where Simson says -- you didn't pull your piece out in the hallway --?
Maybe someone else will remember.
Sorry.

MOO

the mcclinton post robbery party

[Adalena935]

What specifically bothers me about the statement that the jurors made regarding the fact that they "heard things on the tape that neither side did" is that they didn't come to an agreement until they played it six or seven times and ALL of them heard the same thing. This tells me that a few of them may have said "he said x, do you hear that?" and then they played it over and over until all of them "heard" it. Talk about the power of suggestion!

JMO!

That's called evidence. Yes they used the tape to deliberate and come to an agreement. That is what jurys are ordered to do by law.

:no:

[aubrey04]

I wouldn't take offense to people attacking the jurors. All I can say is look at the source of those insulting the jurors.

It seems some people are mad that the jurors didn't look directly at Orenthal James Simpson and CJ Stewart ... then others are blasting the jurors for speaking out. I don't get why people labeled them cowards, most of them went on national TV and stood by their decision.

I, for one, am glad when jurors speak after a trial but I certainly do NOT expect them to do so.. and I am always grateful when they do, even if they tick me off to no end (Juror #10, Spector- Part 1).. These are ordinary citizens who took time out of their lives to sit through a trial and had the job of making a decision.. and for that I am thankful.

For them to share more of their time and give up their privacy by giving an interview...plus risk criticism and maybe even physical harm/payback by people who disliked their decision... is more than I would be willing to do. They don't have to give an answer to anyone on why they came to the decision they did, as long as nothing improper was done during deliberations.

See ya later, OJ!... have fun.

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/oj_jail_photos#27730
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/oj_jail_photos#27723
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/oj_jail_photos#27726

[Details]

A side point - a criminal is someone who commits a crime. Commit a crime, you are instantly a criminal. You aren't a convicted criminal until a judge pronounces you so - but committing a crime makes you a criminal.

[Adalena935]

i think OJ lost because he did do the crime...and they proved it with the tapes! ALSO i do truly believe that people are finally fed up with OJ and his nonsense and arrogance. AND how could the jury ignore the taped info from within the room itself?

so i for one, am thrilled that justice has been done FINALLY!!

to bad a surveillance camera wasn't on, at the walkway leading to the house outside at Nicole and Ron's murder scene.

i hope he goes to the big house for a long time.

and yeah, Maricopa county and that big bad wolf Sheriff out there, don't put up with no baloney! although OJ now is being kept in solitary for 'his' protection! seems we need protection from HIM!

sleep in a tent and NO coffee?? ooooohhh nooooo! that's how it is in Maricopa County!

question: why was the 'VERDICT REACHED IN OJ CASE' thread locked? on the breaking news board?

OJ's in Clark County, Nevada. This says after sentencing OJ will be transferred to a state prison.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3627269&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Are you thinking of sheriff Joe Arpiao? He's in Maricopa County, Arizona.

http://www.mcso.org/

[Details]

Of course you're a criminal if you committ a crime. :shrug:

jmoSomeone was suggesting OJ wasn't a criminal before last Friday night at 11:00PM. And, of course, he was. He just wasn't a convicted criminal.

[nsm]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3627269&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

plans for appeal? hes dreaming

[Velouria]

Wrong, MS! Get your facts straight! Don't put words in my fingertips! I said he was NOT a criminal BEFORE he got convicted. He became a criminal AFTER the jury found him guilty--of killing Nicole and Ron, IMO!

MHO

Oh, he was a criminal all right, but now he's a convicted one.

[Kara]

Why do some jurors seem to want their "15 minutes of fame"?

Why can't they just go gracefully into the goodnight & not say anything.

"Oh look, I'm on tv"
They were defending themselves against accusations that they convicted OJ of the double murder, not the current charges. I'm kinda surprised by your post...you're normally not snippy like this....

Besides...we all love hearing from the jurors! (at least 99% of us do) Whether I agree with a verdict or not I like to hear how the jury arrived at it.

[Details]

If this case is not overturned on state appeal(not likely) in a few years it will be US Supreme Court bound.JMO:patriot:After every one of these big cases you hear talk of an appeal - and while they'll be filed, I've yet to see one so much as go to trial. Westerfield, Peterson, whatever it is, they're all supposed to be oh so heavily flawed, and the appeals court will right all wrongs - and then nothing ever happens.

[Details]

He was NOT a CRIMINAL until he got convicted!

mhoOf course he was. He committed a criminal act. That made him a criminal. You're a murderer when you unlawfully kill people, whether or not you are tried and convicted, you're an embezzeler when you steal money from your employer, even if you escape charges, you're a thief when you steal, even if the theft is never found out, and you're a criminal when you commit a crime, no matter whether you get convicted or not.

He's now a convicted criminal, and people can now say without fearing accusations of slander that he is a criminal - but he became a criminal the instant he committed a crime.

Reality is reality - a court of law does not change reality. It merely hopes to reflect it.

[fbgweezer]

I could as nonsensical that OJ would ask if " the piece was pulled out in the hallway" why would wonder if the piece was pulled out in the hallway after the deed is done and they are leaving with the loot? . . .

maybe he thought there were cameras in the hallway that would capture that little picture for properity? but alas no picture -- only his words.

[Tracian]

There is nothing 'courageous' about this jury or any other jury for that matter. Let's not elevate their status to anything more than what it was.

Persons who openly admit as they jurors did that they believe OJ guilty in the 1994 crime, can NOT leave those feelings at the door. It is absurd to think they are not human.

I believe OJ guilty of the murder of his wife, but I think the criminal verdict was correct albeit not for the reasons the jury stated. But he could not possibly get a fair trial in Vegas with jurors who believe he was guilty of murder. Let's face it, if he was Joe Smith, there would have been no trial in the first place. Even one of the 'victims' said the trial was bs and OJ shouldn't be charged.

Once again the system failed.



As far as what one of the victims said, that is completely irrelevant. When the state brings charges, it is because the law of the state was allegedly broken, and in truth, victims are either 'evidence' or 'witnesses' what they believe should happen to the perpetrator is not important.

There could be many reasons one of the victims felt that way, or changed his mind, but that has nothing to due with the law of the state, and the DA works for the state.

OJ has been walking between rain drops for quite a period of time, so happens this time he got drenched.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, IMO.

[Details]

Jurors are supposed to openly admit what they think - that's what makes the process work. And since almost everyone has an opinion on if OJ is innocent or guilty of murder, and since either opinion could imply bias (you don't seem to mention the juror who thought OJ was innocent - that is a bias as well). Humans indeed can set aside their biases, judge each case on it's own merits. And indeed, there have been posters and commentators and many others who have held the position that OJ was guilty of murder but innocent of these crimes, guilty of these crimes, but innocent of murder, etc. Half of the huge pool of possible jurors were dismissed for holding some opinion about OJ's guilt or innocence of murder, and admitting they could not be unbiased in this case.

The evidence was overwhelming.


And jurors are courageous. They could have taken the easy way out - duck jury duty, and not have to rule on a case that no matter what you say will have many people angry with you. But they did their job, listened to all the evidence, and came back with a verdict.

[Details]

maybe he thought there were cameras in the hallway that would capture that little picture for properity? but alas no picture -- only his words.Yep - OJ asked him to pull it out in the hallway before they went in the door - but didn't know if he had done it in the hallway where a camera might catch it, or in the room, where the camera wouldn't.

[Tracian]

Jean just stated on Nancy Grace that the jurors listened over and over to the part where OJ says:

"You didn't pull the piece in the hall did you?"

Fill in the blanks, what do you think he was talking about?:rolleyes:

[Tracian]

Yep - OJ asked him to pull it out in the hallway before they went in the door - but didn't know if he had done it in the hallway where a camera might catch it, or in the room, where the camera wouldn't.


Exactly. Nancy Grace just went over that with Jean C.

[Details]

It is people like you that give jurors a bad name. NO ONE is a criminal until they are convicted in a court of law and even then it is still questionable given the jury system.

Just b/c one is arrested and/or accused, does not by definition make them a criminal not the accusation true. hammerNope - reality is reality. You are a criminal when you commit a crime. The fact is the fact. Being convicted in a court of law does not make you a criminal if you didn't commit a crime, any more than being acquitted makes you not a criminal if you did commit the crime. Facts are facts, reality is reality.

A criminal is someone who commits a crime - acts that are against the law. That's all there is to it.

A court of law attempts to determine what is reality, when not everyone saw it, when there are conflicting stories - but that does not alter reality - the sky is blue even when a court declares it green.

[Details]

Jean just stated on Nancy Grace that the jurors listened over and over to the part where OJ says:

"You didn't pull the piece in the hall did you?"

Fill in the blanks, what do you think he was talking about?:rolleyes:No question there! That's the absolute proof bit for the armed robbery charge, just like OJ's "Nobody leaves this room" was the absolute proof bit for the kidnapping.

[fbgweezer]

crim·i·nal —Synonyms 1. felonious, unlawful. See illegal. 6. malefactor, evildoer, transgressor, culprit, felon, crook, hoodlum, gangster.

[Tracian]

Well, Well, again, the items didn't belong to Simpson since the turn over order...that is why OJ didn't try to do this in CA...as per Jean on NG.

[Cornblossom]

OJ was found guilty of stealing cable and was ordered to pay so much money to direct TV...that made him a criminal.

criminal:adjective
1. of the nature of or involving crime.
2. guilty of crime.
3. Law. of or pertaining to crime or its punishment: a criminal proceeding.
4. senseless; foolish: It's criminal to waste so much good food.
5. exorbitant; grossly overpriced: They charge absolutely criminal prices.
–noun 6. a person guilty or convicted of a crime.

[Tracian]

OJ was found guilty of stealing cable and was ordered to pay so much money to direct TV...that made him a criminal.

criminal:adjective
1. of the nature of or involving crime.
2. guilty of crime.
3. Law. of or pertaining to crime or its punishment: a criminal proceeding.
4. senseless; foolish: It's criminal to waste so much good food.
5. exorbitant; grossly overpriced: They charge absolutely criminal prices.
–noun 6. a person guilty or convicted of a crime.



Exactly! :beer:

[Details]

Well, Well, again, the items didn't belong to Simpson since the turn over order...that is why OJ didn't try to do this in CA...as per Jean on NG.Yep. That's the genesis of these items that Gilbert was going to testify to (after objections he was reduced to saying that OJ gave them to him) - that OJ asked him to go help him clear out all his stuff before the sheriffs got there to take it, and he told him that he'd rather his friends have this stuff than the Goldmans.

[Tracian]

Yep. That's the genesis of these items that Gilbert was going to testify to (after objections he was reduced to saying that OJ gave them to him) - that OJ asked him to go help him clear out all his stuff before the sheriffs got there to take it, and he told him that he'd rather his friends have this stuff than the Goldmans.



There is a reason there is a saying "No honor among thieves."

[moonbeam]

Jean just stated on Nancy Grace that the jurors listened over and over to the part where OJ says:

"You didn't pull the piece in the hall did you?"

Fill in the blanks, what do you think he was talking about?:rolleyes:On NG, Jean C. stated that the defense wanted everyone to believe that OJ said, "You didn't call the Police in the hallway, did you?" :lol: I mean, come ON!!!!! You'd think Yale and Co. would be embarrassed.

[Tracian]

On NG, Jean C. stated that the defense wanted everyone to believe that OJ said, "You didn't call the Police in the hallway, did you?" :lol: I mean, come ON!!!!! You'd think Yale and Co. would be embarrassed.


That makes no sense, what the defense offered....Why would law abiding OJ worry is someone called the police to retrieve his 'stolen' items...


Incredible logic on the side of the defense!hammer

[Kara]

<snipped> And The Other Guy just shrugged and stared when asked "Did you believe Simpson told them to bring the guns?" Um, isn't that a huge point in convicting him?

Not so far as I know...they just had to believe that OJ knew the guns were there and the actions were the result of the actions and (the conspiracy of action) among all the perps.

[Tracian]

Not so far as I know...they just had to believe that OJ knew the guns were there and the actions were the result of the actions and (the conspiracy of action) among all the perps.



I don't pretend to know the laws of NV, but in CA, if I drive a getaway car, for someone that robs a gas station, it does not matter if I knew there was a gun or not...if a gun was pulled, put a fork in me, I am done!!!!

[Tracian]

No, he wasn't a criminal--UNTIL he was convicted.

MHO


mho


Okay, have it your way...now he is a criminal...long over due...since some write off stealing cable as a crime.

[Tubesworld]

I'm just catching up. Who's Denise Richards?

[Tracian]

That's what O.J. said. It makes more sense than he said "you didn't pull the piece in the hall."

I think anyone who believes he said "you didn't pull the piece in the hall" hang head in shame. Shame on them.

mho


LOL...why would a law abiding citizen be concerned about calling the police in the hall????

:lol: Hehehehehehehe...is it only proper to call them in the lobby? :lol:

[Tracian]

I'm just catching up. Who's Denise Richards?


Charlie Sheen's ex wife.

[Firefox]

Yup!
Well Done Goldmans!
This was a giant game and the Goldmans played it well. Who knew that the decisions they made years ago would result in Orenthal's going down today. It worked like a charm Orental has spent the last 10 years hiding assets and now look at the results.
Gotta love it!
IMO


I sure don't blame the Goldmans, or Nicole's family, if they are happy to see OJ get what they, and I, consider his "comeupance." I don't buy that this was about the murder case though. OJ has just never learned that he's not so special that he can ignore the law, and control and or hurt people at will. It just funally caught up to him.

It's his nature, not the last trial, that brought him to this end.

What in the world was going on in this guys mind? He got away scot free with a double murder, IMO, not to mention having beaten, stalked, and terrorized Nicole for years before finally brutally murdering her, IMO.

He then finds a little "blow up dolly" Nicole to replace her, how swell for her kids, who he mistreats, if we hear his daughters call for help, continues his former druggy/control freak lifestyle.
Then when someone alledgedly steals something from him, he goes on another rampage, instead of calling on the same justice system that had served him so ludicrously well in his murder trial? Idiot.

Why not just call in the cops and still be a free murderer? This speaks volumes to me about his true character. Taking the law into his own hands? Administering his own brand of "justice."
Bullying people and threatening them? Terrorizing them. Seems habitual.

A thug is a thug is a thug.

[Kara]

<snipped>

Once again the system failed.Yale, is that you?

This morning on tv, Yale (or you??) complained that the system got it wrong twice...once in the murder trail and again in this trial... I guess that means you acknowledge that OJ got away with murder and you're just angry that justice was not subverted again??

[aubrey04]

No, he wasn't a criminal--UNTIL he was convicted.

MHO


mho

He became a criminal as soon as he committed his very first crime.. We could go back and forth on what date that happened on. Here is the definition of a criminal:

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

You don't need to be convicted to be a criminal. OJ has ALWAYS been a criminal for the last 14 years (at least), whether he was acquitted or not. As someone from another forum said, legalities do NOT obliterate realities.

Regardless I did not want him convicted based on what happened in the past --- the last jury dropped the ball on that one.. you can't turn back time.. OJ gave this jury plenty of evidence to convict him on. Like someone else said, all he had to do was stay out of trouble and he would have gotten away with murder... literally.

...oh well...Now he is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL.

[Tracian]

Chris Darden badmouthed Ito, not only on televison but in his book! Marcia Clark badmouthed Ito. . Lawyers badmouthed Ito.

MHO


Chris Darden and Marica Clark are not currently convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping, further neither were found responsible for the deaths of two people in a civil case, nor did they hide assets, nor where they found guilty of stealing cable, nor are they sitting in a jail cell...

Just helping by pointing out other differences.

[Kara]

I don't pretend to know the laws of NV, but in CA, if I drive a getaway car, for someone that robs a gas station, it does not matter if I knew there was a gun or not...if a gun was pulled, put a fork in me, I am done!!!!
Well, I listened to the instructions very closely and I felt the jury could convict on every single charge based upon the law. I do conced that the kidnapping charge was one that the DA could have dropped if he were so inclined...but he wasn't. Just like famous criminals in the past that got away with their crimes, sometimes it takes a Ricco or a kidnapping charge to put them where they belong...

[aubrey04]

There are plenty of criminals on the streets that haven't been caught/convicted.

Exactly.. Criminal = someone who commits a crime.. which OJ did in 1994 and again in 2007.. He hasn't been out of trouble since he was acquitted.. The police has been called to his home in Florida non-stop ever since he moved there.

He's a thug and a criminal.. plain and simple.

[Joan Weiss]

After every one of these big cases you hear talk of an appeal - and while they'll be filed, I've yet to see one so much as go to trial. Westerfield, Peterson, whatever it is, they're all supposed to be oh so heavily flawed, and the appeals court will right all wrongs - and then nothing ever happens.Here's how the appeal process works.

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/crimappeals_toc.html



This one seems more understandable.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/criminal_appeals.html

[aubrey04]

Wrong! Yes, you do need to be convicted to be a "criminal." We have the presumption of innocence.

He ws NOT a criminal for the past "14" years! He was never convicted of a crime--until the Las Vegas trial.

Of course he is a criminal now! He was CONVICTED in Las Vegas!


MHO

uhm no.

Criminal = a person who commits a crime. OJ was a criminal - the day he committed his first crime.

Only difference now is that he is a convicted criminal.

[Tubesworld]

Thanks Tracian. The juror resembled to D. Richards?

[Tracian]

Why not? That is exactly what a law abiding citizen would do.

Why would it be ""proper" to call them in the "lobby?" There are no rules he must call in the lobby. He could call them on a cell phone in the hall! In fact, I have seen people call someone on a cell phone in a supermarket, on the street, in shopping centers.

mho



:lol: Right. So why again would he worry about the call being made in the hall?

OJ is a thug...wannabe, but a thug, and the thug is going to be doing time...long over due, IMO.

When he gets out of prison, maybe he can get another sweet young thing, in her sixties.

[Tubesworld]

I've seen more than one poster irritated with the car advert. I scale my window to only show this blog.

[Tracian]

Thanks Tracian. The juror resembled to D. Richards?


I didn't get the comment, myself,
:shrug: because I thought they were referring to the man chewing gum...I just took it as a snarky comment..:shrug:

[Joan Weiss]

He was NOT a CRIMINAL until he got convicted!

mhoHe was already a criminal in his teens, a thief and in a gang. :rolleyes:

http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4446/Simpson-O-J-Early-Years.html

[rainbo]

Oh y'all, check this out! Unbelievable!

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/10/06/o-j-simpson-had-an-acquittal-party-planned/

[Tracian]

There you go doing the twist! I did not say Chris Darden and Marcia Clark are currently convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping, or that either one was found responsible for the deaths of two people in a civil suit, or that they were found guilty of stealing cable...or are sitting in a jail cell.

Just trying by pointing out I never said that. The poster I responded to had said no lawyer or prosecutor badmouthed ITO...and I pointed out Marcia Clark and Chris Darden did!

Just helping by trying to keep the record straight.

mho


Didn't say you did, just pointing out character differences.

:)

IOW, I would rather be living Darden's or Clark's Karma than OJ's...

:lol:

[Tracian]

Oh y'all, check this out! Unbelievable!

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/10/06/o-j-simpson-had-an-acquittal-party-planned/



OJ being arrested again.....guns and thugs...
OJ standing trial again....those that would not take the rap...
OJ planning a party, then convicted...PRICELESS


For everything else, there is Clark County Jail...three hots and a cot...

Beautiful!!!

[Tracian]

:lol:Why not? So why would he worry about a "piece" being pulled out in the hall?

It is not kind to poke fun at a person in their sixties. Does even age need to be attacked?



MHO


OJ wannabe thug, would call a gun..a piece...
Yeah, I am poking fun at OJ, cause finally the 'juice' got 'squeezed'...and I don't think he has the 'pulp' to deal with it...

[Joan Weiss]

Oh y'all, check this out! Unbelievable!

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/10/06/o-j-simpson-had-an-acquittal-party-planned/Holy cow. What arrogance. :eek:

What's up with his bloodshot eyes? In every picture that jumps out at me.

[rainbo]

O.J Did call the police, but the police would do nothing about it.

OJ never called the police, Riccio called them.

[Tracian]

Wrong. In a court of law they have the presumption of innocence! That is a fact!

mho


Exactly, and the jury found different....GUILTY as CHARGED...12 counts...oh..golly where is that tinyviolin?:lol:

[Joan Weiss]

Wrong. In a court of law they have the presumption of innocence! That is a fact!

mhoOh, FGS, this isn't a court of law, it's a message board. You lost the argument, give it up.

[Joan Weiss]

I am having a bit of difficulty adjusting to this new board setup.

I have a general question for anyone who wants to answer:

How does one access and use the "ignore feature" on this revised board?Go up to the blue bar at the top, and click "user cp."

[rainbo]

Let's not forget the rest of the story:
As he left court, one juror, a former Black Panther whom prosecutors had inexplicably left on the panel, gave Mr. Simpson a clenched fist salute with his left arm. Before the verdict was read, the same juror, Lionel Cryer, a 44-year-old black man, had smiled and winked at him. At that point, one defense lawyer, Carl Douglas, whispered to his client, "We won; we won," though Mr. Douglas later said it was because the juror thought most hostile to the defense -- Anise Ascherbach, a 60-year-old white woman -- had also smiled in their direction.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5D9113CF937A35753C1A9639582 60

[Joan Weiss]

Thank you so much!

Doing my best to avoid posts that seem to be written just to get others riled up -- especially when it is fruitless.;)YW, and pointless, except to stir the pot. imo

[Tracian]

Yes, it is a fact. All defendants have the presumption of innocence unless convicted.

mho


Keep up with the class he was convicted...game, set, match...State 12, OJ, LOVE...IOW...Love those bars....

:lol:

[Kara]

Yes, it is a fact. All defendants have the presumption of innocence unless convicted.

mho

Sooo...because I was never convicted of any drug charges, does that mean I was never addicted to meth? I never had more than a gram in my possession? I never bought for a friend? (thereby, technically becoming a dealer?)

[Joan Weiss]

I wasn't talking about a message board; I was talking about the presumption of innocence in a court of law.

MhoI know what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

Outside that door, he is/was a criminal. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been arrested and charged. Most participants know IUPG is just an annoyance, it begins and ends at the courtroom door. imo

[Details]

No, he wasn't a criminal--UNTIL he was convicted.

MHOThat is your opinion. The dictionary and the facts say otherwise. I'll go with them.

[Joan Weiss]

I wasn't talking about a message board; I was talking about the presumption of innocence in a court of law.

Mhoyou're a long way from your previous assertion that OJ was not a criminal. :no:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence


:read:

[Tracian]

There’s only one way to prove the all-white jury wasn’t bias.

Convene a panel of 12 black businessmen and women and have them participate in a mock jury (as PBS in Boston did shortly after the original O J Simpson Trial) have them look at all the evidence and testimony to determine guilt or innocence

Btw: the panel assembled by PBS back in late 95’ voted 12-0 to acquit O J Simpson :patriot:



Yerka1


Link? TIA

[Tubesworld]

That is your opinion. The dictionary and the facts say otherwise. I'll go with them.

Well typed Details. That's the beauty of America. We are allowed to show our ignorance as much as we like, as per your response to the "definition of criminal"

[Firefox]

OJ being arrested again.....guns and thugs...
OJ standing trial again....those that would not take the rap...
OJ planning a party, then convicted...PRICELESS


For everything else, there is Clark County Jail...three hots and a cot...

Beautiful!!!



As a native Nevadan, I can pretty much promise that he will get a long prison sentence, and even serve it! Nevada is a wee bit hard on criminals.

They are so gung ho that they once, upon learning that a serial killer who had killed girls and women in California, Oregon, and Nevada was being held by Cal. and, upon also learning that he would be between the juridiction of two branches of the California justice systym for a couple of hours, sent a few fellas off to California to nab him while he was not officially in Cal's juridicition, and haul him back to Nevada.

My guess, they didn't think California would go hard enough on this vile sex killer, for some reason.
This is somewhat off topic, but I have lived in California for about 20 years now and have seen about three executions, though there are hundreds awaiting execution.
One such long-waiting soul, another serial sex killer convicted in the seventies, constantly sues the state of California for tragic things like having his cookies on his food tray arive soggy. Yes, really! He's so terribly abused!

So, I kinda "get" Nevada's point of view. People on California's death row are most likely going to die of old age before they are executed, no matter how awful their crimes.

( example ; the cookie cryer once kicked an ice pick into one of his victim's ears, after exhausting himself from inflicting a couple of days of rape and torture on his teen-aged victim, then strangled her with a coat hanger and pliers. Real nice fella. )

But hey, doesn't he really deserve crispy cookies. I mean, come on? It's too cruel to have to eat soggy cookies.

Let Nevada deal with O.J.

Let Freedom Ring, Let the White Dove Sing, Let the whole world know that today is the day of Reckoning. Let the weak be strong, Let the right be wrong. Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay, it's Independence day. Martina McBride

For Nicole.:rose::rose::rose:

[rainbo]

Yes they listened to tapes and filled in the blanks they said. :shrug: FBI audio experts with years of training, experience and equipment were unable to do it, but somehow this jury of ordinary citizens were able to do it. If I'm not mistaken, these tapes weren't ever sent to the FBI, they were transcribed by the Clark County Police, correct? I thought the FBI only made them clearer by enhancement (removing background noise).

[Tubesworld]

It's good to see Nevada means business when it comes to sentencing. Thanks for the insight. Judge Glass has a reputation of not going gently at sentencing time?

[Tubesworld]

Aren't these guys kinda old to be behaving like a bunch of wannabe thugs? LOL, can you bring some heat, and look menacing. Good grief.

[rainbo]

I am having a bit of difficulty adjusting to this new board setup.

I have a general question for anyone who wants to answer:

How does one access and use the "ignore feature" on this revised board?

:D :beer: I hear ya, loud and clear! I have no idea how to use the ignore feature though.

[Firefox]

It's good to see Nevada means business when it comes to sentencing. Thanks for the insight. Judge Glass has a reputation of not going gently at sentencing time?

My pleasure, Tubesworld. I have personally never much cared what the jury in O.J.'s [B]criminal trial[B] decided. It has nothing to do with race. In fact, I was a fan of OJ's, pre-murder trial, and was actually angry when he was first arrested. I am so sick of everyone crying racism on his behalf.

I don't care what color a monster is. My mind was quickly changed when I learned about what Nicole had left in her safety deposit box at the bank.

Pictures of herself beaten bloody and bruised, and her will.
Could anyone scream louder from her grave?

That he then actually tried to benefit from those brutal murders with that idiotic book should show just how deeply he cared about his former wife and the mother of his children. I think he will spend the rest of his days behind bars, which is exactly where he should have spent the last 13, JMO

[aubrey04]

Wrong. In a court of law they have the presumption of innocence! That is a fact!

mho

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. He was acquitted of murdering Ron and Nicole but that didn't change history.. they are still dead and he still murdered them... He was a criminal long before he was convicted of this crime, imo.

[Cornblossom]

I never said he wasn't convicted.

mhoit's been so long ago,do you know what you said?:seeya: Nite all

[rainbo]

There’s only one way to prove the all-white jury wasn’t bias.

Convene a panel of 12 black businessmen and women and have them participate in a mock jury (as PBS in Boston did shortly after the original O J Simpson Trial) have them look at all the evidence and testimony to determine guilt or innocence

Btw: the panel assembled by PBS back in late 95’ voted 12-0 to acquit O J Simpson :patriot:



Yerka1

Who would have ever thought that there could be two groups of 12 idiots that heard all the evidence against OJ Simpson and didn't convict him? I'm just stunned.

Looking at evidence and observing the testimony of all the witnesses is totally different though. I watched gavel to gavel, every single day, and there's no way in hell I would have acquitted him. No.way.in.hell. He was guilty then, and he's guilty now. This case could not have a better outcome unless he's sentenced to life in prison. I just wish it could be LWOP. THAT would be sweet justice.

[cloe23]

I am sure this has been hashed before but I need to vent.
Of course the defense team is going to bash any and every thing that they can. They defended someone for several months and know for a fact he is broke and IMO they are upset as they just swallowed a pro bono case.
Good riddens OJ's defense team:tongue:

BTW I have always felt that bashing the jury is not a good thing to do in the eyes of the public and media.
TY for letting me share:)

[Firefox]

:D :beer: I hear ya, loud and clear! I have no idea how to use the ignore feature though.

I'm assuming it's me you want to ignore, but I'll help you anyway.

The easiest way would be to go to "Reply To Threads," then just above that phrase, in the upper left hand corner, wil be the phrase, User CP. That's for Control Panel. Click there, and when you get there, you will find a slot in the options that allows to write in the names of people whoses posts you don't want to have to deal with. You'll know it worked when you return to the regular threads, and the names listed are followed by a statement that this member's posts are on the ignore list.

Good luck. Get back to me if you need more help. I'm not sensitive about stuff like that. :seeya:

[rainbo]

Firefox, I have no idea who you are, but thanks for the instructions nonetheless. :beer:

ETA; Ha! Firefox, I just pulled up your latest posts and can honestly tell you that we're on the same page. I have no idea why you'd think I want to ignore you, but that's not the case.

[rainbo]

Gabe Grasso's remarks, as I heard them this morning on InSession, were particularly insulting to all Nevada juries -- painting them all with a very wide brush. If he feels so strongly, then I would suggest to him that he find another state in which to practice.

OMG I was absolutely shocked when I heard him this morning, too. He spoke with such venom about Nevada juries. It truly was awful. He can't really expect for people to respect him as an attorney in the courtroom when he speaks about juries the way he did today.

[rainbo]

After today, he might need to. LOL! It was bad.

[Firefox]

Aren't these guys kinda old to be behaving like a bunch of wannabe thugs? LOL, can you bring some heat, and look menacing. Good grief.

No way! Those little "get around" scooters can be souped up real good, if you have the right mechanic. Even a manual wheel chair can really move on a down hill slope. I get to joke about these things coz I have to use them sometimes. Like when I rob the local 7/11. Or kidnap guys who steal my meds. Wah Hoo. Did I remember to bring my piece?

:biggrin: Beware the "Old Gangsta's on Scooters!" Alledged, of course, until proven in court.

[SUNNNY]

"Ownership is not an issue in robbery". I don't get this part of the case.
I take your purse and it"s robbery. You pull out your gun and say "give it back", instead of calling the police, and that"s armed robbery in Nevada? I'm not crying for OJ but a lot about this case is troubling.

[rainbo]

The thing is; the taking of memorabilia wasn't part of the case. It didn't happen that day, or in Nevada. Doesn't matter when or where it happened, or even if it happened at all. What does matter is that OJ and his cronies went into that room with guns a-blazing and didn't allow anyone to leave the room. They forcibly took the items and left. Robbery with a weapon (aka armed robbery), and kidnapping. End of story.

[rainbo]

Another way to look at it. Say OJ and the cronies went into a bank, flashed guns, took money, and held people against their will; does it matter who the money in the bank belongs to?

[Firefox]

I can't speak for poster Rainbo but when I asked my question, I was certainly NOT referring to or about you, FireFox. Keep on posting!:)

Edited to add: P.S. 1965 was a very good year for whine.

Ah Lawdy, don't encourage me! :D
Just kidding,' kinda. Thanks for the kind words, and I will be around.

Also, don't feel bad about getting around on these boards. It took me months to even figure out how to post on them, even less get the hang of all the other stuff.
I still get confused sometimes, a:seeya:nd I've posted about three thousand posts, They took them down! What were they thinking?

[rainbo]

I think this is the second time I've posted on these boards since they changed them. I like this new setup though. It looks nicer and is easier to read, but that one banner ad is slowing me down something terrible! They need to do something about it.

OK, sorry to have veered off topic. I won't do it again. :no:

[Firefox]

Firefox, I have no idea who you are, but thanks for the instructions nonetheless. :beer:

ETA; Ha! Firefox, I just pulled up your latest posts and can honestly tell you that we're on the same page. I have no idea why you'd think I want to ignore you, but that's not the case.


Thanks!
Glad to hear from you, and glad if I was any help. I always get paranoid when folks talk about the ignore button. I've been told I talk, uh, write, too much.

You know, just go on and on and on and . . . . . opps.

:seeya:

[Tubesworld]

In regards to the defense lawyers bashing the jury. It would certainly not be due to the amount of evidence against their client that they were found guilty. And it most surely not be due to poor lawyering. When confronted with overwhelming evidence, a quality attorney would strongly suggest to his client some sort of plea agreement. Did any of Simpson's attys. suggest a plea deal? When all else fails, it is surely the jury, law enforcement, the judge, and whomever else is convenient to blame. Most certainly not defense council. If you were defending Simpson, you'd say you lost the case due to poor performance on your part and the large amount of evidence against the defendants? God forbid any of the lawyers show an ounce of humility. They have to blame someone to keep the media hyperbole alive.

[Tubesworld]

Back in kindergarten, that's funny!

[rainbo]

In regards to the defense lawyers bashing the jury. It would certainly not be due to the amount of evidence against their client that they were found guilty. And it most surely not be due to poor lawyering. When confronted with overwhelming evidence, a quality attorney would strongly suggest to his client some sort of plea agreement. Did any of Simpson's attys. suggest a plea deal? When all else fails, it is surely the jury, law enforcement, the judge, and whomever else is convenient to blame. Most certainly not defense council. If you were defending Simpson, you'd say you lost the case due to poor performance on your part and the large amount of evidence against the defendants? God forbid any of the lawyers show an ounce of humility. They have to blame someone to keep the media hyperbole alive.

Good point Tubesworld.

Firefox, I understand the paranoia. I tend to ramble on myself from time to time, too. It comes with age, I think. :D 45 here. I start reading and my thoughts always come a few minutes after I post, so I post again, and again, and...you get the point. The good thing is that I only post sporadically after a day or soafter posting a lot.

[Tubesworld]

As long as I'm foaming at the fingertips, what were these dopes thinking? Simpson has a pension in excess of 300K a year. He is intent on making sure the Goldmans do not get any proceeds from any of his memorabilia. Just what is his anger? And another thing, why would anyone be interested in some clapped out ball player's junk, I mean his "essence."

[Firefox]

Well, it's great to meet so many like minded and talkitive folks. I used to post here a lot, mostly on the politics board. There were many, many people who put me on ignore, after telling me how much they depised my "long, whiney" posts. Bless their hearts.
Ah well, can't please everyone. Again, very n:):seeya::)ice to meet you and it's good to be back, and babbling again.

Catch ya later.

[Firefox]

As long as I'm foaming at the fingertips, what were these dopes thinking? Simpson has a pension in excess of 300K a year. He is intent on making sure the Goldmans do not get any proceeds from any of his memorabilia. Just what is his anger? And another thing, why would anyone be interested in some clapped out ball player's junk, I mean his "essence."

Woah! Watch those words like "essence." Next O.J. will be putting out his own cologne. A tangy mixture of Bull $, blood money, and a total lack of conscience.

Just imagine! barf

[Velouria]

As long as I'm foaming at the fingertips, what were these dopes thinking? Simpson has a pension in excess of 300K a year. He is intent on making sure the Goldmans do not get any proceeds from any of his memorabilia. Just what is his anger? And another thing, why would anyone be interested in some clapped out ball player's junk, I mean his "essence."

It's the same anger that drove him to murder Nicole. No one disrespects "The Juice". Same misplaced sense of entitlement and narcissism.

He tried to slither his way around the civil judgment and lost. Too bad.

[Tubesworld]

Woah! Watch those words like "essence." Next O.J. will be putting out his own cologne. A tangy mixture of Bull $, blood money, and a total lack of conscience.

Just imagine! barf
Perhaps to attract a new set of hangers on. I mean his new posse! Or would that be barnacles? Someone else on here used the barnacle metaphor, I forget who.

[aubrey04]

"Ownership is not an issue in robbery". I don't get this part of the case.
I take your purse and it"s robbery. You pull out your gun and say "give it back", instead of calling the police, and that"s armed robbery in Nevada? I'm not crying for OJ but a lot about this case is troubling.

Relating to this case more specifically... yes....if someone stole your purse - then later - you went to a hotel room with a gang of thugs with a gun... and demanded it back - then yes, it would be considered robbery in Nevada. Plus, not all the items Simpson and his thug friends collected belonged to Simpson.

If we really want to get technical - those items truly didn't belong to Simpson anyway. Simpson has been selling memorabilia via a middleman for years and profiting from it. Any money made via the sales of memorabilia should have been handed over to the Goldman and Brown families, as OJ owes them a multimillion dollar civil judgment.

By the way, if someone would have died during this little hairbrained scheme --- OJ could have gone down for FELONY MURDER.. even if he truly didn't know a gun was involved (which I do NOT believe for one second).. if a death occurs while you and your cohorts are in commission of a felony --- they can nab you on felony murder charges.

[Tubesworld]

I don't think these imbeciles would have used their guns. They strike me as all show, no go. But like you said, should someone have been killed, the lot of them would have been in deep doo doo.

[cherish]

Does anybody know what happens now with the "stuff"?

[Tubesworld]

Does anybody know what happens now with the "stuff"?

I'm speculating, but I'd think maybe the DA's office would turn it over to the Goldman's attorney? Maybe they will have a hearing as to how to dispose of it.

[Tubesworld]

I just don't get the exorbitant prices people are willing to pay for these sort of items. I saw a set of O.J.Simpson golf clubs on ebay for $850.00. Who knows as to their authenticity.

[Details]

Does anybody know what happens now with the "stuff"?CA has filed a claim against it, it goes there, so they can decide ownership. Gilbert, OJ, Goldmans are the choices I'm aware of.

[Jay]

If this case is not overturned on state appeal(not likely) in a few years it will be US Supreme Court bound.JMO:patriot:


For that to happen, federal constitutional violations MUST be plead on state appeal, as the USSC wil NOT disturb a state court conviction appeal based "soley" on state constitutional/statutory law, of course the Attorney's know this.

Also, the grant of a Petition for Certiorari is entirely discretionary with the High court.

You can bet NV court of appeals ruling, whatever it is, will be appealed to the NV SC by the loosing side, and no doubt, they will hear it.

[Jay]

I have with interest read the pros and cons about when a person IS a criminal. In the "legal" sense, until convicted, they are not a criminal, simply a defendant.


In the wordly accepted sense, of course, we can form opinions on the nefarious actions of others, aquitted or convicted in a court of law, as someone pointed out.

[cloe23]

I appreciate reading your post. I, too, feel that insulting the jury is not a good thing to do -- it is unprofessional.

Both sides should concentrate their public remarks on matters for appeal.

Gabe Grasso's remarks, as I heard them this morning on InSession, were particularly insulting to all Nevada juries -- painting them all with a very wide brush. If he feels so strongly, then I would suggest to him that he find another state in which to practice.

As far as defense attorneys doing this pro bono because the client(s) is/are broke, I wouldn't bet on that -- particularly as it applies to Simpson.

I thought I heard or read somewhere that OJ filed bankruptcy, I just assumed that all his assets are frozen. Like you said you never know with OJ. I should of stated JMO in my above post:)

[warhorse46]

Wrong again. He was not a criminal when he was "arrested." He was a "suspect" and then a "defandant" in court until he was convicted.

It's always an "annonyance" when it is not our loved ones life in the defendant's chair. There is no presumption of innocense. Everyone arrested is a "criminal" until we get that call at 3 in the morning! :rolleyes:

mho


Incorrect. OJ was a criminal when he was arrested for the armed robbery in 2007. He had been convicted & sentenced of theft of direct TV in 2005 & domestic violence in 1996.

[Tracian]

Incorrect! He was a criminal AFTER he got CONVICTED not WHEN he was ARRESTED!

MHO


Which arrest and conviction do you refer?

[warhorse46]

Incorrect! He was a criminal AFTER he got CONVICTED not WHEN he was ARRESTED!

MHO


Yes he was a criminal AFTER he was convicted of theft of direct TV in 2005 & domestic violence in 1996 which made him a CONVICTED criminal when he was arrested & charged with armed robbery & kidnapping in 2007.

[Buzz#1]

Incorrect. OJ was a criminal when he was arrested for the armed robbery in 2007. He had been convicted & sentenced of theft of direct TV in 2005 & domestic violence in 1996.

I don't know,I'm thinking maybe he's been a criminal in his heart all his life,he's just a convicted criminal now!!Finally:beer:

[Cornblossom]

Incorrect! He was a criminal AFTER he got CONVICTED not WHEN he was ARRESTED!

MHOIn 1989, Simpson pleaded no contest to a domestic violence charge......that made him a criminal thereafter......he may not have been a criminal before..but he was after that. When he was arrested and tried for double murder,he was considered a criminal because of the prior no cotest plea.

[Heyes]

Are we still on the criminal conversation?
I thought once he pleaded no contest to beating the heck out of Nicole, that made him a criminal. He spent the next couple of dozen years acting like he was above all that, but actually...just another slimy wife beating criminal. We all heard that tape too! :) He really is a stupid man.
Here's the beauty of waking up today. I turned on the news, nothing about the killer. Tru tv? Over it. On to another trial. In one day he is forgotten POS resting behind bars. As it should be! Hope Mr. Goldman gets in a lovely game of golf today! :cool:

IMO

[NYGalPal]

Sad the position he left his kids in. Maybe, just maybe there is a ray of hope for them.

Nicole Brown Simpson's children Sydney and Justin have lived under impossibly sad circumstances, being raised by the very man whom a civil jury, at least, found had killed their mother. Maybe their father's imprisonment will give them a belated chance to break free from his poisonous, criminal orbit.

omo

[Heyes]

Sad the position he left his kids in. Maybe, just maybe there is a ray of hope for them.

Nicole Brown Simpson's children Sydney and Justin have lived under impossibly sad circumstances, being raised by the very man whom a civil jury, at least, found had killed their mother. Maybe their father's imprisonment will give them a belated chance to break free from his poisonous, criminal orbit.

omo
Considering the 911 phone call from sidney.... I say those kids were looking for their freedom from the day they turned 18. I know I would have. Ya know you can love your father but you sure don't have to like him.
imo
Seriously has any one of our kids called the police because we disciplined them?? I don't think so. What did this man do to those kids?
imo

[Tracian]

ABSOLUETY CORRECT! He is NOW a CRIMINAL Of ROBBERY and KIDNAPPING AFTER he got convicted. Before the R and K conviction he was a criminal of Domestic Violence!


MHO



....and stealing cable ;)

[JConnolly]

OMG! PEOPLE! Are we now classifying CRIMINALS? Ok, so he wasn't/was when/then, ok to be called a criminal IN ONE CASE, but not another? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! A criminal is a CRIMINAL. PERIOD. DOT. END OF STORY!

I swear! Pick it apart all you want <poster shall remain nameless> ... semantics aren't going to work!

OJ SIMPSON has been a CRIMINAL for MOST of his LIFE. And FINALLY, he's paying the price! Get over it! HE'S A CRIMINAL! They don't come in 31 Flavors!! :rolleyes:

Arrrrrgh!!!!

:) We now return you to our regularly scheduled program. Done w/my rant, no replies from <poster who shall remain nameless> necessary! IGNORE ON.

[aubrey04]

I just don't get the exorbitant prices people are willing to pay for these sort of items. I saw a set of O.J.Simpson golf clubs on ebay for $850.00. Who knows as to their authenticity.

I don't understand why someone would want memorabilia from OJ either. To me, it falls into the department of wanting artwork from a serial killer. At one time, he was a great football player but that was long ago and he showed the world what he is truly about. A woman-beater, double murderer, cable-stealing thief.. (and now an armed robber).

Also, these memorabilia dealers and people involved with OJ seem like real low-life scoundrels, I wouldn't trust the authenticity of any items purchased from these types.

jmo

[aubrey04]

I thought I heard or read somewhere that OJ filed bankruptcy, I just assumed that all his assets are frozen. Like you said you never know with OJ. I should of stated JMO in my above post:)

From what I understand, when OJ brokered the deal for the book, "If I Did It", he set up a company to be the middleman for him. So he could receive the money for the book and not have to pay the Goldman's. When Harper-Collins pulled out of the deal due to the public outcry... OJ filed for bankruptcy on behalf of that company.. ETA: So he filed for bankruptcy on the company, not for himself...

He is still raking in $25,000 per month on his pension, in which the Goldman's can NOT touch..

Here is a link to the $25k/month pension he receives:

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/ojsimpson.html

I assume that Yale Galanter and Grasso are being paid, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did it just for the publicity.

[aubrey04]

RE: bankruptcy

http://outeasy.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/oj-simpson-bankrupts-children/

,,,,,errrr I am realizing we are going off-topic from "Bashin the OJ Jury"... the threads discussion, so maybe we should continue this line on one of the other threads, if possible? I don't want to hijack the initial posters thread.

[ladeebug565]

Just to keep the information correct:

the domestic violence arrest was 1989. He pled no contest.

The linked document is dated 1996. See paragraph 2 of the link.


http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/SOR/ARCHIVE/WOMEN/DOMVIOL.TXT

But isn't pleading no contest akin to pleading guilty? Isn't the person on trial saying you don't wish to contest the charges? Doesn't that go on your record as guilty?

My mind goes back to Nicole's 911 call for help and the sense of terror in her voice, the raging OJ Simpson in the background. He is where he belongs, in prison with all the other abusers, murderers, robbers, kidnappers, stalkers, thieves. He should fit right in.

[JConnolly]

OK, hadn't done my IGNORE yet, was busy elsewhere.

All I can say (again, and I HOPE for the last time) is that it doesn't MATTER what the crime is. If you commit it, you are a CRIMINAL. If it's against the law and you do it anyway, it makes you a CRIMINAL. It doesn't matter if you ever get caught. You're a CRIMINAL for breaking the law. Since you haven't been convicted YET, yes, you are a SUSPECT in the eyes of the law. It doesn't mean you're still not a CRIMINAL for participating in a CRIME that is AGAINST THE LAW.

If you DO get caught, and you DO get indicted, and you DO go to trial, yes, then at that moment you are the DEFENDANT, and all DEFENDANTS are according to the Constitution (I think that's what it's according to, anyway) are Presumed to be Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

At this point, YOU ARE STILL A CRIMINAL WHO PERFORMED A CRIMINAL ACT (and I don't care if it was cutting the tag off your danged mattress! or some other equally antiquated law! Like riding your bike the wrong way on a one-way street after 9:06pm in BFE -- if it's AGAINST THE LAW AND YOU DO IT... YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! YOU PERFORMED A CRIMINAL ACT WHICH IS/WAS AGAINST THE LAW.)

It doesn't matter ONE IOTA if you are found Guity or Innocent. You're still a criminal!

(Why does everyone else get this but one or two posters? Isn't that unbelievable??!)

SHEEEESH!

[Tracian]

A "suspect" in the eyes of the law doesn't make you a criminal. Conviction makes a criminal...and a conviction for one crime doesn't make you a criminal in another crime UNTIL conviction of the other crime.

MHO



No one said it did, but the reality is that he was a criminal at the time of this conviction, due to past convictions.

[Tracian]

That's right. The civil claim is not a criminal action.

mho


But one can be held in contempt for not following the courts orders in a civil case.

[JConnolly]

The wrongful death case was a civil claim or tort action NOT a criminal action. So despite the plaintiffs win (which also includes OJ's children and Ron's mother which the Goldmans seem to conveniently forget) they merely won a money judgement. As it was not a criminal action, the word 'criminal' does not arise out of that money judgement.

Why is it so shocking to ANYONE that OJ would not pay the Goldman's?? Does anyone actually believe he would say to Sidney and Justin, hey, sorry I killed your mom, but I also killed Ron Goldman, so I'm going to give Fred and Kim all your inheritance in recompense???? Regardless of what anyone thinks of OJ, I think his children come FIRST. They have the MOST to lose and deal with out of this whole sordid mess. It would be nice if the Goldmans would learn some compassion for Sydney and Justin instead of always thinking of their own bitterness and hatred. Those kids will NEVER have an easy life and a horrible burden was put on their little shoulders thru no fault of their own.
Are you joking or what!? OJs kids are more important than the son the Goldmans lost? THEY should have COMPASSION? OMG! You've just got to be kidding. How in the world can you say that one death is any more or less important than another?

Sidney and Justin have had to put up with the trials and tribs THEIR father brought UPON HIMSELF. I have compassion for them, but to say the Goldman's SHOULD instead of for their own loss is downright ridiculous!! I can't believe I even read a post like that!!!

[Details]

A "suspect" in the eyes of the law doesn't make you a criminal. Conviction makes a criminal...and a conviction for one crime doesn't make you a criminal in another crime UNTIL conviction of the other crime.

MHOBeing a suspect doesn't make you a criminal. Committing a crime does make you a criminal. A court of law does not change reality. You commit a crime, you are a criminal from that instant.

In the eyes of the law - you may be a suspect. In reality, you may be innocent, or a criminal. In court, you may be found guilty or not guilty. But in reality, you are still innocent or a criminal, whichever is true.

Presumption of innocence is an interesting thing. It doesn't apply to the police, the public, really anyone other than the ruling made by the judge and jury. Even they don't have to be thought controlled robots - they can think whatever they like about the defendant, they just have to make their verdict based on a presumption of innocence. And no legal penalties can be applied until the case has been prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

But - that applies only to legal penalties. It doesn't change a person from a murderer to not a murderer if they kill someone but manage to escape on a technicality. You don't suddenly become not a thief if you steal something, but manage a hung jury. You are just as much a rapist as ever, and your victim knows it, even if you convince some idiots she wanted it. You commit a crime, you are a criminal. Pretty obvious stuff.

[JConnolly]

A "suspect" in the eyes of the law doesn't make you a criminal. Conviction makes a criminal...and a conviction for one crime doesn't make you a criminal in another crime UNTIL conviction of the other crime.

MHO
You know what? Since this has become your mantra, you just go right ahead repeating it over and over and over. Use cut/paste, saves on the typing. How you twist and spin and refuse to acknowlege facts is truly beyond comprehension.

So, for the last time, a criminal is a criminal and a crime is a crime whether there is ever a conviction. I'm so done, I'm not risking being banned because of you again.

:seeya: and have a ... well.... have a day. I'll leave it at that.

BYE!

[JConnolly]

Who died and appointed you judge and jury? How do YOU know someone is guilty of what they may be accused of? You don't, b/c you weren't there. I hate to burst your bubble, you're not God or all knowing.:rolleyes:Burst away! Roll your eyes if it makes you feel good --It matters not to me! I'm a strong and confident person and I will post my opinions regardless of what anyone else thinks.

And please point out where I ever used the term that someone is guilty of what they've been accused of. I never said or implied that. That's why we have courts and judges and juries... to PROVE it.

For the last time ( maybe ;) ) the POINT is, a person who commits a crime is a CRIMINAL. It's not rocket surgery!

[JConnolly]

You not only make no sense with that statement but you are dead wrong.:no:No... I'm not wrong. It only takes a little intelligence and comprehension to understand my statement... some people have neither I guess.

[Details]

If a person claims they are innocent and you weren't there to witness any crime, how do YOU know that an accused person is 'guilty' of committing a crime? If your argument is b/c the person was arrested, then how do you explain all the wrongful convictions???

You can't blow it off as a mistake. How do you give someone back 20 years of their life the system stole from them b/c people like you say he/she is guilty??Hmmm - you are reading what you want to hear, it sounds like. Where, pray tell, did I ever say what I knew? Or that being arrested was any proof of anything?

And how, may I ask, do you know I'm saying they are guilty?

Oh - and there are indeed wrongful convictions - some we know of, some we do not - and wrongful aquittals - some we find out about later, some we do not - but not all that many - percentage-wise, the legal system is doing a great job. You can't give a falsely convicted person back 20 years of their life. But then, neither can you give a murder victim back their life, after we've freed a killer and they kill again, nor a child their innocence, when an accused pedophile is released and strikes again. Both of these cases must be weighed in determining how our courts work. Too restrictive, and no one can be convicted, even with audio tape of the crime and planning, or DNA proof. Too open, and we have far too many innocents locked up. Sometimes the evidence is skinny, and mostly unknown, and no one knows the truth - really ever - because even a guilty verdict can be incorrect. Sometimes the evidence is solid - DNA, tapes of your own voice - and it's easy to know what happened.



This is a simple truth. There is a real reality that exists outside of the courtroom. And in that reality, you either committed a crime or you did not. If you did - you are a criminal. Even if no one knows it. Even if everyone in the world, including me, thinks you are innocent. You are a criminal when you commit a crime. Simple as that. OJ's been convicted of this crime, armed robbery, and that makes him a convicted criminal. But he was a criminal from the moment he committed a criminal act.

[JConnolly]

Just out of curiosity and I'm not being flippant...if NV is so hard on crime, why does Las vegas have one of the highest crime rates in the country?:confused:
I'm not sure that we have the highest crime rate in the country, but if we DO, it could be attributed to all the ppl who come here from somewhere else, to find their fortune at the casinos, and when they discover that Las Vegas wasn't built on winners, the lose it and snap.

I've lived here over half my life, and most crimes that are committed here are not committed by native Las Vegans. Just watch a few episodes of Americas Most Wanted, you'll see that this is the place many fugitives flock to... seemingly to think they'll be able to get lost in the shuffle.

JMO like everything else I type on this board.

[Details]

Oh yes he did.

O.J. thought that he was above the law due to his prior acquittal, and then proceeded to demand his own way by bullying, accompanied by gun-toting morons of course.

He should have kept to his golf clubs and lies - he'd still be free to roam today.

Fooled you O.J., you're not above the law this time! :tongue:He's had a ton of good luck. Had he not been so arrogant, not chosen to continually violate the law, he'd be free. Just pay the civil judgment, and he'd have known where all his stuff was - and with his retirement, he makes more than 95% of Americans and no one can touch that. But - nope, had to try to hide the stuff. Then, he gets ticked that when people are asked to help him break the law, they turn out not to have enough honor to return everything to him - surprise, surprise! So instead of accepting a lesson learned, or going and talking to people, he gets some thugs together, makes sure he's got a few with guns, and goes in yelling, detaining victims in a room, and commits armed robbery and kidnapping.

All he had to do was accept his good luck, and live a luxurious life on a generous allowance with plenty of groupies, toadies and fame seekers hanging on his every word. And maybe raise his kids. He couldn't do it.

[Tracian]

Not in a civil case they can't; except if a judge abuses his power like one FL judge did to Joe Francis.

This money judgement against Oj is not new to the civil courts. The burden is ALWAYS on the plaintiff to EXECUTE on that judgement. The best chance is when one first gets the judgement, thereafter your chances of recovery go from slim to none. Everyone in the western world knows money will be hidden etc. It's a game and the Goldmans have chosen to spend the rest of their lives emeshed in hatred and bitterness playing the chess game. If I were OJ, I would be doing the same thing as would anyone else. It happens in divorce court and bankruptcy courts too. Its the game of 'let's hide the money and see if you can find it.":D

I hate to disagree, but you are wrong, if you loose a civil case in Superior court, and are ordered by the court to do certain things, and refuse, you can be held in contempt.

A Divorce for instance is a 'civil matter' if you do not adhere to the terms set in the divorce decree, you can be held in contempt.

OJ was ordered by the court to turn over certain items, he didn't 'refuse' he claimed they were gone...if he could have refused without punishment from the court he would not have gone through all the trouble to hide those items.

http://www.answers.com/topic/contempt-of-court
From Link:

Another classification differentiates between civil and criminal contempt. civil contempt consists of failure to do something which is ordered by the court for the benefit of another party to the proceedings (sometimes called relief to litigants), while criminal contempts are acts in disrespect of the courts or its processes which obstruct the administration of justice. 199 S.W. 2d 613, 614.

The penalty for civil contempt is usually payment of a fine, or imprisonment for an indefinite period of time until the party in contempt agrees to perform his legal obligation, unless the imprisonment clearly fails to act as coercion and acts merely to punish; 65 N.J. 257. The penalty for criminal contempt is a fine or imprisonment for a specific period of time, intended as punishment which must be tried by a jury if postconviction contempt proceedings impose sentences exceeding an aggregate of six months. 94 S.Ct. 2687, 2692.

[Details]

Thanks Tracian - I found that too obvious to answer. And I have personal knowledge of that as well. My hubby had a difficult time with his divorce judgment - didn't want to pay it (he didn't make enough money) - and got himself handcuffed and locked up for a little while. He credits that moment with really helping him grow up - he realized that "fair" to him didn't matter - he'd made those kids, they needed to be supported - what was fair for them was what was important, went out and got himself a second job so he could do it.

[warhorse46]

Just to keep the information correct:

the domestic violence arrest was 1989. He pled no contest.

The linked document is dated 1996. See paragraph 2 of the link.


http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/SOR/ARCHIVE/WOMEN/DOMVIOL.TXT



Thank you for the correction. But the year of the conviction is irrelevant, the fact remains OJ was a convicted criminal of two previous crimes when he was arrested & charged with the armed robbery & kidnapping in 2007.

[Details]

Thank you for the correction. But the year of the conviction is irrelevant, the fact remains OJ was a convicted criminal of two previous crimes when he was arrested & charged with the armed robbery & kidnapping in 2007.That'll have a bearing on sentencing. I'm not sure if the cable/dish/satellite (I forget which) judgment will as well or not. It's more recent, but wasn't a criminal case. Has that one been finished? Or is it still in the accusation stage?

[warhorse46]

Bingo! You got it! Corrrect! He was a CRIMINAL AFTER he was CONVICTED.

Incorrect! It made him a "convicted" criminal of Domestic violence, but he was not a convicted criminal in the robbery or kidnapping in 2007 UNTIL he was CONVICTED! He still had the presumption of innocence in the robbery and kidnapping trial UNTIL he was convicted.


MHO



But the fact remains he WAS a convicted criminal of two previous crimes when he was arrested in 2007. So he could be called a criminal. Nobody said he was a convicted criminal of the robbery & kidnapping when he was first arrested in 2007. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence by ONLY the jury, not the general public or message boards.

[warhorse46]

He was a CRIMINAL of Domestic Violance AFTER the no contest plea. !


Incorrect! He was a criminal of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE when he was arresed for the DOUBLE MURDER...but in the DOUBLE MURDER case he had the presumption of innocence and since he was acquitted, he was NOT A CRIMINAL RE: THE DOUBLE MURDERS. Being a criminal in domestic violance doesn't make him a criminal in the double murders.

mho


But it still makes him a criminal non the less. Doesn't matter what crime you are convicted of, you ARE a criminal thereafter.

[Tracian]

Thanks Tracian - I found that too obvious to answer. And I have personal knowledge of that as well. My hubby had a difficult time with his divorce judgment - didn't want to pay it (he didn't make enough money) - and got himself handcuffed and locked up for a little while. He credits that moment with really helping him grow up - he realized that "fair" to him didn't matter - he'd made those kids, they needed to be supported - what was fair for them was what was important, went out and got himself a second job so he could do it.


My husbands divorce, his ex was warned she would go to jail if she didn't start following the custody order.

[warhorse46]

That'll have a bearing on sentencing. I'm not sure if the cable/dish/satellite (I forget which) judgment will as well or not. It's more recent, but wasn't a criminal case. Has that one been finished? Or is it still in the accusation stage?



A federal court found him guilty of the direct tv theft crime & sentenced him.

[JConnolly]

Thank you for the correction. But the year of the conviction is irrelevant, the fact remains OJ was a convicted criminal of two previous crimes when he was arrested & charged with the armed robbery & kidnapping in 2007.

:beer: He's a criminal. End of story! Just like a :rose: is a :rose: is a ............... Some ppl just refuse to accept it, and that's ok for them. The majority of posters here KNOW what a CRIMINAL is.

Bye all! Off to see the Wizard. (Dr. LOL)

[JConnolly]

But it still makes him a criminal non the less. Doesn't matter what crime you are convicted of, you ARE a criminal thereafter.
THIS was the post I meant to quote in my previous post. Sorry 'bout that. :)

[Details]

My husbands divorce, his ex was warned she would go to jail if she didn't start following the custody order.Yep - one more example. Civil doesn't mean powerless, nor something where you can just ignore rulings.

[Shells2]

A federal court found him guilty of the direct tv theft crime & sentenced him.

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

[Details]

...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



mhoSorry - but this is not true. You have not been making it abundantly clear you meant only in court - recently you've been adding that - but not all along at all. Nor have you been talking only about your space - you've been objecting to the term criminal in other's posts - so that is not your space, that is their space.

What goes on in your mind and in your posts is up to you. Me - I work with reality, not legality. You are a criminal when you commit a crime - period. A court of law's sole goal, ideally, is to establish the truth of what happened, to have the law's penalty match reality - with as low of a rate of error as is possible.

[Jay]

My law dictionary defines a Criminal as:

One who has been CONVICTED of a violation of the criminal laws.


There are volumes at any law library entitled Words and Phrases.

I just might be of a mind to check it out and see how various jurisdictions define it by statutory or case law, if it is an entry that is.

[JD1974]

[/COLOR]
Are you joking or what!? OJs kids are more important than the son the Goldmans lost? THEY should have COMPASSION? OMG! You've just got to be kidding. How in the world can you say that one death is any more or less important than another?

Sidney and Justin have had to put up with the trials and tribs THEIR father brought UPON HIMSELF. I have compassion for them, but to say the Goldman's SHOULD instead of for their own loss is downright ridiculous!! I can't believe I even read a post like that!!!



I didn't realize you could pick your parents, or control their actions? You honestly think these kids should be punished because of what OJ did, they lost their mother also, or did you forget they are in the exact same position as the Goldman's??? How is money going to bring back Ron Goldman?

[fbgweezer]

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

I see you keep referring R and K so just to set the record straight --
orenthal james simpson was charged with and convicted of:

Conspiracy to commit a crime: guilty
Conspiracy to kidnap: guilty
Two counts of first degree kidnapping: guilty
Burglary in possession of a deadly weapon: guilty
Two counts of armed robbery: guilty
Two counts of assault with a deadly weapon: guilty
Two counts of coercion with use of a deadly weapon: guilty

[FrankieBones1]

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

mho
OJ has been a criminal for several years. At least fourteen years anyway. The moment he sliced into his wife and her friend, he was a criminal.

[JD1974]

OJ has been a criminal for several years. At least fourteen years anyway. The moment he sliced into his wife and her friend, he was a criminal.


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.

[Tracian]

I didn't realize you could pick your parents, or control their actions? You honestly think these kids should be punished because of what OJ did, they lost their mother also, or did you forget they are in the exact same position as the Goldman's??? How is money going to bring back Ron Goldman?


Fred Goldman offered to forgive the judgement if OJ would just admit what he did; of course he refused, but years later decided to write a book 'IF I DID IT'...truly the act of a man that mourns the death of the mother of his children.

OJ is on tape, OJ has flirted with the law even before the murders of Nicole and Ron; and yes, he was acquitted, but a civil court found that he was responsible, so when some of us think it is Karma, it is because of the civil court ruling, and his actions and attitude since the murders.

[fbgweezer]

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.

and sometimes people are guilty over and over again. I do believe it was karma -- the armed robbery stood on its own merit.

[Shells2]

Wrong. He was not a criminal in the double murder trial. He was acquitted.

mho

If you believe he is innocent in the murders, then you are entitled to say that he is not a criminal.

[Details]

My law dictionary defines a Criminal as:

One who has been CONVICTED of a violation of the criminal laws.


There are volumes at any law library entitled Words and Phrases.

I just might be of a mind to check it out and see how various jurisdictions define it by statutory or case law, if it is an entry that is.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.

As I said before - if legally, a law is passed that the sky is green - is the sky green? Nope. The sky is still really blue. The law may get it right or wrong. But an acquitted rapist's victim is just as damaged after the acquittal as before - and the rapist is still a rapist. A stolen item remains stolen. The murder victim remains dead. There's reality, and there's court rulings, and while the court hopes to match reality, reality is the truth, and the court ruling is merely hopefully a best approximation.


I think we've wandered quite far afield - but it does apply to OJ - he was a criminal the minute he committed a criminal act. Any criminal act - not just those for which he has been successfully prosecuted. I just refuse to hide from reality, and what happens by pretending what happens in court is reality. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Sometimes an innocent is prosecuted and convicted. That doesn't suddenly turn them into a criminal - not in reality. Under the law - sure - but under the law, you can turn a man into a woman with a little paperwork. The law hopes to do the best possible of determining what reality is, when it is contested - and often it succeeds - as it did in this case.

[Details]

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.He definitely had a chance of being found not guilty. And his lawyers did manage to convince the jurors the witnesses were not entirely reliable. And thus they depended heavily on the tapes. But the evidence was enourmous, massive, triple or more what a normal defendant could be convicted on - victims, videotapes, 911 tapes, coconspirators, and audiotapes all tell the same story. The tapes alone, individually and collectively, convicted him several times over, in his own words, his own voice.

The jurors listened to those tapes to decide the case, and the tapes made the answer obvious. And of those jurors, BTW, 5 thought he was guilty of the murders, way back then, one thought he was innocent, and the rest had no solid conviction either way - and all of them said, while under penalty of perjury, that they could set all this aside and rule on the facts of this case. That one juror who thinks he's innocent - had there been reason for doubt, he or she could have simply hung the jury.

This is not karma, this is not revenge, this is not a conviction for something he didn't do to make up for a lack of conviction for something he did do - he did this. His own attorneys admit it. There's no contesting it. Do you think he should be allowed to get away with it? No other thug would be able to walk away from organizing and taking part in a hundred grand armed robbery with kidnapping.


This has not a thing to do with Ron and Nicole - and if you haven't seen a poster who doesn't think he's a criminal for killing them - you simply haven't been reading. I could list several. Of course, that doesn't include Yale - his own lawyer says he thinks the murder jury got it wrong, and that this jury got it wrong too.

[Tracian]

O.J refused to confess to murders he hadn't committed.

"IF! is the key word. "IF" doesn't mean he did it.

Now Fred and Kim are selling the book that both of them swore on LKL would bring them such pain, and didn't want it published. Now they are making money off the book. I agree with Larry King when Fred and Kim started selling the book, he asked Fred how does he sleep nights.

mho



Right, that is what a loving father would do, make up a story about how he would have killed the mother of two of his children.

Fred and Kim sleep very well at night, now that the 'juice' is getting 'squeezed'.

BTW: The book is nothing like what OJ wanted published, this book that the Goldman's got rights too, is titled, "I DID IT"

[FrankieBones1]

Just a heads up ...

Dr. Phil will have some of the OJ jurors on after the break.

*gone to watch and avoid the bait here*

[Details]

Just a heads up ...

Dr. Phil will have some of the OJ jurors on after the break.

*gone to watch and avoid the bait here*Please, please, little recap? I'd love to hear what they say. Any chance of the alternates too?

[Details]

Sidney and Justin were aware of the book. BTW, they aren't kids anymore. Sidney Brook is 22 years and Justin is 19 years.

The book is exactly like the one O.J wanted published--except for Fred changing the title to "I did it.

I am sure they do sleep very well nights. Lots of money rolling in from the book softens the pillows, and smothers the pain!

Did I say Goldman didn't have rights? He does. But the fact remains he published a book for personal monetary gain he said would bring him pain if O.J. published it. :read:

mhoA fictional account from my father about how he killed my dead mother sure as hades would hurt me! That's such a sick thing to do, to joke about my dead mother, how you would have killed her - even if I grew up believing you didn't kill her, worse if I believe you did. Sick, sick thing to do, to write that book.

And yes, seeing your dead son's killer (as the Goldman's see OJ) publishing a book and making money flaunting in your face how he killed your beloved son, and you can do nothing about it - yes, that would bring pain. Publishing it himself, with the killer getting no money, putting out there to everyone how OJ did it - that's a very different matter.

As should be obvious. Imagine it for real. Imagine anyone you love brutally murdered, stabbed over and over again. Imagine you are sure who did it - you know - but they get off on a technicality. Imagine they write a book about killing your loved one, to make money from rubbing it in your face!

I think it's sick how some people have so much compassion for a wife beater, responsible for two deaths, and so little for a family who have lost their son. It's disgusting.

[Tracian]

Sidney and Justin were aware of the book. BTW, they aren't kids anymore. Sidney Brook is 22 years and Justin is 19 years.

The book is exactly like the one O.J wanted published--except for Fred changing the title to "I did it.

I am sure they do sleep very well nights. Lots of money rolling in from the book softens the pillows, and smothers the pain!

Did I say Goldman didn't have rights? He does. But the fact remains he published a book for personal monetary gain he said would bring him pain if O.J. published it. :read:

The juice may be getting squeezed, but Fred will never squeeze a confession out of him. O.J. will never confess to murders he didn't commit--not for all the money he owes Fred. It ain't going to happen.

mho


Nonsense, I don't care how old a child is, the murder of their mother would still be painful, and further, Sydney had to call 911 on her daddy dearest.

OJ was found responsible...You can't change that, and IMO, OJ did confess, when he agreed to write that book, he is just still to much of a coward to come out and say it.

[Tracian]

A fictional account from my father about how he killed my dead mother sure as hades would hurt me! That's such a sick thing to do, to joke about my dead mother, how you would have killed her - even if I grew up believing you didn't kill her, worse if I believe you did. Sick, sick thing to do, to write that book.

And yes, seeing your dead son's killer (as the Goldman's see OJ) publishing a book and making money flaunting in your face how he killed your beloved son, and you can do nothing about it - yes, that would bring pain. Publishing it himself, with the killer getting no money, putting out there to everyone how OJ did it - that's a very different matter.

As should be obvious. Imagine it for real. Imagine anyone you love brutally murdered, stabbed over and over again. Imagine you are sure who did it - you know - but they get off on a technicality. Imagine they write a book about killing your loved one, to make money from rubbing it in your face!

I think it's sick how some people have so much compassion for a wife beater, responsible for two deaths, and so little for a family who have lost their son. It's disgusting.


Well said!:beer:

[rainbo]

Those kids will NEVER have an easy life and a horrible burden was put on their little shoulders thru no fault of their own.

The kids will be just fine now. The state of Nevada just made sure of that. Never again will they have to deal with THAT poison in their lives.

[Details]

The kids will be just fine now. The state of Nevada just made sure of that. Never again will they have to deal with THAT poison in their lives.From all I've read, they've been getting plenty of support from Nicole's family anyway - possibly more than from OJ. Financially at the least - and to me, this seems likely to reflect more than just financial support - OJ's reportedly been contributing only 25% towards college education. He's got a huge pension paying him every month, but his kids are having to scrape to get through college. I can't know what else he contributes in emotional or physical support - but I think they'll be just fine.

[Shells2]

O.J refused to confess to murders he hadn't committed.

"IF! is the key word. "IF" doesn't mean he did it.

Now Fred and Kim are selling the book that both of them swore on LKL would bring them such pain, and didn't want it published. Now they are making money off the book. I agree with Larry King when Fred and Kim started selling the book, he asked Fred how does he sleep nights.

mho

Sidney and Justin were aware of the book. BTW, they aren't kids anymore. Sidney Brook is 22 years and Justin is 19 years.

The book is exactly like the one O.J wanted published--except for Fred changing the title to "I did it.

I am sure they do sleep very well nights. Lots of money rolling in from the book softens the pillows, and smothers the pain!

Did I say Goldman didn't have rights? He does. But the fact remains he published a book for personal monetary gain he said would bring him pain if O.J. published it. :read:

The juice may be getting squeezed, but Fred will never squeeze a confession out of him. O.J. will never confess to murders he didn't commit--not for all the money he owes Fred. It ain't going to happen.

mho

From the above two posts of yours, I think it is safe to say that either A) you didn't read the book or b) you didn't understand it.

The Goldmans explained very well, and in very simple terms why the book was published. It had nothing to do with the money and everything to do with being ordered by the court to publish it. They wanted to stop OJ from profitting financially from the murders of Ron & Nicole. They sued to make that happen. They won and were given legal rights of the book, and ordered to sell it as the fake "company" that OJ created to profit from the book had gone into bankruptcy.

I suggest you read everything in the book, the forward, prologue and everything else and then you will perhaps be able to make a more educated attempt at expressing your point of view.

[rainbo]

He's had a ton of good luck. Had he not been so arrogant, not chosen to continually violate the law, he'd be free. Just pay the civil judgment, and he'd have known where all his stuff was - and with his retirement, he makes more than 95% of Americans and no one can touch that. But - nope, had to try to hide the stuff. Then, he gets ticked that when people are asked to help him break the law, they turn out not to have enough honor to return everything to him - surprise, surprise! So instead of accepting a lesson learned, or going and talking to people, he gets some thugs together, makes sure he's got a few with guns, and goes in yelling, detaining victims in a room, and commits armed robbery and kidnapping.

All he had to do was accept his good luck, and live a luxurious life on a generous allowance with plenty of groupies, toadies and fame seekers hanging on his every word. And maybe raise his kids. He couldn't do it.

:rose: Absolutely beautiful (and perfect) summation of his life. What an ***.

[Details]

Wrong. It is not nonsense. Sidney Brook and Justin approved of O.J. writing the book. The proceeds from the book was to go to them. And I didn't say age had anything to do with pain. I said they are NOT children anymore!Nonsense. The proceeds were supposedly to go to them - which does not say that they approved. And all the links I find say that his children do not comment publicly about the book, so they have not said that they approved of the book anywhere that I can find.

Age has nothing to do with pain, not being children makes the pain sharper, not more mild. They learn every day more and more what they've missed out on growing up, more and more what death really means, as they get into relationships, they can see themselves in their mother's shoes, will an ex become so jealous as to snap? The damage just goes on and on. Not being children any more doesn't mean a thing about the pain of losing your mother.

[Details]

This isn't about you. This is about Sidney Brook and Justin. They approved of the book, and the money was to go to them. Don't project into them how you would feel if it happened to you.

mhoNope. More nonsense. There's not a word out there to say they approved of the book. The nearest thing that exists is something talking about how it was set up that they'd get the money from the book - but it is explicitly said they did not know the book's contents when signing the paperwork to set up the account. They were told it was just a work of fiction. The fact they weren't told of the contents is just more to suggest that even OJ knew what he was doing was pretty sick, and likely not something his kids would be happy about.

And your link does not contain what you say it does. It's a link to a Yahoo search for all LK transcripts. Which, if you search them for Justin and Syndey - I don't find a thing with them.

[rainbo]

But the evidence was enourmous, massive, triple or more what a normal defendant could be convicted on - victims, videotapes, 911 tapes, coconspirators, and audiotapes all tell the same story.

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 his sorry *** today! :seeya: OJ!