Current O.J. trial discussion thread [Archive]

Lyndawitha"Y

10-08-2008, 04:34 PM

In case anyone is interested. Dr. Phil has a few members of the jury on. Once again they state "it was OJ on the tapes" that got him found guilty

Rats..Riccio is going to be on Dr. Phil now..Geesh..wish they just stop giving him airtime..The tapes he made were for his benefit only...not to help nail OJ on any convictions...He was like a gambler, and taped to protect himself...then to sell after the caper!! He had no idea they would be so lucrative as they turned out to be..In fact they would have put his backside in jail too had that recorder been found ontop of that armoire in that room..Now that is something I would have really appreciated..NO IMMUNITY deal could be sought by Riccio!!

LMS:eek:

Lyndawitha"Y

10-08-2008, 04:39 PM

Oooooohhhlala..Mike Gilbert is next.......This could be informative...HUMMMM

LMShammer

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 04:40 PM

Rats..Riccio is going to be on Sr. Phil now..Geesh..wish they just stop giving him airtime..The tapes he made were for his benefit only...not to help nail OJ on any convictions...He was like a gambler, and taped to protect himslef...then to sell after the caper!! He had no idea they would be so lucrative as they turned out to be..In fact they would have put his backside in jail too had that recorder been ound ontop of that armoire in that room..Now that is something I would have really appreciated..NO IMMUNITY deal could be sought by Riccio!!

LMS:eek:

You beat me. I was just about to type the same thing. Enough of him already. Didn't he admit to making money via his multiple interviews? He doesn't appear to have no shame. He's constantly making a fool of himself. Dr. Phil just caught him contradicting himself. IRRC, Nancy Grace has also caught him contradicting himself.

mho

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 04:48 PM

Dr. Phil telling them how slimely they all are. If the shoe fits.

mho

:lol:

Lyndawitha"Y

10-08-2008, 04:49 PM

You beat me. I was just about to type the same thing. Enough of him already. Didn't he admit to making money via his multiple interviews? He doesn't appear to have no shame. He's constantly making a fool of himself. Dr. Phil just caught him contradicting himself. IRRC, Nancy Grace has also caught him contradicting himself.

mho

Is it me?? or is Dr. Phil being very pointed in his disgust regarding the slimeyness of all the actions of the players in this sting..and OJ enablers to do what he wanted..or to profit by their association with him..It is so obvious to me..but then again maybe its because I feel OJ and his association with all these people indicate similar thoughts...

Lisa Bloom speaking now.....Mr. Cook, Attny for Goldman's pursuiting collection of judgement..

LMS:eek:

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 04:55 PM

Is it me?? or is Dr. Phil being very pointed in his disgust regarding the slimeyness of all the actions of the players in this sting..and OJ enablers to do what he wanted..or to profit by their association with him..It is so obvious to me..but then again maybe its because I feel OJ and his association with all these people indicate similar thoughts...

Lisa Bloom speaking now.....Mr. Cook, Attny for Goldman's pursuiting collection of judgement..

LMS:eek:

Now it isn't you, he did point it out. You could see the digust on his face. I applaud him for that.

Lisa Bloom said "this is who OJ chose to spend his last free days with, convicted felons". Alexander said "I'm not a convicted felon". Really? His arrest record is a mile long. Why is he holding a bible on stage? silly if you ask me.

OJ chose people just like him, thugs with criminal histories.

mho

Details

10-08-2008, 05:05 PM

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 05:05 PM

Why didn't Scotto have the courage to go on Dr. Phil?

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 05:10 PM

Jurors say anything new? Anything from the alternate jurors? And what about death threats? Not that I'm surprised - I expect that. I'd be pretty positive every player in this is getting some death threats - on both sides. Because in any place as large as America, on any issue big enough that a substantial percentage of the country fall on one side or the other, there will be a few violent nutjobs on both sides who express disappointment with violence, who are used to getting their way with violence and threats of violence.Jurors said "they listened to the tapes and didnt' really on the witnesses who weren't to be believed".

I only caught the last 30 minutes. I tried to type here what was being said. Regarding the threats, the forum spoke about it briefly. The lunatics always come out during every guilty verdict don't you know. If they are getting real threats, the FBI will be right on it.

mho

Lyndawitha"Y

10-08-2008, 05:15 PM

Why didn't Scotto have the courage to go on Dr. Phil?

Cause...Cause...He didnt have time???Afraid some backgound would get exposed? or cause he's afraid he might insert his other foot in his mouth?? Doesnt really matter..cause other than supporting his best buddy..he cant offer substitive insight to issues at hand...i.e. Jury and their perspective, Co-conspirators and their perspective, or verdict and it's meanings...I dont know just what makes Tom Scotto tick.??

Scotto doesnt seem totaly intouch with his emotions right now..so maybe he just felt it wise to keep his mouth shut..along with OJ's family... Arnell, Mattie and others related to the consequences!!

LMS:shrug:

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 05:16 PM

Too busy scouring the alleys of Las Vegs?

I can picture him doing that. Personally I think he is full of himself. I saw him on NG the other night. He embarassed himself multiple times by lying for OJ. Nancy set him straight since all of OJs words are on the tapes and the trancripts. I do believe the interview might still be on her website.

mho

Details

10-08-2008, 05:26 PM

Jurors said "they listened to the tapes and didnt' really on the witnesses who weren't to be believed".

I only caught the last 30 minutes. I tried to type here what was being said. Regarding the threats, the forum spoke about it briefly. The lunatics always come out during every guilty verdict don't you know. If they are getting real threats, the FBI will be right on it.

mhoNothing much new then.

Yep, there are always the lunatics. I think they should be on both real and fake threats. Because jurors should never be in fear of their lives due to doing their duty. It's not good for any jury to ever be having to put that into consideration when considering the evidence.

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 05:27 PM

Thanks for the info; I will go look for the transcripts as I don't see her show. Wonder if she asked him if he knew anyone with a white Infinity Q56 SUV?

I don't recall that question, but it is possible she may have.

omo

Details

10-08-2008, 05:28 PM

I can picture him doing that. Personally I think he is full of himself. I saw him on NG the other night. He embarassed himself multiple times by lying for OJ. Nancy set him straight since all of OJs words are on the tapes and the trancripts. I do believe the interview might still be on her website.

mhoI love when interviewers do that - don't let someone get away with lying or dodging questions. Otherwise people see the lies, and believe them.

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 05:32 PM

Nothing much new then.

Yep, there are always the lunatics. I think they should be on both real and fake threats. Because jurors should never be in fear of their lives due to doing their duty. It's not good for any jury to ever be having to put that into consideration when considering the evidence.
I know what you're saying. I remember when someone sent Dr. Phil a death threat because he had the Scott Peterson jury on. Wonder if they ever tracked that person down? It could possibly be the same one making this current threat.

omo

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 05:34 PM

I love when interviewers do that - don't let someone get away with lying or dodging questions. Otherwise people see the lies, and believe them.

You'll find it entertaining.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/10/07/ng.simpson.witness.cnn

Details

10-08-2008, 05:39 PM

I know what you're saying. I remember when someone sent Dr. Phil a death threat because he had the Scott Peterson jury on. Wonder if they ever tracked that person down? It could possibly be the same one making this current threat.

omoYeah. For this case, there's a much bigger chance, because OJ is nationally famous and infamous. So if 0.01% of Americans are his fans, that's a huge number of people, and if even a very small percentage of them are violently inclined thugs, that could generate a lot of death threats.

Lyndawitha"Y

10-08-2008, 05:41 PM

I love when interviewers do that - don't let someone get away with lying or dodging questions. Otherwise people see the lies, and believe them.

Very true Details, however it should behoove either the interviewer or someone who listens to interview with a smiggen of sckepticism...I have seen from various media outlets when spin mode gets in high gears..knowing something just said was lacking in truthfullness..or only half the facts..or totally misrepresenting facts..gets me agoing...LOL..and I too appreciate it when the interviewer either corrects or insists on getting the truthful facts out there..Unfortunately, some outlets have agenda's and feed the frenzy..for their ratings..or their beliefs...LOL

Actually, Fox for one is so biased in almost all their coverages..no matter what the topic..I sometimes go there just to see what the latest scandle, or pregudicial topic they're spinning....I just LOL at their obvious biases..

In closing.....LOL..I appreciate all interviewers who seek to be complte..giving both sides!!

LMS:D

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 05:45 PM

OJ is not worth going to jail for by making death threats because you aren't intelligent enough to hear he is guilty. Maybe they dont' care that he is guilty like before? Quite possible.

omo

Details

10-08-2008, 05:46 PM

You'll find it entertaining.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/10/07/ng.simpson.witness.cnnOh, you're right - that is funny - right at the start, Riccio saying he now thinks OJ knew about the guns, but didn't know about the robbery. How do you get there? Yeah, you bring guns for a peaceful conversation? Nice little correction she gives him - did OJ come into the room with guns and take things that did not belong to him? Yes. OK, under the law, that is an armed robbery! Duh!

But this was the Riccio that I've got, not the Scotto.

NYGalPal

10-08-2008, 06:15 PM

Oh, you're right - that is funny - right at the start, Riccio saying he now thinks OJ knew about the guns, but didn't know about the robbery. How do you get there? Yeah, you bring guns for a peaceful conversation? Nice little correction she gives him - did OJ come into the room with guns and take things that did not belong to him? Yes. OK, under the law, that is an armed robbery! Duh!

But this was the Riccio that I've got, not the Scotto.

Oh no, I'm not very good at this link stuff. Scotto interview I thought was right after Riccio. Now I can't find it.

Back to Riccio. He's a fool if anyone is going to believe OJ knew about guns, but didn't know about a robbery. That was the point of bringing guns, to rob them of the belongings.

Riccio your book sales are dropping to 0.

jmo

Details

10-08-2008, 07:32 PM

Thanks!

She didn't correct Scotto as much as she should have. He claimed they called Inside Edition before 911 - that's an outright lie, and right there on tape too.

NYGalPal

10-09-2008, 10:08 AM

Here's the transcript of the Nancy Grace show where mid-way she does the interviews re the Simpson Trial. It is about halfway down when I use my right scroll bar. It is after a commercial break and starts off with playing a tape.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/06/ng.01.html

P.S. This segment goes to the end of her show. Scotto is talked with at least twice.

Thank you for posting the transcript. Funny he has gone silent after this interview.

mho

warhorse46

10-09-2008, 11:42 AM

Thank you for posting the transcript. Funny he has gone silent after this interview.

mho

Well now cut the guy some slack, he does not have the time for tv interviews now since he is soooooo busy searching for the "real" criminals in the armed robbery & kidnapping case.:D Just like OJ spent 13 years searching all those golf courses for the real killers of Ron & Nicole. (insert max sarcasm here)

JBL

10-09-2008, 11:53 AM

Well now cut the guy some slack, he does not have the time for tv interviews now since he is soooooo busy searching for the "real" criminals in the armed robbery & kidnapping case.:D Just like OJ spent 13 years searching all those golf courses for the real killers of Ron & Nicole. (insert max sarcasm here)

Thug Pines. I'd imagine it's the 18 hole course. Scotto's headed there after the interviews. :D

NYGalPal

10-09-2008, 11:56 AM

Well now cut the guy some slack, he does not have the time for tv interviews now since he is soooooo busy searching for the "real" criminals in the armed robbery & kidnapping case.:D Just like OJ spent 13 years searching all those golf courses for the real killers of Ron & Nicole. (insert max sarcasm here)

:lol:

Someone give him a map so he can find the jail house which is now OJs new home.

warhorse46

10-09-2008, 12:02 PM

Thug Pines. I'd imagine it's the 18 hole course. Scotto's headed there after the interviews. :D

And will no doubt return to time & time again to research. :lol:

warhorse46

10-09-2008, 12:04 PM

:lol:

Someone give him a map so he can find the jail house which is now OJs new home.

But that address does not have a golf course! The really criminals couldn`t possibly be there with no golf course could they?

NYGalPal

10-09-2008, 12:14 PM

But that address does not have a golf course! The really criminals couldn`t possibly be there with no golf course could they?

Can't argue with that. <chuckle>

JConnolly

10-09-2008, 12:15 PM

:seeya:Everyone! I know this thread was started to talk about current affairs, but on the other thread that went way off course, there was mention of a tattoo... I finished reading that thread but saw nothing else about it, as far as WHAT the tat WAS of... sounded to me like the poster who mentioned it had some inside knowledge due to her/his contacting a parlor ... and went so far as to suggest I could possibly contact one myself and ask what the tat meant... well, how can I do that if I can't describe it?

I apologize if this post takes the forum O/T a bit, ( but I couldn't help but notice reference has been made to events of 13 yrs ago :) ) I AM REALLY CURIOUS about this tattoo on Ron's body! Anyone??

Oh and PS, got the PMs, will answer them shortly.... :cool:

JBL

10-09-2008, 12:24 PM

Thanks for the info; I will go look for the transcripts as I don't see her show. Wonder if she asked him if he knew anyone with a white Infinity Q56 SUV?

That is the one remaining mystery to this entire saga. Who the heck was in there.

JConnolly

10-09-2008, 12:26 PM

I read that as well. Without taking this thread OT. I'll pm you on the matter.

;)Thanks! You're a peach! :)

JBL

10-09-2008, 12:50 PM

Mrs. Scotto?

That is my first guess however I'm not sure they rented a vehicle. Vegas is a tough town to ride around if you don't know the area. That's why CJ was tooling them around town.

However there are conflicting stories about how many people were in the SUV. From 2 people unidentifiable in the front to a male and female in the front still unidentifiable to the two in the front male and female and possibly someone in the back seat. No one payed enough attention to it to actually make an identification. If it's true that more then two were in that vehicle I'd rule in the Scottos and a driver.

Oj knows.

caphill

10-09-2008, 02:25 PM

I would like to hear the jury foreman to elaborate on his comments on why the jury decided to stay so late to reach a verdict. He said something to the effect he wanted to get it done without having the jury going home because they could have flat tire, get sick etc.

Was he inferring that if the jury had not come to terms at that time they were to stay in the jury room until they reached an agreement. Did he infer he was afraid if the jurors went home that something could happen to them they would prevent them from returning for further deliberations?

Was his strange comments a clue that he was afraid he or his fellow jurors were possibly a target and were in harm's way. Was anyone threatened during the time they sat on the jury?

gaelicpeas

10-09-2008, 09:30 PM

Not everything has a link. There are NO links to the book sources I provided. I gave the book title, name of the author, and page number where the information can be located. We are allowed to give book sources.

Ok, fine. Can you please provide a few paragraphs surrounding your claims so that we can maybe understand the context of the statements? Thank you.

JBL

10-09-2008, 09:54 PM

IIRC, the identity of people in that white Q56 SUV has been driving the two of us nuts -- LOL. If the testimony we heard was true the bulk of Simpson's 'stuff' was put into it and it was then driven away. I hope LE really tried to track it down and were unsuccessfull rather than a case of it becoming an insignificant issue since there was bigger fish to fry.

I guess it really bugs me because Simpson knows who they are and where that 'stuff' is now! It should be returned to the rightful owners; and if that now means the Goldman/Brown families so be it.

I guess it doesn't really matter now but it does drive one crazy. IIRC didn't Yale turn in the rest of the booty? How'd it get to FLA if that's where Yales office is.

Also, can someone set me straight. I watched 98% of the trial so I did miss some. Didn't the PROS mention that the items taken are not ALL accounted for? I swear I heard that but I can't find verification of it either way.

gaelicpeas

10-09-2008, 10:22 PM

No, sorry I cannot quote anything from the book. The copyright forbids it.

The book by Vannatter and Lange can be purchased on Amazon for a penny, plus postage.

mho

Ah, ok. Well, I guess I can't really form an opinion since there is nothing provided. Thanks.

Tubesworld

10-09-2008, 10:24 PM

You'll find it entertaining.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/10/07/ng.simpson.witness.cnn

Thanks for posting the link. What a hoot! Riccio was as stunned as everyone else about the verdict? How foolish of me. I didn't know everyone was expecting a not guilty!

warhorse46

10-09-2008, 11:28 PM

No, sorry I cannot quote anything from the book. The copyright forbids it.

The book by Vannatter and Lange can be purchased on Amazon for a penny, plus postage.

mho

IMO that is a cop out answer. You certainly can paraphrase anything from any publication & that does not violate copyright laws. And you can copy direct quotes from publications as long as you provide a direct link back to the source you copied from.

sachae

10-09-2008, 11:46 PM

To Make A Long Story Short!!

What goes around, comes around.

JBL

10-10-2008, 02:13 AM

I thought I'd start this to get this board back on track. This is the current trial, not the old one.

snipped with all due respect ............

Sorry NYgalpal - another one seems to have gone south.

JBL

10-10-2008, 02:16 AM

Thanks for posting the link. What a hoot! Riccio was as stunned as everyone else about the verdict? How foolish of me. I didn't know everyone was expecting a not guilty!

For some reason I can only pick up live trials off of CNN. If you find anything with Riccio as the one on CNN I'd appreciate you posting it.

Tx

johnielee333

10-10-2008, 07:44 AM

i think OJ's sentence should be whatever the judge says it should be.
he got found guilty by a jury & i believe the jury got it right.
he should be sentenced according to the law there in that state.
this trial had nothing to do with the last trial.

i did not agree with the jury during the murder trial. they got it wrong.

JMO/IMO

Tracian

10-10-2008, 01:15 PM

JConnolly

10-10-2008, 01:19 PM

The tattoo described in Vannatter's' and Lange's book is a "STICK-MAN!" There is full description in their book!

mho

mho
I've googled "Stickman" tatts and the significance, can't find a thing relating to it... however, I have the number of a well-known tatt parlor here, they don't open for another 45mins, but as soon as 10:00 arrives, I'll be making a phone call to see if they can tell me the significance of an "abstract three-dimensional one-legged stickman" --

I'll let everyone know what I find out... if anything. If this poster I've quoted KNOWS and simply isn't telling... well, I can't figure that one out! There's no way THAT would be against the TOS here IMO!

JConnolly

10-10-2008, 01:20 PM

Here is the link to Ron's autopsy report:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas47.htm

From link:

There is a picture-type tattoo on the lateral aspect of the left upper
arm. There are no deformities, old surgical scars or amputations.

Would someone care to explain the issue with Ron's tattoo?

TIA
I posted at about the same time you did, so I didn't see yours... apparently this tattoo is something that's going to be a revelation! I'm on PINS & NEEDLES (just a little tattoo pun)

Tracian

10-10-2008, 01:21 PM

http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/dna/r-dna02.htm

From the link:

One major question that arose was if the blood drops from the walkway and driveway had been infected with Simpson's own DNA by lab error. If they had, then they would have shown not only a DNA profile but also the profile of the real killer. However, only Simpson's DNA profile showed

NYGalPal

10-10-2008, 02:02 PM

Check this link:

http://rememberron.net/

The picture is kinda hard to see, but it could be discribed as a one-legged stick man.

I hadn't seen that site before. Doesn't it break your heart. Such a fine young man taken from the world far too soon. Makes me tear up.

JConnolly

10-10-2008, 02:02 PM

Check this link:

http://rememberron.net/

The picture is kinda hard to see, but it could be discribed as a one-legged stick man.
I forgot if anyone has posted the ACTUAL tatt from Ron's body, if it's in any of the autopsy photos? The one on that link you provided -- wonder if it's the same one on him?

Tracian

10-10-2008, 02:04 PM

I hadn't seen that site before. Doesn't it break your heart. Such a fine young man taken from the world far too soon. Makes me tear up.

I know what you mean, over the years I have thought often about both Ron and Nicole, how cruelly they were ripped from this world.

:rose::rose:

Tracian

10-10-2008, 02:06 PM

I forgot if anyone has posted the ACTUAL tatt from Ron's body, if it's in any of the autopsy photos? The one on that link you provided -- wonder if it's the same one on him?

I am going to guess that the image on the page is of his necklace; but I will further guess that he might have had a tattoo done that resembles the necklace.

My sister had a pentagram tat done that is much like the necklace she wears..:shrug: Just a guess on my part.

warhorse46

10-10-2008, 02:10 PM

I posted the sources. CW told me not to name of the person whose fingerprint it is. And I flatly refuse to post copyright material from a book with a copyright that forbids it!

#66 10-10-2008, 03:17 AM
mcannie1965
Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,782

Quote:
Originally Posted by warhorse46
IMO that is a cop out answer. You certainly can paraphrase anything from any publication & that does not violate copyright laws. And you can copy direct quotes from publications as long as you provide a direct link back to the source you copied from.

No, you cannot quote from a book if the copyright forbids it. There is no link to the book.

There was a fingerprint in the blood, according to Hank M. Goldberg. What more is there to say about it. He does name the person whose fingerprint it was, but CW said I couldn't name it. And Vannatter and Lange mention the tattoo on his upper arm they witnessed at autopsy of Ron Goldman. It was an abstract, three dimensional stick man with one leg. That's it.

mho

Incorrect again. Per CW.

<<Â§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include â€”

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=146062 >>

JConnolly

10-10-2008, 02:32 PM

BTW ... What is the supposed meaning of a "stickman" anyway? Is it bad or scary or something otherworldly?? :confused:

JConnolly

10-10-2008, 02:42 PM

All Vannatter and Lange did NOT say what it was a symbol of. I told posters to question a tattoo artist about it's symbolism.

mho
HUH? They apparently didn't KNOW the symbol ... now we all know. ETERNAL LIFE. Mystery solved. Didn't even have to question a tattoo artist. Google was our friend. ;)

ETA: This post answers both of yours.

MYSTERY SOLVED. No need to even discuss it any longer AFAIC. The End. Dot.

JConnolly

10-10-2008, 02:46 PM

So again, I ask, what does this symbol have to do with the brutal murders of Ron and Nicole? TIA

I'm not holding my breath for an answer to this... or at least one that makes any sense lol

Lyndawitha"Y

10-10-2008, 04:49 PM

I hate to ask this, and have been reading ad nauseum dicussion of a tattoo noted on a young man who died some decade and half ago?..just what does that have to do with OJ's antics since the civil verdict, for one.and more importantly, have to do with OJ's motive to get his stuff back at gun point with a gang of thugs??? I am sorry, I just dont get this part of this thread..and a handful of posters who nag on and on about this tattoo's significance???

Sorry, guess I just have to put my toe in to register my confusion and wonder at such a discussion?? Me bad..if I am off topic..but just dont get it??

LMS:punch:

AnnInOhio

10-10-2008, 05:20 PM

Lyndawitha"Y

10-10-2008, 05:29 PM

Thank you, Lynda. I thought I was the only poster wondering how the tattoo topic is relevant at all to what happened in Las Vegas!

TY/YW..I thought I had been caught up in a time warp...and note Annie, none of the peeps claiming significance responded to my querry.??LOL I had to look back at thread topic..the date..Geesh..I know I dont always keep up..but the past few days have had high jacked theads from applicable discussion.Sorry, to complain, but just didnt want CW to get involved..

LMS

AnnInOhio

10-10-2008, 08:02 PM

Back to the topic...Does anybody know how many days OJ's attorneys have to file their appeal? My understanding is that they have to wait until after sentencing to file, but I think there's a set window of time for filing an appeal.

CamV

10-10-2008, 08:54 PM

Kara

10-10-2008, 09:05 PM

Breaking news ticker on cnn says they have filed....claiming he was denied a fiar hearing.

Off to work now.....:seeya:

Tracian

10-10-2008, 09:11 PM

Here is the story, appeals filed one week after conviction:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9160928

Lyndawitha"Y

10-10-2008, 09:14 PM

They have to file something today. I haven't been home so I don't know if they have, and I'm leaving again. Just checked a tv site. They have filed for a new trial. Here's the link:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9160928

Well it does seem new trial is part and parcel of OJ's defense team..but based on Racial biases...Hummmmmm??/ I have to wonder since the defense stipulated to seat a permanent 12 person jury..leaving the other alternates...yikes..an their was an African American there..So who's at fault as they had the option to go for the lottery post case and A. A could have been on the deciding jury??? Defenses gamble didnt pay off!!

No basis in my estimate for any appeal..I for one would love to know what that alternate thought about this case???Guess we'll never know??

LMS:punch:

AnnInOhio

10-10-2008, 09:22 PM

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson/Simpson.html

See:
Defendant Simpson's Request for a New Trial - added 10-10-08
Defendant Stewart's Request for a New Trial - added 10-10-08

gaelicpeas

10-10-2008, 10:04 PM

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson/Simpson.html

See:
Defendant Simpson's Request for a New Trial - added 10-10-08
Defendant Stewart's Request for a New Trial - added 10-10-08

Interesting. Are there any legal types out there that can tell us what the likelihood of appeal is for each of the points presented by the lawyers of Simpson and Stewart? TIA

Tracian

10-10-2008, 10:08 PM

Interesting. Are there any legal types out there that can tell us what the likelihood of appeal is for each of the points presented by the lawyers of Simpson and Stewart? TIA

I am not a legal type, but on TRU when they discussed the possiblity with the TH's, they said chances were slim to none.:shrug:

gaelicpeas

10-10-2008, 10:17 PM

I am not a legal type, but on TRU when they discussed the possiblity with the TH's, they said chances were slim to none.:shrug:

Thanks. My reading of the motions is that I don't see grounds for a new trial given what I saw of the trial. However, we (the TV viewing public) were not allowed to see a number of sidebars, plus I didn't tune in to this until the official trial started (i.e., I did not see the preliminaries and jury selection parts of this process), so I may have missed something of importance.

gaelicpeas

10-10-2008, 10:18 PM

(respectfully snipped)

No basis in my estimate for any appeal..I for one would love to know what that alternate thought about this case???Guess we'll never know??

LMS:punch:

Good question - would love to hear from them also...

JBL

10-11-2008, 12:49 AM

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Simpson/Simpson.html

See:
Defendant Simpson's Request for a New Trial - added 10-10-08
Defendant Stewart's Request for a New Trial - added 10-10-08

From what I'm reading Gallanter doesn't have a leg to stand on. In a nutshell, the jurors based their verdict on the tapes. There is no argurment regarding the admissability of the tapes or their authentication.

Everything else is hot air.

Gallanter/Grasso is still arguing what they were or were not allowed to admit or say or present. The jury didn't believe anyone to be credible so what the 'ell's up with OJ's attorney's wasting good paper.

The only possible argument was the jurors themselves. Grasso/Gallanter is screaming purposeful discrimination. I hope that doesn't fly and he gets cut down at the race card proposition.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 10:23 AM

From what I'm reading Gallanter doesn't have a leg to stand on. In a nutshell, the jurors based their verdict on the tapes. There is no argurment regarding the admissability of the tapes or their authentication.

Everything else is hot air.

Gallanter/Grasso is still arguing what they were or were not allowed to admit or say or present. The jury didn't believe anyone to be credible so what the 'ell's up with OJ's attorney's wasting good paper.

The only possible argument was the jurors themselves. Grasso/Gallanter is screaming purposeful discrimination. I hope that doesn't fly and he gets cut down at the race card proposition.

I find Gallanter's actions extremely petty and bothersome. He's telling the court system he thinks the jury is lying, yet he lies over and over again for his guity client? Hope they stick his appeal where it belongs. barf

Kara

10-11-2008, 10:39 AM

Technically I don't believe appealate issue rest on what the jurors based their verdict on. Appeals are raised based upon legal rulings made during the trial...and if the defense was as severely limited in their questioning as they allege, it might be considered to be reversible error.

Now those who say Stewart has an appeal based upon no severance, I firmly disagree. The Nevada state supreme court already rule on that issue.

JBL

10-11-2008, 10:49 AM

I find Gallanter's actions extremely petty and bothersome. He's telling the court system he thinks the jury is lying, yet he lies over and over again for his guity client? Hope they stick his appeal where it belongs. barf

Another thing that jumps out at me is the legaleeze whine regarding we weren't allowed an extention, we needed more time, we've been denied. I can just hear Yales whiny voice. I have to read it again, actually a few more times as I pick up more each time.

Thinking back to the trial IMO I thought the Pros were given a tough road to hoe since they had the burden of proof and I felt that the prosecution was constantly cut down to what they were allowed to admit.

The defense were consistently claiming these items were if fact stolen from OJ. The Pros weren't allowed to present that the person that stole then in the beginning just may have been OJ himself hiding them.

But then again, ownership had nothing to do with the actual robbery charges but it sure muddied the waters which this appeal is just keeping in line with. Muddying the waters.

Nothing that came out of anyone's mouth was believed so it doesn't matter how much more Yale wanted to bring out more verbally. It wasn't going to float by the jury's account of what they regarded as truth by the victims as well as the defendants.

JBL

10-11-2008, 10:57 AM

In Grasso's complaint he forgot to mention that OJ had been taken back into custody for bail violation and the hearing that ensued with his first bail bondsman regarding the "tape" that OJ was trying to contact CJ where is bond was doubled.

Irrelevant yes, but if he's going to produce a run down of events leading up to the beginning of trial let's get it right. LOL!

Oh wait a minute, Judge Glass rushed him and he accidently omitted it. :eyeroll:

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 11:03 AM

Another thing that jumps out at me is the legaleeze whine regarding we weren't allowed an extention, we needed more time, we've been denied. I can just hear Yales whiny voice. I have to read it again, actually a few more times as I pick up more each time.

Thinking back to the trial IMO I thought the Pros were given a tough road to hoe since they had the burden of proof and I felt that the prosecution was constantly cut down to what they were allowed to admit.

The defense were consistently claiming these items were if fact stolen from OJ. The Pros weren't allowed to present that the person that stole then in the beginning just may have been OJ himself hiding them.

But then again, ownership had nothing to do with the actual robbery charges but it sure muddied the waters which this appeal is just keeping in line with. Muddying the waters.

Nothing that came out of anyone's mouth was believed so it doesn't matter how much more Yale wanted to bring out more verbally. It wasn't going to float by the jury's account of what they regarded as truth by the victims as well as the defendants.

Bascially Yale is thumbing his nose at the law. The law states you can't retrieve these items with a bunch of thugs to get them back. The jury spoke, they based their verdict on the tapes. End of story.

How long will it take for Yale to get his whining appeal denied?

JBL

10-11-2008, 11:06 AM

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 11:07 AM

JBL

10-11-2008, 11:46 AM

Bascially Yale is thumbing his nose at the law. The law states you can't retrieve these items with a bunch of thugs to get them back. The jury spoke, they based their verdict on the tapes. End of story.

How long will it take for Yale to get his whining appeal denied?

For his repeated tirade of being a creature of the law he doesn't think his client should have to adhere to the law. After all, OJ wanted to give the things his posse took back.

Maybe armed robbers and thieves will give things back that they've taken , shake hands and can all go to Disney too.

The double edge. He's a celebrity so let him go. He's a celebrity so let's get him. This is payback for previous trials he's gotten away on.

blah blah blah.

It's quite simple. The law is what it is. The problem that they have is with the law and they want to bend it crying technical foul. Pitiful.

Creature of the law, maybe of the loopholes in the law but definately not of the law.

JBL

10-11-2008, 11:48 AM

If he had more time to file, I bet we'd see a temporary insanity defense.

He was out of his mind knowing where his past history was being bartered at.

Yale will settle for 6 month psych hospital.

I bet Yale wants another bite at the apple to give Simpson and eye exam in court

L M N Y
K W
C

What letters, I don't see any guns *scribble* I mean LETTERS.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 12:02 PM

For his repeated tirade of being a creature of the law he doesn't think his client should have to adhere to the law. After all, OJ wanted to give the things his posse took back.

Maybe armed robbers and thieves will give things back that they've taken , shake hands and can all go to Disney too.

The double edge. He's a celebrity so let him go. He's a celebrity so let's get him. This is payback for previous trials he's gotten away on.

blah blah blah.

It's quite simple. The law is what it is. The problem that they have is with the law and they want to bend it crying technical foul. Pitiful.

Creature of the law, maybe of the loopholes in the law but definately not of the law.

You hit the nail right on the head. This is why I have no respect for defense attorneys.

Someone needs to give Yale a pacifiar.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 12:03 PM

warhorse46

10-11-2008, 12:52 PM

From what I'm reading Gallanter doesn't have a leg to stand on. In a nutshell, the jurors based their verdict on the tapes. There is no argurment regarding the admissability of the tapes or their authentication.

Everything else is hot air.

Gallanter/Grasso is still arguing what they were or were not allowed to admit or say or present. The jury didn't believe anyone to be credible so what the 'ell's up with OJ's attorney's wasting good paper.

The only possible argument was the jurors themselves. Grasso/Gallanter is screaming purposeful discrimination. I hope that doesn't fly and he gets cut down at the race card proposition.

Gallanter is trying to twist the Batson ruling to fit his agenda. Read it, it does not address what Yale says it does thus does not apply in this case IMO.

warhorse46

10-11-2008, 12:58 PM

You hit the nail right on the head. This is why I have no respect for defense attorneys.

Someone needs to give Yale a pacifiar.

I have to disagree with you re the respect for defense lawyers. Defense lawyers are a vital part of our justice system & are there to make sure the state lawyers are held to the letter of the law to prove their burden of guilt. They have laws they must work within & it is their job to make sure their client gets a fair trial. Most do this with dedication, skill & honesty but some push the envelope & even cross the line @ times. Those are the ones I do not have respect for but for the most part I respect the others. There are several defense lawyers I have no respect for, Steve Feldman (Westerfield), Dave Rudolf (Peterson East & Rae Carruth).

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 01:24 PM

I have to disagree with you re the respect for defense lawyers. Defense lawyers are a vital part of our justice system & are there to make sure the state lawyers are held to the letter of the law to prove their burden of guilt. They have laws they must work within & it is their job to make sure their client gets a fair trial. Most do this with dedication, skill & honesty but some push the envelope & even cross the line @ times. Those are the ones I do not have respect for but for the most part I respect the others. There are several defense lawyers I have no respect for, Steve Feldman (Westerfield), Dave Rudolf (Peterson East & Rae Carruth).

Don't try to talk sense into me. (joke)

I know, I shouldn't have lumped all the bad defense attorneys together.

I just don't like the ones who whine and lie for their clients.

Garagos
Yale

JBL

10-11-2008, 01:24 PM

Gallanter is trying to twist the Batson ruling to fit his agenda. Read it, it does not address what Yale says it does thus does not apply in this case IMO.

ITA!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/11/oj.simpson.jury/

"Jury selection in the O.J. Simpson robbery and kidnapping case was briefly halted Thursday by Judge Jackie Glass after defense attorneys claimed prosecutors dismissed an African-American woman because of her race.

Judge Jackie Glass decided prosecutors had a "race-neutral" reason for dismissing the potential juror.

Glass eventually restarted the process and denied the challenge, saying prosecutors had demonstrated a "race-neutral" reason for the woman's dismissal."

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=yale+galanter+batson+challenges&fr=att-portal&u=news.yahoo.com/story/ap/oj_simpson&w=yale+yales+galanter+batson+%22bats+on%22+challen ges+challenge+challenged&d=Dnjx1PReReaY&icp=1&.intl=us

"Would I rather have had a more diverse group? Absolutely. But I do have faith in the system," he said. (Galanter quoted)

JBL

10-11-2008, 01:28 PM

And Galanter says OJ talks to much.

:lol:

Remember all Yales respect for the jurors and was it their the copious note taking he applauded.

Ironic how Yale is now all caught on "audio tape" in "media print" now saying that he didn't mean any of it which is evident by more news media and the appeal filed. Or maybe we took it out of context.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 01:30 PM

Didn't Judge Glass go on vacation? Isn't she the one to rule on the appeal?

JBL

10-11-2008, 01:49 PM

I believe its the Nevada Supreme Court that would hear the appeal, as I believe if it does go to Glass she'll deny it.

While trying to find this as fact I did stumble on this which I found interesting.

http://www.nevadaappellatelaw.com/articles/2008-nevada-supreme-court-deci/

No use of a weapon without knowledge

In Brooks v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court today reversed convictions for robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery. The Court found that Brooks was entitled to have the jury instructed that, to find that an unarmed offender “used” a weapon for purposes of the sentence enhancement for use of a weapon, the unarmed offender had to have knowledge of the use of the deadly weapon by another principal.

Additionally, Brooks was entitled to have the jury instructed that, absent an agreement to cooperate in achieving a criminal purpose, mere knowledge of, acquiescence in, or approval of that purpose does not establish conspiracy.

Tags: 2008 Nevada Supreme Court Decisions, jury instruction, sentence enhancement, use of a weapon

end:

I believe the tapes proved that Simpson had knowledge and not only cooperated but gave the thumbs up :)

Hey I didn't notice this one ruling in Yales appeal. He did try this in court blathering of OJ's intent in the "recovery sting". But Yale left the "sting" out. Recovery only. "Sting" implies intent.

:lol:

This is what Yales after to prove to get his reversal.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 01:50 PM

Yale helped picked that jury. Sour grapes after the fact won't help him.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 01:52 PM

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 01:57 PM

I believe its the Nevada Supreme Court that would hear the appeal, as I believe if it does go to Glass she'll deny it.

While trying to find this as fact I did stumble on this which I found interesting.

http://www.nevadaappellatelaw.com/articles/2008-nevada-supreme-court-deci/

No use of a weapon without knowledge

In Brooks v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court today reversed convictions for robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery. The Court found that Brooks was entitled to have the jury instructed that, to find that an unarmed offender “used” a weapon for purposes of the sentence enhancement for use of a weapon, the unarmed offender had to have knowledge of the use of the deadly weapon by another principal.

Additionally, Brooks was entitled to have the jury instructed that, absent an agreement to cooperate in achieving a criminal purpose, mere knowledge of, acquiescence in, or approval of that purpose does not establish conspiracy.

Tags: 2008 Nevada Supreme Court Decisions, jury instruction, sentence enhancement, use of a weapon

end:

I believe the tapes proved that Simpson had knowledge and not only cooperated but gave the thumbs up :)

Hey I didn't notice this one ruling in Yales appeal. He did try this in court blathering of OJ's intent in the "recovery sting". But Yale left the "sting" out. Recovery only. "Sting" implies intent.

:lol:

You're the best. Would you like to do the honors and tell Yale he's already lost?

oh please, pretty please...

:beer:

warhorse46

10-11-2008, 02:35 PM

Don't try to talk sense into me. (joke)

I know, I shouldn't have lumped all the bad defense attorneys together.

I just don't like the ones who whine and lie for their clients.

Garagos
Yale

I'm with you on that. Oh yes! Geragos is @ the top of my no respect list too. How could I ever forget him???

warhorse46

10-11-2008, 02:38 PM

Didn't Judge Glass go on vacation? Isn't she the one to rule on the appeal?

No. The Appeals Court will be hearing the appeals. It is out of Judge Glass' hands now, other than sentencing.

warhorse46

10-11-2008, 02:44 PM

I think Yale Galanter did not look pleased with the jury, and it was evident right after jury selection. CTV anchor RK noted it and commented on it.

MHO

Apparently you did not watch as much of this trial & after math as you would have us believe. Gallanter was all over the media shouting he did not like the jury make up & told Grasso on the Thursday night the jury was seated. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that he had as much responsibility in seating that jury as the state did. He could have used his strikes had he felt a juror was not worthy of being picked just as the state did. So in essence he is saying HE did a crappy job in picking a jury. He seems to have blinders on to the fact that this jury dug through the layers & layers of male bovine fecal material he spread to uncover the truth & the color of thier or OJ's skin was not a factor.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 03:45 PM

Apparently you did not watch as much of this trial & after math as you would have us believe. Gallanter was all over the media shouting he did not like the jury make up & told Grasso on the Thursday night the jury was seated. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that he had as much responsibility in seating that jury as the state did. He could have used his strikes had he felt a juror was not worthy of being picked just as the state did. So in essence he is saying HE did a crappy job in picking a jury. He seems to have blinders on to the fact that this jury dug through the layers & layers of male bovine fecal material he spread to uncover the truth & the color of thier or OJ's skin was not a factor.

Thank you for explaining it since it is evident this person didn't follow this trial before, after and in between.

Yale isn't the only with blinders on.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 03:56 PM

mcannie1965

No, you are wrong. Read the real reason why. The link was provided. Did you not read it or did you not comprehend it?

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 04:00 PM

No. The Appeals Court will be hearing the appeals. It is out of Judge Glass' hands now, other than sentencing.

Too bad. I wanted her to hand down the rejection to Yale personally after he's been badmouthing her on TV.

hammer

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 04:06 PM

Wonder what will happen to OJs girlfriend, Prody? I do hope she takes this opportunity to clean herself up and find a decent, law abiding man.

NYGalPal

10-11-2008, 04:14 PM

I'm with you on that. Oh yes! Geragos is @ the top of my no respect list too. How could I ever forget him???

Yale is starting to make Garagos look like a saint. Who could have imagined that?

Lyndawitha"Y

10-11-2008, 06:43 PM

Yale is starting to make Garagos look like a saint. Who could have imagined that?

Goodness gracious..yale???has a whole list of cast and characters to associate with..and thats in the last year from what I have observed...

Albee (Jensen)..Weinberg (Entwhistle)..and many more..All I am saying is that deense attny's focus on legal possibilities..attempt to spin/skew info and finally regardless if their client is GUILTY..they pursuit!! That is where I draw the line in my estimation..it's fine to defend.... but to spread lies.to suggest things NOT APPROPRIATE is dispicable..Let it go..but of course if a client has $$$$ they will do what ever is necessary to ligitaimize they're purpose!!

I have wondered about some convictions of some cases and whether it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt??...but the evidence was presented some I beleieved and other was not believable??..Yiks it drives me crazy to see such sillyness!!! It comes down to money into coffers at that point..not to mention LE haters and Agenda driven groupies!!

What can I say..OJ's conviction should never be overturned..and as for CJ..Severence had been ruled upon by Supreme Court..Rather doubt that will go anywhere??? Although I do believe Judge Glass will see CJ for his part..and it was not part and parcel of OJ's personal agenda.but only to support this "Goof"!! I would be totalky surprised if he gets same sentencing as OJ!!.JMOO there!

LMS:punch:

Details

10-11-2008, 06:53 PM

Too bad. I wanted her to hand down the rejection to Yale personally after he's been badmouthing her on TV.

hammerNah, it'll be even more fun when it's a different judge - just to hammer home the fact that this is not personal, this is not bias, this is about facts and law, and they are not on Simpson's side.

CatBallou

10-11-2008, 07:34 PM

No. The Appeals Court will be hearing the appeals. It is out of Judge Glass' hands now, other than sentencing.

Actually Judge Glass hears the motion for new trial, remember Judge Joe heard the motion for new trial in the Binion case.

Scroll down to read this in the following article.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/30835774.html

Hearings on both motions were scheduled for later this month, but they probably will be rescheduled because Glass will be on vacation, a court spokesman said.