What do you think of the OJ sentence?????

[lmercer]

I will be satisfied with any sentence.:laugh:

[Mr. Moto2]

I will be satisfied with any sentence.:laugh:

What about community service and probation?

[lmercer]

What about community service and probation?

You know what Mr.Moto2, I had not thought about that until you presented it to me, but I would be dissapointed, but I was just glad that he was found GUILTY!!!!!

[kellabeck]

What about community service and probation?

That would be another miscarriage of justice. Lock him up!!!

[rem16]

That would be another miscarriage of justice. Lock him up!!!

Ahh, prison blue fits OJ like a glove..:laugh:

[lmercer]

he has more than used up his "get out of jail free" card. He's learned nothing. His arrogance and pride have done him in; narcissus finally falls into the water...

perfect........

[fbgweezer]

I see arnelle -- anybody see christy there?

[lmercer]

I see arnelle -- anybody see christy there?

She is probably in bed watching

[fbgweezer]

is that stewart in a suit? wonder why orenthal chose the 'dress blues' -- LOL -- maybe arnelle didn't bring his jail suit this time.

[fbgweezer]

"Let 'em off easy" -- riiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lmercer]

SIT DOWN GALLANTER Judge Glass cannot stand you.

[fbgweezer]

is that stewart in a suit? wonder why orenthal chose the 'dress blues' -- LOL -- maybe arnelle didn't bring his jail suit this time.

ahh -- better view -- it's one of the lawyers

[lmercer]

OMG camparing Oj to john Adams and the civil war generals, gimme a break barf

[fbgweezer]

it wasn't a planned robbery? LOL

[fbgweezer]

he also thought he was in the right when he beat Nicole!

[lmercer]

Its on fox while ctv is on commercial break

[fbgweezer]

he called the Brown family before?

[fbgweezer]

I think Fred Goldman is getting wound up -- suppose it's orenthal's voice whining?

[fbgweezer]

he just threw his buddies under the bus! idiot!

[lmercer]

WAH WAH WAH:crying: THUGS!

[lmercer]

Judge glass got it right on oj is arrogant and stupin ,right on!!!!!!!

[lmercer]

What a shame, we could not hear Jami Floyd's banter and her "last word" after the sentencing

[Mr. Moto2]

So it looks like he got 7 and 1/2 years before he is eligible for parole. Maximum would be 22 years.

Stewart's sentence is similar. I'm not sure he deserves it tho.


imo

I'm with you on Stewart.

[lmercer]

lol! I'm sure she'll give one of her "black folks - white folks" speeches next week.





Imo


exactly........

[lmercer]

In OJ speech, he has been through so much hasn't he, with people stealing his stuff, but I bet it doesn't hurt as much as getting your head decapitated

[AnnInOhio]

Gabe Grasso is saying OJ got 9 to 33 years

[lmercer]

OJ Always has been and always will be a Thug.

[CatS48]

In OJ speech, he has been through so much hasn't he, with people stealing his stuff, but I bet it doesn't hurt as much as getting your head decapitated

:scared:

One thing I kept thinking when he was saying that he just wanted to get his stuff back was; he is the one that asked friends to take the stuff and hide it from the civil order so that the Goldman's could not get it. He didn't care about the stuff much then (didn't pay for the storage, etc) did he? He did not care about the inconvience he put his friends through to hide it nor about their possible criminal compromise by helping him. He only cared that the "Golddiggers" did not get it.

Geeze, the way that man's mind thinks is so arrogant! hammer

[lmercer]

I agree, I will never understand why some people used the race card in LA trial, throughout the years if anything it was just the opposite, he was star treated by the cops until they found the victims blood all over his car and house.

[Len]

I'm glad he got the sentence he recieved. He might be out in less than 6, or 7 with good behavior. That is, if he can behave for that long. :thumbsup:

He should have gotten a life sentence. He killed 2 people and has been out free all these years.

[lmercer]

I always wanted a stiff sentence, but I found most satisfaction with the GUILTY sentence.

[Becky10]

Thomas Riccio the SCOUNDREL should BE in JAIL!!!!!!:flamemad:

Becky in Texas:patriot:

[Becky10]

Riccio Set up OJ ------------ grrrrrrrrrr

Becky in Texas

[emdragon]

Riccio Set up OJ ------------ grrrrrrrrrr

Becky in Texas

Nicole and Ron set him up too ..right :mad:

[lmercer]

Beck10 I respect your opinion, and I am no Riccio fan, but OJ is a big boy, he did not have to do what he did, and Riccio did not make him do this.He has to finally take responsibility for his own actions, just like we all do.

[lmercer]

Nicole and Ron set him up too ..right :mad:

Perfect......

[Songline]

(See post 91)

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=344780&page=2

15 years to life would suit me just fine.
I hope he does serve the minimum 15 years with no getting out for good behavior. I think Nicole and Ron deserve some justice, and I could not care about his memorabilia at all, however he got his dues is fine with me.:smile:

[Songline]

He should have gotten a life sentence. He killed 2 people and has been out free all these years.

But finally he did get to pay his dues: and with his hot temper he may end up there for 30 years.
I only hope that others who escaped justice will get their dues too.

[Songline]

I will be satisfied with any sentence.:laugh:

IT WAS NOT SOON ENOUGH, but at least Carma got him.:thumbsup:

[lmercer]

yep.......

[lmercer]

We can only hope he doesn't get out on some stupid appeal.

[PROPROS]

:lol: Yes. He said that.OMG, having to listen to OJ singing would make me sick!! So glad to see that OJ will be singing a "different tune". Have a great weekend friend.:smile:

[RayStar]

Thomas Riccio the SCOUNDREL should BE in JAIL!!!!!!:flamemad:

Becky in Texas:patriot:
Riccio is not a friend.

[ELENDA100]

Ahh, prison blue fits OJ like a glove..:laugh:
Sure does. No more roaming around Miami and no more road rage. Finally where he belongs. This was no California Jury and Judge.

[hinman]

I am glad he got the sentence. It made it a nice day for me.:biggrin:

[JBL]

Riccio Set up OJ ------------ grrrrrrrrrr

Becky in Texas

OJ did it to himself.

[JBL]

My opinion of the sentence:

VIVA LAS VEGAS! :thumbsup:

[BobbysGirl]

OJ got what he deserved. The Judge made it clear before the sentencing. Listening and watching her I figured he would get the 15. She was right on about the law in Vegas and what he did. No ifs, ands, or buts. The law. And Her calling OJ ignorant and forgot the other word.

I read/heard? that the total charges consecutive and concurrent were 33 yrs. And approx. 9 yrs before first parole.

Judge Napolitano (can't help but love him) said on news Fox I think, that usually the first parole hearing is denied.

At 61 (my age) OJ could spend the rest of his natural life in prison. Justly right. IMO

BG

[Cornblossom]

OJ got what he deserved. The Judge made it clear before the sentencing. Listening and watching her I figured he would get the 15. She was right on about the law in Vegas and what he did. No ifs, ands, or buts. The law. And Her calling OJ ignorant and forgot the other word.

I read/heard? that the total charges consecutive and concurrent were 33 yrs. And approx. 9 yrs before first parole.

Judge Napolitano (can't help but love him) said on news Fox I think, that usually the first parole hearing is denied.

At 61 (my age) OJ could spend the rest of his natural life in prison. Justly right. IMO

BGarrogant...the other word was arrogant. IMO....he did the crime-he can do the time.:seeya:

[BobbysGirl]

Cornblossom

Thank you. Arrogant and rightly so ! :)

[kellabeck]

I think Judge Glass was very lenient, in fact. I am satisfied that at the least the acquitted killer will spend some years in prison. I hope he doesn't get out on parole for a long time.

Buh-bye, Orenthal! Can't tell you how happy I am not to be seeing your smirk on a golf course or under a pile of undulating blonde airheads.

Good riddance!!

So happy to think of the people sleeping behind bars tonight:
Simpson, Scott and Michael Peterson, Susan Smith, Melanie McGuire, Mark Jensen, Neil Entwistle et alia.

Drew Peterson should be next!!!

[Cornblossom]

Can't wait to see what sentences the rest of the thugs get on
Dec. 9th. And I still think there will be some additional fallout from all this, don't you? There is Mike - and whoever else helped hide the stuff from the Goldmans and hide OJ's substantial income (other than the protected pension) from the shows he did: maybe even a lawyer or two. Who was that other attorney they were talking to on the tapes in Vegas (not Yale).
Methinks it ain't over!
I heard someone talking about that on Jack and Ashleigh's portion...... I heard most are facing 5 years.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

If Ron and Nicole got justice today, then it was the wrong justice. Today had nothing to do with Ron and Nicole.


Sorry.......I dont think OJ's sentence anything to do with Nicole and Ron....but was sentenced for the crime commited and adjudicated in a court of law by a jury...now..if one wishes to feel something like finally OJ get some jail time..or held accountable..please dont confuse this case with the murder case

OJ got away with something...so that is out there..and people in public have attitude one way or the other...

Now it is the Civil Judgement that got OJ's goat..and he has spent over a decade hiding assets..claiming stealing..yikes...nonsense..Anyway..OJ's arrogance and manipulations of friends..keeping judgement collections out of the Goldman's hands.. that got him into this mess..Such arrogance..really intruly...

Be that as it may..OJ and C.Steward have been sentenced for the crimes commited in THIS CASE..and certainly not the max..they could have gotten life!!

Please..if outsiders wish to feel some sort of relief with this judgement..not fair??...and reality is he only got a sentence imposed according what crimes he got found guilty for...nothing more..nothing less...Obviously he didnt learn his lesson...Abide by the laws of the land!!

LMS

[FrankieBones1]

I thought Kato did a good job on Nancy's tonight regarding OJ Simpson and prison. Kato says that OJ will suffer in prison because of his arthritis and "that's a good thing".

[summer4meplz]

I'm glad he is going to be spending many years in prison......he deserves it.....
I'm surprised that arnelle is still supportive of him......what about jason? Was he there?

[fbgweezer]

*snip*snip*I'm surprised that arnelle is still supportive of him......

really?

[Details]

Looks to me like he got a good fair sentence for the crime he was convicted of, the crime he committed. Nothing that will pay for any crimes he got away with, of course, but that's not the purpose of a trial - it's to deal with these crimes he committed. Nice that the judge had so much to work with - without all the audiotapes, without OJ's big mouth, he might have gotten away with it. But then, without OJ's big mouth and big head, this crime probably never would have happened.

Did you see Fromong, talking about how his shoulder is permanently damaged - and with his health, they can't go in and fix it. OJ deserves the time he got. Stewart - maybe less so - maybe not.

[Mr. Moto2]

snipped

Did you see Fromong, talking about how his shoulder is permanently damaged - and with his health, they can't go in and fix it. OJ deserves the time he got. Stewart - maybe less so - maybe not.

What happened to his shoulder?

[Details]

What happened to his shoulder?He's an old man, and he was manhandled a bit, shoved around, during the robbery.

[bkwits]

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy. I'm happy with the sentence. :rolleyes:

[TaraCrazyHair]

It was a mockery of the justice we all are supposed to hold near and dear!

This verdict and sentence had nothing to do with Nevada and everything to do with California 13 years ago

It really makes me sad that this is what what the scales of justice are coming to

Not to mention very scary!

There is definitely a lot of issues for appeal ..

That is all I have to say about that!

(:

[Details]

Anyone who plans and executes an armed robbery will find themselves facing the same charges. Whether or not they're a celebrity, whether or not they once got a not guilty verdict. The only difference here is that we've got so many tapes where you can hear OJ planning and committing this armed robbery. Normally you've just got the word of the victims, and finding the stolen property with the thieves.

OJ got simple ordinary justice, just like anyone else who decides to use guns and force to get what they want.

[lmercer]

It was a mockery of the justice we all are supposed to hold near and dear!

This verdict and sentence had nothing to do with Nevada and everything to do with California 13 years ago

It really makes me sad that this is what what the scales of justice are coming to

Not to mention very scary!

There is definitely a lot of issues for appeal ..

That is all I have to say about that!

(:

Pulease....

[barskin&co.]

Anyone who plans and executes an armed robbery will find themselves facing the same charges. Whether or not they're a celebrity, whether or not they once got a not guilty verdict. The only difference here is that we've got so many tapes where you can hear OJ planning and committing this armed robbery. Normally you've just got the word of the victims, and finding the stolen property with the thieves.

OJ got simple ordinary justice, just like anyone else who decides to use guns and force to get what they want.

You know how we sometines say about other posters, even if the perp were on tape committing the crimes, they would claim they were innocent. Well, here we have OJ, on tape clearly committing every element of the crimes he was charged with, and the usual suspects are crying "unfair."

[Fairlady]

I think Judge Glass was very lenient, in fact. I am satisfied that at the least the acquitted killer will spend some years in prison. I hope he doesn't get out on parole for a long time.

Buh-bye, Orenthal! Can't tell you how happy I am not to be seeing your smirk on a golf course or under a pile of undulating blonde airheads.

Good riddance!!

So happy to think of the people sleeping behind bars tonight:
Simpson, Scott and Michael Peterson, Susan Smith, Melanie McGuire, Mark Jensen, Neil Entwistle et alia.

Drew Peterson should be next!!!

Haven't been here for a while .... but it's nice to see familiar faces.

kellabeck .... you made me laugh .... "under a pile of undulating blonde airheads" .... lolol.

While this really didn't have anything to do with committing a double murder, imo .... it was actually very satisfying to see justice served .... finally.

IMO

[JBL]

It was a mockery of the justice we all are supposed to hold near and dear!

This verdict and sentence had nothing to do with Nevada and everything to do with California 13 years ago

It really makes me sad that this is what what the scales of justice are coming to

Not to mention very scary!

There is definitely a lot of issues for appeal ..

That is all I have to say about that!

(:

Judge Glass lied? It was retribution. Well I'll be da............

[fairlaw]

Many here seem to forget that agreeable people disagree on occasion.
I am not a fan of "Thugs", I'm not an OJ worshiper.

I am a sixty something white grandmother, who could not have found OJ guilty in the murder case. Too many things didn't add up for me.

BTW, my IQ is 147, I am a college graduate and I have worked for a couple of the major corporations in our country, so don't try to say only stupid people could not have convicted him for the murders.

In this case, I believe the guilty verdicts, as given, were completely wrong and the sentence is crazy. Am I the only one who heard OJ saying "Put the guns away." "Don't take anything that isn't mine."?

Were not possessions that weren't OJ's, returned to the hotel desk, nearly immediately, and has anyone said that OJ, personally removed a single thing from that room.

And I'm sorry but I just have to say something about the Goldmans. Or not, come to think of it. If I believed I knew that someone murdered my son (who I love more than I can believe) and the person who I believed did it was walking free on the face of the earth, I would hunt them and do all I could to destroy them until my final breath.

[JBL]

Many here seem to forget that agreeable people disagree on occasion.
I am not a fan of "Thugs", I'm not an OJ worshiper.
.

"Am I the only one who heard OJ saying "Put the guns away." "Don't take anything that isn't mine."?"

ROFL. Erm yep.


First, OJ claims there were NO GUNS. He certainly never asked them to put them away. HA. That seems to be problematic in your theory.
OJ NEVER SAID IT. Didn't do one thing to stop it when it started going south IF that's what really happened. That's why it's believable that OJ planned the intimidation with gun toting thugs hence the charges that some people think was an overcharged case.

Don't take anything that isn't mine? What was OJ's? How would these guys know the difference. Because his names on them? He's in the picture? So what.

He made a living off of selling his stuff or giving it away in lieu of payment to someone he owed. Think back to his Rolls as a perfect example. Another good example is him offering these items to his posse after the caper was completed.


OJ has NO CREDIBILTY. He stashed many items due to the civil suit that there could be many scenerios in who actually owns this property.


No possessions were returned to the hotel desk.

Several items still missing as a matter of fact.

IQ and a college education are irrelevant if you don't have the facts.

[JBL]

What irony with the retribution yellers.

The only retribution is by OJ. He hid his assetts to avoid the judgement against him then when these items were being supposedly sold behind his back from the guys hiding them he has retribution on robbing them.

OJ never even looked at what was on the bed to find out or point out what was his or not his.

He wanted the guys that crossed him.

OJ's retribution on the Goldmans is heard on the tape referred to for the billionth time "the goldiggers". He was good to give this stuff away for payment of the posse helping him keep it out of the Goldmans' hands for which judgement was rendered. Shows how near and dear this stuff was to his heart and what was really important to him.

He is heard on tape stating PAYBACK to his doublecrossers also.

How this is turned around to claim the state of Nevada, the Judge, the Jurors and the Goldmans are the ones with retribution is simply unbelievable and the scariest part.

OJ is in your face loud and clear who has retribution. It's him.

[Jay]

OJ's 1st avenue of appeal is to the NV SC, as they have no intermediate courts of appeals like most states;

In part:

NRS 177.225 Judgment may be affirmed but cannot be reversed without argument. Judgment of affirmance may be granted without argument, if the appellant fail to appear. But judgment of reversal can only be given upon argument, orally or upon written brief, though the respondent fail to appear.

NRS 177.265 Determination of appeal. The Supreme Court may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment appealed from, and may, if necessary or proper, order a new trial.




http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-177.html#NRS177



If judgment is affirmed, with or without a standing opinion, the next avenue would most probably be a 2254 motion/petition, BUT a federal question must be asserted to grant a writ of habeas corpus.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=2254&url=/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002254----000-.html

[P Kay]

He should of gotten "life" just for stupidity. If I had been aquitted on a double murder. You wouldn't have caught me jay walking. Stupid is a stupid does.


So true!!:thumbup:

[AnnInOhio]

You know how we sometines say about other posters, even if the perp were on tape committing the crimes, they would claim they were innocent. Well, here we have OJ, on tape clearly committing every element of the crimes he was charged with, and the usual suspects are crying "unfair."

That mindset is exactly why OJ assumed he could get away with this crime! If not for those tapes he probably would have charmed (and/or bribed) his way out of this mess. I'll bet "tape recorder" is on the Christmas wish list of every prison inmate in Nevada this year!

[fbgweezer]

*snip*snip*". . .I'll bet "tape recorder" is on the Christmas wish list of every prison inmate in Nevada this year!

:lol: and I bet orenthal frisks everyone that comes close to him. :huh:

[lmercer]

that mindset is exactly why oj assumed he could get away with this crime! If not for those tapes he probably would have charmed (and/or bribed) his way out of this mess. I'll bet "tape recorder" is on the christmas wish list of every prison inmate in nevada this year!


exactly......

[Details]

You know how we sometines say about other posters, even if the perp were on tape committing the crimes, they would claim they were innocent. Well, here we have OJ, on tape clearly committing every element of the crimes he was charged with, and the usual suspects are crying "unfair."Yep!

What cracks me up though is the post a few down, where a bunch of total lies (nothing was returned to the hotel desk, not immediately, not ever), and one bit of contradictory information (if OJ never saw the guns, as his defense claimed - how could he be saying "put the guns away"? - and, no, no one else heard that on the tape - in fact, that was a major defense point during the trial) is posted - making it obvious that whatever basis is being used to form that opinion, it sure isn't based on the facts, nor on the evidence at the trial.

That's why even when the perp is caught on tape planning, committing, covering up, and gloating over the crime, every stage, they can still say they think he's innocent - easy to do that, when you choose not to listen to the evidence that he did do it.

[JBL]

"has anyone said that OJ, personally removed a single thing from that room."

Holy cow!

Erm no. OJ even goes so far as to point this out which you can hear on the recording. Casino footage doesn't have OJ carrying anything HAAW HAAW HAAW. Just OJ walking thru the casino is all they got HAAW HAAW HAAW !

Oh contraire OJ!

I'm surprised his last ditch ramblings didn't spout this.

[JBL]

That mindset is exactly why OJ assumed he could get away with this crime! If not for those tapes he probably would have charmed (and/or bribed) his way out of this mess. I'll bet "tape recorder" is on the Christmas wish list of every prison inmate in Nevada this year!

Even with the tapes his last minute ramblings speak volumes in trying to spin that machine. Did he forget he was recorded and what EVERYONE HEARD? No where near that pitiful last ditch effort to spin it his way and what he wanted everyone to think happened.

What a piece of work he is. He most certainly knew everything he was doing was illegal.

Those tapes and OJ's diatribe really show what a jackal he is.

[Bonzo]

as a Californian i can tell you i'm SOOOO happy that this trial wasn't held here. the star struck southern Calif folks would have prolly acquitted him....again. thankfully Las Vegans weren't as star struck. what really makes me dance with joy is that there is no guarantee whatsoever that OJ will qualify for parole on his first try. or even the second or third. i love the idea that he'll have to worry every single year after he turns 70 as to whether he'll go free that year or not. i think he needs to sit and really worry a lot that his future is not so easily sewn up anymore. i also hope that the Nevada supreme court denies all appellate issues raised. again, thank GOD that this isn't being handled in Calif!!!! these are, of course, my opinions only.

bon

[gnm109]

He should have gotten a life sentence. He killed 2 people and has been out free all these years.

I don't like OJ either but he wasn't being retried on the LA case. It was all about the Las Vegas caper. He's a fool. He had it made in Florida and it wasn't good enough for him. He's finished now.

The sentence of 9-33 was about right. If he ever gets out, perhaps he will learn to lie low and keep his mouith shut.

[Avalon]

I was really impressed with OJ's acting ability yesterday. Here, I had thought he only had B-movie experience! He is really so much better than that.

First, he used the soft-spoken OJ voice. He harked back to when he was a boy and said he's now so "confused". He had his "who me?" confused face on. He reminded us that he used to be a responsible celebrity who moved in high-level circles like, you know, the President. He pretended his fellow thugs and low-lifes were really good buddies. Singing to their sick elderly mothers was kind of the cherry on top, meant to really push us over the edge -- how could we POSSIBLY think this sweet soft-spoken old guy could have really known the severity of what he was doing?

All I can say is, thank goodness that jury heard the tape, and Judge Glass was not impressed by a good acting job.

[CHITCHAT]

I am so happy about the centainsing. I only wish he would have gotten that much for his first brush with law. It sort of like karma. He may not have paid for nicole or her friend but hes paying now. and maybe its going to be a harder time.

[vonna]

Even with the tapes his last minute ramblings speak volumes in trying to spin that machine. Did he forget he was recorded and what EVERYONE HEARD? No where near that pitiful last ditch effort to spin it his way and what he wanted everyone to think happened.

What a piece of work he is. He most certainly knew everything he was doing was illegal.

Those tapes and OJ's diatribe really show what a jackal he is.

And so are those who don't even believe their ears - or didn't hear the tapes.

[Mr. Moto2]

Even with the tapes his last minute ramblings speak volumes in trying to spin that machine. Did he forget he was recorded and what EVERYONE HEARD? No where near that pitiful last ditch effort to spin it his way and what he wanted everyone to think happened.

What a piece of work he is. He most certainly knew everything he was doing was illegal.

Those tapes and OJ's diatribe really show what a jackal he is.

Are all the tapes available on the internet?

[RayStar]

It was a mockery of the justice we all are supposed to hold near and dear!

This verdict and sentence had nothing to do with Nevada and everything to do with California 13 years ago

It really makes me sad that this is what what the scales of justice are coming to

Not to mention very scary!

There is definitely a lot of issues for appeal ..

That is all I have to say about that!

(:
Total disgrace of wearing the robe. I agree with your post.

[gnm109]

Many here seem to forget that agreeable people disagree on occasion.
I am not a fan of "Thugs", I'm not an OJ worshiper.
.

you are just another OJ apologist. He is a lawbreaker. What he did was a robbery and conspiracy. He got a reasonable sentence for his crime.

[Cait48]

Just like Judge Glass said; OJ is 'arrogant and stupid'. OJ has ALWAYS and forever thought he is so good and great that he is above the law.

He got exactly what he deserved. I am so sick of celebrities getting off because of 'who' they are, or who they THINK they deserve to be, so finally justice WAS done.

A non-celebrity would have been punished to the full extent of the law, so why not OJ? What's the diff? What makes him so special?
He's not. He is simply a garden variety fool.

IMHO, everyone is whining too much over this idiot, including OJ himself.

He hasn't even paid a dime to the Goldman's of the 30-42 MILLION dollar judgement against him. But yet he has been living the high-life for all of these years. :mad:

[johnny103019]

Sadly this will always be o.j.'s legacy when his legacy should be the 2003 yards he ran for with the Buffalo Bills in 1973.A convicted felon will now be his legacy.

[johnny103019]

See my thread o.j. simpson recent sentencing.

[RayStar]

Sadly this will always be o.j.'s legacy when his legacy should be the 2003 yards he ran for with the Buffalo Bills in 1973.A convicted felon will now be his legacy.
Yes it is sad.

[Maranatha]

See my thread o.j. simpson recent sentencing.

I looked, I'm sorry but couldn't find it.

I have to ask you this, in all respect, but the fact that OJ Simpson was a great football player and ran for over 2000 yards in one season should give him carte blanche in a civil society?

Murdering two people, stealing services, beating up a motorist and having his group of thugs stealing at gunpoint while he barked orders?

There's probably more, IMO. But yep, those yards should just give him a pass!

[withay]

I looked, I'm sorry but couldn't find it.

I have to ask you this, in all respect, but the fact that OJ Simpson was a great football player and ran for over 2000 yards in one season should give him carte blanche in a civil society?

Murdering two people, stealing services, beating up a motorist and having his group of thugs stealing at gunpoint while he barked orders?

There's probably more, IMO. But yep, those yards should just give him a pass!

Maybe I am misunderstanding what Johnny meant but I took it differently than you did. I don't think he is saying that having been a great football player should give him a pass. But rather, that if he had really lived up to his potential, he would never have been involved in either of these trials.

I don't feel sorry for OJ at all. If he had gone on to live a decent law abiding life being the best father, son and friend possible after his first trial, maybe I would. But he has been in the news over and over for drugs and fights and all sorts of trouble. I do feel sorry for his children and family. And I am sorry for the potential to accomplish good in the world that he has wasted. :thumbdown:

[gnm109]

What about the posters who could see a video of Ron and Nicole being murdered and it wouldn't be O.J? They would still claim O.J, is the killer!

Did you see Kimberly G. on Geraldo tonight? She said technically it is kidnapping, but it is way overblown. She thinks the kidnapping verdict will be overturned! He should never have gotten this amount of time, according to KG, and, as she said, she is a hard prosecutor! Those of us who believe in justice know this verdict was unjust!

If you think he will spend the next 9 years in prison: dream on. It won't happen.
mho

KG is just another talking head on TV. In Nevada, what OJ did is a kidnapping. Like Yogi Berra and others have said, you could look it up.

If it is technically kidnapping, it's kidnapping. Crime is technical. If it walks like a duck, it's certainly not a rabbit.

I sure hope OJ likes cold sandwiches and bruised apples. Those are what they give them over there.


:read:

[Adalena935]

Sadly this will always be o.j.'s legacy when his legacy should be the 2003 yards he ran for with the Buffalo Bills in 1973.A convicted felon will now be his legacy.

I found this Los Angeles Times article from 1968 when he won the Heisman trophy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/files/1968_1127_simpson.jpg

[Adalena935]

I agreed with the judge in saying OJ was lucky no one got murdered in that room that day.

Anyone reckless enough to goto a robbery with firearms should not be surprised if someone ends up murdered. He is very lucky in that regard and I'm glad the judge pointed it out.

If OJ was sentenced 100 times during 100 lifetimes he still wouldn't get it.

[fairlaw]

Unfortunately, like grand juries, some folks here would send a ham sandwich to life in prison if the prosecution said they were guilty.

And to the poster who chose to personally deride me because I posted my IQ and a very brief resume, and claimed I didn't watch this trial. You are WRONG!

I watched every minute I could, since DTV ends court coverage every day at noon, Pacific Time, and HLN did a major crappy job of following up.

I also watched every second of the Murder trial, back in the old days when CourtTv actually carried trials and not just commercials and talking heads.

[Details]

Anyone who gets that many facts wrong, either didn't watch the trial, or has an extremely short memory, or some other problem.

Facts are facts. No one, particularly the defense heard OJ say to put away guns on those tapes. It was quite clearly testified to at the trial that nothing was left at the hotel desk - not immediately, not later. I don't get how anyone can make a judgement of innocence or guilt, without knowing the facts.

And it is funny, because OJ saying "Put the guns away" was in particular something the defense emphasized that OJ never ever said - and the prosecution's transcripts agreed with the defense.

[gnm109]

Speaking of icing on the cake, I just heard on the news that OJ turned down a plea deal that would have given him no more than three years!!!!!!!

Good Lord, what was OJ thinking? If he were my client and turned down a deal like that with what I knew to be facing him, I would have gotten off the case.

It just goes to show the total ignorance and disdain for the law that the man possesses. It also shows his arrogance and inability to listen to his attorney who had to have been telling him that something bad was coming his way.

I can't blame his attorney, Yale Gallanter. I'm absolutely certain that the must have informed OJ of the dire consequences in the event that he was convicted on all charges. I think he was a good lawyer with an arrogant client who wouldn't take advice.

In my career, I've seen this happen time and time again where the client is competely and obviously guilty with absoutely no defense. Yet they fail to heed the advice and counsel of the attorney to take the deal offered even when advised by the attorney that lots more time will be give if a conviction comes, which is a certainty.

He didn't even care enough about his children and his friends to lower his arrogant front for just one minute - long enough to take what may have been the best advice ever given to a criminal defendant.

So instead of getting three years, he turns it down and gets 9 to 33. That's real smart, isn't it? He sure showed that judge, the prosecutors and the state of Nevada! Phew!

Good bye OJ. :rolleyes:

[lady]

I feel sorry for OJ's kids.
OJ got by with murder and should have made sure he didn't even get a parking for the rest of his life, but he thinks he can get away with anything now.
I'm glad OJ gets prison time, I don't care for what, he is an evil man.

[Cornblossom]

Speaking of icing on the cake, I just heard on the news that OJ turned down a plea deal that would have given him no more than three years!!!!!!!

Good Lord, what was OJ thinking? If he were my client and turned down a deal like that with what I knew to be facing him, I would have gotten off the case.

It just goes to show the total ignorance and disdain for the law that the man possesses. It also shows his arrogance and inability to listen to his attorney who had to have been telling him that something bad was coming his way.

I can't blame his attorney, Yale Gallanter. I'm absolutely certain that the must have informed OJ of the dire consequences in the event that he was convicted on all charges. I think he was a good lawyer with an arrogant client who wouldn't take advice.

In my career, I've seen this happen time and time again where the client is competely and obviously guilty with absoutely no defense. Yet they fail to heed the advice and counsel of the attorney to take the deal offered even when advised by the attorney that lots more time will be give if a conviction comes, which is a certainty.

He didn't even care enough about his children and his friends to lower his arrogant front for just one minute - long enough to take what may have been the best advice ever given to a criminal defendant.

So instead of getting three years, he turns it down and gets 9 to 33. That's real smart, isn't it? He sure showed that judge, the prosecutors and the state of Nevada! Phew!

Good bye OJ. :rolleyes:I heard that......did you hear the part where they said-"it was turned down because there was no reasonable offer"?? I bout died!!!! IMO-he and his attornies thought he'd walk-again!

[StarShine]

It was a mockery of the justice we all are supposed to hold near and dear!

This verdict and sentence had nothing to do with Nevada and everything to do with California 13 years ago

It really makes me sad that this is what what the scales of justice are coming to

Not to mention very scary!

There is definitely a lot of issues for appeal ..

That is all I have to say about that!

(:


LTNS Tara....guess what I agree with you.

[FREEMORE]

What do I think of O.J's sentence?



I agree with your post. There have been several attorneys, if anyone is listening to the news programs, who have stated they think the sentence was too harsh. So if anyone wants/needs a link turn your tv on.

[Cornblossom]

Most talking heads and prosecutors disagree. They think the verdict will be overturned.

Thank you for following my posts so closely. You caught the sentence before I deleted it.

mhoI'm interested in all opinions!

[jazz]

*snip*

... and one bit of contradictory information (if OJ never saw the guns, as his defense claimed - how could he be saying "put the guns away"? - and, no, no one else heard that on the tape - in fact, that was a major defense point during the trial)...
Judge Glass made the comment before sentencing that OJ made phone calls to the others involved in the robbery telling them "there was no guns".
Judge Glass wondered why he would have to call & tell them that unless guns indeed were involved & OJ knew he was in big trouble because of it.
Why call everyone & say "there was no guns" if guns were never a factor??:blink:

A transparent maneuver on OJ's part that didn't fool anyone for one second & did not escape Judge Glass's notice either.

[AnnInOhio]

I didn't say it made it a "fact." I said it is a "fact" it was said on television.

Their opinions are no different than opinions on this board. Anyone can say anything about the outcome of the verdict on a message board.

mho

Hey, you're the poster who posts as if any talking head who even marginally supports your theory equals some kind of verification that you (and they) are "right". As Coldwater rightfully posted, the decision is in on OJ. If you want to put faith on an appeal filed by attorneys for OJ who were dumb enough to take this to trial knowing those tapes were coming in, have at it. You talk about the Goldmans doing things for money but say nothing about OJ's attorneys greedy willingness to take his money to defend this case instead of urging him to accept the plea deal offered. Yale Galanter has sucked OJ much drier financially than the Goldmans ever have!

[Mr. Moto2]

Are all the tapes available on the internet?

Bumping this. Are these tapes handy? I've heard some (on TMZ last year) but not all.

[Details]

Goldman letters shouldn't have any effect - this crime wasn't against them, other than marginally as part of an effort to duck the civil judgement. The parole board should only be concerned with Fromong or Beardsley - the victims of this crime.

[Kara]

I'm content with the sentence handed down... 5 years would have made me smile...anything more than that is simply bonus time IMO.

Perhaps he was overcharged on the current case, but legally he is guilty of everything he was charged with. OJ could have gotten far less time if he had taken a plea like his co-conspirators did.

[gnm109]

Goldman letters shouldn't have any effect - this crime wasn't against them, other than marginally as part of an effort to duck the civil judgement. The parole board should only be concerned with Fromong or Beardsley - the victims of this crime.

That's quite correct. In effect, the Goldmans have no legal standing. They were not injured by the Las Vegas incident nor do they have any relation to a case or controversy in that court. In order to be able to testify in a parole hearing, your testimony must be relevant and you must have been injured in some way by the person under consideration for parole for the instant crimes.

[Details]

:lol:With regard to your statement: OJ apologized and said he did not know he had broken the law, but reminded the judge that normally when he breaks the law he gets to go home."

I just finished listening to his words on the video of his statement in court: your statement of what he said is incorrect! O.J never reminded the judge that "normally ywhen he breaks the law he gets to go home!" He never said that! Do you think Judge Jackie Glass wouldn't have maxed him out if he said that? She would have thrown the book at him!


mho:lol:

Are you seriously contending a statement from Saturday Night Live as if it were serious? Do you really not know that it's a comedy show?

Ah, this has been a fun day for funny posts. :thumbsup:

[Details]

That statement came from another poster! It is not mine. I put quotes around it, and I was replying to it!

For the record I do not watch Saturday Night Live!

mhoYeah, and that poster said where the quote came from - not to mention her post that she only posted that quote to prove how just because it's on TV doesn't make it a fact. It's important to know what you are responding too - and SNL is a common and easily found acronym.

It's just too classic - just like when people respond to "The Onion" articles with outrage and righteous indignation on full!

[Details]

Oh, for heavens sakes I realized my error and deleted the post...but you hopped on it the second it left my fingertips!

I don't watch Saturday Night Live, so I don't know the acronym for it.

mhoActually - you haven't deleted the post. Just FYI. Ummm.... for your information.

I don't watch SNL - but it's referenced often enough. And myself, I'd go look for what an acronym meant if I didn't know.

[nsm]

I don't believe he will make it out alive. The Goldman's have already prepared letters to send to the parold board to make sure that creature doesn't get out. I'm sure they won't be the only ones either.

:thumbsup:

Creature? I really like that! LOL It fits him perfectly!:thumbup:

[kellabeck]

What would be the icing on the cake is if AJ Cowlings, or whoever has the black bag with the bloody clothes and the knife from the double murder, would come forward with the evidence.

OJ not only deserves his prison sentence but I want him to be publically exposed with the evidence of the double murders. This evidence is somewhere and somebody knows where it is.

That bag is gone. No matter. There was more than enough evidence of guilt in the criminal trial. That jury chose to ignore it.

[AnnInOhio]

The reason I never said nothing about O.J's "greedily" sucking him dry financially is because I do not believe they sucked him dry. Don't confuse your belief with what I believe.

Yale Galanter did not "suck" O.J. financially! He was paid to defend O.J. That's what lawyers get paid to do.

How do you know O.J.s attorneys didn't suggest he take a plea deal? Were you there?

Oh, I see how this works: Posters on this board have stated numerous times public opinion is against O.J, but that is not "verification" of their beliefs...but when I cite talking heads and legal analysts who think the case will be overturned it is verification" of my belief.:rolleyes:

Correct: The decision to take a plea is O.J's. He decided not to. Most every talking head and legal analyst didn't think he would be convicted, and some thought it would never go to trial. IMO,That is why he didn't accept a plea deal. It is his life, and he is the one who decides whether to take a plea or not. This is not his lawyers decision to make.

I don't put my "faith" in his lawyers. I have no dog in this race. I am just a poster on this board giving my opinion. This is a pro and con message board, and I believe O.J got shafted! And nothing anyone can say will change my opinion of what happened to O.J. It is a waste of fingers hitting the keys to try to.

MHO

If OJ refused to take the plea deal, Yale could (and should) have refused to put forward and attempt to defend OJ's indefensible "defense" (that he thought the items were his and was doing nothing wrong.) Why? Because it was not a legitimate defense - it wasn't valid based on Nevada law. That's why the judge kept cutting Yale's questions short: he was trying to put forward an invalid defense of his client's actions that was contrary to law. Your posts indicate you have an inability to understand that basic problem with OJ's defense.

[AnnInOhio]

Incorrect. There is no such thing as a defense that is not valid! There are no set rules for defending oneself in a court of law. :rolleyes:

Your posts indicate you have an inablilty to understand the basic concept of O.J's defense. His state of mind is part of his defense. He did not think he was breaking the law, and he has the right to defend himself on those grounds. He cannot rob what belongs to him--Unless you have a payback conviction for he 1995 acquittal in the criminal trial..


MHO

OK then. The next time you get a speeding ticket, why don't you try going into court and telling the judge that you agree you were going 75 mph but you're not guilty of going 75 in a 35 mph zone because because you own the street through the taxes you pay and didn't know speed limits applied to you! Do you think any reputable attorney is going to tell you that defense is going to get you a "not guilty" verdict?

That's the equivalent of what Yale argued on OJ's behalf. According to Nevada law, OJ's state of mind about who owns the items doesn't matter. It turns out the items OJ said he wanted to retrieve weren't the items that were there! OJ may say he didn't realize what he did was wrong, but his words on the tapes said otherwise to the jury. Even if OJ was right and there is no question the stuff is legally his he cannot conspire to lure people into a room for the purpose of taking it away from them forcibly at gun point. The judge clearly explained Nevada law as it applies to this case; the jury understood it but you continue to refuse to believe it. As Coldwater says, it's been decided.

[fbgweezer]

Bumping this. Are these tapes handy? I've heard some (on TMZ last year) but not all.

follow the links from "State v Simpson"

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

[RayStar]

okay -- :shrug:
You must be a historian or something. Petrocelli's accomplice theory how did you ever find that. OK OJ was acquitted back then, so now he has been sentenced for the robbery. I like Mcannie's posts.:thumbsup:

[Heyes]

I'm content with the sentence handed down... 5 years would have made me smile...anything more than that is simply bonus time IMO.

Perhaps he was overcharged on the current case, but legally he is guilty of everything he was charged with. OJ could have gotten far less time if he had taken a plea like his co-conspirators did.

I'm with you Kara!
5 years was good for me but the extra years......icing on the cake.
I can't stop smiling.
Waited a long time for one of simpsons "capers" to finally nail his butt to a hot and a cot.
Congats Mr. Goldman and family. It is bitter sweet but because of your never giving up and hounding this filthy dog, he finally went to far to escape your civil judgement. Well played. !
Now just keep your forensic accountant or whatever they're called at it. Now that this "creature" (love that) is locked away for at the very least 9 years, tongues will start wagging.
Waiting for the girlfriend to come forward now. Bet he's involved in her ... uh... accidents. Hope she's ok.
imo
I'm
Happy! Happy! Happy!
Bye bye oranthal.
Don't let the bars hit you in the a$$!
:lol:

[withay]

Social Climber?:blink: My mom comes from old money!

MHO

Old Money? Well, nevermind, that makes all the difference! You must be right after all....:rolleyes:

[JBL]

Sure, I'll take that bet. Yes, he will.

ITA!

As Judge Glass stated it's very rare to have a crime caught on tape from it's inception to the after party OOPS that's aftermath LOL

Gallanter goes between knowing the jig is up with those tapes to jurors with an agenda. Those tapes really do negate anything. You couldn't have a more perfect conviction with all the arrows pointing at the criminal.

There is no where on this earth that you'd find anyone without an opinion of that murder trial. Having an opinion about a past trial and an agenda is two different things.

[Hey Paula]

ITA!

As Judge Glass stated it's very rare to have a crime caught on tape from it's inception to the after party OOPS that's aftermath LOL

Gallanter goes between knowing the jig is up with those tapes to jurors with an agenda. Those tapes really do negate anything. You couldn't have a more perfect conviction with all the arrows pointing at the criminal.

There is no where on this earth that you'd find anyone without an opinion of that murder trial. Having an opinion about a past trial and an agenda is two different things.

I think the laws in Nevada might be more stringent re kidnapping/robbery/weapons. With Las Vegas being the gambling capitol, they can't allow people to get away with brandishing weapons, or risk someone targeting a casino winner, following them to their room, and robbing them at gunpoint. Exceptions cannot be made for OJ Simpson, nor should they. Judge Glass is known to be tough even on first time offenders, so I think this verdict and sentence will stick.

Most TH's have opined that the only chance he might have for a new trial is an argument that speaks to the makeup of the jury, i.e., that there weren't any black jurors. That argument would be obscene, given the makeup of the panel which acquitted him of double murder.

IMO

[JBL]

I think the laws in Nevada might be more stringent re kidnapping/robbery/weapons. With Las Vegas being the gambling capitol, they can't allow people get away with brandishing weapons, or risk someone targeting a casino winner, following them to their room, and robbing them at gunpoint. Exceptions cannot be made for OJ Simpson, nor should they. Judge Glass is known to be tough even on first time offenders, so I think this verdict and sentence will stick.

Most TH's have opined that the only chance he might have for a new trial is an argument that speaks to the makeup of the jury, i.e., that there weren't any black jurors. That argument would be obscene, given the makeup of the panel which acquitted him of double murder.

IMO

Absolutley they're more stringent. There are millions if not billions of dollars walking the streets and in Vegas casinos. Tourists also. Nevada is the last state let alone a casino anywhere to commit a crime in.

New meaning to Whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. HA!

[Hey Paula]

Absolutley they're more stringent. There are millions if not billions of dollars walking the streets and in Vegas casinos. Tourists also. Nevada is the last state let alone a casino anywhere to commit a crime in.

New meaning to Whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. HA!

LOL!

Chances are that items he thought were among "his stuff", which he wanted to reclaim before they were auctioned, might have been some which he gave to his "friends" to keep them from the Goldmans. So, the outcome of this caper was indeed poetic justice.

IMO

[Adalena935]

No not a misundrstanding at all i in no way shape or form said o.j. being a great football player gives him a free pass i just said how sad that o.j. fell so far from grace.

I understood what you meant and I agree. I had been thinking the same thing. Unbelieveable. But you know I think OJ has always been a criminal who just happened to be able to run with a football and got a break. Had he not been so famous he would've been in prison long ago I believe.

After the murders I was surprised to hear one of his early coaches say he was robbing liquor stores and in trouble with juvenile court system. (on tv. can't remember date & time so sorry about that)

[legalmania]

Incorrect. There is no such thing as a defense that is not valid! There are no set rules for defending oneself in a court of law. :rolleyes:

His state of mind is part of his defense. He did not think he was breaking the law, and he has the right to defend himself on those grounds. He cannot rob what belongs to him--Unless you have a payback conviction for he 1995 acquittal in the criminal trial.

No, that is not what Yale should have done. It is up to his client to make the decision whether to take a plea deal.

The truth is a legitimate defense. O.J said he didn't think he was breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the fact remains O.J did not think he was breaking the law. Such was his state of mind.

Kindly quit putting down my understanding of the law. In order to judge a quilt or innocence or the merits of a case, one needn't be a lawyer. Juries are an example of this.

My husband is a judge, my mom a career prosecutor...but I am not a lawyer. I am just a poster giving my opinion.

mho

Nicely said mcannie1965 , it's so refreshing to hear a person with a legal background explain to the laypersons on this board how the law works. It scares me that the justice system counts on some of these people to be on juries. By the way there are no points off for mistakes.

[Adalena935]

LOL!

Chances are that items he thought were among "his stuff", which he wanted to reclaim before they were auctioned, might have been some which he gave to his "friends" to keep them from the Goldmans. So, the outcome of this caper was indeed poetic justice.

IMO

Geraldo showed some taped interview he did with a young filmmaker wherein OJ all but said just that. He laughed and said the cops couldn't touch him. He told cops he'd much rather his friends have posession of his things even if they stole them. He laughed delightedly saying; They can't touch me.

[Hey Paula]

Geraldo showed some taped interview he did with a young filmmaker wherein OJ all but said just that. He laughed and said the cops couldn't touch him. He told cops he'd much rather his friends have posession of his things even if they stole them. He laughed delightedly saying; They can't touch me.

That film, and his admission to defiance of a court order, might very well lead to another charge and another trial for OJ Simpson. It couldn't happen to a better guy! He is despicable and "arrogant and ignorant", as Judge Glass said.

IMO

[Adalena935]

I think the laws in Nevada might be more stringent re kidnapping/robbery/weapons. With Las Vegas being the gambling capitol, they can't allow people to get away with brandishing weapons, or risk someone targeting a casino winner, following them to their room, and robbing them at gunpoint. Exceptions cannot be made for OJ Simpson, nor should they. Judge Glass is known to be tough even on first time offenders, so I think this verdict and sentence will stick.

Most TH's have opined that the only chance he might have for a new trial is an argument that speaks to the makeup of the jury, i.e., that there weren't any black jurors. That argument would be obscene, given the makeup of the panel which acquitted him of double murder.

IMO

That's what I said. Thuggery dissuades business. I don't know if their laws are any more stringent, just that they enforce them more readily most likely.
Maybe he was so full of himself he thought they would give him a pass because he was OJ Simpson. Stupid is as stupid does. Last place to go robbing at gunpoint is a Vegas hotel.

When this crime first happened some of the talking heads on tv said Palace Station was a seedy hotel. I just googled it and it doesn't look seedy to me. I haven't been to Vegas in a long time but some people have told me the downtown area has become run down in recent years.

http://palacestation.com/hotel/tower/

[Adalena935]

That film, and his admission to defiance of a court order, might very well lead to another charge and another trial for OJ Simpson. It couldn't happen to a better guy! He is despicable and "arrogant and ignorant", as Judge Glass said.

IMO

Another trial for having his friends feign theft of his own things to keep Goldman from having them as per court order you mean? I've vaguely wondered about that over the years. Most people I spoke with about it thought he had his own things heisted and hid away after the Goldmans and Browns won their suit in civil court.

He is a terrible person who needed to be taken out of reasonable society. It was a very violent crime as the judge stated.

I wish I could remember the name of the young man who did the filming. He was on Geraldo last nite. Maybe they might prosecute him for that too eventually.

[Jay]

Incorrect. There is no such thing as a defense that is not valid!



I disagree. Intoxication, for one, is not a defense, in any state, to escape liability. If it were, there would be no culpability for vehicular homicide while DUI/DWI.

"Mistake of age" in a statutory rape case is NOT a defense. You can tell the Judge you thought the partner was 19, but if they are under that speficic age, or even the minimum age of consent, the defense will be fatally defective.



There are no set rules for defending oneself in a court of law.


A Bright line test? Well, no, but the Constitution does mandate effective assistance of counsel. Since OJ was represented, HE can assert such, true!! An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is hard to prove to an appeals court.

His state of mind is part of his defense. He did not think he was breaking the law, and he has the right to defend himself on those grounds. He cannot rob what belongs to him--Unless you have a payback conviction for he 1995 acquittal in the criminal trial.

The truth is a legitimate defense. O.J said he didn't think he was breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the fact remains O.J did not think he was breaking the law. Such was his state of mind.


The truth is a defense, sure, no argument here, but the trier of fact, here, the jury, has the sole discretion to affirm or reject it.

Yes, mistake of fact or law is an affirmative defense in some jurisdictions, but, again, it is up to the trier of fact to affrim or reject it.

Nevada law: I assume you are referencing 4:

NRS 194.010 Persons capable of committing crimes. All persons are liable to punishment except those belonging to the following classes:

4. Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent, where a specific intent is required to constitute the offense.

I did find this online, robbery is not a specific intent crime.


Nevada law does not require a robber to act with a specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of his or her property. (Hickson v. State (1982) 640 P.2d 921, 922; Litteral v. State (Nev. 1981) 634 P.2d 1226, 1227-1229.)



http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-194.html


from 4:.....which disproves any criminal intent.....


Emphasis again, it is up to the trier of fact to decide this. Simply raising the defense, even if defacto true, is not a cure in and of itself, and the section only addresses specific intent crimes also.

From what I can determine, Kidnapping is a specific intent crime, BUT, again, the defense of mistake of fact is a triable issue.


The appeals court, or here, the NV SC, will not reverse a jury on a finding they disbelieved OJ, it won't happen!! That is not reversible error, unless the "weight of the evidence" is so great in OJ's favor, it can not sustain the verdict.

[Jay]

No, he did not get a "reasonable sentence." It was harsh, and a mockery of justice.

mho


If the sentence was outside of the sentencing guidelines, that can be argued. If I remember correctly, OJ was given some concurrent sentences, not consecutive? Is this not being more than fair??

[legalmania]

I think he will serve 9 years, if not more.

I'm sure coldwater will be glad to hear you think this message board will still be here in 9 years. However I doubt if anybody will still be talking about him. I'm sure within the next week or so this thread will be closed.

[legalmania]

Social Climber?:blink: My mom comes from old money!

MHO

Don't worry about these people mcannie1965. Good for you I hope your mother enjoys her money and I'm sure you are well taken care of. I'm in the social register myself. Of course most of these people won't believe it but who cares I know it's true.

[legalmania]

ITA!

As Judge Glass stated it's very rare to have a crime caught on tape from it's inception to the after party OOPS that's aftermath LOL

Gallanter goes between knowing the jig is up with those tapes to jurors with an agenda. Those tapes really do negate anything. You couldn't have a more perfect conviction with all the arrows pointing at the criminal.

There is no where on this earth that you'd find anyone without an opinion of that murder trial. Having an opinion about a past trial and an agenda is two different things.

Well I guess Judge Glass doesn't watch Tru Tv.

[Mosgranny]

Without a doubt he will serve more than 9. Wanna bet he does something stupid? He can't himself.

:w00t:

OJ could have been given a much harsher sentence, it could have been life. I do believe he was judged on the crimes he commited in Vegas and not the previous one.

His little plea to the judge was so self serving of himself. Just have to wonder how powerful he will be in jail or how much of a tough guy he will be, also wonder if he will come across those, who do not appreciate his woman beating ways.

[warhorse46]

ITA - great post.

I don't know what better evidence you can have besides the tapes in this case. He was caught on tape! Galanter was an idiot for not advising OJ to take the plea deal. There was absolutely no way to get around those tapes and find 12 people willing to acquit OJ. No way, No how.

He was involved in an armed robbery, FGS. His sentence was about right for what I expect from an armed robbery conviction.



I would bet Galanter did advise OJ to take the deal but OJ being the arrogant idiot he is refused.

[Cornblossom]

I would bet Galanter did advise OJ to take the deal but OJ being the arrogant idiot he is refused.I heard on MSNBC that Simpson and attornies didn't think ANY deal the pros made was worthy so they declined them all. But, I bet he thought he'd walk-again and was against it even if Galanter advised him to take it.

[warhorse46]

I heard on MSNBC that Simpson and attornies didn't think ANY deal the pros made was worthy so they declined them all. But, I bet he thought he'd walk-again and was against it even if Galanter advised him to take it.


Ahhh, well then I must conclude that Mr. Galanter is just as arrogant & as big of an idiot as his client.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I heard on MSNBC that Simpson and attornies didn't think ANY deal the pros made was worthy so they declined them all. But, I bet he thought he'd walk-again and was against it even if Galanter advised him to take it.

It seems I recall Yale Galanter said right from the giddy up that unless the plea deal meant NO JAIL TIME..it wouldnt be acceptable..and I also recall him saying his defense here..was a Dream for defending this case!!
I suppose his dream turned into a "Nightmare"...and his misguided belief his only client was coated in "Teflon"...hummm Kinda makes me smile when I think of Yale and his indignations..claims of innocense..OJ just wanted his stuff???..also calling all OJ's friends thugs taking advantage of OJ...Poor OJ!! (Gag me with a spoon!)

It does seem that Yale is going to have to get new clients..as his "Cash Cow" has been corraled!!:laugh: Ill just bet we'll be seeing Yale's face alot more on Court TV (Insession) and other Talking Head Gigs!!!

LMS

[gnm109]

I just don't see Yale doing well after he sold his tiny soul out for OJ. Doubt anyone will be pounding on his door to go on tv. He makes a fool of himself too much. Look what happened to Garagos? He's not even a blip on the rador screen anymore.

Very good point. It does seem that many of these "dream team" attorneys seem to fall from grace in the public eye after their big trial is over. F. Lee. Baley lost his license in Florida for taking the wrong personal property for a fee. He's still licensed elsewhere but you don't see him much anymore.

Shapirio has been reduced to hawking an upscale paralegal paper service on TV. That's got to be a few notches down from OJ I.

As you say, Garagos hasn't been doing all that well lately and there are others like Bruce Cutler who left PS I more or less in disgrace. He tried his East Coast style on a West Coast judge and lost. Before that he presided over the big loss for the Teflon Don, John Gotti.

Poor Gallanter, after telling his client not to take the three year deal, he looks shakey, too. The three years would have been a gift. As I said earlier, if I had been OJ's lawyer, assuming I understood the case and knew what I should know about Nevada law, I would have left the case if OJ wouldn't take that deal. Of course, even a good lawyer can't force the client to waive trial and take a plea but it's necessary to stick by your guns if you can see something bad coming down the pike, in this case, like 9 to 33. To think that OJ might get probation in this case would not have realistic.

Now, sadly, if someone else does the appeal, they wil try to nail Gallanter for inneffectie assistance of counsel. It's dog eat dog in the law biz.

[Poochie Pie]

You know how we sometines say about other posters, even if the perp were on tape committing the crimes, they would claim they were innocent. Well, here we have OJ, on tape clearly committing every element of the crimes he was charged with, and the usual suspects are crying "unfair." Thank You, barskin..!! It really breaks down to a very simple analogy... EVEN if something is stolen from you, BY LAW, you cannot go and "steal it back"...

Poochie

[Jay]

Nicely said Jay, it's so refreshing to hear a person with a legal background explain to the laypersons on this board how the law works. It scares me that the justice system counts on some of these people to be on juries.


I appreciate the compliment. I just can't see OJ escaping liability in this case.

He has an absolute right to appeal, so when it is filed, we can see what assignments of error his appellate attorney's list.

[Jay]

Very informative as usual. Thanks.

:thumbsup:



I appreciate the nice words. :smile:

[JBL]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oj--the-former-legends-bandwagon-judders-to-a-halt-1054175.html

I think he looks sincere and apologetic

Homina Homina Homina

[JBL]

To whomever posted with the legal background that OJ can ask for a transfer to be near his family.

Nevada Department of Corrections:

Transfers

No information will be provided regarding when approved transfers will be executed. Persons intending to request consideration for the transfer of an inmate should be aware that the Department of Corrections does not engage in transfers for the purpose of inmate convenience, or family reunification. The Department of Corrections has limited housing, and transportation resources. This agency must naturally give priority to the needs of the community for security, and the location of beds in order to prevent overcrowding, and maintain a constitutionally acceptable environment for all inmates throughout the State. The Department of Corrections also does not engage in the transfer of inmates to other states for the purposes of family reunification. These Interstate Correctional Compact transfers are reserved for inmates who have significant behavioral problems, or a substantial, documented need for protection.

[Adalena935]

Does anyone know if they completed OJs psych exam?

:drool:

This link (that someone else posted) says it will take 3 weeks after his transfer (today) to High Desert State Prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_re_us/oj_simpson

[barskin&co.]

OJ Sentenced to 9 - 33 years:

A concerned nations reacts!! (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/199004/applaud.gif)

You knew what was coming, didn't you?

[warhorse46]

Does anyone know if they completed OJs psych exam?

:drool:




The psych & physical evaluations will be done @ the intake facility he has been transfered too now. They will take about 3 weeks to complete.

[ByGollyGee]

Roll your eyes all you want. Both the Prosecution and the Defense attorneys MUST follow Federal and State laws when presenting their cases. There are set rules and your statements that there are none, with a judge as your husband, and your mom as a career prosecutor strain my belief. Here are five "Set Rules" that govern trial in all State courts and Federal Courts that are not permitted:

Suborning Perjury

Misstating the facts

Discovery violations

Misuse of subpoena power

Badgering a witness

How many more rules would you like to have? Please let me know and I will list more, just tell me how many it will take before you admit to posting an incorrect statement.

OJ was convicted under State Laws that pre-exist his crime; he admitted taking "the stuff" in open court! The cell phone and dark glasses were NOT his property but they were taken regardless. A jury of 12 defense qualified people heard evidence and found him guilty. He is now a convicted and sentenced felon.

Please specify where in Nevada statues specifically, or in any other state or federal statues where a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime because he did not think it was a crime? As you acknowledge, ignorance of the law is no excuse and this was an ignorant, stupid, violent criminal act.

ByGollyGee

Incorrect. There is no such thing as a defense that is not valid! There are no set rules for defending oneself in a court of law. :rolleyes:

His state of mind is part of his defense. He did not think he was breaking the law, and he has the right to defend himself on those grounds. He cannot rob what belongs to him--Unless you have a payback conviction for he 1995 acquittal in the criminal trial.

No, that is not what Yale should have done. It is up to his client to make the decision whether to take a plea deal.

The truth is a legitimate defense. O.J said he didn't think he was breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the fact remains O.J did not think he was breaking the law. Such was his state of mind.

Kindly quit putting down my understanding of the law. In order to judge a quilt or innocence or the merits of a case, one needn't be a lawyer. Juries are an example of this.

My husband is a judge, my mom a career prosecutor...but I am not a lawyer. I am just a poster giving my opinion.

mho

[Poochie Pie]

How right you are Poochie the police get a little ticked when people start taking the law into there own hands. That's how thing can escalate into someone getting hurt or worse. You are correct, my friend.. I watched the sentencing... I believe that very issue of someone getting hurt or worse was addressed by Judge Glass.. They were all very lucky..!! I loved it when OJ told the Judge that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong... He was confronting "friends"... LOL

Poochie

[JBL]

First there is no proof that the items in question were infact OJ's. He has no credibility and no proof. Not even a robbery report that these items were stolen.

Second in the State of Nevada it is Illegal to to take back items you believe are yours by force of violence or intimidation.

So were back to ignorance of the law. He didn't know. He said it over and over HE DIDN'T KNOWS AKA IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.

[JBL]

Of course he knew, hence the plan. Just move on because no facts sink in. It doesn't matter. OJ got busted, tried and convicted. Guess where he will remain for at least the next 9 yrs: JAIL

No one is going to change the facts of the case, especially a poster who doesn't respect the laws of this country.

:seeya:

Of course he knew hence the plan! Playing devils advocate that even if it were proven to be OJ's things doesn't matter still illegal. Lose/Lose.

It amounts to OJ had these things hidden and he was double crossed.

Being sold behind his back. Can't take that to the authority's. He didn't.

Cracked me up that he told Judge Glass he had to move fast. That entailed getting hows many guys to go down with him and all the phone calls made between each other GEEZ! No time to call the police. *eye roll*

[Jay]

Please specify where in Nevada statues specifically, or in any other state or federal statues where a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime because he did not think it was a crime? As you acknowledge, ignorance of the law is no excuse and this was an ignorant, stupid, violent criminal act.

ByGollyGee


There are 2 that I know of, neither of which apply here.

I have this case in my notes of SC decisions.


Page 402 U. S. 545


We reverse the judgment against Palmer because the ordinance is so vague and lacking in ascertainable standards of guilt that, as applied to Palmer, it failed to give "a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. . . ." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954).



http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/544/case.html


As we see, the law was so vague a reasonably prudent person could not ascertain it was unlawful. Note however, these types of defenses are rare, but are constitutional in nature.

Concerning OJ, "a person of ordinary intelligence" could certainly grasp that his conduct was defacto unlawful- and or- there was a GREAT probability it was.

Another doctrine may be desuetude laws:


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

You know, some of the old "silly laws" still on the books. You can't water a horse on main st. after 5 'oclock on tuesdays.

Such laws are out of norm and have impliedly repealed themselves, to a great extent.

[JBL]

There are 2 that I know of, niether of which apply here.

I have this case in my notes of SC decisions.


Page 402 U. S. 545


We reverse the judgment against Palmer because the ordinance is so vague and lacking in ascertainable standards of guilt that, as applied to Palmer, it failed to give "a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. . . ." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954).



http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/544/case.html


As we see, the law was so vague a reasonably prudent person could not ascertain it was unlawful. Note however, these types of defenses are rare, but are constitutional in nature.

Concerning OJ, "a person of ordinary intelligence" could certainly grasp that his conduct was defacto unlawful- and or- there was a GREAT probability it was.

Another doctrine may be desuetude laws:


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

You know, some of the old "silly laws" still on the books. You can't water a horse on main st. after 5 'oclock on tuesdays.

Such laws are out of norm and have impliedly repealed themselves, to a great extent.

Thanks Jay much appreciated.

The I didn't know it was illegal to lure, confront and not allow anyone to leave a hotel room while armed probably doesn't fall under that category. Unless you do it before noon LOL just kidding on that part.

[Jay]

Thanks Jay much appreciated.

The I didn't know it was illegal to lure, confront and not allow anyone to leave a hotel room while armed probably doesn't fall under that category. Unless you do it before noon LOL just kidding on that part.


Your'e welcome!!

[gnm109]

Simpson was found guilty because Simpson was guilty. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I knew when things looked bad for Simpson, his lawyer would turn to the 'they're out for revenge over the murder trial' tactic. Thankfully it was seen for what it was, a cynical tactic, by the jury. No Judge Ito and his antics in this trial. Just a sensible judge not prepared to be swayed by anyone or anything but determined to see that justice was carried out.

An excellent first post. Most of us agree that ignorance of the law (or feigned ignorance) is not a defense. The judge did a good job, gave a sentence according the law and that's that. OJ will be eating cold sandwiches and bruised apples for at least the next nine years if he makes it that far.

Hasta la Vista baby! :thumbdown:

[ByGollyGee]

Sorry, but I need to correct you. There are "rules" for kinds of defense's that can be raised. The following "Rules" apply to anything a prosecution OR defense attorney CANNOT do in a court of law! Please check with your family experts, the law is very specific.

Suborning Perjury

Misstating the facts

Discovery violations

Misuse of subpoena power

Badgering a witness

As far as mounting a "twinkie" defense, I will not travel to that kind of debate, but leave it strictly for you and your experts.

I am not trying to convience you of anything, you may view Mr. Simpson's guilty conviction in any way you want, does not impact that he received a proper trial and sentance in Nevada.

ByGollyGee


There is no rules for what kind of defense to present. How about the "twinkie" defense?

His state of mind was such: He did not think it was a crime. State of mind is a legitimate defense, and a jury can nullify based on state of mind.

Ignorance of the law? Or state of mind? State of mind is more like it. He didn't think it was criminal to take back what belongs to him.

Those rules you cited have nothing to do with the kind of defense a defendant mounts. A defendant can maintain the "devil" made him do it, as long as the defense doesn't suborn perjury, violate discovery, misuse subpoena power, misstate the facts, or badger a witness! There are no rules for what kind of defense they can mount!

You will never convince me O.J. wasn't shafted.

mho

[gnm109]

Sorry, but I need to correct you. There are "rules" for kinds of defense's that can be raised. The following "Rules" apply to anything a prosecution OR defense attorney CANNOT do in a court of law! Please check with your family experts, the law is very specific.

Suborning Perjury

Misstating the facts

Discovery violations

Misuse of subpoena power

Badgering a witness

As far as mounting a "twinkie" defense, I will not travel to that kind of debate, but leave it strictly for you and your experts.

I am not trying to convience you of anything, you may view Mr. Simpson's guilty conviction in any way you want, does not impact that he received a proper trial and sentance in Nevada.

ByGollyGee

All good information. Also, defenses are reviewed by the Court prior to their introduction. For example, to raise a defense of insanity, alibi, mistaken identity, or other such weighty matters, there needs to be at least a scintilla of evidence. If the judge reviews offers of proof pror to trial and decides that there is insufficient evidence on the particular defense to present to the jury, then it won't be permitted to be raised.

It sppears that there are certain posters here who will simply not believe that OJ could do anything wrong. We shouldn't try to dissuade them. In the larger scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what some person or other thinks. It comes down to the cold hard fact that he has now been convicted. The court administrators, the judge, the bailiffs, the reporter, the clerk, the jury all have done their jobs.

Charges were brought. Evidence was given in court under strict rules of admissibility. The prosecution was permitted to bring evidence that crimes were committed in violation of the laws of the State of Nevada. The defendant in turn was permitted to bring any viable defense and ultimately, the defendant was convicted and then sentenced. All of this was duly recorded and the appeal team, whoever they may be, will likely request a copy of the transcript in order to find errors of law.

Errors found, in order to bring about any change must have within them some substance. The Court of Appeal won't rehash the entire trial to pick at the facts. They are set in that regard. The errors must be such that they point out matters of law that are clearly erroneous so that the convicton might be overturned.

I say good luck to them. Meanwhile, OJ will be getting into his new routine - the one that he carved out for himself with his bad actions. I refer specifically to the actions that he foolisihly and intentionally did in the hotel room with his gun carrying friends.

OJ's uninformed position that no crime was committed because "he didn't mean to", or that he "didn't know that his actions that day were breaking the law" are simply meaningless babble and should be treated as such.

Goodbye OJ.

[AnnInOhio]

For an appeal to be granted there usually has to be an issue of such consequence that a different outcome for the case would most likely be reached. A chance that jury nullification might occur would not be grounds for an appeal to be granted.

[kellabeck]

O.J wasn't using "ignorance of the law" as a defense; his state of mind was his defense. And a jury can nullify based on state of mind. His state of mind was that he wasn't robbing anyone, but getting back what belongs to him.


That still doesn't justify what was done.

[jazz]

For an appeal to be granted there usually has to be an issue of such consequence that a different outcome for the case would most likely be reached. A chance that jury nullification might occur would not be grounds for an appeal to be granted.
Isn't OJ (like any other convicted felon) entitled to an appeal? Maybe the question I have is under what legal circumstances is a convicted defendant entitled to an appeal?
Not that I believe an appeal would be successful, mind you.

[gnm109]

Isn't OJ (like any other convicted felon) entitled to an appeal? Maybe the question I have is under what legal circumstances is a convicted defendant entitled to an appeal?
Not that I believe an appeal would be successful, mind you.

Of course he's entitled to an appeal. The only time he would not be so entitled would be had he pled guilty and agreed on the record in court to waive any appeal in return for a lighter sentence. That's not the case here so he has the right of appeal.

I don't think it would be successful either but it will give him something to do to wile away the lonely hours in prison.

[JBL]

Isn't OJ (like any other convicted felon) entitled to an appeal? Maybe the question I have is under what legal circumstances is a convicted defendant entitled to an appeal?
Not that I believe an appeal would be successful, mind you.

Yes he's entitled to one like anyone else.

An appeal is where a judge reviews the case for legal mistakes that are important enough to change a decision entered by the trial court.

[jazz]

Yes he's entitled to one like anyone else.

An appeal is where a judge reviews the case for legal mistakes that are important enough to change a decision entered by the trial court.

Thank you JBL & gnm19.
I do understand what the appeals process is for. I think I was confused by the quote I copied by AnnInOhio where she said "for an appeal to be granted"...(emphasis mine)
I was thinking (not trying to put in words in anybody's mouth here) that meant that he would not be given the chance for an appeal.
Maybe she was talking about what would make for a successful appeal, not if an appeal would be granted.
Does that make sense?

Anyway, that got me wondering if there would be some sort of circumstance that would not allow for an appeal. I haven't heard of that, but I am not an attorney.
Thank you for your responses, I am sorry I didn't make my question clearer.

[gnm109]

Thank you JBL & gnm19.
I do understand what the appeals process is for. I think I was confused by the quote I copied by AnnInOhio where she said "for an appeal to be granted"...(emphasis mine)
I was thinking (not trying to put in words in anybody's mouth here) that meant that he would not be given the chance for an appeal.
Maybe she was talking about what would make for a successful appeal, not if an appeal would be granted.
Does that make sense?

Anyway, that got me wondering if there would be some sort of circumstance that would not allow for an appeal. I haven't heard of that, but I am not an attorney.
Thank you for your responses, I am sorry I didn't make my question clearer.

Hello. Perhaps she meant if the appeal were to be successful (i.e, "granted) As I mentioned earlier, the only way I could think of that an appeal wouldn't be permitted would be if it were waived for some consideration, such as a plea bargain for a lighter sentence. Otherwise. appeals are quite common.

[JBL]

Hello. Perhaps she meant if the appeal were to be successful (i.e, "granted) As I mentioned earlier, the only way I could think of that an appeal wouldn't be permitted would be if it were waived for some consideration, such as a plea bargain for a lighter sentence. Otherwise. appeals are quite common.

I'm sure that's what she meant. If the appeal is succesful, granted, comes to fruitation LOL!

Usually they amount to "I WANT OUT" WAAAAAAAAAAAA!

DENIED!

[AnnInOhio]

Isn't OJ (like any other convicted felon) entitled to an appeal? Maybe the question I have is under what legal circumstances is a convicted defendant entitled to an appeal?
Not that I believe an appeal would be successful, mind you.

I don't know how Nevada works, but I suppose anyone can file an appeal but not every appeal will be heard or considered. You have to show that there has been a reversable error at trial before it will be considered. The Appeals court can either dismiss the appeal, rule immediately based on what is clear from the record, or hear an argument for the appeal. The way I look at the process, anybody can file an appeal but not all appeals will be granted or even heard. And even then, the case is usually just returned to the trial court.

[JBL]

Check this out!

Judge Glass, Jackie Dept. 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed Date 10/15/2007 Closed Date
Last Hear 12/09/2008 For SENTENCING
Outcome
Next Hear 12/19/2008 at 10:30 AM For HEARING: RESTITUTION
Pre-trial 09/02/2008 at 08:30 AM Trial 10/03/2008 at 08:00 AM
Disposed Disposition
Consolidated

[AnnInOhio]

Check this out!

Judge Glass, Jackie Dept. 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed Date 10/15/2007 Closed Date
Last Hear 12/09/2008 For SENTENCING
Outcome
Next Hear 12/19/2008 at 10:30 AM For HEARING: RESTITUTION
Pre-trial 09/02/2008 at 08:30 AM Trial 10/03/2008 at 08:00 AM
Disposed Disposition
Consolidated

Looks to me like the restitution hearing is Friday, 12/19 instead of 12/12. That should make it easier for Beardsley to attend both!

[JBL]

Looks to me like the restitution hearing is Friday, 12/19 instead of 12/12. That should make it easier for Beardsley to attend both!


Only if it's via closed circuit. Ones in CA and the other in NV I thought.

[JBL]

Come to think of it wouldn't Goldman need to be at both places or a representative of his. Can he do that for the trial in NV. Technically he is not a part of the trial although the items in question are part of Fred's suit/past judgement

Man what a tangled web!

[AnnInOhio]

Only if it's via closed circuit. Ones in CA and the other in NV I thought.

Earth to JBL. The hearings are on two different days a week apart. Why can't Beardsley make it to both of them? I thought the ring hearing was changed to 12/12 because he would be out of jail by then, but I could be wrong. Doubtful of course, but I could be.

[JBL]

Earth to JBL. The hearings are on two different days a week apart. Why can't Beardsley make it to both of them? I thought the ring hearing was changed to 12/12 because he would be out of jail by then, but I could be wrong. Doubtful of course, but I could be.

I thought Beardsley w/ring had always been the 19th and the 12th was the restitution.

Then I'd just found the restitution bumped the the 19th making them both on the 19th now.

Where's my calculator where's my links. Hold that thought til I check this out again.

[JBL]

Alright Alright *Bows head in shame*

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/oj-simpsons-sen.html

The hearing is set for one week later, Dec. 12. Beardsley/ring

Restitution Dec 19th.

[ByGollyGee]

It is the parent in me. I cannot past a petulant child without making some sort of remark.

ByGollyGee


. . . snip . . .

It sppears that there are certain posters here who will simply not believe that OJ could do anything wrong. We shouldn't try to dissuade them. In the larger scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what some person or other thinks. It comes down to the cold hard fact that he has now been convicted. The court administrators, the judge, the bailiffs, the reporter, the clerk, the jury all have done their jobs.

. . . snip . . .
Goodbye OJ.

[Lucine]

I agree with the sentence. It was fair and never thought I'd see the day OJ would actually spend prison time.

[lmercer]

me too, I did not think his punishment would come until after he died.

[Lidia]

Justice, finally! :thumbsup: