Weekend thread 9/20 -9/21

[callmetree]

HOPE IT'S OK TO START A NEW THREAD. GOOD MORNING ALL. i'm assuming there is no court today, but we can insert our opinions of the trial. just about the only thing i've seen interesting so far is the judge and IMO she even seems quite bored with the whole process. i for one am ready to get this thing in high gear and be done with it.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by callmetree

HOPE IT'S OK TO START A NEW THREAD. GOOD MORNING ALL. i'm assuming there is no court today, but we can insert our opinions of the trial. just about the only thing i've seen interesting so far is the judge and IMO she even seems quite bored with the whole process. i for one am ready to get this thing in high gear and be done with it.

No court, not much new to say until I do some review. Have a great weekend all you fellow court watchers.

[AnnInOhio]

On Recording_File)3, page 3 line 1, Simpson says "The guy has had two turn over orders from the State of California saying he had none of my stuff. I kept saying he stole my stuff. So he quietly tried to get him to sell it quietly you know for a guy that don't want, don't want the Goldman's involved. So they gonna meet tonight. I'm gonna show up with a bunch of the boys and take the **** back. They can't do nothing about it."

Questions I have are
1.) Who is the "guy" who has had two turn over orders? I'm assuming Gilbert.
2.) OJ keeps saying 'he' "stole my stuff" but did OJ ever file any type of legal action against Gilbert (or anyone else) about any theft?
3.) It sounds to me like OJ is describing Gilbert trying to sell the stuff for someone who doesn't want the Goldman's involved. Who more than OJ doesn't want the Goldman's involved??
4.) Later there's a comment "You already told them it didn't exist". Is this most likely a reference to OJ's interrogatory where he said nobody else had any possessions owned by OJ?

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

No court, not much new to say until I do some review. Have a great weekend all you fellow court watchers.

Good morning.
I'm hoping our office will be as quiet as it usually is on Saturday, so that I can replay the testimony from yesterday (if I can find it). What little I was able to hear yesterday disturbs me. I'm thinking that OJ is probably not guilty of as much as I had thought. He shouldn't have done what he did, but it sounds like he was set up. I guess I'm having some trouble with him (possibly) being convicted when the rest of those guys are shady, too, but they will "scoot" because they are testifying against him.
Opinion may change after a good listen.

[AnnInOhio]

Regarding the conversation above, is anybody aware of any turn over order ever being made in regard to the family pictures? There were previous turn over orders directed at Gilbert about the items known to be missing from OJ's trophy room - which I believe would include the balls and awards involved in this incident. Notice OJ mentions only wanting his family photos immediately after Riccio mentions the possibility of Beardsley going to the press.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by warrkat

Good morning.
I'm hoping our office will be as quiet as it usually is on Saturday, so that I can replay the testimony from yesterday (if I can find it). What little I was able to hear yesterday disturbs me. I'm thinking that OJ is probably not guilty of as much as I had thought. He shouldn't have done what he did, but it sounds like he was set up. I guess I'm having some trouble with him (possibly) being convicted when the rest of those guys are shady, too, but they will "scoot" because they are testifying against him.
Opinion may change after a good listen.

That was my initial reaction, too. However there's a lot of testimony ahead and a lot of actions, statements and motivations yet to be mined. Yes, OJ was set up but isn't that what a 'sting' is? I didn't hear him saying "no". OJ gathered his posse. OJ chose not to contact hotel security. OJ laughed with the cops afterwards like this was all some big misunderstanding. Didn't he tell Riccio something like he knows how to handle cops? OJ knew it was wrong, he just thought he could get away with it.

[AnnInOhio]

Was the "If I Did It" book still OJ's at the point this happened, or had the Goldman's been awarded rights? OJ tells Riccio "I ain't signing no book". Riccio is telling OJ he can put this event in the book. OJ says anything to do with the book will make a lot of money, then says he'll sign for nobody but Riccio IF he signs anybody it will be "you will have your book. Like you say you gettin a lot of money from..."

Was OJ expecting Riccio to write another OJ book - about this event? Didn't OJ collect like $700,000 off the first book that the Goldman's weren't fast enough to grab? He keeps telling Riccio how much money Riccio is going to make. Would OJ rather Riccio make money off a book about OJ the victim retrieving his personal items in a sting or by autographing the Goldman's book? Somebody, help me out with the status of the Goldman's takeover of the "If I Did It" book.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by snowbird01

I'm surprised to say that at this point I agree. I'm sure that the charges will be less if he really didn't request (and didn't know) guns were involved. But the another thing will be -did he know that the "stuff" had been legally sold off at auction by the storage place and was no longer his stuff? And just how illegal is it to go in with a bunch of thugs and get the stuff.... if there were no guns.

And where are his personal family photos at this point; do we know? Maybe Mike will tell us on the Dr. Phil show this week.

My understanding from conversations between Riccio and the dealers is they are owned by an unnamed manager of some rock star. They appear to be separate and apart from the OJ memorabilia being offered for sale by Fromong, but Fromong eventually expected to handle their sale also is the way I took what was said on the tapes. Fromong hoped those items would end up back with OJ. I don't think Gilbert had anything to do with the family photos off the top of my head, but I'll check it out.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by snowbird01

I'm surprised to say that at this point I agree. I'm sure that the charges will be less if he really didn't request (and didn't know) guns were involved. But the another thing will be -did he know that the "stuff" had been legally sold off at auction by the storage place and was no longer his stuff? And just how illegal is it to go in with a bunch of thugs and get the stuff.... if there were no guns.

And where are his personal family photos at this point; do we know? Maybe Mike will tell us on the Dr. Phil show this week.

Well, by OJ's own logic it would have been illegal for him to have gone into Beasley's room and leave with the stuff unless Beasley agreed to give him the stuff. I think OJ thought he was legally ok because Riccio invited them into his (Riccio's) room. In OJ's mind the parties met on neutral territory and oh my, OJ just happened to find his stuff! However, he overlooks one thing: Riccio was playing the part of fellow victim! Fromong and Beasley, the real victims, didn't know during the event that Riccio was part of OJ's posse.

Do guns really matter? What if they feared getting beat up? Fromong nearly died of a heart attack after all. I'm going to need to hear the law and how it's to be applied in this case as explained by the judge.

[AnnInOhio]

How DOES the law apply here regarding guns? In a bank robbery done by multiple robbers if one robber kills someone they are all equally guilty. In this case, would they all be equally guilty if one of them brought a gun, whether they knew about it or not? Is the point of the gun about defining that from that point Fromong/Beardsley didn't willfully turn over the items out of fear of harm, or was it the increase of risk of physical harm? If it had been a cap gun that looked real but wasn't and couldn't have really hurt anyone, would that make a difference?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Well, by OJ's own logic it would have been illegal for him to have gone into Beasley's room and leave with the stuff unless Beasley agreed to give him the stuff. I think OJ thought he was legally ok because Riccio invited them into his (Riccio's) room. In OJ's mind the parties met on neutral territory and oh my, OJ just happened to find his stuff! However, he overlooks one thing: Riccio was playing the part of fellow victim! Fromong and Beasley, the real victims, didn't know during the event that Riccio was part of OJ's posse.

Do guns really matter? What if they feared getting beat up? Fromong nearly died of a heart attack after all. I'm going to need to hear the law and how it's to be applied in this case as explained by the judge.

I seem to remember that it was the presence of the guns that raised this to felony charges otherwise would have been plead out as misdameanors..sorry for spelling....Now if Fromong had of died of his heart attack..maybe higher charges would have been applied..

BUT..guns were in that room and they were brought for intimidation purposes..and I think Mcclinton will elaborate on how he was told to bring heat..

If some here think all these guys ( plea deal guys) are going to walk..they are mistaken..the gun totters are facing hard jail time many years..

LMS

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

That was my initial reaction, too. However there's a lot of testimony ahead and a lot of actions, statements and motivations yet to be mined. Yes, OJ was set up but isn't that what a 'sting' is? I didn't hear him saying "no". OJ gathered his posse. OJ chose not to contact hotel security. OJ laughed with the cops afterwards like this was all some big misunderstanding. Didn't he tell Riccio something like he knows how to handle cops? OJ knew it was wrong, he just thought he could get away with it.

Oh, I agree, there's still a lot to be heard, and I'll probably change my mind 10 times before it's over. I did in the murder trial. It was SO hard for me to accept that he would do such a horrible thing, but he did it. He brutally slaughtered two people. He's probably lucky that, this time, no one got physically hurt.

Originally Posted by snowbird01

I'm surprised to say that at this point I agree. I'm sure that the charges will be less if he really didn't request (and didn't know) guns were involved. But the another thing will be -did he know that the "stuff" had been legally sold off at auction by the storage place and was no longer his stuff? And just how illegal is it to go in with a bunch of thugs and get the stuff.... if there were no guns.

And where are his personal family photos at this point; do we know? Maybe Mike will tell us on the Dr. Phil show this week.

Even if he knew that the stuff had been legally sold, doesn't mean that he accepted that. He thinks that he is "different," that the laws don't apply to him (imo). He may believe that no one had the right to sell it in the first place.

As far as going in and getting the stuff............... let me ramble my thoughts a little bit here...........
If your neighbor takes your lawn mower without permission, and it's sitting in his garage, common sense tells me that you can walk into the garage and get it. If the garage door is closed, can you break into that garage to get your lawn mower? Not sure, but I don't think you can (legally). Wouldn't this situation be the same thing? Or maybe not, since he did not actually break into the room, he was allowed in.
Forget it, I can't answer the question. As to Dr. Phil - I won't watch that show, so somebody will have to report what is said.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by warrkat

Even if he knew that the stuff had been legally sold, doesn't mean that he accepted that. He thinks that he is "different," that the laws don't apply to him (imo). He may believe that no one had the right to sell it in the first place.

As far as going in and getting the stuff............... let me ramble my thoughts a little bit here...........
If your neighbor takes your lawn mower without permission, and it's sitting in his garage, common sense tells me that you can walk into the garage and get it. If the garage door is closed, can you break into that garage to get your lawn mower? Not sure, but I don't think you can (legally). Wouldn't this situation be the same thing? Or maybe not, since he did not actually break into the room, he was allowed in.
Forget it, I can't answer the question. As to Dr. Phil - I won't watch that show, so somebody will have to report what is said.

He would not have been "allowed in" by Fromong and Beasley. I believe they made that pretty clear to Riccio. Riccio wasn't a victim - he lured Fromong & Beasley to that hotel room. As to your neighbor, if you saw your lawnmower in plain sight because the garage door was open and you took not only your lawnmower but his leaf blower as well on your way out, what would THAT be?

[dmh]

Hi everyone
IIR, OJ said he would sign only a certent amount of books for riccio. I can't remember how OJ was going to sign it. But riccio was just waiting to get his hands on those books to come out, so OJ would sign them. Specially before all this went down. I think riccio wanted his cake and eat it too. JMO

[AnnInOhio]

Any thoughts from anyone (including Coldwater) on why the thread for discussion of Yale Galanter's possible conflict of interest in this trial was removed? It was buried in the 9/19 daily discussion thread. I don't know why that's any less worthy of being a discussion topic than shady characters or Jami Floyd's thoughts.

[dmh]

[quote=AnnInOhio;12153363]Any thoughts from anyone (including Coldwater) on why the thread for discussion of Yale Galanter's possible conflict of interest in this trial was removed?[/QUOTE




wasn't me..lol I'm just begining to know a little bit about this Yale person

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by dmh

Hi everyone
IIR, OJ said he would sign only a certent amount of books for riccio. I can't remember how OJ was going to sign it. But riccio was just waiting to get his hands on those books to come out, so OJ would sign them. Specially before all this went down. I think riccio wanted his cake and eat it too. JMO

I don't think Riccio ever got OJ to agree to anything except that IF HE DID IT (sign books) he'd do it for Riccio. Their conversation makes me wonder if OJ was considering something other than what Riccio had in mind. Riccio clearly intended to make money somehow off of this sting.

[AnnInOhio]

[quote=dmh;12153377]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Any thoughts from anyone (including Coldwater) on why the thread for discussion of Yale Galanter's possible conflict of interest in this trial was removed?[/QUOTE




wasn't me..lol I'm just begining to know a little bit about this Yale person

My concern is that, per the tapes, Yale was at OJ's hotel the day of this crime, Beardsley indicated Yale knew things about the items OJ thought were stolen that OJ didn't know, that money was being paid to Yale on OJ's behalf, that OJ spoke to his attorney about this sting before it took place. I say Yale was acting as part of OJ's posse, not as his attorney. And if Yale was openly talking to Beardsley about the items without OJ's knowledge and not on his behalf, there was no attorney/client privledge to those converations. For all anyone knows, Yale owned the items and had a role in this to make money.

[dmh]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

I don't think Riccio ever got OJ to agree to anything except that IF HE DID IT (sign books) he'd do it for Riccio. Their conversation makes me wonder if OJ was considering something other than what Riccio had in mind. Riccio clearly intended to make money somehow off of this sting.

I agree riccio was out for any way he could make a profit. But I thought OJ agreed to signing some books only a certent way. and yes riccio didn't get the books signed because they didn't come out before the sting. Ohhh ...feeling sorry for riccio...NOT

[Lyndawitha"Y]

[quote=AnnInOhio;12153435]

Originally Posted by dmh

My concern is that, per the tapes, Yale was at OJ's hotel the day of this crime, Beardsley indicated Yale knew things about the items OJ thought were stolen that OJ didn't know, that money was being paid to Yale on OJ's behalf, that OJ spoke to his attorney about this sting before it took place. I say Yale was acting as part of OJ's posse, not as his attorney. And if Yale was openly talking to Beardsley about the items without OJ's knowledge and not on his behalf, there was no attorney/client privledge to those converations. For all anyone knows, Yale owned the items and had a role in this to make money.

You know what?? After I watched and listened to the prelim o this case..and learned about Yale's actual knowledge of this mission to get OJ's things back using 3rd party (Riccio) to set up etc..my suspicion of Yale's schenanigans became acceptance of the reality he has used his knowledge and connections in the law to hid assests for OJ..And yes, I think Yale's career is going to get exposed.

I look at Yale in his interviews and TH roles with a new perspective..I dont trust him, I think he lies and I think he spins information to fit his agenda. It's much the same as with Henry Lee...I lost all respect for these guys and their integrety..!!

LMS

[dmh]

Did any attorny"s advise OJ not to go to the hotel and try to get his stuff back?

[dmh]

OK..Making it simple for me...your thinging Yale wanted this to go down so he would be able to hide things from the Goldman"s?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by dmh

Did any attorny"s advise OJ not to go to the hotel and try to get his stuff back?

Now I cant quote a link to this, I do believe I heard through some testimony by Riccio in Prelim that OJ told him that his lawyer told him a "Sting Idea" was a bad one..Who knows, maybe it was Yale who advised him about if you're going to do this..make sure it's in Nevada.versus California..due to legal implications..Nevada was less stringent or something like that..Either way, the sting timing was moved up because of the wedding planned in Vegas, thus an excuse to be there..therefore Fromong and Beardsley had less time to get all "THE STUFF" OJ/Riccio were looking for..i.e. suit/pictures/trophies whatever. These two guys believed they had a legitament buyer..so brought many other items to sell.i.e Pete Rose balls/bats, Lithographs etc...

No matter, the mindset of OJ was to grab all he could to keep the seizure orders by the law of any of OJ's assets in their possession..I think true to OJ's modes Opporendi..He used his groupies and hangers-on to assist him in his mission..We have to rememer that Fromong and Gilbert had been served those papers of turnover...and OJ had to sign a document claiming he HAD NO ASSETS..Since the loss of his rights to the book "If I Did It"..he was pee'd off at the Goldmans and knew they were getting close to gaining possession of his other STUFF!!

In a nutshell, Yale and OJ are a team..and all the others in their village of enablers is the army following orders from the "Command Center"!!

LMS

[callmetree]

Originally Posted by snowbird01

OK - once again Callmetree - When you start a thread don't you expect it last all day? The last time someone started an "Early Morning thread it got locked shortly after noon instead of after the usual 19 or 20 pages! We figured out - and POSTED - when you start a daily thread just put the date; Discussion. OR maybe now - you might put 9/20 Weekend Discussion.
You could PM CW and ask her to change it to that - probably wouldn't be too long as court is closed and there is no new info.

thanks snow! i'm slowly but surely learning. only because of helpful posters like yourself. hope you have a good weekend

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by dmh

OK..Making it simple for me...your thinging Yale wanted this to go down so he would be able to hide things from the Goldman"s?

Not sure if you directed your question to me or not..But OJ's assets since the Civil Judgement of 33.5 million dollars have been hidden..and these assets have been shunted around..usg 3rd parties..kind of like a "Shell Game"..Yales role is to advise, suggest, manipulate all this...and yes I do believe a type of liquidation process then put out of reach..aka Off Shore Accounts..Intrust Accounts all the while going to court to delay..make motions to delay..etc..It's like a game..keep one step ahead of the collectors for the Goldman's judgement.

LMS

[dmh]

Good point....Gives me something to think about

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

He would not have been "allowed in" by Fromong and Beasley. I believe they made that pretty clear to Riccio. Riccio wasn't a victim - he lured Fromong & Beasley to that hotel room. As to your neighbor, if you saw your lawnmower in plain sight because the garage door was open and you took not only your lawnmower but his leaf blower as well on your way out, what would THAT be?

It would be theft. And thanks, that makes things a little clearer. I'm still trying to make sense of the tapes.

[bearwds]

Originally Posted by warrkat

It would be theft. And thanks, that makes things a little clearer. I'm still trying to make sense of the tapes.

*********************************

And if you had a gun or two, it would be armed robbery.

If a gun dropped to the floor and discharged, killing your forgetful neighbor, it would be a murder charge for you and any of your buds you brought with you.



bearwds

[DefyGravity]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

How DOES the law apply here regarding guns? In a bank robbery done by multiple robbers if one robber kills someone they are all equally guilty. In this case, would they all be equally guilty if one of them brought a gun, whether they knew about it or not? Is the point of the gun about defining that from that point Fromong/Beardsley didn't willfully turn over the items out of fear of harm, or was it the increase of risk of physical harm? If it had been a cap gun that looked real but wasn't and couldn't have really hurt anyone, would that make a difference?

That's what I want to know too. I wondered if he could be guilty on the gun charge even if he didn't know about it beforehand, if only because he assembled the group to intimidate to get his "stuff" back.

I thought all would be charged with armed robbery in the case of holding up a store, even if only one had a gun. I always thought any member of a robbery team was responsible regardless of whether or not they knew one of them had a gun, or not.

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

On Recording_File)3, page 3 line 1, Simpson says "The guy has had two turn over orders from the State of California saying he had none of my stuff. I kept saying he stole my stuff. So he quietly tried to get him to sell it quietly you know for a guy that don't want, don't want the Goldman's involved. So they gonna meet tonight. I'm gonna show up with a bunch of the boys and take the **** back. They can't do nothing about it."

Questions I have are
1.) Who is the "guy" who has had two turn over orders? I'm assuming Gilbert.
2.) OJ keeps saying 'he' "stole my stuff" but did OJ ever file any type of legal action against Gilbert (or anyone else) about any theft?
3.) It sounds to me like OJ is describing Gilbert trying to sell the stuff for someone who doesn't want the Goldman's involved. Who more than OJ doesn't want the Goldman's involved??
4.) Later there's a comment "You already told them it didn't exist". Is this most likely a reference to OJ's interrogatory where he said nobody else had any possessions owned by OJ?

I.....O Anne!

1.) IIRC it was both Gilbert and Fromong with the turn over orders.

2.) NO POLICE REPORT EVER FILED. IIRC part deux - This was looked into by Det Caldwell but I don't think it was until after the arrest and I'm hoping to hear him recalled to the stand and answer this question posed to him. I swear we heard part of it but it was sustained - Caldwell is certainly no Riccio - yak yak yak ROFL (Riccios a RIOT!) Caldwell is only answering what's asked. (what a piece of work CJ Stewarts attorney is - a wanna be Gallanter LOL!

3.) Sounds to me that according to testimony Cathy Randa was tipped off about OJ's brentwood house getting raided the next morning in accordance to the turn-over orders and Cathy Randa and OJ's sister smuggled the goods out to OJ's mom's house. From there sounds like it was stored in a locker. Now whether it's the rumoured locker /storage area that's been rumored to exist that OJ's mom didn't pay rent on and Mike Gilbert bought the contents deeming the items "his" or it was flat out taken by Mike Gilbert to profit off of as he knew there WAS NO POLICE REPORT FILED to say these items still existed. No honor among thieves.