WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24th

[callmetree]

good morning all. i just finished reading up from yesterday. some very good posters! hope we all have a good day today actually i wish i could sleep any suggestions are more than welcome!

[apocalypse]

Wild Turkey!

[callmetree]

Originally Posted by apocalypse

Wild Turkey!

might help..... thanks! i'm at the point i'd try anything. well almost.

[JBL]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/24/...son/index.html

"Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass said she will rule Wednesday on whether the prosecution can put David Cook on the witness stand. Cook is an attorney for the family of Ron Goldman, whose 1994 murder Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but held liable in a civil trial.

Cook represents the Goldmans in their efforts to recover assets as part of the civil judgment against Simpson for Goldman's wrongful death"

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by JBL

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/24/...son/index.html

"Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass said she will rule Wednesday on whether the prosecution can put David Cook on the witness stand. Cook is an attorney for the family of Ron Goldman, whose 1994 murder Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but held liable in a civil trial.

Cook represents the Goldmans in their efforts to recover assets as part of the civil judgment against Simpson for Goldman's wrongful death"

I just finished listening to Cook on the stand but haven't heard legal argument between the judge and attorneys. Cook refers to interrogatories from December 2006 forward. I'm surprised they didn't go back to the mid '90's when the first interrogatories were done to see if OJ has EVER claimed owning the memorabilia. Back to the initial court order approving the "leaked" pending LE removal of assets at Rockingham listing what items were to have been seized. If these items were listed to be picked up OJ surely had to answer to the court at that time where they were. He would have had to either declared them stolen at that time or declared he didn't own them. If OJ had declared them stolen to that first court they'd have asked if they were insured and collect any insurance reimbursement for them. I agree with Yale that the current interrogatories are snapshots of what OJ currently owns. I'd trace it back through the civil court records.

[dmh]

HI,
Did riccio tape what was said in the hotel room after the robbery?

[AnnInOhio]

Yale says "If there was an interrogatory that said 'Have you ever claimed to have had property stolen from you in excess of $500' and he (OJ) answered that question 'No', and swore to it, clearly that would be relevant to impeach Mr. Simpson's prior testimony in that interrogatory. But here it has nothing to do with the issues in this case." I think this suggests that Yale knows OJ never reported the items stolen on any court interrogatories.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by dmh

HI,
Did riccio tape what was said in the hotel room after the robbery?

The recorder continued to run in the room for awhile. Remember hearing that it caught the cops talking amongst themselves?

[dmh]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

The recorder continued to run in the room for awhile. Remember hearing that it caught the cops talking amongst themselves?

I didn't remember and tx

[AnnInOhio]

As I'm thinking about it, it almost seems to me that putting any of the interrogatory stuff in send a wrong message to the jurors - feeding OJ's defense that he was going in there to get his own "stuff". They should instead pound home the law: it doesn't matter whether Fromong and Beardsley had his stuff or their stuff in that room. It'll illegal to inveigle and entice anyone to a hotel room for the purpose of robbing them of stuff. It's illegal to hold someone in a hotel room through intimidation, and it's illegal to take items under those conditions instead of seeking civil legal recourse. I think it might be a better tactic to blow off OJ's "it was about MY stuff" defense at every turn.

Originally Posted by poodlestar

Ashley just said she has a "journalisitc" crush on Riccio.

If i didn't already think she was a complete idiot, that would have sealed it for me. She has been absolutely gushing over him for days. Ridiculous.

I just saw part of the replays and I think I recognize the tall, light haired prosecutor, I think it was during opening statements, and haven't seen him through the trial. Question: Was he the same prosecutor on the Margaret Rudin trial?

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by barry'sgirl

morning guys!

So Cook testified last night. thanks for the posts, ann. i agree with you, trace it. but i also agree that yale knows.

between this case and now they have release 600 more pages of the caylee investigation i'm going nuts! i'm onlhy on page 117.

who's the next witness today?

we were going to have more blueberry muffins this morning but bearwds must have been up snacking on them last night, lol. so i made biscuits with strawberry butter for this morning with some coffee. help yourself!

He was questioned by the judge and attorneys. He didn't testify in front of the jury yet. I think they'll have him on to testify today - shouldn't take long.

I have cinnamon rolls & coffee and keep trying to get over to check out the new Caylee documents.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by sceck

I just saw part of the replays and I think I recognize the tall, light haired prosecutor, I think it was during opening statements, and haven't seen him through the trial. Question: Was he the same prosecutor on the Margaret Rudin trial?

You correct..I had to look that up tho..

LmS

Originally Posted by poodlestar

i think it is funny. i have a small crush on him too.

but you're a viewer so it's ok she's supposedly "reporting"

Thanks Lynda-that would have bothered me all day wondering!!! I followed that one gavel to gavel for sure.

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Yale says "If there was an interrogatory that said 'Have you ever claimed to have had property stolen from you in excess of $500' and he (OJ) answered that question 'No', and swore to it, clearly that would be relevant to impeach Mr. Simpson's prior testimony in that interrogatory. But here it has nothing to do with the issues in this case." I think this suggests that Yale knows OJ never reported the items stolen on any court interrogatories.

There is a document somewhere that OJ signed thru the legal system (I don't even know what it's legally called) but it's to the effect that a) Nothing was stolen b)to the best of his knowledge he owns nothing else of value. c)everything he had was turned over.

Man, it's getting tough to look up past OJ stuff - there so many documents uch out there spanning his different court charges thru the years.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by sceck

Thanks Lynda-that would have bothered me all day wondering!!! I followed that one gavel to gavel for sure.

You are welcome...... I know what you mean..also Mr. Roger was the Prosecuter in the Binion Trial..

LMS

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

As I'm thinking about it, it almost seems to me that putting any of the interrogatory stuff in send a wrong message to the jurors - feeding OJ's defense that he was going in there to get his own "stuff". They should instead pound home the law: it doesn't matter whether Fromong and Beardsley had his stuff or their stuff in that room. It'll illegal to inveigle and entice anyone to a hotel room for the purpose of robbing them of stuff. It's illegal to hold someone in a hotel room through intimidation, and it's illegal to take items under those conditions instead of seeking civil legal recourse. I think it might be a better tactic to blow off OJ's "it was about MY stuff" defense at every turn.

IMO, they're trying to do all. Show motive - Simpsons frame of mind and why/how these items came to be in Fromongs possession.

I recall Galanter trying to make a point with Det. Caldwell of how he checked to see who was the rightfull owner. (IMO - trying to prove they were just out for OJ and nothing was checked regarding OJ's statements of it's his stuff.) Caldwell testified that was not one of the criteria's for determining a robbery. Somewhere I've read that in actuallity Caldwell did contact Goldmans attorney to determine ownership although it was NOT before OJ was arrested.

[AnnInOhio]

Jami Floyed just said, regarding OJ, "He doesn't sound like someone who is concerned about being arrested for armed robbery and kidnapping and facing down a life sentence. It's entirely consistent. Look, he was mistaken, he was mistaken if he thought he could take his own stuff back. But the bottom line is that does not sound like a man, and he knows he's OJ Simpson, he knows the authorities would come after him and arrest him and slam him if he'd really done anything all that bad...He's not concerned because he's not thinking like a criminal."

The bottom line, Jami, is that he was mistaken. He was mistaken! And he WAS thinking like a criminal, he just can't bring himself to admit it because he knows he's the great and powerful OJ Simpson. No wonder OJ constantly whistles "If I Only Had A Brain" from "The Wizard of Oz"!

[AnnInOhio]

I must be sidetracked somewhere. On InSession Lisa is talking about a tape of OJ after the incident saying "I'm trying to figure out what story to tell." Has that been played in court yet? I didn't remember that.

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Jami Floyed just said, regarding OJ, "He doesn't sound like someone who is concerned about being arrested for armed robbery and kidnapping and facing down a life sentence. It's entirely consistent. Look, he was mistaken, he was mistaken if he thought he could take his own stuff back. But the bottom line is that does not sound like a man, and he knows he's OJ Simpson, he knows the authorities would come after him and arrest him and slam him if he'd really done anything all that bad...He's not concerned because he's not thinking like a criminal."

The bottom line, Jami, is that he was mistaken. He was mistaken! And he WAS thinking like a criminal, he just can't bring himself to admit it because he knows he's the great and powerful OJ Simpson. No wonder OJ constantly whistles "If I Only Had A Brain" from "The Wizard of Oz"!

THAT's what he's been mumbling to himself! I thought it might be "What Kind of Fool Am I?"

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Jami Floyed just said, regarding OJ, "He doesn't sound like someone who is concerned about being arrested for armed robbery and kidnapping and facing down a life sentence. It's entirely consistent. Look, he was mistaken, he was mistaken if he thought he could take his own stuff back. But the bottom line is that does not sound like a man, and he knows he's OJ Simpson, he knows the authorities would come after him and arrest him and slam him if he'd really done anything all that bad...He's not concerned because he's not thinking like a criminal."

The bottom line, Jami, is that he was mistaken. He was mistaken! And he WAS thinking like a criminal, he just can't bring himself to admit it because he knows he's the great and powerful OJ Simpson. No wonder OJ constantly whistles "If I Only Had A Brain" from "The Wizard of Oz"!

LOL Ann...The group also spoke about the criminal backgrounds of the two witnesses..Rizzio and Erlich and how Yale was attempting to use that fact to show these guys would NEVER get invlovled with anything against the law and risk getting re-incarcerated..Humm..I wonder how he can then say that same spin about those other witnesses who have records..to make it seem they Did break the law.!!.aka..McClinton..as one example..hum??or Walter Alexander..who Yale tried to dirty up during the preliminary hearing..

LMS

I live in Maryland and have been on the Grand Jury since February. In fact, tomorrow my obligation expires. Hooray! But, we did have a case brought before us regarding a robbery and murder and we had to find cause to indict. We were instructed that one could indeed be found guilty of robbery when force is used to take something, even if that item or items belonged to the person doing the taking. If that is true, then whether or not these items belonged to OJ seems to make this a moot point. Anybody want to clarify that for me?

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by papawhiskey

Oh, dear. Watching him testify, all I could think of was how much his face reminds me of the back end of my ****zu. (a dog breed, shetzu)

That's funny! Riccio reminded me of my fat, silver and white brown eyed husky that always has an impish look on his face and everything in life is a game! And they apparently have being a runner in common (Riccio's past prison escape)! Husky's are notorious for being hard to obedience train, and Riccio had trouble monitoring his mouth on the stand without constant reprimand.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by warrkat

THAT's what he's been mumbling to himself! I thought it might be "What Kind of Fool Am I?"

He's heard whistling it on tape and Riccio testified he whistles or hums the tune all the time.

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

He's heard whistling it on tape and Riccio testified he whistles or hums the tune all the time.

I didn't know that..... that's funny. Sometimes I think he left his brain on the football field.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by poodlestar

he was whispering "Clay Aiken just said he was gay to the world, why do people hate me".

Clay Aiken is gay? Really??

[vonna]

Originally Posted by poodlestar

yes i just saw it online.

http://www.people.com/people/article...228488,00.html

my comment about oj saying that was to joke about how oj can take one subject not related to him, and make it all his own. LOL

Anyone else think attorney Bryson is a big blow-hard???

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by poodlestar

yes i just saw it online.

http://www.people.com/people/article...228488,00.html

my comment about oj saying that was to joke about how oj can take one subject not related to him, and make it all his own. LOL

I know. I was joking too. I can imagine OJ muttering to himself "Wow! I never saw THAT one coming, either!"

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by sceck

I live in Maryland and have been on the Grand Jury since February. In fact, tomorrow my obligation expires. Hooray! But, we did have a case brought before us regarding a robbery and murder and we had to find cause to indict. We were instructed that one could indeed be found guilty of robbery when force is used to take something, even if that item or items belonged to the person doing the taking. If that is true, then whether or not these items belonged to OJ seems to make this a moot point. Anybody want to clarify that for me?

You are right on that point..OJ had no right to take abunch of guys to that room and intimidate the two marks to take anything..however the defense (Yale and Grasso) are attempting to nullify the jury to feel sympathy for OJ..and that OJ felt it was not against the law to get his stuff back..LOL

The other thing is that OJ didnt think these two marks would ever call the police..but they did..and the guns brought into the mix enhanced that robbery to felony's. I do think that IF no guns..OJ would have been charged..but with far lessor crime and no jail time..given the sleeze factor among all parties here..

LMS

P.S. Wow..to sit on a GJ..must have been eye opening experience..Kudos to you!

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by vonna

Anyone else think attorney Bryson is a big blow-hard???

I think he's secretly tickled to death to have his client sitting in court being tried with OJ. Next to OJ, Stewart looks like a Boy Scout!

Again, thank you Lynda. Yes, the GJ was most interesting. Very, very different than petit jury. Only one side (the prosecution) is presented, to show just cause for indictments. Most people don't take it as seriously as I think they should; they all, not all, but most, just vote for indictment at the highest degree, stating that the court will decide later if they want to lessen the charges at time of trial. That still bothers me.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally Posted by sceck

Again, thank you Lynda. Yes, the GJ was most interesting. Very, very different than petit jury. Only one side (the prosecution) is presented, to show just cause for indictments. Most people don't take it as seriously as I think they should; they all, not all, but most, just vote for indictment at the highest degree, stating that the court will decide later if they want to lessen the charges at time of trial. That still bothers me.

I take from your concerns..that is why the coined phrase arose.."A Grand Jury will indict a Ham Sandwich"...I guess where you were concerned..that Ham Sandwish would survive to be eaten another day!!

I agree with you tho.too often G.Jurors just want to get it done with..pro prosecution..etc!!..One question for ya..Do the group of GJurors discuss the evidence??Is there any real debates..and devil advocates?? I find it very interesting..i love learning from other's experiences..


LMS

[AnnInOhio]

There was a comment on InSession likening this case to the movie "My Cousin Vinny". I was thinking of Joe Pesci's examination of Marissa Tomai when when Yale was cross-examining Ehrlich their friendship and familiarity with each other led to a lot of the talking over each instead of the typical, and required, question and answer. Another comment was that everyone expected the criminal reputations of these witnesses would call into question their reliability. Yale, as Erhlich's friend, instead tried to turn it around as a "plus" for the defense.

[AnnInOhio]

Good call, judge! Cook will not testify. The waters won't be muddied by the prosecution attempting to go into OJ's excuse-as-a-defense which is moot anyway.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

We are live now..Walter Alexander on stand..Direct testimony started..
LMS

Yes, Lynda. In fact, we had a case of murder where there were two young men, (19 and 21), and we were asked to indict of first degree murder. One used a baseball bat to kill another young man during an argument. The other boy drove them away. I truly agreed with the charge on the boy who did the act, but really wanted a second degree murder charge on the second boy. I lost. There was only one other person in the room of 23 who voted the way I did. There were one or two who abstained. Again, the argument was, "Well the State can still bring a second degree charge, or the jury can find second degree." Although that is true, I believe the charge should fit the crime, and I don't think the second boy could absolutely KNOW what was in the mind of the first boy. I don't think there would have been any miscarriage of justice had the second boy been indicted of second degree murder. BTW the photos were horrendous! I'm glad the whole thing is over, but I did learn a lot.

Originally Posted by Lyndawitha"Y

We are live now..Walter Alexander on stand..Direct testimony started..
LMS

i love his glasses

[AnnInOhio]

I love the way OJ always assumes the world is just going to give in to what he wants.