Thursday, October 2, 2008 -- Verdict Watch

Doesn anyone know what Clarence "C.J." Stewart's occupation is? (The one he made his income from?) All I ever see written to describe him is a "former golfing buddy" of O.J. Simpson.

Originally Posted by naltia

Doesn anyone know what Clarence "C.J." Stewart's occupation is? (The one he made his income from?) All I ever see written to describe him is a "former golfing buddy" of O.J. Simpson.

Mortgage broker. He has been worried about being a defendant since this could cost him his license.

Doctor this morning, so I'll probably miss the closings. Anybody have any ideas on how long the jury will take?

Last time he was on trial, I actually took a small tv to work with me so I could see the verdict.... VERY much against the rules of the place I worked at the time. It would have been worth getting fired, if I had seen the verdict I wanted to see.

Originally Posted by warrkat

Doctor this morning, so I'll probably miss the closings. Anybody have any ideas on how long the jury will take?

Last time he was on trial, I actually took a small tv to work with me so I could see the verdict.... VERY much against the rules of the place I worked at the time. It would have been worth getting fired, if I had seen the verdict I wanted to see.

I've not got the foggiest idea about the jury. They certainly have plenty to review and talk over. Not a job many folks would desire; and they have to do it for 2 people.

Someone on courttv mentioned that it's usually 1 hour for each day that the trial lasted. If that were true, it shouldn't take over 14-15 hrs.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by warrkat

Doctor this morning, so I'll probably miss the closings. Anybody have any ideas on how long the jury will take?

Last time he was on trial, I actually took a small tv to work with me so I could see the verdict.... VERY much against the rules of the place I worked at the time. It would have been worth getting fired, if I had seen the verdict I wanted to see.

If I understood correctly, the jury doesn't have to be there til 10:15 today Las Vegas time. I think they're going to have jury instructions and THEN closing arguments, so hopefully you'll make it back in time.

[AnnInOhio]

What was the point of Stewart's cousin's testimony? To show Stewart maybe had some money (was a diamond level customer, paid his buffet bill, had an AmEx card)? I know everyone thinks she was a timeline witness to show Stewart wasn't in on any planning, but was there any evidence put on even saying Stewart was at the pool planning party? If there was, I missed it.

[AnnInOhio]

Which side prepared the transcript of that conversation. I was watching it this morning again on TruTV and the transcript shows OJ saying "yeah, it's the last time I bother, bother you uh, tonight. Uh, well I mean talk to you all for something and when you get into my room there's a pad in there."

Every time I've heard the tape I think at the bold part OJ is actually saying "we've talked to Yale for..." Has anybody else listened closely and heard it that way?

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

What was the point of Stewart's cousin's testimony? To show Stewart maybe had some money (was a diamond level customer, paid his buffet bill, had an AmEx card)? I know everyone thinks she was a timeline witness to show Stewart wasn't in on any planning, but was there any evidence put on even saying Stewart was at the pool planning party? If there was, I missed it.

IMO, I think since they thought they outta put a witness on - after all the other attorney's did. See we're attorney's too! BAH - waste of time

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Which side prepared the transcript of that conversation. I was watching it this morning again on TruTV and the transcript shows OJ saying "yeah, it's the last time I bother, bother you uh, tonight. Uh, well I mean talk to you all for something and when you get into my room there's a pad in there."

Every time I've heard the tape I think at the bold part OJ is actually saying "we've talked to Yale for..." Has anybody else listened closely and heard it that way?

I'm lost on this part. It's my understanding Team OJ and Stewart fought to keep that transcript out. They won in part. Sooooo Grasso gets the idea to take the transcript and edit it to his version of events and what he gleened from it. Fair is Fair (I YI YI).

I don't have tru tv and I'm mixed up the dates that this occured on so I'm not sure what you were just watching and if that accounts for it.

[kennedy06]

After reading here last night about the mistrail fiasco, I went over to the legal edge and caught that minor fiasco in their clips! I felt sorry for the detective but I'll give it to J Glass she took care of that situation. This jury has to decide on how many counts and for 2 defendants. I don't envy them. JMO

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by JBL

I'm lost on this part. It's my understanding Team OJ and Stewart fought to keep that transcript out. They won in part. Sooooo Grasso gets the idea to take the transcript and edit it to his version of events and what he gleened from it. Fair is Fair (I YI YI).

I don't have tru tv and I'm mixed up the dates that this occured on so I'm not sure what you were just watching and if that accounts for it.

I listen online and record TruTV on my DVR synching the two so they run together (TruTV is a little ahead of the cnn online feed) so I can watch TruTV (w/TV sound muted) and listen to the feed. TruTV shows more shots of what's going on in the courtroom, and I can continue to listen to testimony when they cut to talking heads or for commercials. And of course I'm working and taking phone calls while I'm doing all my court watching. I've thought OJ was mentioning Yale each time I've heard that tape but hadn't looked closely at the transcript until this morning when they replayed it on TruTV.

Would make sense why the defense wouldn't want it clear that Yale knew OJ was talking with Beardsley from jail. Do you think the defense intentionally doctored the transcript?

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by kennedy06

After reading here last night about the mistrail fiasco, I went over to the legal edge and caught that minor fiasco in their clips! I felt sorry for the detective but I'll give it to J Glass she took care of that situation. This jury has to decide on how many counts and for 2 defendants. I don't envy them. JMO

I need to go check their video. It was after TruTV went off air and I realized after the fact that I wasn't recording the online feed. I didn't feel any sympathy for the detective; I think he intentionally added that unasked for blurb.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

What was the point of Stewart's cousin's testimony? To show Stewart maybe had some money (was a diamond level customer, paid his buffet bill, had an AmEx card)? I know everyone thinks she was a timeline witness to show Stewart wasn't in on any planning, but was there any evidence put on even saying Stewart was at the pool planning party? If there was, I missed it.

I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Stewart is allegedly the voice on the pool party tapes talking about using his truck to haul the stuff.

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

I listen online and record TruTV on my DVR synching the two so they run together (TruTV is a little ahead of the cnn online feed) so I can watch TruTV (w/TV sound muted) and listen to the feed. TruTV shows more shots of what's going on in the courtroom, and I can continue to listen to testimony when they cut to talking heads or for commercials. And of course I'm working and taking phone calls while I'm doing all my court watching. I've thought OJ was mentioning Yale each time I've heard that tape but hadn't looked closely at the transcript until this morning when they replayed it on TruTV.

Would make sense why the defense wouldn't want it clear that Yale knew OJ was talking with Beardsley from jail. Do you think the defense intentionally doctored the transcript?

Intentionally doctored is such a harsh way to put it. LOL. I will concede that the "doctoring" has more to do with "muddying the waters" and they're pulling out their Synonyms and Antonyms Dictionary to throw them out there that it could be another word.

Det Caldwell and the Pros did to the best they could by ear and ALSO had the ability to call in the defendants for them to read and verify what they could on who was talking and was this what was said so they had a net.

Team OJ and Stewart only have the dictionary and their strategy.

[kellabeck]

Good morning!
What's the concensus on the strength of the prosecution's case?

[JBL]

Unless the legal definition of the charges changes - I believe the prosecution met there burden twice over.

The defendants that made a plea deal also believed there was enough evidence to convict them hence their pleas.

Originally Posted by kellabeck

Good morning!
What's the concensus on the strength of the prosecution's case?

Personally, I'm holding out for the closing arguments to see what I might have missed.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by RGG

Personally, I'm holding out for the closing arguments to see what I might have missed.

I'm holding out for the jury instructions to hear what the law is and how it is to be applied in Nevada.

Could someone tell me if I understand this correctly---C.J. Stewart was a golfing buddy of O.J.'s, but I believe it is described that they weren't necessarily catagorized as "friends".

If that is so, I don't really compute him spending a day of his time running the Scotto's around such as to the courthouse for the marriage license, the bakery, the flower shop, etch, AND throwing a $5-7,000. party for the Scotto's.

What's the rest of the story?

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

I need to go check their video. It was after TruTV went off air and I realized after the fact that I wasn't recording the online feed. I didn't feel any sympathy for the detective; I think he intentionally added that unasked for blurb.

IMO the good Detective thought he had a funny antedote of how he met up with Scotto in the hall. I have no sympathy for him either and although I don't think he did it on purpose to produce a mistrial he certainly didn't use usual professional approach.

He has been unshakeable up on the stand and has had that smirk on his face almost the entire time. He is very proud of he work he did type of smirk.

If you remember when it was pointed out that something was missing he turned extremely serious and that's what he came back to court with. He didn't have to do that but as I said he takes pride that he followed thru and presented all knowledge and evidence.

I think his patting himself on the back (which he did deserve) caused him to do something stupid.

[JBL]

Local time in Las Vegas, NV, United States is 8:01 AM, Thursday, Oct 02, 2008

2 1/2 hours to go!

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by JBL

IMO the good Detective thought he had a funny antedote of how he met up with Scotto in the hall. I have no sympathy for him either and although I don't think he did it on purpose to produce a mistrial he certainly didn't use usual professional approach.

He has been unshakeable up on the stand and has had that smirk on his face almost the entire time. He is very proud of he work he did type of smirk.

If you remember when it was pointed out that something was missing he turned extremely serious and that's what he came back to court with. He didn't have to do that but as I said he takes pride that he followed thru and presented all knowledge and evidence.

I think his patting himself on the back (which he did deserve) caused him to do something stupid.

I can't believe I'm going to say this to you, but kind of like Mark Fuhrman got a little defensive and let his ego get him in trouble in the first trial, eh?

[JONOTWO]

Please recall he was back to answer a juror's question about cell phone calls that he had not documented in a former time as a witness.

He also was replying to the prosecutor's question about why he had not re-interviewed Scotto when the remark in question was made.

So, while his remark may have been better left unsaid, all the conspiracy theories and jibes at his ''smirk'' are, to me, either made as bait, or from bias and/or ignorance.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by JONOTWO

Please recall he was back to answer a juror's question about cell phone calls that he had not documented in a former time as a witness.

He also was replying to the prosecutor's question about why he had not re-interviewed Scotto when the remark in question was made.

So, while his remark may have been better left unsaid, all the conspiracy theories and jibes at his ''smirk'' are, to me, either made as bait, or from bias and/or ignorance.

The prejudicial "addition" was not responsive to the question he was asked. He's a professional and knowing how to testify in court is part of his training. He knew, or certainly should have known, better.

[RayStar]

I have thought the judge was too quick to tell the lawyers no more questions. I think she cuts up both sides. Maybe it's just this case.

Originally Posted by forensicpsy

I heard Jamie say on "in Session" that Judge Glass "sometimes rules for prosecution and sometimes rules for us." Of course her bias has always been obvious.

I don't know - isn't she supposed to be objective?imo

Personally, I don't put much faith in Jamie. She gets to have her own view, as I have mine.

As most everyone here did, I watched this case, and saw Judge Glass overrule against the prosecution as well. When Galanter continually jumps up to object, which is certainly his duty to his client, you'll hear the Judge admonish him as well, it's just that Galanter doesn't
abide the decision as well as the prosecution seems to.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by forensicpsy

I heard Jamie say on "in Session" that Judge Glass "sometimes rules for prosecution and sometimes rules for us." Of course her bias has always been obvious.

I don't know - isn't she supposed to be objective?

imo

Well, her show is called "Best Defense", not "Most Objective" or "Most Factual"

[smhustoiii]

I also believe OJ is guilty of the charges! He believes he is above the law and can get by with anything! I hope this time he is found guilty and serves some significant time. I will be very unhappy if he walks again on the charges!!!

[Details]

Jaime is a former defense attorney, IIRC, and her show is about presenting the defense - not unbiased. It's a commentator show, not truely an anchor. Of course, she takes "bias" to a whole new level, IMO.

The only reason We are here is because it's OJ - with anyone else, this is an ordinary case. The plea deals are ordinary too, as articles have shown, Vegas has quite a prison overcrowding problem, and they try hard to work with lesser punishments for pleas. Getting the cronies to plead to get the mastermind is also a common thing. And from there - it's all about who chooses to plead or not.

The only thing unusual is how much evidence they have, how many tapes.

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Well, her show is called "Best Defense", not "Most Objective" or "Most Factual"

TY for the reminder Ann - It's similar to being "fair and balanced", and both sides need equal footing!

Originally Posted by Details

The only reason We are here is because it's OJ - with anyone else, this is an ordinary case. The plea deals are ordinary too, as articles have shown, Vegas has quite a prison overcrowding problem, and they try hard to work with lesser punishments for pleas. Getting the cronies to plead to get the mastermind is also a common thing. And from there - it's all about who chooses to plead or not.

The only thing unusual is how much evidence they have, how many tapes.

That's not the reason I'm here, it's the only case they're covering now, and that I am able to view.

I never watched any of OJ's other trials, I worked and had too many irons in the fire back then.

If the Brian Nichols live-cam was better on the internet, I'd probably watch it, instead, since it is more of a local trial.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by mmt

Good morning, noticed a lot of arguing on the board last night regarding those who think OJ is guilty until proven innocent, innocent until proven guilty, etc. Let's not kid anyone, the only reason we are here is that it is OJ on trial, the only reason this is being televised and streamed is that it involves OJ. Anyone else that did this would have probably pleaded to lesser charges, and the only reason that his compatriots have been able to plead to reduced charges, is that this involves OJ.
And probably the only reason he didn't plead to something less is that it is OJ.

It doesn't put our constitution in jeopardy, imo.

From watching and listening to all the testimony I feel he is guilty. So were all his friends and they are very lucky LE let them plead. Especially Riccio, he is just about the luckiest guy in this whole mess.

People can't help but feel that OJ is getting his just desserts, it's human nature after the murder trial fiasco.
Sorry, just had to vent, IMO only.

Shoot, I'm always glad to see TruTV cover ANY live trial. They are going on all over this country, so it irritates me when they constantly replay already concluded trials and "pretend" they're current. Hello - I always check the end of a book to see how it ends and I check to see how their non-live trials end long before they get there! This trial, above and beyond OJ, involves a lot of interesting legal issues. I agree that its televised and nationally covered because its OJ. Celebrity in America. It is what it is. But I disagree that the only reason OJ's compatriots were allowed to plead was because of OJ. In most cases, given the evidence available, it would have been plead out by ALL parties instead of going to trial if it wasn't OJ. It would be interesting to see a live trial where the parties are all represented by public defenders - now THAT would be an eye-opener for most TV court watchers!

[kennedy06]

Originally Posted by naltia

Could someone tell me if I understand this correctly---C.J. Stewart was a golfing buddy of O.J.'s, but I believe it is described that they weren't necessarily catagorized as "friends".

If that is so, I don't really compute him spending a day of his time running the Scotto's around such as to the courthouse for the marriage license, the bakery, the flower shop, etch, AND throwing a $5-7,000. party for the Scotto's.

What's the rest of the story?

I don't know why but I just think there is more to the Scttos then we are learning. An awful lot of attention for a guy that owns an auto repair shop in another state. I'm not saying they aren't nice people or didn't deserve all this attention but.......!


JMO

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by kennedy06

I don't know why but I just think there is more to the Scttos then we are learning. An awful lot of attention for a guy that owns an auto repair shop in another state. I'm not saying they aren't nice people or didn't deserve all this attention but.......!


JMO

I wonder what the anticipated premise was going to be in the book Scotto was trying to shop about OJ!

[JBL]

IIRC it was supposed to be along the lines of: OJ and Me Good Guy - White cowboy hat - Goodtime Charlie - (there's that Charlie name again LOL). All Amercian fun guy.

Maybe he couldn't find enough get togethers that were legal to fill a book.

[JBL]

Originally Posted by naltia

Could someone tell me if I understand this correctly---C.J. Stewart was a golfing buddy of O.J.'s, but I believe it is described that they weren't necessarily catagorized as "friends".

If that is so, I don't really compute him spending a day of his time running the Scotto's around such as to the courthouse for the marriage license, the bakery, the flower shop, etch, AND throwing a $5-7,000. party for the Scotto's.

What's the rest of the story?

It was my understanding that OJ called CJ because CJ lived in and knew Vegas (geographically). Arnelle Simpson was he wedding planner and plan she did with the exception that she didn't know Vegas and from ordering flowers to the bakery along with the court house for the licenses, everything was located on the opposite sides of town so CJ was asked to help get them there.

I bought that until the party that CJ threw. That was not a favor to someone that's something done for a personal friend. So I'll have to agree that there's something more there left out.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by JBL

IIRC it was supposed to be along the lines of: OJ and Me Good Guy - White cowboy hat - Goodtime Charlie - (there's that Charlie name again LOL). All Amercian fun guy.

Maybe he couldn't find enough get togethers that were legal to fill a book.

Gee, couldn't find an editor who thought that would sell? You sure the working title wasn't "The Wiseguy and the Not-So-Wise Guy"?? "Dumb & Dumber" was already taken.

shouldn't they start soon?

[JBL]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Gee, couldn't find an editor who thought that would sell? You sure the working title wasn't "The Wiseguy and the Not-So-Wise Guy"?? "Dumb & Dumber" was already taken.

HA! You know those "Where are they now" exposes' . Nothing much to tell that hasn't been made available via court house public records.

He hasn't come to far has he.

[JBL]

Originally Posted by Fallen Angel

shouldn't they start soon?

http://www.ktla.com/livevideo_channelb

Feeds up with the standby video going.

Sorry don't have the legaledge one, KTLA has been good to me although I know others have had problems with it.