Hard to find....entire jury press conference

[johnny o]

Watch the entire 46 minute press conference in its entirety without interruption. Almost impossible to find now.

See the controversial statement by the jury foreman that Bryson is basing his new trial argument on.

You will see that he just bungled the answer and never meant to say that Simpson should have been found guilty in the murder trial.

Good stuff. .......... http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9127650#

Video in upper right hand corner. May have to use IE browser.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by johnny o

Watch the entire 46 minute press conference in its entirety without interruption. Almost impossible to find now.

See the controversial statement by the jury foreman that Bryson is basing his new trial argument on.

You will see that he just bungled the answer and never meant to say that Simpson should have been found guilty in the murder trial.

Good stuff. .......... http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9127650#

Video in upper right hand corner. May have to use IE browser.

Thanks! I think you also have to take his answer in context of why they even held this press conference: because jurors were hearing after their verdict that some people were believing that their verdict was tied to the murders (13).

[JBL]

Finally heard it! It was Beth Karras CTV INsession who made the statement some people think OJ should have gotten life 13 years ago.

The jury foreman stuck with what he was saying that that was his opinion in other words he stayed with what he was saying before Beth insisted we all have opinions and I want to know yours (she was pretty pushy and insisted on getting something)

In other words the

1.Foreman said that's reserved for the court to decide :STOP:

2. Beth Karras says she understands and agrees and pushes again we all have opinions and some people think he should be doing life 13 years ago: STOP:

3: Foreman says that was my opinion I think that's reserved for the court ::STOP::

He stuck with his original statement IT'S RESERVED FOR THE COURT THAT IS HIS OPINION.see statement in 1. what he originally said .

It was taken out of context by BRYSON. The Foreman in the ensuing articles stated this also.

Yale would have filed this first and foremost had he seen it the way Bryson twisted it to.

I can understand you wanting to get your client off but I have absolutely no respect for Bryson thru this whole court trial.

I can without a doubt take Brysons appeal II to the trash.

[JBL]

Thanks Johnny O for linking that.

[JBL]

FYI

For anyone who doesn't have the 46:06 minutes to listen

the "controversial" statement is at the 23:30 mark.

[JBL]

Listening to the end the (Beth Karas question again, man pushy) the foreman concedes that it would be safe to assume that without the tapes and only relying on the witness's it would have been a weak case.

If he were a stealth juror with an agenda to convict his answer would have been different.

Thank you Johnnyo and JBL

[johnny o]

Originally Posted by JBL

Thanks Johnny O for linking that.

My pleasure

[johnny o]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Thanks! I think you also have to take his answer in context of why they even held this press conference: because jurors were hearing after their verdict that some people were believing that their verdict was tied to the murders (13).

Yes, it's a lot different when you hear all the answers instead of the selective snippets the "media" wants you to hear isn't it.

Most people haven't heard one fourth of the things they said.

[JBL]

Originally Posted by johnny o

Yes, it's a lot different when you hear all the answers instead of the selective snippets the "media" wants you to hear isn't it.

Most people haven't heard one fourth of the things they said.

Posters do that to. My last post was a two parter and worked in conjunction with each other leaving the context twisted.

[johnny o]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

The defense certainly did have problems with the jurors. Judge Jackie Glass limited defense questions during jury selection. YG was not pleased with this jury, and it was obvious to CTV anchor RK! She commented he didn't look happy with the jury selection shortly after the jurors had been selected, and after the verdict RK and talked with YG about YG not being happy with the jury.

What could possibly get you to accept that there was nothing but proper justice rendered in this case?

If we gave a lie detector test to every one of the jurors and they passed in flying colors, would that be enough? I don't think even that would do it for you. In fact, I'm convinced of it.

You have some mystifying passion for coddling to this two time loser who took two innocent lives, both in the prime of their life, has been found accountable for it in a court of law, has been constantly in courtrooms ever since, has engaged in fraudulent conveyance of his assets to pay a court ordered judgment, and has now had the audacity to go into a hotel room with six goons and firearms which could have resulted in more lives being lost.

I hope no one ever has to judge you in a courtroom and uses the same logic that you do.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

The tapes are so fuzzy, it's not clear if O.J. said "piece" or "police."

mho

We know your hearing is bad, dear. You've made it perfectly clear you can't hear what's on the tapes. Fortunately the jury made more of an effort and had access to better equipment. Too bad you weren't there with them when they all listened and discussed what could and could not be heard amongst themselves. I understand it's hard for you to deal with your ongoing trust issues. I'm here for you.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

The jury said they hadn't based their verdict on the witness' testimony only on the tapes. Instead they based the verdict on tapes that were unclear and could have been edited or tampered with:

Too bad, they didn't consider the two FBI forensic audio experts, who testified they couldn't tell if the tapes were edited:. ""Two FBI forensic audio experts have testified they couldn't say whether recordings made in the hotel room had been edited or tampered with...."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/19/....ap/index.html

mho

Is there some part of Yale didn't object to the admissability of the tapes as evidence at any point in the trial that you don't understand? If OJ got hung by those tapes there's nothing he can do about it now because Yale didn't put an objection on record. Stewart's attorneys did, OJ's didn't. Yale went out of his way to elicit testimony about how the FBI group that examined the tapes are the best there is in the U.S.

[johnny o]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

The tapes are so fuzzy, it's not clear if O.J. said "piece" or "police."

Just use your common sense and read the relevant portion of the transcript.

Start from page 14...line 16 and go to page 15...line 15.

Pay very close attention to what Simpson is talking about just before he asks McClinton the question where you think he's saying "police."

Then ask yourself if Simpson was asking him about police in the hall, what possible reason would McClinton have to say no six times and then hell no?

Then pay VERY close attention again to what he says right after that. He says, "Ain't nothin' they can see, they gonna see us goin' in the place. Then they gonna see ___ leaving with the boxes.

He is telling McClinton and Alexander, as long as McClinton didn't flash his gun in the hall, there's nothing to worry about. All they will see on the video going in the room and coming out is boxes. It will fit right in with what he plans to tell the police.

Now remember this is an analog tape and it was not altered whatsoever.

If you don't see now that he was just confirming and wanting to be sure that the gun was kept out of view, I just give up

Now pl-e-a-a-a-a-a-a-se use your common sense as you read. ... It's my last shot ..... http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/medi...transcript.pdf

[fbgweezer]

do I understand it right that it did not take a unanimous vote to find him guilty?

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

do I understand it right that it did not take a unanimous vote to find him guilty?

It was unanimous. Except for mcannie1965, of course!

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

It was unanimous. Except for mcannie1965, of course!

LOL -- but it didn't have to be unanimous did it?

I'm trying to understand why two jurors would have made a difference.

[johnny o]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

LOL -- but it didn't have to be unanimous did it?

I'm trying to understand why two jurors would have made a difference.

Here you go. You'll be an expert. http://www.abanet.org/jury/moreinfo/dialoguepart2.pdf

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by johnny o

Here you go. You'll be an expert. http://www.abanet.org/jury/moreinfo/dialoguepart2.pdf

don't know about the expert part but you have helped to educate me on this. thank you.

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

LOL -- but it didn't have to be unanimous did it?

I'm trying to understand why two jurors would have made a difference.

Are the "two jurors" you're referring to the two black alternates? There is concern by some about this case being tried before an "all white" jury. What Judge Glass usually does is have ALL jurors listen to the trial and then, after testimony ends, they draw which of the jurors will deliberate. Yale didn't want to do it that way so they chose the deliberating jury plus alternates before testimony began. The two black jurors became alternates and, although they listened to all the testimony, they would only deliberate if one of the jurors had to be removed. It's possible that it would have worked out the same later as well as sooner (what are the odds - Vegas is the venue!) but that's the Cliff's Notes version about how "two jurors" may or may not have made a difference.

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

Are the "two jurors" you're referring to the two black alternates? There is concern by some about this case being tried before an "all white" jury. What Judge Glass usually does is have ALL jurors listen to the trial and then, after testimony ends, they draw which of the jurors will deliberate. Yale didn't want to do it that way so they chose the deliberating jury plus alternates before testimony began. The two black jurors became alternates and, although they listened to all the testimony, they would only deliberate if one of the jurors had to be removed. It's possible that it would have worked out the same later as well as sooner (what are the odds - Vegas is the venue!) but that's the Cliff's Notes version about how "two jurors" may or may not have made a difference.

so galanter had as much say so as the prosecution on the selection and the seating. so what's his beef? my plan didn't work so now I want a do-over?

[AnnInOhio]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

so galanter had as much say so as the prosecution on the selection and the seating. so what's his beef? my plan didn't work so now I want a do-over?

In a nutshell.

Originally Posted by AnnInOhio

It was unanimous. Except for mcannie1965, of course!

I've never met anyone who has served as a juror so many times and was not happy one time with the guilty verdicts. They should write a book about their many experiences.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

so galanter had as much say so as the prosecution on the selection and the seating. so what's his beef? my plan didn't work so now I want a do-over?

Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. He's not going to win and I have a feeling this whole ring episode is going to come back and bite him hard. The depths he has been willing to go for OJ might cost him his law license.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

IMO, YG did not have as much say in the selection and seating of the jury. Judge Jackie Glass severely limted his question in jury selection. This will be an appellate issue, and the verdict may be overturned.

It is not a matter of YG accepting this jury. He had little choice after Judge Glass limited his questions to the jury in jury selection. IMO, this jury was rammed down his throat by Judge Glass with the limits she imposed on YG.

MHO

Those limitations applied to both the defense & the state equally so neither side was limited more than the other. Gallanter is just scratching for any little straw he can to try to help his GUILTY client IMO.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

The transcripts are only as good as the tapes they were transcribed from...and the tapes were not clear.

mho

Incorrect, the transcripts are only as good as the transcriptionist transcribing them. Obviously Galanter felt the tapes were clear enough since he did not object to their being presented as evidence. He did object to the printed transcription coming in however but failed to present his own transcription as evidence after he was given that opportunity by Judge Glass.

[JBL]

Originally Posted by warhorse46

Incorrect, the transcripts are only as good as the transcriptionist transcribing them. Obviously Galanter felt the tapes were clear enough since he did not object to their being presented as evidence. He did object to the printed transcription coming in however but failed to present his own transcription as evidence after he was given that opportunity by Judge Glass.

I'd like to re-iterate - Yale was granted an extention from Judge Glass and the trial date was moved because YALE WAS STILL TRANSCRIBING the tapes. He submitted NONE. Why is that?

There was more discernable incriminating evidence then exonerating evidence on that tape.

Ann asked about Yales stratedy and as we go on this is another one. Not to present the tape himself but to dispute and try to put reasonable doubt on the table with what the Pros presented.

This is the case from top to bottom for those who didn't follow the case. It is most helpful to catch up before you opine.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/category.asp?C=111863

Incorrect!!!! as the day is long. The facts speaks for themselves. End of story.

[Details]

The jurors, and the police, and for that matter, the defense attorneys did not find the tapes inaudible. Nor did people who merely heard them over courtroom speakers. So obviously they weren't inaudible.

Some bits you couldn't make out anything, other bits, it was crystal clear - like "Nobody leaves this room".

Originally Posted by Details

The jurors, and the police, and for that matter, the defense attorneys did not find the tapes inaudible. Nor did people who merely heard them over courtroom speakers. So obviously they weren't inaudible.

Some bits you couldn't make out anything, other bits, it was crystal clear - like "Nobody leaves this room".

ITA

Does it really matter if someone who wasn't part of this trial and choses to ignore what is said on the tapes just to keep arguing? No

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

"Piece" and "police' is not clear, as well as other sections of the tape.

All "nobody leave the room" means to me, is he didn't want anyone taking off with his memorbilia. That is the only reason he'd want them to stay in the room, IMO!

IMO, this was NOT a burglary! It has been made to sound like a burglary by the proscution, but that doesn't make it so. He did not go to the hotel room to rob memoribila that belonged to someone else. He went there to get back his stolen memorbilia.

This case should not heve gone to trial...but the prosecution knew it would more then likely end in convinction. Most cases do!


MHO

maybe he should have just taken what he alledged was his 'sh*t' -- things might be looking a little different.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Well..all I can say if those who have items stolen..amybe a decade plus ago..and you find out simeone has them..and you have been advised to seek Civil Claim...that IF you coordinate a meeting with said possessors of your items..bring along a gang of men...3 to one..not to mention Firearms..and your SAID items were not there..and 911 calls happen..and other items are taken by that gang away from that room..Yikes..Ya better get a Good Lawyer..and pray ALOT!!! As you and the gang are GUILTY OF ARMED ROBBERY!!

LMS

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by Lyndawitha"Y

Well..all I can say if those who have items stolen..amybe a decade plus ago..and you find out simeone has them..and you have been advised to seek Civil Claim...that IF you coordinate a meeting with said possessors of your items..bring along a gang of men...3 to one..not to mention Firearms..and your SAID items were not there..and 911 calls happen..and other items are taken by that gang away from that room..Yikes..Ya better get a Good Lawyer..and pray ALOT!!! As you and the gang are GUILTY OF ARMED ROBBERY!!

LMS

I bet orenthal wishes he'd talked to you last year.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

Incorrect! An accurate transcription cannot be transcribed from a inaudible tape! End of story!



mho

Incorrect. A perfectly audible tape can, & has many times, been incorrectly transcribed by a bad transcriptionist. The skill of the person doing the transcribing is a key factor in the end result.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by JBL

I'd like to re-iterate - Yale was granted an extention from Judge Glass and the trial date was moved because YALE WAS STILL TRANSCRIBING the tapes. He submitted NONE. Why is that?

There was more discernable incriminating evidence then exonerating evidence on that tape.

Ann asked about Yales stratedy and as we go on this is another one. Not to present the tape himself but to dispute and try to put reasonable doubt on the table with what the Pros presented.

An option I had not though about but one that makes sense. Didn't work but worth a shot when you are defending a guilty client.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

Incorrect! If a tape is not clear then the transcriber is transcribing from unclear tapes! The transcriber is only as accurate as the tapes he/she is transcribing from. So it all goes back the tapes: they were unclear; thus the transriber transcribed from unclear tapes. IMO, there is a lot of guesswork and speculation in the transcriptions!


How Yale Galanter handled the tapes has no bearing on my opinion of the tapes. The tapes were inaudible, and may have been edited and tampered with!

MHO

Then why did Galanter not present his own transcription of the tapes? He was given extra time by Judge Glass because he was having them transcribed by his own transcriptionist, yet he failed to produce the evidence. Answer----the tapes were clear in the key places & could not be disputed. There were only a word or two that was questionable & that is not enough to make any difference in the total package.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

He is not scratching for "any little straw!" The limitations were NOT equal:

I don't need to hear it from Yale Galanter to know he was severely limited. I know what I observed, and he was severely limited by Judge Jackie Glass, IMO!

For the sake of argument: Whether his client is guilty or not, it has no bearing on the limitations Judge Jackie Glass imposed on him.


MHO

Did the limitations not apply to the state as well as the defense? Judging from your stated opinions of this case, you observed very little. IMO

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by mcannie1965

"Piece" and "police' is not clear, as well as other sections of the tape.

All "nobody leave the room" means to me, is he didn't want anyone taking off with his memorbilia. That is the only reason he'd want them to stay in the room, IMO!

IMO, this was NOT a burglary! It has been made to sound like a burglary by the proscution, but that doesn't make it so. He did not go to the hotel room to rob memoribila that belonged to someone else. He went there to get back his stolen memorbilia.

This case should not heve gone to trial...but the prosecution knew it would more then likely end in convinction. Most cases do!


MHO

The very clear words--nobody leaves this room--- makes what OJ did a felony crime--kidnapping in the state of Nevada. And no matter where you are you are not allowed to take the law into your own hands. You are not allowed to forcibly enter the domain of another with a gang of men who have weapons (doesn't matter if you knew of the weapons before entering or not) to take anything. That is armed robbery per the Nevada state laws.
<<ROBBERY

NRS 200.380 Definition; penalty.

1. Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery. A taking is by means of force or fear if force or fear is used to:

(a) Obtain or retain possession of the property;

(b) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; or

(c) Facilitate escape.

Ê The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property. A taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

2. A person who commits robbery is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.

[1911 C&P § 162; RL § 6427; NCL § 10109]—(NRS A 1961, 53; 1967, 470; 1993, 253; 1995, 1187)

KIDNAPPING

NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.

[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05]—(NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-2...l#NRS200Sec380 >>

[Details]

Yep - "Nobody leaves this room" is kidnapping - right there. You are not allowed, by law, to force someone to stay in a room.