Hallo All,
The Las Vegas paper has an interesting write up.
In it:
>>Simpson claims the memorabilia dealers had property that had been stolen from him. Galanter, however, said that "doing this on your own, going into this room, trying to recover stolen property, is not right. It's just not. But being stupid, and being frustrated is not being a crook."<<
No, it isn't "right." If you think someone has stolen something from you, you get a police report written first (evidently, that never happened.) You also deal with the matter via civil suit. OJ can afford a dream team for a criminal matter, but he couldn't afford a civil suit? Nopey nope nope, apparently that wasn't the issue. Apparently, OJ didn't want anyone to know that he was going after this "cash wad" of memorabilia (possible value 100-200K) because he didn't want to turn over the valuables to the Goldmans. Oh...but wait, this wasn't memorabilia was it? This was just items with sentimental value? (NOT!) If this stuff might ONLY have had value to OJ, mightn't the people who had it tried to contact him directly and say, "I have something that I think you might want?"
"Being stupid, and frustrated is not being a crook..."
OJ "being" stupid? Nah, to me he doesn't seem very smart, doesn't act very smart, no savant and not stupid. Devious and plotting seems a better description. A traitor, also seems to describe this male person who would concoct a scheme wherein he made sure that all involved did not know the real/entire plan. He calls in buds to help, tells a few of them one thing, a few of them another thing, and he does so, because he KNEW that some of them would not be on board with him if he told them the truth of what he was going to do. He betrayed his friends, if you ask me. Or his friends didn't mind taking certain matters that should be in the laws' hands into their own, outlaws?
So "acting stupid" is no excuse for criminal activity AND don't we generally think of criminal activity as "acting stupid" (amongst other things?) Being frustrated is a fact of life, and not an excuse for criminal activity.
Galanter is quoted as saying:
>>"We may quibble with how it was done, what was done. You may all say he didn't use common sense. But the real issue is whether he had criminal intent to commit a crime."<<
Well, I might ask Mr. Galanter, "Was he intending to do things legally and not criminally?" The answer would have to be "No."
Oh, and about the word "memorabilia." That indicates a sales value, whereas the defense wanted people to think that OJ was just trying to recoup "family heirlooms" or "personal mementos" (photos etc.) Unfortunately for OJ, the prosecutor was able to prove (if I recall correctly), that OJ used the word "memorabilia" to refer to the items in the heist. Further, after the robbery, I seem to recall hearing him in a tape saying "sell it." If it had no value, then how could it be sold? Go figure.
>>The prosecutor also argued that detaining individuals with the intent to commit robbery is kidnapping.
"When they went into that room and forced the victims to the far side of the room, pulling out guns and yelling, 'Don't let anybody out of here' -- six very large people detaining these two victims in the room with the intent to take property through force or violence from them -- that's kidnapping," Roger said.<<
Note: the victims were frisked, their access to the doorway was blocked by 6 men acting in tandem. OJ was shouting in their faces with 5 supporters making sure that they had to take it. Nah, that isn't intimidating! Not to mention guns flashing.
Here we are at 2:11PM on Friday. The jury has been deliberating since early morning. I will be shocked if they do not come up with a unanimous guilty before 4:00PM. If they do not, then the only thing that I can think is that there are people on the jury that don't understand that the law is the law and that OJ broke it.
Earlier this AM, I was watching TV and read one of the emailer's opinions which was something to the effect of "How can a jury convict if he was just going to get his own things." I was appalled at the mentality.
If any jury member does NOT convict, it seems to me that they are not doing so because they want to rewrite the law according to their own standards, rather than to act as a jury member in determining whether the present law was broken. It clearly was and there are videos, tapes, witnesses etc. to prove it. This is so clear cut.
In my estimation, the closing arguments by the prosecutors was absolutely compelling, rational, reasonable and they proved their case. I can't imagine any rational or reasonable mind not agreeing. If we cannot "witness" a crime with our own ears and eyes (as we "all but did" in this case) and call an Ace an Ace (or a thief a thief, a kidnapper a kidnapper) then our society is in dire straights and needs to reconsider the "jury system." Perhaps there should be a way to throw jurors out if they are obviously trying to use their juror status to rewrite the law according to their morals, rather than help to judge it according to reason and common sense.
Wrinkles
