GUILTY NV - O.J. Simpson charged in Las Vegas armed robbery, 2007

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by STEADFAST, Sep 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Body shop:
    http://start.cortera.com/company/research/k2r4ktk3o/super-finish-body-shop/

    >>SUPER FINISH BODY SHOP in the Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair Shops and Paint Shops industry in NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL. This company currently has approximately 1 to 5 employees and annual sales of $500,000 to $999,999.<<


    I'm watching Scotto on the stand. This guy looks like I must look when I am falling asleep in someone's face. His blinking eyes are hanging longer and longer closed. He can barely focus, it appears. This is very strange.

    Wrinkles
     


  2. biggirl

    biggirl New Member

    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the updates, Wrinkles!

    Has the prosecution rested? Is this a defense witness?

    Have they questioned him on whether or not he is on any substances?
     
  3. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Howdy Ya'll,

    Did anyone watch today? I'd be interested in the closing note of the day. I didn't get a chance to watch it as I had to leave at about 11:30am.

    I'm reading a few notes on the trial, also thinking about what I heard.

    I heard Scotto say that he would do about anything to help a friend. I also heard him say that, at the party that CJ threw for him (pre-wedding party), that the two men who are know to have had guns in the robbery asked him to step into the back yard (into the dark), then approached him closely, and one of them asked him for 50K (I wish I had the exact quote). I wonder if the jurors took note of the two above mentioned things together.

    In essence, Scotto said that the two guys that were known to have guns were peeved at what had happened at the robbery. According to their testimony, they supposedly felt that this was not going to be a robbery but just a protection of OJ while he picked up "his ****." At anyrate, Scotto said that they wanted OJ to call them (he was not at the party) AND they wanted Scotto or OJ to ante up. From what I recall, this could have been construed as money to help them get an attorney, or lie, or whatever.

    Now then... I have to think that if Scotto's mention of the two guys trying to "extort" money was because he (Scotto) was trying to indicate that they were proposing to "lie" (in order to help OJ), then I wonder if anyone considered this could backfire. Had I been a juror and heard that, I would have to think, "Lie about what? No guns? Having no guns? Or that it was all their idea to carry guns?" OJ was saying "no guns" after the fact, while guffawing about the whole thing, i.e. as if to make sure that all in the group were to "remember" there weren't any (when there WERE and the victims and others without guns knew it!)

    Now just why would OJ suggest that there were "no guns" when he knew for a fact there were and signaled with his arm to put the gun down (testimony of one of the victims.) Riccio said that one of the guns was pointed at him. IF there hadn't been any guns then this would have been far a lesser problematic situation. Did OJ ask for the "heat" as was witnessed?

    IF OJ were "appalled" at the appearance of guns when this whole thing took place (i.e. when they immediately flashed), he could have immediately turned and asked a number of his thugs to watch the two sellers, while he called the gun toters out of the room temporarily and said, "Disappear, what the he** are you doing?" He didn't do that. OR he could have called the police after the fact and said, I need to talk to you ASAP about something that happened, or BETTER YET, gone to the police station.

    Those guys didn't dream up those guns flashing on their own. OJ instigated it as was testified. Aside from that, does the defense really think the jury is going to believe that 2 out of how many guys could really be convinced to lie, and have the others lie with them? Nah...

    Hopefully the jury will see this as it is. It "was" an armed robbery, men were asked to bring guns to bring force, protection or whatever (the police could have been invited in the first place, they were not). OJ was at the helm of this mess, and even if it was just flat stupid, it was what it was because OJ wants what he wants with no respect to the law. He could have said, "What are these guns, and just left." He didn't, he took off with his goodies. He could have invited the police, he didn't.

    Whether those testifying have hugely questionable reputations or not, this was what it was or it would have been done by legal means.

    As per today, I am left with only what I could see about Scotto. He was well behaved (but who wouldn't be in a court and on the witness stand.) He appeared to be a nice enough guy, but appearances are hard to interpret with so little background. Even so, I am almost shocked that no one asked if he was under the influence of any medication or if he had any sleep in the last week. I watched his eyes blink, and I wondered if they would open again at times. His visual contact was almost like I perceive mine when I am either falling asleep or under the influence of something and wafting away.

    Scotto did answer questions, he was pleasant enough, in fact he was quite likeable. BUT...how was this guy, in Las Vegas purposely for his wedding (sidetracked by the necessary wedding activities), a good witness for OJ? Further, what kind of "best man" would use the few days of his "groom friend's" wedding event to perp such as what OJ did. I am almost shocked that Scotto and his bride have not gone on record about the filfth that OJ laid all over their wedding time.

    Wrinkles
     
  4. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hiya BigGirl,

    Scotto was a defense witness. To my knowledge no one asked him anything that would query his nearly half mast eyes at times.

    Here appears to be one of the latest news reports.

    http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=9106890

    Closing arguments set for tomorrow, and wouldn't you know I can't WATCH in the morning :(

    Wrinkles
     
  5. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Beginning around 12:03PST

    Jury is being given instructions. I believe that the closing arguments will happen after a short lunch break. Watching...

    There is so much in the jury instructions, I really wish someone had these printed online. The jury has a copy... These are being read.

    I cannot imagine, based upon what I am hearing in these jury instructions and having heard what I have in the trial so far, that a jury could "not" convict OJ based upon these instructions. We will see.

    One of the instructions, towards the end...
    Everyday common sense can be used...this can be brought into the jury member's consideration. Sincere judgement and sound discretion is to be used.

    They must have a unanimous vote...

    Court begins after lunch break, about 1:15pm. Closing arguments at that time.

    I sure wish I had another court watcher with me. Perhaps we could quick fire our notes, I just cannot catch these things fast enough :( I have so many gaps in catching the notes.

    Looking forward to watching the closing arguments at http://www.lasvegasnow.com

    Wrinkles
    =========
    These notes of jury instructions stink, there is so much more, but... Also, these may not be completely accurate

    Ignorance of the law is NO excuse....

    Act forbidden by law...
    Motive...prompts a person to act

    No motive necessary...although it can be considered

    At anyrate, charges:

    crime
    kidnapping
    robberty
    burglary
    1st degree kidnapping
    robbery w/deadly weapon
    assault with deadly weapon
    coersion with deadly weapon
    (there were more)

    conspiracy to commit a crime, to do something unlawful
    participates in conspiracy, conspirator

    inference, coordinated conspiracy

    not necessary to show a meeting for conspiracy

    the act of one conspirator is one of all co-conspirators

    aids and abets, etc. act/advice commission (hires, induces etc.)

    aid: help strengthen
    abet

    1 without/deadly weapon can be convicted if another has one

    guilty of kidnapping if holding a person..

    coersion:
    defendant not guilty of kidnapping
    all 12 see guilty of coersion

    coersion: compel a person to do an act, or deprive a person of their "freedom to do certain things" (I think), guilty of coersion

    Spelling Police edit: coersion is spelled coercion, my apologies
     
  6. biggirl

    biggirl New Member

    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Wrinkles!

    You did just fine.:clap::clap:
     
  7. PattyCake

    PattyCake Gypsy By Heart

    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    whoa! this link caught my eye.

    KARMA OJ ????

    EXACTLY - EXACTLY 13 YEARS TO THE DAY OF OJ'S ACQUITTAL, ANOTHER JURY DEBATES HIS CRIMES!!

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/02/oj.simpson.closings/index.html

    Thirteen years to the day after a Los Angeles jury acquitted him of two murders, another jury will begin deliberations in O.J. Simpson's armed robbery and kidnapping trial.

    Jurors were ssent home late Thursday after a grueling day of closing arguments in a case involving a Las Vegas, Nevada, hotel room confrontation over sports memorabilia. Simpson claims it was stolen from him.



    That is a kick in the pants. Go figure. Really the timing is quite amazing to me, which is about the only thing that has amazed me this whole trial. I can't wait to hear a different verdict this time around. :praying:
     
  8. passionflower

    passionflower Just 1 tip to find a killer

    Messages:
    27,876
    Likes Received:
    4,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WOW! It's been13 years already! I feel sorry for his 2 children. Maybe Justic will be done THIS time.............LIFE in jail is to good for this guy. Talking about 'getting away with murder"...........this robbery thing..........BRING HIM DOWN! IMO............
     
  9. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  10. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another article:

    >>"Every cooperator, every person who had a gun, every person who had an ulterior motive, every person who signed a book deal, every person who got paid money -- the police, the district attorney's office, is only interested in one thing: Mr. Simpson," Galanter said.<<

    Does Mr. Galanter not include himself in those being paid and with interest in Mr. Simpson? What is his interest? If it is not pay, then is it fame and advertisement for his law practice? Oh, and can we see the bill or agreement please? Is Mr. Gallanter being paid more than OJ's retirement funds? If so, from where is this money coming? Isn't it due to Mr. Goldman?

    Many of those in society are making no gain on Mr. Simpson, though they are interested in him. They are interested in seeing him put away like any common murderer or thief. Many in society are sick of paying the "legal system" ticket to have Mr. Simpson's escapades litigated. Isn't it time to end this stupidity, and put Mr. Simpson where he belongs, with the outlaws?

    Wrinkles
     
  11. TopGunner

    TopGunner Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    4,915
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Wrinkles, thanks for all these updates...I've been missing the trial due to work, so I've been reading here. :blowkiss:

    I'm guessing there was no verdict today??? Rats......
     
  12. Wrinkles

    Wrinkles New Member

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hallo TopGunner, BigGirl, AND oh so many other WS buddies in this thread...

    There is another article here.

    The jurors are having dinner delivered tonight (Friday night Oct. 3rd) so that they can keep deliberating. The article does not say whether they will continue deliberating tomorrow or take the weekend off, they were supposed to have decided this in the afternoon but I have not found their decision yet.

    I think it would be particularly cool if the jury came up with a guilty verdict before 7PM! Evidently, the LasVegasNow.com site will "bring you the verdict as soon as it comes in."

    I'm watching, anyone else?

    My hope is that they are deliberating still because they have a unanimous decision but are just working out a few details.

    In the above mentioned article:
    >>Galanter told the jury that the incident got out of hand because of former co-defendant Michael McClinton, who admitted displaying a gun during the confrontation. "For whatever reason, Michael McClinton takes over," Galanter said, "and when McClinton takes over, he starts yelling and screaming and giving people orders and telling people to bag stuff up. And O.J.'s saying, 'Don't take anything that's not mine."'<<

    Mr. Galanter you are a funny boy.

    Was Galanter thinking he was talking to a jury of 3 years olds? Did he figure that they had never been taught about the "excuse?" The "incident" was out of hand AND out of line before it began. There was yelling and screaming from OJ at the get go! Aside from that a law abiding citizen would NOT have done what OJ did.

    If any of you get a chance to, watch 2 things: Galanter's closing argument AND the prosecutor's followup in closing arguments, BUT PARTICULARLY OJ's face during both of these. You can see so much. In my mind, OJ appears to have no conscience. While the prosecutor is talking, he shows no remorse whatsoever (are we surprised?) He only shows a type of disgust and a look as if to say, "Can we get outta here?" Look at his agitation in that the prosecutor has anything to say. He mutters to himself, then mutters to his counsel, then mutters to himself. Yet, while Mr. Galanter was doing his closing argument, OJ sat there flashing a "see-throughable" and quite pathetic "what me? I didn't do anything" childlike face. So sad...

    Wrinkle
     
  13. Dark Knight

    Dark Knight Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,649
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    AP wire is reporting a verdict has been reached!
     
  14. Ca-Sun

    Ca-Sun Lookıng for the Happy Fun Ball

    Messages:
    3,201
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CNN is reporting a verdict has been reached, but hasn't said when we will find out what it is.
     
  15. Maui4me

    Maui4me non-judgmental grandma looking for justice for Cay

    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. passin_through

    passin_through New Member

    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what a trip, they said it's 13years? to the day that he got off for the murder case?
     
  17. Dark Knight

    Dark Knight Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,649
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yep, to the day! :eek:
     
  18. Maui4me

    Maui4me non-judgmental grandma looking for justice for Cay

    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yep, I heard that, sure hoping it is a different verdict tonight
     
  19. passin_through

    passin_through New Member

    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    would love to see that smug smirk wiped off his face. I know that's not a nice thing to say but gosh I can't help myself!!! I so storngly believe he walked on the murder of Nicole and Ron!
     
  20. Maui4me

    Maui4me non-judgmental grandma looking for justice for Cay

    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh he definitely did... I read the book written recently by his friend who helped him hide the evidence and make the decision to stop taking his arthritis medicine so that the glove would not fit. There are a few of these cases that just make my blood boil....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice