Here we go again, OJ did not kill his ex wife no prof was offered and the police did nothing but screw up everything until nobody could be convected.

The point is he did not kill his ex. Then the real crime took place, his ex in-laws got a judgement on him that said you owe us everything you make for the rest of your life we are going to leave you with nothing ever. Good white jury in thousand oaks, upper middle class right wing christians.

Did you ever think maybe OJ got tired of being homeless and hungry and figured this was a good way out? Free meals and a roof over his head for the rest of his life and the tax payers get stuck with the bill.

I think he got fucked 13 years ago and there still doing it to this day, why?

Because we live in a forgiving country, christian country, as long as you go to the right church and are the right color.

River

Uncle Flo (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:39 am I am not as happy as I might be about this verdict. There is the possibility that he was convicted as a result of the 13 year old case not on the merit of the present case. --FLO--

The jury in Las Vegas seems to have heard a well argued prosecution case. The jury in Los Angeles heard a poorly argued prosecution case. In view of what the state presented, justice was done in the California criminal case. I have always thought the civil case was nothing but vengeance. Racism did play in California. In Nevada, maybe justice was done.

I think that Mr. Simpson did kill his then former wife and that young man. But he was not convicted and ought not to have been convicted.

Now, maybe something else happened in this recent case. It seems that Mr. Simpson did go overboard in Las Vegas. In this situation, maybe what happened in Vegas will stay in Nevada. However and frankly, twenty years seems a long time in jail for this matter. I hope that the court does not take into consideration the belief that Mr. Simpson got away with murder. I don't know that the sentencing guidelinges are, but I think that 20 years is excessive.

I agree with

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:02 am this statement. . . . "we live in a forgiving country, Christian country, as lo

ng as you go to the right church and are the right color." I worked in criminal justice for quater century. We still have a way to go.

I think we need to acknowledge that we are outsiders to the legal proceedings of both of the OJ trials. None of us were on the jury in either case and we did not sit through the trials and see all of the evidence presented.

Most of us here also have very little legal background. So really we are not informed well enough to second guess either jury. We can and do have our own personal opinions regarding OJ Simpson and whether or not he is guilty, but our opinions are not of a substantial nature.

Personally I have never presumed to know whether or not OJ was guilty of killing his wife and Ron Goldman and I don't presume to know if he is guilty of this crime either. I just don't know. It does seem to me that the jury went to a lot of extra trouble to make sure they concluded their deliberations on the 13 anniversary of OJ's acquittal in the murder case of his wife. If that is the case it could indicate that the jury was prejudiced by the earlier case, and that may be grounds for an appeal or even a mistrial.

As a general rule I think "message sending" is something that should be kept out of the legal process for many reasons. This is just one more example.

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:22 am I think we need to acknowledge that we are outsiders to the legal proceedings of both of the OJ trials. None of us were on the jury in either case and we did not sit through the trials and see all of the evidence presented.

Most of us here also have very little legal background. So really we are not informed well enough to second guess either jury. We can and do have our own personal opinions regarding OJ Simpson and whether or not he is guilty, but our opinions are not of a substantial nature.

Personally I have never presumed to know whether or not OJ was guilty of killing his wife and Ron Goldman and I don't presume to know if he is guilty of this crime either. I just don't know. It does seem to me that the jury went to a lot of extra trouble to make sure they concluded their deliberations on the 13 anniversary of OJ's acquittal in the murder case of his wife. If that is the case it could indicate that the jury was prejudiced by the earlier case, and that may be grounds for an appeal or even a mistrial.

As a general rule I think "message sending" is something that should be kept out of the legal process for many reasons. This is just one more example.

Well said. If the jury took any note of the earlier criminal case, it may well be grounds for a mistrial and then maybe a setup for a plea bargain.

Just as I suspected would happen....

It's always tempting to send a message but it's not always a good idea.

O.J. Simpson's attorney: This was payback

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:19 pm By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

56 minutes ago

LAS VEGAS - Thirteen years to the day after being acquitted of killing his wife and her friend in Los Angeles, O.J. Simpson was found guilty of robbing two sports-memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room.

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:19 pm The 61-year-old former football star

was convicted of all 12 counts late Friday after jurors deliberated for more than 13 hours. He

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:19 pm released a heavy sigh as the

Blaise (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:14 am charges were read and was immediately t

aken into custody.

Simpson, who went from American sports idol to celebrity-in-exile after his murder acquittal, could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Many people considered the four-week trial justice delayed. Simpson was cleared in 1995 of murder

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:19 pm ing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in

one of the most sensational trials of the 20th century, but was later found liable for the deaths in a civil case.

"This was just payback," Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter said Saturday. "They were on an agenda."

Galanter said he plans to appeal.

The Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering up five men a year ago and storming into a room at a hotel-casino, where the group seized several game balls, plaques and photos. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one of them said Simpson asked him to bring a gun.

Simpson's co-defendant, Clarence "C.J." Stewart, 54,

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:19 pm also was found guilty on all charges and taken into custody.

Simpson showed little emotion as officers handcuffed him and walked him out of the courtroom. His sister, Carmelita Durio, sobbed behind him in the arms of Simpson's friend, Tom Scotto, who said "I love you" as Simpson passed by. As spectators left the courtroom, Durio collapsed.

Jurors made no eye contact with the defendants as they entered the courtroom. They declined to answer questions after the verdict was read.

Galanter said his client had expected the outcome, and in a courthouse conversation with an Associated Press reporter on Thursday, Simpson had implied as much.

Simpson said he was "afraid that I won't get to go to my kids' college graduations after I managed to get them through college."

Galanter said he felt badly for Simpson but even worse for co-defendant Charles "C.J." Stewart who he said got dragged along in the campaign to convict Simpson.

Simpson's close friend, Tom Scotto, who wept in court when the verdict was announced, called it "a public lynching."

Clark County spokesman Dan Kulin said prosecutors would not comment until the case was "completely resolved."

Judge Jackie Glass made no comment other than to thank the jury for its service and to deny motions for the defendants to be released on bail.

She refused to give the lawyers extended time to file a motion for new trial, which under Nevada law must be filed within seven days. The attorneys said they needed time to submit a voluminous record.

"I've sat through the trial," Glass said. "If you want a motion for new trial, send me something."

Stewart's attorney, Brent Bryson, also promised to appeal.

"If there was ever a case that should have been severed in the history of jurisprudence, it's this case," he said of unsuccessful attempts to separate Stewart's case from Simpson's because of the "spillover" effect.

From the beginning, Simpson and his lawyers argued the incident was not a robbery, but an attempt to reclaim mementos that had been stolen from him. He said he did not ask anyone to bring a weapon and did not see any guns.

The defense portrayed Simpson as a victim of shady characters who wanted to make a buck off his famous name, and police officers who saw his arrest as an opportunity to "get" him and avenge his acquittal.

Prosecutors said Simpson's ownership of the memorabilia was irrelevant; it was still a crime to try to take things by force.

"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," prosecutor David Roger said.

Kidnapping is punishable by five years to life in prison. Armed robbery carries a mandatory sentence of at least two years behind bars, and could bring as much as 30. Sentencing was set for Dec. 5.

Simpson, who now lives in Miami, did not testify but was heard on a recording of the confrontation screaming that the dealers had stolen his property. "Don't let nobody out of this room," he declared and told the other men to scoop up his items, which included a photo of Simpson with former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Four other men charged in the case struck plea bargains that saved them from potential prison sentences in return for their testimony. Some of them had criminal records or were otherwise compromised in some way. One, for example, was an alleged pimp who testified he had a revelation from God telling him to take a plea bargain.

Memorabilia dealer Thomas Riccio, who arranged and secretly recorded the hotel-room confrontation, said he netted $210,000 from the media for the tapes.

Similarly, minutes after the Sept. 13, 2007, incident, one of the alleged victims, sports-memorabilia dealer Alfred Beardsley, was calling news outlets, and the other, Bruce Fromong, spoke of getting "big money" from the case.

Simpson's past haunted the case. Las Vegas police officers were heard in the recordings chuckling over Simpson's misfortune and crowing that if Los Angeles couldn't "get" him, they would.

During jury selection, Simpson's lawyers expressed fears that people who believed he got away with murder might see this case as a chance to right a wrong.

As a result, an usually large pool of 500 potential jurors was called, and they were given a 26-page questionnaire. Half were almost instantly eliminated after expressing strong feelings that Simpson should have been convicted of murder.

The judge instructed the jurors to put aside Simpson's earlier case.

In closing arguments, Galanter acknowledged that what Simpson did to recover his memorabilia was not right. "But being stupid, and being frustrated is not being a criminal," he said.

He added: "This case has taken on a life of its own because of Mr. Simpson's involvement. You know that. I know that. 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."

___

Associated Press writers Ken Ritter and Kathleen Hennessey contributed to this report.