Conference back40::soapbox

 Shoulda made this topic 32.





 Jim

    Is this topic *really* necessary?

    
    
    No,string him up & save the money!

> Is this topic *really* necessary?

	Maybe you should first ask yourself if this *conference* is
	really necessary.....

    I'm surprised george has assualted this one yet! :-)
    
    



  BOOM  BOOM  BOOM  BOOM  BOOM  BOOM  BOOM  BOOM

        \     /
         \_-_/     __--__
         /O O\    /      \
        |  *  |  /        \
         \-_-/  / O        \
         /   \  |/         |
        /     \ /          |
       |      \/\          /
        \----____\        /
        /    \ \/ \      /
        \______/   --__--

    re: Note 34.6 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    Classic.

    Agreed... Certainly one of the steadfast fellows in here...

    Hey Jong...
    
    Didja catch that spoof on Judge Ito on Saturday Night Live this
    weekend?  It had me laughin my arse off.
    
    "I'm a star baby..."

Subject: The complete compendium of Bart blackboard phrases
Received: 30 Nov 1994 06:54:22                    Sent: 30 Nov 1994 09:24:02
From:"Bill Tamashunas" <tamash@alk.com>

> Subject: Bart Simpson BLACKBOARD Quotes
>
>       LIST OF BART'S BLACKBOARD QUOTATIONS
>
> Episode numbers indicate the blackboard scene used when the episode
> was shown for the first time; in some cases, the one used in Canada is
> listed where it was "original" and the USA one was repeated.
>
> Note that all quotes were originally in all capital letters, but any
> punctuation appears as it did in the original quotes
>
> Openings are listed in the order in which they were first shown.  If an
> episode is not listed, either it did not have a blackboard quote the
> first time it was shown, or it used a repeated opening
>
> "x" after an episode number indicates it took place during the episode
> "*" indicates a note:
>
>
> 7G02   I will not waste chalk
> 7G03   I will not skateboard in the halls
> 7G04   I will not burp in class
> 7G06   I will not instigate revolution
> 7G09   I will not draw naked ladies in class
>
> 7G07   I did not see Elvis
> 7G10   I will not call my teacher "Hot Cakes"
> 7G13   Garlic gum is not funny
> 7G12   They are laughing at me, not with me
> 7G01   I will not yell "Fire" in a crowded classroom
>
> 7F03   I will not encourage others to fly
> 7F03x  I will not fake my way through life
> 7F02   Tar is not a plaything
> 7F01   I will not Xerox my butt
> 7F01*  It's potato, not potatoe (This was used for the second airing, a
>    reference to Dan Quayle's gaff while visiting a school)
>
> 7F05   I will not trade pants with others
> 7F08*  I am not a 32 year old woman (To put it another way, Nancy
>    Cartwright is not a 10-year-old boy)
> 7F07   I will not do that thing with my tongue
> 7F06   I will not drive the principal's car
> 7F09   I will not pledge allegiance to Bart
>
> 7F10*  I will not sell school property (Also used in 7F14 - the only
>    episode so far to use a "repeated" blackboard opening in its
>    first showing)
>
> 7F11*  I will not cut corners (It actually looks like this:
>        I WILL NOT CUT CORNERS
>        "  "    "   "   "   "
>        "  "    "   "   "   ")
> 7F12   I will not get very far with this attitude
> 7F13   I will not make flatulent noises in class
> 7F15   I will not belch the National Anthem
> 7F16   I will not sell land in Florida
> 7F17   I will not grease the monkey bars
>
> 7F18   I will not hide behind the Fifth Amendment
> 7F20   I will not do anything bad ever again
> 7F21*  I will not show off (This was written in an "Olde English"-style
>    font)
> 7F22   I will not sleep through my education
> 7F24   I am not a dentist
>
> 8F01   Spitwads are not free speech
> 7F23   Nobody likes sunburn slappers
> 8F03   High explosives and school don't mix
> 8F03x  I will not bribe Principal Skinner
> 8F04*  I will not squeak chalk (Bart squeaks the chalk while writing
>    this)
> 8F05*  I will finish what I star (This appears on one line; the rest is
>    blank)
> 8F06   "Bart Bucks" are not legal tender
> 8F08   Underwear should be worn on the inside
> 8F09   The Christmas Pageant does not stink
> 8F10   I will not torment the emotionally frail
>
> 8F11   I will not carve gods
> 8F14   I will not spank others
> 8F13   I will not aim for the head
> 8F15*  I will not barf unless I'm sick (Lisa has a blackboard
>    punishment of sorts during the episode; she has to clap
>    erasers)
> 8F15x  I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty
>
> 8F17   I saw nothing unusual in the teacher's lounge
> 8F19   I will not conduct my own fire drills
> 8F20   Funny noises are not funny
> 8F22   I will not snap bras
> 8F23   I will not fake seizures
>
> 8F24   This punishment is not boring and pointless
> 8F18   My name is not Dr. Death
> 9F01*  I will not defame New Orleans (New Orleans complained about the
>    opening song in "Oh, Streetcar!")
> 9F02   I will not prescribe medication
> 9F03*  I will not bury the new kid (During the episode, Marge wrote "I
>    will try to raise a better child")
>
> 9F05   I will not teach others to fly
> 9F06   I will not bring sheep to class
> 9F07   A burp is not an answer
> 9F08   Teacher is not a leper
> 9F09*  Coffee is not for kids (Each line becomes less and less legible;
>    the last line is a scrawl)
>
> 9F10   I will not eat things for money
> 9F11   I will not yell "She's Dead" at roll call
> 9F12   The principal's toupee is not a Frisbee
> 9F13   I will not call the principal "spud head"
> 9F14   Goldfish don't bounce
>
> 9F15   Mud is not one of the 4 food groups
> 9F17   No one is interested in my underpants
> 9F16   I will not sell miracle cures
> 9F18   I will return the seeing-eye dog
> 9F20   I do not have diplomatic immunity
>
> 9F19   I will not charge admission to the bathroom
> 9F21*  I will never win an Emmy (This was the first episode after
>    1992-93 Emmy nominations were announced, the first time the
>    show was eligible for "Best Comedy Series", but it wasn't
>    nominated (the show has won "Best Animated Show" Emmys in the
>    past)
> 9F22   The cafeteria deep fryer is not a toy
> 1F07*  All work and no play makes Bart a dull boy (This was not written
>    "line by line" like the others)
> 1F08   I will not say "Springfield" just to get applause
>
> 1F09   I am not authorized to fire substitute teachers
> 1F11*  My homework was not stolen by a one-armed man (A reference to
>    "The Fugitive")
> 1F10   I will not go near the kindergarten turtle
> 1F14   I am not deliciously saucy
> 1F15   Organ transplants are best left to the professionals
>
> 1F16   The Pledge of Allegiance does not end with Hail Satan
> 1F18*  I will not celebrate meaningless milestones (This was first used
>    for the 100th new episode)
> 1F19   There are plenty of businesses like show business
> 1F21   I will not re-transmit without the express permission of Major
>    League Baseball
> 1F20   Five days is not too long to wait for a gun
> 1F22   Beans are neither fruit nor musical
>
>
>
------ Forwarded message ends here ------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Tamashunas                          tamash@alk.com
ALK Associates, Inc.                     609.252.8157 - Voice
1000 Herrontown Rd.                      609.683-0290 - Fax
Princeton, NJ  08540

          "When all is said and done, more is said than done"
                                         - Anonymous

                 & watch out for hyena farts while yer at it.

    
    >I will not do that thing with my tongue
    
    That's my favourite 8^).
    

         88888888888                      PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
	8888888888888                    PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
       888	   888                   PP              PP
       888	   888                   PP              PP
       888	   888                   PP             PP
       888	   888                   PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
       888	   888  --------------   PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
       888888888888888  --------------   PP
       888	   888  --------------   PP
       888	   888                   PP
       888	   888                   PP
       888	   888                   PP
       888	   888                   PP
	8888888888888                    PP
         88888888888

    
    Mummy, Glenn's doing that thing with his tongue again...

    Parting his hair?

       Stop that right now Glenn!!!!!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
        Oh, excuse me Glenn. I thought I was your mummy....

Latest big deal in this trial is the conversation O.J. had with
Rosie Grier, which was overheard by a prison worker when O.J. got
angry and started yelling.

Will the prison worker be allowed to testify, or was that conversation
a privileged conversation with a clergyman, protected under California
law?

/john

 i doubt it will be allowed.  the guard (Stuart) heard only a few seconds
 of the conversation, so it's out of context anyways, and the prosecution
 has to convince the judge that OJ knew it was likely he'd be overheard
 and thus forfeited the clergman/penitent privilege. 

    I thought the U.S.S.C. said a minister/preist didn`t have client
    privilege because of sepeartion of State & Church but left client
    privilege between lawyer & doctor in tact.
    
    ?????

    .20
    
    the seal of confessional is still a valid reason for a priest's refusal
    to testify, i believe.

    
    
    rosie is a clergydude????
    
    
    

    'tis fak, rosey grier is a clergydude.

 'ceppin Court TV was spelling it "Rosey"
    
    

    Yup,
    
    Rosie is an ordained minister; not a priest.  I thought it was a
    fast rule that a *priest* could not violate what is heard in the
    confessional, I wasn't aware that extended outside the Catholic
    Church.
    
    

| <<< Note 34.22 by GAVEL::JANDROW "Au naturelle..back 2 basics" >>>



| rosie is a clergydude????


	she used to work the counter cleaning up spills, now she pushes up
daisys.

    He is a minister indeed but I think the prosacutor is trying to get
    around that based on the fact that they were good friends before Rosie
    was a minister!!!!!

>    Rosie is an ordained minister; not a priest.  I thought it was a
>    fast rule that a *priest* could not violate what is heard in the
>    confessional, I wasn't aware that extended outside the Catholic
>    Church.

Whatever the deal is religiously, I assume the state can't differentiate
between religions.  On the other hand, clergymen of other religions
can voluntarily testify about what's confessed to them.  There was a
case several years ago that involved a murderer confessing to a rabbi.
The rabbi called the cops.

 Grier, on the other hand, has said that he would, in fact, claim
 the privilege.

If he did testify, he'd probably keep the audience spellbound.
Rosey the riveter.

    
    <-- BWAHAHAHAHA!!! {gasp}
    
    Isn't Little Richard an ordained minister also?

    Yes he is and so am I.  I go by the name of Rev. Ernest Lee Sincere. 
    For only $9.95 you too can be a friend of mine and God's.  If you sned
    me a check or better yet, cash, I'll send you a noahs ark soap on a
    rope absolutely free.  
    
    

	I ain't snedding you anything you fake!
		^^^^

    I am too, I am too!  Sned me all your money :-)

ABC had an interview with the Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles who explained
that the seal of the confessional was absolute and that California law
recognized that fact.

He then pointed out that under canon law, that only applied to the formal
rite of reconciliation, and not to any other general counseling session.

However, California law is more generous, and he was not willing to respond
to the interviewers speculation as to which other religions other than Roman
Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans had such formal definitions and how the
situation with Rosie Grier (who, as far as I know, is not one of these)
was relevant to California law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled; a federal district court somewhere
did order a clergyman to testify.  This is one particular area where a priest
would be required, under penalty of excommunication, to refuse to obey a
court order to testify.

/john

    .35
    
    My Pastor has been called into testify ... he's still fighting this in
    court after 2 years.
    
    

    How can anyone who _overheard_ a conversation be allowed to testify?
    isn't this inadmissible in US courts as hearsay evidence, as in the
    UK? (I know in France it is admissable, but to an English person it's
    outrageous that anyone can accept hearsay).
    

    now it's a moot point...

    Re .37:
    
    > isn't this inadmissible in US courts as hearsay evidence, as in the
    > UK?
    
    Hearsay is usually inadmissible, but the rules allow it in some
    circumstances.  These may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I
    think hearsay may typically be admissible to attack credibility of
    another witness or when the original witness is unavailable (e.g.,
    deceased).
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .39
    
    It would only be hearsay if the guard told someone what he heard and
    then that person was sequestered.
    
    The guard is "firsthand" information as he was there and heard the
    conversation himself.
    
    I think eavesdropping is not illegal, though unethical.

The guard was not eavesdropping -- O.J. _yelled_ at Rosie Grier so loudly
that it was overheard.

Shall we speculate on what O.J. might have yelled at Rosie?

/john

    I think the guard would qualify as firsthand also; but he wasn't
    eavesdropping, OJ lost his cool and was shouting loud enough to be
    heard (apparently OJ is supposed to use the phone provided to talk
    with his visitors).
    
    As mentioned, it's moot now; Ito won't allow it to be introduced.
    
    Kind of makes you wonder though; I remember an interview with Grier
    after he'd had his first visit to OJ.  Grier said he was positive
    OJ couldn't have done it.  Wonder how Grier will deal with it if OJ
    did let something slip to him on a later visit (and OJ walks).
    

>Shall we speculate on what O.J. might have yelled at Rosie?

Quick!  Pass the Bounty (tm)!

    What could have incrimnated him may not have been *what* he said but
    the emotional level at which said it.
    
    That's why it shouldn't be allowed.  The same thing could have been
    said with different intonations and change drastically the
    interpretation.
    
    BTW, I think the dudes guilty... but law is law ..
    

>Wonder how Grier will deal with it if OJ did let something slip to him
>on a later visit (and OJ walks).
    
IMHO, his integrity as a clergy counselor (if not the regulations of whatever
organized religion he belongs to) would require him to simply be quiet about
it forever.

Priests who hear confessions say that they learn "divine forgetfulness".

If O.J. had been making a sacramental confession to a priest, the seal
of the confessional would have applied not only to the priest, but to
anyone (except O.J.) who happened to overhear the confession.

However, I suspect the guard will be offered big bucks to spill the beans
to the press, and will probably do so before this whole mess is over.

/john

    >Priests who hear confessions say that they learn "divine
    >forgetfulness".
    
    Hey that's my calling!

    John,
    
    Actually I'm glad to hear about the "divine forgetfulness"; otherwise
    it might make the calling very burdensome.  I know Grier will never
    divulge the conversation, just wondering how he would deal with it.
    
    There are confessions and then there are "confessions".
    

If Rosie were to needlepoint the gist of the
conversation, would a pillow be allowable as
evidence?

    re:	40
    
    >>It would only be hearsay if the guard told someone what he heard and
    >>then that person was sequestered.

    Wrong.  Hearsay is a statement other then one made by the declarant 
    at a hearing or trial offered into evidence to prove the truth of the
    matter asserted. [Federal Rules of Evidence].  
    
    >I think eavesdropping is not illegal, though unethical.

    Correction. The majority rule in the United States is that eavesdropping
    *is* illegal.
    

Just heard on the radio that Shapiro and Bailey have had
some sort of a tiff and they're not speaking to each other.

And how about OJ's book?

Seems like things are getting kind of desperate on the 
defense side.  

    A few bookstores are protesting the book and are renting it out with
    the proceeds going to O.J.'s kids trust or donating the proceeds to
    shelters for abused women.  Can we please get on with this circus?  

	Brian, there are many more attractions to this circus. And when it's
all over, it will start up again. I seriously do not believe it will ever end.

    Judge Ito has ruled that the prosecution can utilize records and
    testimony concerning O.J.'s history of spousal abuse (er ummm 'alleged'
    history of spousal abuse). Interestingly, one of the U.S. evening
    news operas (can't remember if it was Dateline or another one) had a
    segment on about prior cases which disallowed such evidence.
    
    They showed at least three examples where individuals who had raped
    and/or murdered someone either got off scott free or were convicted of 
    manslaughter instead of murder. They interviewed a few jurors and
    showed them the evidence that they were not allowed to see when they
    rendered their verdict. The jurors were shocked and indicated that had
    they seen this evidence at the trial there is no way they would have
    let the person on trial off on anything less than a murder conviction.
    
    The circus starts Monday.
    
    

    Sheesh, with all of the recorded murders of previously known
    battered women cases, how could they possibly allow a possible
    connection between violent behavior (history) and the event???
    
    (insert extreme sarcastic tone to the above)
    
    The ignorance of the judicial system never ceases to amaze me. The
    simple fact that a hearing needs to be held to determine admission
    of such evidence is... 
    
    Oh, did you see that Baily and Shapiro have kissed and made up?
    
    They do make a lovely couple :-)
    
    Chip 

     That's because people are tried, get convicted, and then the
    conviction is reversed on appeal due to the admission of "prejudicial"
    evidence. Personally, I think the appeals courts go too far in
    reversing convictions for every little thing. Prior acts, particularly
    those which show a pattern of behavior or an escalation of violence
    ought to be admitted, and let the jury decide what to make of them.

RE                     <<< Note 34.54 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    The ignorance of the judicial system never ceases to amaze me. The
>    simple fact that a hearing needs to be held to determine admission
>    of such evidence is... 
    
 ...sensible. And it should not be admitted.

  What if he's innocent? Say he did beat the stuffings out of her on these
other occasions but he was not the one who killed her? In that case, how
does this type of evidence help the jury reach the proper conclusion?

  George

    The idea behind prohibiting the use of evidence about prior history is
    that the prosecution is supposed to PROVE that the defendant ACTUALLY
    COMMITTED THE CRIME.  Courts are about proof, folks.  It's not about
    deciding the defendant's a really bad person and deserves to be
    punished; it's about proving they picked up a weapon, went to the
    scene, and committed the crime.
    
    If the prosecution has a real case, history doesn't matter.  If the
    prosecution can PROVE the defendant committed the crime, by photographs
    or fingerprints or witnesses or whatever, then it doesn't matter if the
    defendant is a saint of the community, taking in orphans, and donating
    millions to charity.  If you PROVE they committed the crime, they go to
    jail.
    
    What does evidence of past abuse add to the prosecution's case?  If the
    prosecution proves their case, does the evidence of abuse add anything
    to it?  No.  If the prosecution doesn't prove their case, does the
    evidence of abuse complete that proof?  No.
    
    Often the prosecution does want to use such evidence because it will
    prejudice the jury.  The prosecution wants to win by any means, even if
    it is devious and unfair.  The judge's job is to stop that.
    
    However, the real world being imperfect, and human nature being what it
    is, there are times when evidence of abuse can be the piece of evidence
    that properly reduces the jury's doubt to less than the level of
    reasonable doubt.  If the jury doubts the prosecution's case just
    because they can't believe the defendant is that type of person, then
    the evidence may be what they need.  Situations like this are why the
    courts have elaborate rules of evidence.  The goal is to do the best
    job possible of not admitting evidence that is emotionally prejudicial
    and doesn't logically contribute to the prosecution's proof while
    admitting evidence that is part of a valid proof.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

One especially damning piece of evidence that Ito struck down
was an alleged phone call made by Nicole five days before she
was murdered.  She called a shelter for battered women and told
the person who took the call that her former husband was stalking
her and that she was afraid of him.

But I guess because the phone call was not recorded it has to be
considered as "hearsay".  

    
    RE: .56
    
    >...sensible. And it should not be admitted.
    
    
     George knows best....
    
    I vote for Meowski to replace Ito!!!
    

    
    RE: .58
    
    "alleged" hearsay...
    
    :)
    

How about motive?   Isn't the prosecution trying to establish
motive by calling into question Simpson's behavior prior to the
murders?

  Yes, motive is exactly the reason Ito gave but the problem is that motive
is not enough. The jury has to decide if he actually did the crime.

  Once again, say that he wanted to killer her, had a reason to killer her,
but someone beat him to it.

  Then say that this evidence which in addition to showing motive is highly
emotional and highly prejudicial is admitted. How does it help the jury
to reach the correct conclusion?

  George

    On TV the other night I heard the Simpson entourage referred to 
    as "Team OJ". 
    
    Simpson himself was described as "quarterbacking Team OJ".
    
    Amazing.

Re: .62  

>Then say that this evidence which in addition to showing motive is highly
>emotional and highly prejudicial is admitted.

Prejudicial?   I really don't care if it's prejudicial.  If these incidents
happened and they are accepted by the court as evidence, then let the jury hear
about them.  They are key, and they allow Nicole to speak from the grave. 

    .I really don't care if it's prejudicial. 
    
     Of course you don't. You've already decided OJ's guilty and they can
    ready the gas chamber now. But if someone you loved was falsely accused
    and some highly prejudicial evidence was admitted and swayed the jury
    to convict, you might not be quite so sanguine. (Then again you might;
    you don't strike me as one who is exceptionally compassionate.)

Re: <<< Note 34.64 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

>>Prejudicial?   I really don't care if it's prejudicial.

The exact reason the evidence should be disallowed.

                               Roak

RE                      <<< Note 34.64 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

>They are key, and they allow Nicole to speak from the grave. 

  Which is another reason they should be disallowed since Nicole can not be
cross examined from the grave.

  George

My point is, if these incidents occurred, who cares
what legal term you slap on them to try to keep them 
out of court?

Oh, and Mark, you don't strike me as a particularly
compassionate person either.  So there.  Nyah nyah.

You respond rather quickly and pointedly to many of my notes,
almost like an electronic stalker would.  Whatsamatter,
don't you like what I say?  :-)  

RE                      <<< Note 34.68 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

>My point is, if these incidents occurred, who cares
>what legal term you slap on them to try to keep them 
>out of court?

  The court cares. Under common law the prosecution in a criminal case must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. 

  It is not considered acceptable for the prosecution to convince the jury that
the defendant is a rotten guy and should be convicted regardless of whether or
not he committed this particular crime. 

  To prevent that from happening, the law does not allow evidence that will so
prejudice the jury against the defendant that they will be incapable of
judging him in a fair and impartial manner. 

  George 

    Re: .55
    
    >Prior acts, particularly those which show a pattern of behavior or an 
    >escalation of violence ought to be admitted, and let the jury decide 
    >what to make of them.
    
    I think that sometimes prior acts can be admitted.  They have to show
    substantially the same pattern of behavior, though; if the accused
    threatened someone with a knife before, and is now accused of
    threatening someone with a gun, it probably wouldn't be admissable. 
    I'm not sure if they need to be convicted of those prior acts to make
    them admissable.

    Re: .68
    
    >if these incidents occurred
    
    Big if.  At this point it would be difficult to _prove_ conclusively
    what exactly happened.  And you have to prove it, or the whole chain of
    "evidence" falls apart -- "Well, we assume he did this stuff, so let's
    assume he did this other stuff, too."

Re:  .69

>  The court cares. Under common law the prosecution in a criminal case must
>prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

Yes, I know.  But Ito allowed the evidence into court.  He seems to be an
impartial man doing a difficult job.  I'll trust his knowledge of the law.

RE                      <<< Note 34.72 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

>Yes, I know.  But Ito allowed the evidence into court.  He seems to be an
>impartial man doing a difficult job.  I'll trust his knowledge of the law.

  But in doing so he's given the defense grounds for appeal. It is quite
possible that if O.J. gets convicted the conviction will be overturned because
this evidence was admitted. 

  George

    who left the gate open... meowski is back! 
    
    your argument is not sound and can be argued for or against the same
    point you make.
    
    get real george. this isn't precedence setting and it is my alleged
    opinion...
    
    thanks for playing,
    
                         Chip

    Some news agency (AP?) did yet-another-poll in which the majority
    of those polled believe that O.J. is guilty, and that the majority
    of those polled are thoroughly tired of hearing about the case.
    Other similar polls indicate that the majority also believe that
    he will not be found guilty.
    
    So, why is the media continuing to trumpet this as "The Trial of
    the Century"?  I've heard that from at least two sources now.
    
    Is this really "The Trial of the Century"?  I'd venture that most of
    us could, without doing too much research, come up with some trials
    that were more important, far-reaching, had a wider scope, an impact
    on more people for a longer time, and so on.
    
    Chris

RE    <<< Note 34.75 by DECWIN::RALTO "Gala 10th Year ECAD SW Anniversary" >>>

>    Some news agency (AP?) did yet-another-poll in which the majority
>    of those polled believe that O.J. is guilty, and that the majority
>    of those polled are thoroughly tired of hearing about the case.

  Yeah, but they are lying. It's like when you ask people what they think of
TV and 90% of the people asked will talk about how they can't stand TV, there's
nothing on, it's a vast wastland, etc, etc, etc, yet ratings show that half the
nation is sitting in front of their tube on any given evening. 

  The only thing that people love more than the O.J. trial is telling everyone
how much they hate the O.J. trial.

>    Is this really "The Trial of the Century"?  I'd venture that most of
>    us could, without doing too much research, come up with some trials
>    that were more important, far-reaching, had a wider scope, an impact
>    on more people for a longer time, and so on.
    
  It's big because O.J. is the most popular celebrity to be tried for so
serious an offense. Tonya was popular but her offense was not as great.
Marland Brando's son was tried for a homicide but he was a celebrity's son
not a celebrity in his own right.

  George

    
    <--------
    
    
    >  Yeah, but they are lying.
    
    
    
     All hail the All-Knowing and All-Seeing George!!!!!
    

    re: .76
    
    >> Yeah, but they are lying.
    
    Probably... I'd momentarily forgotten my own theories surrounding
    polls, and I never believe them, so I shouldn't have quoted this
    one as representing reality, even though I'd like the results to
    be true.
    
    
    >> The only thing that people love more than the O.J. trial is telling
    >> everyone how much they hate the O.J. trial.
    
    I'll admit that I love telling everyone how much I hate the O.J. trial,
    but in my case it's really true... I'd be perfectly happy to hear
    nothing more of it until the verdict, and even then that can be a
    one-minute "news update" item.  But I'm probably in the minority for
    sincerely wanting this whole thing to just go away.
    
    
    re:  "The Trial of the Century"
    
    I wasn't thinking so much of Tonya or Brando or even Lana Turner's
    daughter or whoever, but more along the lines of Scopes, Rosenbergs,
    Parks, Sacco and Vanzetti, Roe vs. Wade, or countless other trials
    of much wider historical scope, impact, and (to me) interest.  Making
    the O.J. circus into "The Trial of the Century" demeans the social
    and historical value of these other important trials.
    
    I know that ratings, hysteria, and the American public's voracious
    need to ingest raw sleaze is at the heart of all this, but it's still
    distressing.
    
    Chris

    O.J. Yawn. Frankly, none of the people I know pay any attention
    at all to this case... maybe it's because they got tired of the
    "latebreaking news flashes" like: "Judge Ito urinated twice
    yesterday." Who gives a FlyingEff? Wake me up if something real
    happens, like OJ stabs the prosecutor. Otherwise, leave me
    the hell alone!
    
    Funny how George uses viewing statistics produced by the media
    to call the rest of us liars... no warped sense of reality there!
                                                                     
    -b

RE    <<< Note 34.78 by DECWIN::RALTO "Gala 10th Year ECAD SW Anniversary" >>>

>    I wasn't thinking so much of Tonya or Brando or even Lana Turner's
>    daughter or whoever, but more along the lines of Scopes, Rosenbergs,
>    Parks, Sacco and Vanzetti, Roe vs. Wade, or countless other trials
>    of much wider historical scope, impact, and (to me) interest.  

  I think the difference is that this is the "trial" of the century but not
necessarily the "case" of the century.

  In most of those cases it was not the trial but the precedent set by the
case or the social or political ramification of the trial having taken place.
With O.J. it's the process itself that is drawing the attention.

  Also there is a big celebrity issue here. Most of those people were famous
because they got involved in the issue that brought them to trial. O.J. is the
most famous person to get involved in a trial of this magnitude.

  And finally, it's taking place in Hollywood. It's like Joe Domajio being more
famous than Ted Williams because Joe was in New York and Ted was in Boston
or Garig being more famous than Foxx for the same reason. Even the crime was
committed in Beverly Hills. Was it Julia Roberts that had to move because of
all the commotion next door?

  George

    
    Not to mention the racial contrast, the lurid accusation, the
    advertising done by the legal teams, the pack media, the judge.
    
    It's a natural.  bb
    

    
    <-------
    
    Oooooops!
    
    Fingers to fast for the keyboard... :) :)
    
    Rathole trivia.... anyone know their nick-names?
    

    
 >>   Rathole trivia.... anyone know their nick-names?

    yes
    

    Good points, .80 and .81.
    
    In that case, I'll add my own leering bit of trivia to this...
    
    The other day, I was sitting in my car in a parking garage,
    and looking for something to read, reached back onto the
    backseat floor and dredged up a 1986 issue of Byte (it's
    really time to clean out the car, I guess).
    
    Thumbing through it, I was startled to see a full-page ad
    featuring O.J. Simpson (President, O.J. Enterprises, the ad
    was careful to note) endorsing the Boys Club, saying how it
    had kept him on the right path through life, and other similarly
    ironic testimonials.
    
    If I O.D. on O.J. over the next few months, I'll bring this in
    and hang it on the wall, for occasional amusement.
    
    Chris

    .80
    
    who are these Damajio and garig characters, some figment of your warped
    imagination?

    Members of PBL?
    
    

RE                   <<< Note 34.88 by USAT02::WARRENFELTZR >>>

>    who are these Damajio and garig characters, some figment of your warped
>    imagination?

  AAAAAAaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! I'm being pursued by the spell'en Eumenides!!!!
  AAAAAAaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! AAAAAAaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! AAAAAAaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! 

  George

    
    I believe Joe's was "The Yankee Clipper" and Gehrig's was "Iron Man"
    
    Mark

     I thought Joe's was "Mr. Coffee" ;^)

 >>    I thought Joe's was "Mr. Coffee" ;^)

	isnt' that Joe Garbage-iola?

     Nah- he works for Sy Sperling as the "before" guy. (8^)

	Nope, Joe Dimaggio was Mr. Coffee. Joe Garbage-iola was a bad baseball
announcer who spent more time bitchin about chewin tabaccie than commenting on
the game being played. That meant we had to listen to Vin Skull-e talk, which
was sad indeed.... :-)

    Phil, "holy cow that's outa h... no, what a catch!" Rizzuto is
    somethin' in his own right.

I see the trial is going to start today:-(  I guess it's time to leave the
TV off until the thing's over with.  Somebody let me know if the world is
about to end or something.

Bob

    Heard on the radio that the laptop that Ito uses has a larger than
    mormal "IBM" logo on it (shows up better on the TV cameras).  Apparently
    IBM donated to Ito to use during the trial.   Cheap advertising. 
    Think DIGITAL could get him to use one of our new notebooks?
    
    Dan

    Guilty of snarfing by insanity.

RE        <<< Note 34.99 by ODIXIE::ZOGRAN "Testudo is still grounded!" >>>

>    Think DIGITAL could get him to use one of our new notebooks?
    
  That would work great until about 10 minutes into the trial when he got
something looking like:

%TYPE-W-SEARCHFAIL, error searching for SYS$USER:[X]A.TXT;
-RMS-E-DNF, directory not found
-SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHFILE, no such file

 followed by a hex core dump

  George

I think Judge Ito should be allowed to have advertising
patches stitched to his robe, in the manner of race car 
drivers.

    
     JURIS PRUDENCE HAND-CRAFTED GAVELS:
    
    "For the authoritative call to order!"

What I'd really like to see is Shapiro stick his foot
out and trip Bailey on his way past the defense table.  
Bailey pulling out Shapiro's chair on the sly, and
Shapiro landing on the floor when he sits down, would
also be welcome.

If Johnny Cochran would then clunk their heads together,
Moe Howard style, and yell "spread out!" at them, well
*that* would be entertainment.

    Ahhh yes...taken from "Disorder in the Court"

 Take off your hat...raise your right hand

    
    Now put your left hand here...
    
    PLEASE take off your hat!
    
    

    
    
    
    
    RAIZZZ Your right hand
    
    Now put your left hand here
    
    Would you PLEAZZE take off your hat.
    
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm  (Curly's frustration)
    
    Please remove the venacular
    
    It ain't a venacular it's a derby!
    

Somebody could make a fortune with a NO-OJ channel.

I was listening to ABC radio coverage leading up to the opening statements
on my way back from lunch.

What a circus.  "Camp OJ" they're calling the area outside the courthouse.
They say it looks like Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras.

/john

    .110 oh, and wait... the whole thing will rival Barnum's wildest
         dreams once they kick into full gear!
    
         Chip

	Well we may or may not get to opening statements today as
	scheduled.  The defense has pulled a couple of fast ones
	today:

	- defense only today has provided a suplemental list of
	  34 witnesses which violates the courts discovery order.
	  prosecution is asking for a 1 week continuance ...

	- defense has filed some kind of motion that det. mark furman
	  supressed evidence as he never filed a report for an interview
	  with a maid that works for someone in oj's neighborhood
	  (and who supposedly saw oj's bronco on the st. at the time
	  that the limo driver said it wasn't??)

	- definese has also filed a motion to allow oj to make a 1
	  minute statement before the defense starts their opening
	  statements, or to allow oj to stand before the jury during
	  the defenses opening statements (something about injuries).
	  all the cnn lawyers said this won't be allowed (it's never
	  been done, oj's not one of the lawyers, and it's simply a
	  defense attempt to allow some pseudo-testomony from oj w/out
	  him actually being under oath [and hence can't be cross-
	  examined])

    RE 102
    
    >I think Judge Ito should be allowed to have advertising patches
    stitched to his robe
    
    i agree. in fact, i'll go one further and suggest that the front panel
    of the bench have one of those changing advertising boards like they
    use at NBA games. every minute, a new ad could role on for products
    that are trial related....
    - a picture of a white bronco speeding down the freeway and the caption
    "have you driven a ford, lately?"
    - an ad for the soft drink "SLICE"
    - maybe something promoting Pez dispensers
    
      

    an actual moment of humor when one of OJ's lawyers was complaining 
    about some boards that the prosecution wanted to use, but had not
    been presented to the defense beforehand... (Cardin I think) simply
    stated, "We won't use them." When asked why they were handed to Team
    OJ he stated, "I was sandbagging your honor, I apologize."
    
    You had to be there... :-)
    
    Chip

    
      Big day for the defense yesterday.
    
      What does the 'Box think of OJ's request to address the jury
     during opening statements ?
    
      bb

    It's a ploy to keep the prosecution guessing. He won't address the jury
    in his opening remarks.

Hoooooooooo boy,  I watched Nightline last night to catch a summing up
of the day's theatrics.  Won't be doing that again.  30 minutes with
Leslie Abramson was 30 minutes too many.  Yecchhh.  Ptui.

    
      Well, Clarence Darrow addressed his jury.  So did Angela Davis.
     There doesn't seem to be a clearcut rule against it, although
     both of those cases involved self-representation.  But the
     prosecutor's contention that it allows him to testify without
     cross-examination is cogent.
    
      It's one of many tough calls for Ito.
    
      bb

    He's not the attorney of record, so he has no right to address the jury
    without cross.

	>>30 minutes with
	>>Leslie Abramson was 30 minutes too many.  Yecchhh.  Ptui.

	heheheh.  yeah, she's a hot spook, ain't she jojo?  ;>

>    He's not the attorney of record, so he has no right to address the jury
>    without cross.

One would hope Judge Ito would so rule.  This is not clear.

It is also worth noting that allowing him to make part of the opening
statement also allows him to speak without being under oath.

/john

    The accused should be just as entitled to present arguments in their
    own defense as they are to have lawyers present those arguments.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    yes, that's true.  on the stand, under oath.  when they are represented
    by counsel, they are REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, which means let counsel do
    the arguing.  if oj wants to talk freely, let him fire his lawyers.

    <- precisely... he's got no problem in the freely face-making
       dept. :-)
    
       Chip

    observations from last night's CNN coverage:
    
    1. It looks like F. Lee Bailey might be a very forceful courtroom
       lawyer. I'd never seen him in action before, but his impassioned
       (if wrongheaded) plea to Judge Ito seemed well done.
    
    2. Assistant Prosecutor Cheri Lewis is good. Her rebuttal to Bailey
       was tightly argued.
    
    3. Ito wants to buy everyone dinner after the trial concludes.  
    
    4. It took Ito about 30 inutes to instruct the jurors, but I found
       many of the instructions quite complicated. I thought he should
       have slowed down and unpacked some of them. 
    
    5. It's amazing how few controls we've built into the trial process.
       Witness this outrageous ploy of the defense team get OJ talking
       to the jury, neither under oath nor subject to cross-examination.
       
    6. The trial's a circus.

Amen to "the circus" aspect.  Caught a sound bite of the
"lottery" for open-to-the-public seats in the courtroom.
An officer announced one of the selected numbers, and the
holder of the number put on an "I won! I won!" show that
would've been perfect -- if only it had been for "The Price is 
Right"  :(

What is to prevent "team OJ" from naming OJ as yet another attorney of 
record? They've been adding attorneys all along. Why not OJ, too? 

And what real difference does it make if they can't cross examine? They can 
accomplish the same thing with their opening and closing arguments and 
their examination of witnesses.

There seems to be a lot of posturing on both sides of this trial. 

    they cannot name oj as an attorney of record because he is not an
    attorney.  he has passed no bar exam in any state and is therefore not
    licensed to practice.
    
    allowing him to talk without oath or cross gives him the ability to do
    the tearjerker stuff with no chance for the prosecution to show that it
    is only a sham.  closing arguments are a generation removed and not as
    likely to sway a jury's innermost feelings as personal testimony.

    .129
    
    and stationed a witness on the grassy knoll to spot the rented white
    bronco he used after he did himself up in blackface.

    I can picture this.

Ito ruled that OJ can not address the jury but can show his scars when his 
lawyers do their opening statements.  I think he should of said no to both 
and if OJ wanted to show his scars than he could do so if he takes the 
stand.

I agree, I do not like Leslie Abramson either.  I switched to CNN when she 
was anchoring/consulting the preliminary hearings with Peter Jennings.  CNN 
is the best, they don't miss a beat and I like the the two lawyers that 
explain and advise to what is going on. Greta VanSustern (sp??) and I forget 
the other guy's name.  They seem to be pretty neutral where as Leslie is all 
for the defense.

.121> It is also worth noting that allowing him to make part of the opening
.121> statement also allows him to speak without being under oath.

	As reported in .112 :-)

.125> 3. Ito wants to buy everyone dinner after the trial concludes.  

	I laughed when I heard that.  They'll have to get OJ's "to go" :-)

.125> 4. It took Ito about 30 inutes to instruct the jurors, but I found
.125>    many of the instructions quite complicated. I thought he should
.125>    have slowed down and unpacked some of them. 

	I don't know how they do it in CA, but when I was on Jury duty in
	NH they had already gone over alot of the stuff when we first appeared
	for jury duty in what they call "juror orientation".  Do they do
	the same in CA?

	What I found real interesting is that each Juror gets a notepad and
	writing instrument and gets to take notes (they aren't allowed to
	take them w/them at the end of the day, but are allowed to use
	them during deliberations).  We didn't get to do that in NH.  Maybe
	it has to do with the expected length of the trial?

.129> As for the trial, I think Kato knew of OJ's predeliction
.129> for abusing his ex-wife, got upset when Nicole found a new
.129> honey, and, knowing OJ's travel plans, framed him for the murder.

	It's been a while (last June) since this all started, but if
	I recall it was reported (ie. I don't believe it was in the
	prelim. hearing) that the reason Kato was living on OJ's estate
	was because otherwise he'd be staying at Nicole's place, and
	OJ didn't want that.

    I watched the instructions. They were confusing.  In fact, he confused
    himself during the read and was making notations/corrections to his
    copy. He also stated that the instructions (a copy) would be available
    to the jurors.
    
    Chip

I wish I thought Kato had the brain power to
put together a frame-up.

If Mrs. Gingrich is a 2-watt bulb (to borrow from
the esteemed Mr. Richardson), then Mr. Kaelin is
down around a single watt.

joanne (not leslie abramson!)

    
    The prosecution is doing their opening statement.
    At this point are reviewing the 1989 espisode of Simpson beating
    his wife. Didn't know he ran away on that arrest too.
    
    

Listened to a portion of prosecution's opening argument
on the car radio.  When describing differences between
the private and public persona of O.J. Simpson, the DA made
mention of him being "the man you all saw with the 50-inch
afro in Naked Gun 33 1/2 [sic]."

Interesting.

    Okay, I admit I've stayed out of the TV viewing of the OJ case over
    the last few months and have next unseen'd this topic as well.  But I
    gotta admit, I'm curious now that the trial has started. :-)
    
    And need some clarification on a note back a few.
    
    What scars is he supposed to show and why?

    Oh yeah, P.S.
    
    Why is it when a trial is over the judge often asks if the defendant
    has anything to say for himself, but having the defendant make an
    opening remark on his own benefit is considered wrong?

    When the trial is over, the defendant's ability to impact the jury with
    his statements is significantly undermined.

    
    Well, on the first question, the defense will claim that OJ is all
    beat up from his old football days, can't raise his arms or run, and
    would have been incapable of overcoming two people in a direct assault.
    
    Um, excuse me ?  Ever watch the NFL ?  Neither of them would have had
    a chance.  Try, say, yourself with Lawrence Taylor coming after you.
    
    This argument is really feeble, imho.  The defense will do better.
    
      bb

  Well no doubt at one time O.J. was capable of running over line backers
although I don't believe he ever played against Lawrence Taylor.

  The question is, however, what kind of shape was he in last summer? His
girlfriend said that she thought the charge was ridiculous because all anyone
had to do to disable O.J. was to kick him in his bad knee. Of course she is
somewhat biased. 

  The proper way to enter evidence of O.J.'s condition is to have him examined
by a doctor then have that doctor testify.

  George

    I wonder if the Prosecution will now play OJs recent excercise video?

>   The proper way to enter evidence of O.J.'s condition is to have him examined
> by a doctor then have that doctor testify.

	The defense did say (when arguing for allowing oj to "exibit" his
	scars on his knees during opening statements) they were "planning"
	to have oj's doctor testify.  Should be interesting, I wish I was
	on the jury!

    
    
    OR show one of his Hertz commercials where he's jumping over seats.

  I don't think he's done one of those for a while.

  George

    It shouldn't matter if a person is an attorney or not.  In New
    Hampshire, a party to a trial may have ANY person of "good character"
    speak for them.  Allowing only lawyers to speak is pure monopolistic
    money-grubbing and nothing more.  In today's world, you need a lawyer
    to figure out a strategy to guide you through the maze of laws,
    regulations, and rules -- but that's a completely separate skill from
    oral advocacy.  The defendant should be entitled to use whatever
    advocate they can get to present their case.  If you can find somebody
    with the skill to express points of logic through clear illustrations,
    you should be entitled to have them speak for you.
    
    If that advocate is the defendant, the same right applies:  If the
    defendant wants the defendant's case expressed in the defendant's
    words, they should have the right to do it.  If the defendant wants the
    defendant's points made in the defendant's manner, they should have the
    right to do it.
    
    In balance, the prosecution is entitled to select their own best
    advocate and to tell the jury that the argument presented by the
    defendant is just a theory and not evidence.  The jury already has to
    distinguish between evidence and theory; this is just another part of
    the job.
    
    Furthermore, in this case, Marcia Clark is both prosecutor and witness. 
    She was on the scene.  Now she's telling the jury what she saw, and
    she's not doing it on the witness stand, subject to cross examination. 
    Why should the prosecution have this opportunity the defense does not?
    
    Oh, right.  It's because she's a lawyer.  Therefore she has rights the
    defendant does not.  That stinks.
            
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    nor is he likely to in the near future
    
    Mark

	suppose Court TV will lose any money if Ito pulls the plug?  ;>
	eesh.  a costly one or two seconds.

>>	suppose Court TV will lose any money if Ito pulls the plug?  ;>
>>	eesh.  a costly one or two seconds.


	I don't understand what the big deal about this is.  What is
	the deal because the showed and alternate juror for a silly
	little amount of time??   Whats the deal???

RE                    <<< Note 34.150 by WECARE::BOURGOINE >>>

>	I don't understand what the big deal about this is.  What is
>	the deal because the showed and alternate juror for a silly
>	little amount of time??   Whats the deal???

  It's against the law. Rule 980 in California which governs the use of TV
cameras in the court room seems to prohibit or in some way strongly discourage
showing a juror's face on TV. 

  When Court TV was chosen to operate the pool camera they assured Judge Ito
that their "fail safe" system of a trained camera operator and the 7 second
cut off would preclude this sort of thing from happening but obviously it did
not.

  Anyway, I was watching Court TV last night. Boy was that one group of
miserable people. Sort of like watching a wake.

  George

>>  It's against the law. Rule 980 in California which governs the use of TV
>>cameras in the court room seems to prohibit or in some way strongly discourage
>>showing a juror's face on TV. 

	Aha!   That makes sense then.  Thanks.

Pat

0.8 seconds, according to NPR.

I wonder what Judge Ito will do.  Does anyone think he'll pull the plug?  I 
hope not!

I also heard Johnnie Cochran was pleading with Ito to let the cameras stay, 
he said he wanted his opening statement to be on TV because everyone got to 
see the Prosecution's opening statement and it was only fair for the public 
to see his.

How about this Detective Fuhrman?  Is he a low-life racist as
F.Lee has charged?  This defense angle should prove interesting.

So far, the defense has stated that Fuhrman uses the
"N" word frequently, hates interracial couples, and planted the
bloody glove on Simpson's property. 

>>0.8 seconds, according to NPR.

	According to Court TV's senior producer Cindy Glozier, too,
	who said a juror or alternate juror leaned forward into camera
	range.  Oops.
  

RE                  <<< Note 34.154 by XANADU::KMAC::moraros >>>

>I also heard Johnnie Cochran was pleading with Ito to let the cameras stay, 
>he said he wanted his opening statement to be on TV because everyone got to 
>see the Prosecution's opening statement and it was only fair for the public 
>to see his.

  The defense made that request as soon as Ito threatened to pull the plug
but they went on to say that they had no objection to him cutting off TV
after their opening statement.

>I wonder what Judge Ito will do.  Does anyone think he'll pull the plug?  I 
>hope not!

  Hard to say. He's threatened to pull the plug before but this time he seems
pretty serious.

  I think it will be up to the defense. If they keep saying that they feel TV
is interfering with O.J.'s right to a fair trial, coverage is toast. On the
other hand, they've been saying all along about how the Prosecution has been
taking it's case to the public for 7 months and now it's their turn to clear
O.J.'s good name so they might back off and ask to have the camera's remain. 

  George

    If nobody made a big deal out of this, nobody would have known that an
    alternate juror's face was on camera for 2 seconds. Calling attention
    to it in this manner is more injurious to the judicial process than
    taking note of it and ensuring it will not recur.

RE           <<< Note 34.158 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    If nobody made a big deal out of this, nobody would have known that an
>    alternate juror's face was on camera for 2 seconds. Calling attention
>    to it in this manner is more injurious to the judicial process than
>    taking note of it and ensuring it will not recur.

  Court TV did the honorable thing and kept their word to Judge Ito by telling
him personally and privately that the Juror's face had been on TV.

  The mistake was made about half way through Marcia Clark's statements. Court
TV noticed and made up a tape which they then showed to the judge during the
short recess after the State's opening.

  The Judge returned to the court in a rage, chewed out the press, and
threatened to pull the plug. The defense insisted that they should be allowed
to give their opening on TV and the judge recessed for the day to think it
over.

  Court TV is trying to take the high road here. Had they not told the judge
and if he had found out later their reputation would have been toast.

  George

    Ito's the one who erred, if that's the case.

    
    well, people may have noticed it the cameras showed the face for 2
    seconds...but according to the court-tv thing i heard this morning, she
    said it was only for 8/10 of a second...how they heck did they even
    know that they did it???
    
    

    re; OJ's bad knee... it's too bad Nicole didn't take advantage of
        then when he kicking her (stuff) in.
    
        the evidence outlined during Marcia's opening statement was 
        very damaging (IMHO). i wonder how the defense will explain
        away some of it. should be quite interesting.
    
        Chip 

    
    
    
    
       Is Ito's "monitor" live,....or does he see a 10 second delay?
       0.8 seconds,...was it just chance?
    
       Ed

    As long as the jury sees and hears the defense's opening arguments,
    I fail to understand why the defense cares whether or not the entire
    world sees them.  What legal advantage does this gain?
    
    The argument stating that the prosecution has aired its case before
    the public for months doesn't quite hold up with me.  First, the
    defense hasn't exactly been publicly silent during that time.
    Second, why just want the opening arguments on TV, but then it's
    okay to pull the plug after that... what's so special about the
    opening arguments?
    
    What I keep coming up with is that the defense's ego would be
    bruised by not allowing their opening performance to be witnessed
    by a global audience.
    
    Chris

    
    I wanna see how the defense is gonna prove that Det. Fuhrman planted
    all of that blood!! 
    

    It's not about legal advantage, it's about public relations. If the
    entire remainder of the trial were closed to the media, and he was
    found not guilty, how many people would say he got away with murder?
    Millions.
    
     Clark got a huge break in the cancellation of the defense's opening
    statements; the jury got to think all night about how incriminating the
    evidence is going to be. The defense's opening statements will lose
    their dramatic impact, since they won't be the last thing the jury
    hears for the day. They'll be glossed over as the prosecution starts to
    deliver testimony. 

Ito just accepted Court TVs apology and has ruled that he will allow one 
camera in the courtroom for now until he is satisfied things are going well.  
Also something about a kill switch will be put in place and that someone is 
going to monitor this and if something is shown on tv, they will kill it 
before the public sees it.  I don't understand how there can be a delay, if 
it is live how can you have a visual delay??

    It is live with a tape delay. There is a box which essentially buffers
    6 to 10 seconds of video that is connected to a VTR... they have a
    similar box in radio stations. A technician sits there ready to
    "throw the switch" if anything bad happens.
    
    -b

I bet they won't get to testimony today. The Defense claims they need about 
4 hours for their opening statement. They are supposed to start in about 15 
minutes.  They'll break for lunch from 11:30-1:00, then he'll come back on, 
probably talk for anther 3 hours or so and I bet Ito calls it a day to be 
fair to the Defense since the Prosecution got to end yesterday on their last 
note. 

    just talked to my wife... the camera caught the alternate through
    a "lean-in" for 8/10ths of a second.
    
    IMHO the court screwed up putting them in the front row!
    
    Chip

I agree, Chip.  I said the same thing.  They should have put the two extra 
jurors in a specific spot so they could not be mixed in with the others in 
the courtroom.  Cynthia McFadden, an ABC reporter told Peter Jennings she 
was in the courtroom the whole time and saw those two and never even 
realized they were jurors.

RE    <<< Note 34.164 by DECWIN::RALTO "Gala 10th Year ECAD SW Anniversary" >>>

>    As long as the jury sees and hears the defense's opening arguments,
>    I fail to understand why the defense cares whether or not the entire
>    world sees them.  What legal advantage does this gain?
    
  Robert Shapiro said yesterday that they were as concerned with O.J.'s public
reputation as they are with his defense. Shapiro said that WHEN O.J. is
acquitted he will want his reputation cleared so he can go on with his life.

  Also, the TV part of the trial is being done for the benefit of the next
jury that will hear the case if/when this one comes back hung.

  George

re hung jury

What does the California law that prohibits release on bail in the case
of extremely violent crimes say about the continued incarceration of the
defendant in the event of a hung jury or mistrial?

/john

    
    RE: .172
    
    George Maeiwski is a child molester!!
    
    Oh? You were proven innocent???
    
    Never mind... go ahead with your life...
    

RE             <<< Note 34.173 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>What does the California law that prohibits release on bail in the case
>of extremely violent crimes say about the continued incarceration of the
>defendant in the event of a hung jury or mistrial?

  It says they continue their incarceration.

  For example, a year ago the Menendez trial resulted in 2 hung juries. Both
Eric and Lyle are still being held in the L.A. County Jail. Every couple
months they have a hearing and their next case was just scheduled for mid
June. By then they will have served 5 years without a conviction.

  George

       What's the big deal anyway about an alternate juror being shown on TV?
   What harm does that cause?

   Tony

RE  <<< Note 34.174 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
>                           -< Sorta like this ski? >-

  I have no idea what point you are trying to make but would you please
remove that note from this file?

  George

    
    
    You really are dense... aren't you?
    
    OJ could go back to leading a "normal" life if found innocent as much
    as you could if .174 were true...  It is not, as I was making a
    point...
    

  So what does it have to do with me?

  What point are we arguing? I don't recall ever saying that the charge would
not effect O.J.'s life.

  George

    
    You are right.... I re-read .172 and saw it was Shapiro who made the
    comment....
    
     My apologies....  Still want me to delete the note(s)?
    

    re: .172
    
  >> Also, the TV part of the trial is being done for the benefit of the next
  >> jury that will hear the case if/when this one comes back hung.
    
    That's a good point, and a legal advantage.  I'm not at all convinced
    that the state would retry if the jury comes back hung, though.  The
    only real question remaining for me in this case is whether the jury
    will find him not guilty or be hung.
    
    As for your other point, Shapiro may be sincere in his wishes for
    O.J. to resume his public life, but it shows a serious disconnect
    with the reality of the situation.  No matter what the outcome of
    the case, I can't see how O.J. will have any kind of public life
    or career in the future.  Most people will never be convinced of
    his innocence (even to the point of having a "reasonable doubt").
    
    Chris

    Cochran is telling all about OJ's virtues as a philanthropist, i.e.
    getting Lou Brown the Hertz franchise, the trips, the gifts etc.;
    what exactly does all this have to do with refuting Asst. DA Darden's
    hammering home that there are 2 sides to OJ's personality - the public
    persona (the good OJ) and the violent batterer (the bad OJ)?
    
    Frankly, I wasn't impressed by the prosecution's opening arguments
    either. From a detail standpoint, they seemed very thorough; but
    the facts were presented in such a tedious manner.  Marcia Clark also
    seemed rather rattled at times compared to the smooth, calm manner
    she displayed during the preliminary hearings.
    
    Cochran is definitely smooth, but I'm not sure talking about all the
    charities OJ contributes to is going to counter-balance the trail of
    blood from Bundy to Rockingham.
    
    It would be very ironic at this point (after all the hype); if both
    sides have let the publicity get to their already rather large egos
    and they all wind up looking rather mediocre.
    
    Note:  For those who asked why the testimony about battering is being
    allowed, the prosecution is contending that this was not a crime of
    passion because OJ reached a flash-point.  Rather, this was a crime
    that was building for the better part of 17 years and the battering
    changed to murder when OJ "alledgedly" finally realized he could no
    longer exert any control over Nicole.
    
    Cochran just finished; there will be a 10 minute recess before the
    next defense attorney picks up.  Ito commented to Cochran (I assume
    since I'm listening to this); "love the tie, love the suspenders" :-)
    
    I've got a feeling that it will be Bailey who'll blow everybody out
    of the water.......
    

RE    <<< Note 34.181 by DECWIN::RALTO "Gala 10th Year ECAD SW Anniversary" >>>

>    No matter what the outcome of
>    the case, I can't see how O.J. will have any kind of public life
>    or career in the future.  Most people will never be convinced of
>    his innocence (even to the point of having a "reasonable doubt").
    
  Well he could go a couple ways. If acquitted he could confess to the beatings
and still deny the actual killing and become a poster child for reformed wife
beaters or he could stick to his guns and do the talk show circuit anyway. 

  At any rate, he could make a new fortune (his lawyers will have the old one)
off his books.

  George

             <<< Note 34.173 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>What does the California law that prohibits release on bail in the case
>of extremely violent crimes say about the continued incarceration of the
>defendant in the event of a hung jury or mistrial?

	OJ would probably be a free man for about as long as that Juror
	was on TV. The DA just has to say "re-file" and he's back in
	the can.

Jim

    
    
    
     If O.J. is acquitted,....HBO has already stated that they'll offer
     him 10 million dollars for his exclusive interview. That's probably
     only the begining.
    
    
     Johnnie Cochran......wow.
    
    
    Ed

    
    
    
       When this trial is over,....the LAPD, DA and Coroner's offices
       are gonna be the mockery of the nation. The shoddy work that the
       defense will unveil will be schocking. Marcia Clark et al, better
       have a ton of joint compound,......'cause I can see the holes
       already. The defense is gonna make 'em look stupid and woefully
       inept.
    
    
       Ed

    
    Hmmmmmmmmm....
    
    Why couldn't OJ have been at Waco!!!!
    

    Re: .186
    
    	You may be right about the LAPD and the Coroner, we'll see. But you
    miss the mark greatly when you include the DA on your list. Marcia
    Clark and the others are doing a good job, and there is no reason at
    this time to believe that their perfomance will change. 

    
    
    This trial reminds me of reading the last ten pages of a mystery book.
    You already know how it ends, so why bother reading the rest of the
    book??
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    Prosecution is mad has hell. Turns out that the defense has
    withheld evidence, ie interviews testimony, reports. Some member of
    the defense just submitted it all and apologized to the court.
    The guy is taking the blame, said he screwed up.
    
    What a mess.
    
    Prosecution is screaming it's a farce.
    
    
    

    The withheld information (interviews) was certainly intentional.
    After all of the defense's whining (early on) about not having
    access to evidence or the same data the prosecution had simply
    flies in the face of an oversight. Something so rudimentary 
    (and transparent) should have been recognized. You'd have to be 
    comatose to miss it for what it was...
    
    I agree with the support of Marcia Clark. I think she's doing a fine
    job given the circumstances. Plus, I'll bet she's never faced a bank
    of attorneys that she's facing right now. The pressure from a career
    perspective must be as great.
    
    I think that Marcia was as impressive as Johnnie. It's tedious because
    that's the way it is. Most cases like this seem to take on this flavor.
    Just wait until the questioning starts and the same questions are asked
    over, and over, and over, and over... It will bring on a whole new
    meaning  to the word "tedious."
    
    One thing I did observe was that Johnnie was relentlessly "arguing" the
    points during his opening. Marcia was (thrice) warned about it. Maybe
    Ito was sucking up to Johnnie for his tailor's name :-)? 
    
    Personally, I thought the picture of OJ and the little tyke was way too
    much. 
    
    
    Chip

    I don`t know about the trial proceedures but Marcia Clark has nice
    legs.

    hmmmmm, yes. I like her hair longer too.
    
    Chip

    Would you guys PLEASE get back to watching the Home Shopping Network or
    Melrose Place and spare us the commentary???  
    
    If you keep this up, I'm just gonna have to start watching this trial
    coverage!!!!!
    
    Gimmea break!
    
    |-{:-)
    

    Just trying to present a well rounded commentary on the goings-on...
    
    What's the beef... :-)
    
    Chip

    
    
    Actually, I've been listening to the end of each day's
    live coverage on WBZ radio all the way home in the car.
    It's been quite entertaining, in a sick sort of way.
    
    I mean, come on, why did the prosecution have to admit 
    each and every single drip of blood as seperate pieces
    of evidence???  She must have had 100 photo's of blood
    spots, each one different.  It took forever, and seemed 
    to be such a waste of time.  I think maybe a dozen various
    spots from each scene would have sufficed, don't you??
    
    Terrie
    

    -1 they didn't admit every one. in fact, Johnnie made the observation
       that there were thousands. i guess they highlighted what they
       thought were the meaningful ones...
    
    
       Chip

    .The withheld information (interviews) was certainly intentional.
    
     Doubtless. But Ito can't really exclude the testimony, lest he be
    overturned, nor would it be useful to declare a mistrial. So this bit
    of skullduggery by the defense is going to be essentially unpunished.
    
    .I agree with the support of Marcia Clark. I think she's doing a fine
    .job given the circumstances.
    
     Except she made a tactical blunder in not presenting the issue of the
    blood which matched neither OJ nor the victims. Allowing the defense to
    present this was a gross error, and it now looks like she has something
    to hide, that the defense accusations of a quick judgement as to OJ's
    guilt and a subsequent creation of a case to convict him regardless of
    exculpatory evidence have merit.
    
     Most courtroom observers gave Cochran a 9.5 for yesterday's
    performance. This is a home run. Clark's marks were decidedly lower,
    which is to be expected given their relative abilities. She is a
    competent lawyer, but not an all star. 
    
     it's going to be interesting, that's for sure.

    i agree on Marcia's omission of the "B" blood type found. even if
    she pursued a potential accessory as a "plausible" explanation, 
    she should have included it.
    
    i accept your observation/position on performances, however this one's
    really subjective (jury will be the jury)/
    
    Chip
    
    

    jury will be the jury
    
     You're right about that. It doesn't matter what we think.

    
    Oh dear, I have type B blood.
    
    Does this make me a suspect 8^)?

    Do you drive a Bronco? Own a ski mask?  Like sharp objects (besides box
    members)?  Have any football injuries?  If you can answer to more than
    one of these questions then most likely you are.  Don't leave the
    country please.  We will be right over to cuff you.  
    
    Brian

It'll be most interesting to hear testimony about the
Type B blood, cobwebs on the fence in OJ's yard, and
unmatched hair on the wool cap.

Mr. Cochran certainly was a compelling speaker.  The
mention of OJ's dyslexia was a bit over the top, though,
along with OJ hobbling over to the jury to show the scars
on his knees.

Wonder how the incident of chest pains sending one of
the prosecutors to the hospital will play out.....

  If the defense can come through and prove that Nicole had Type B blood under
her fingernails that could be a problem for the prosecution. 

  Right now they have really good circumstantial evidence putting O.J. at the
scene, especially Ronald Goldman's blood in O.J.'s truck but they have to go
one step further. They have to prove that he not only was there, but if they
want 1st degree murder they have to prove that he took part in the killing and
that he had premeditated the killing. 

  Either Marcia Clark or Johnny Cochran is lying. If Marcia Clark is telling
the truth and all the blood evidence points to O.J. then they have a good case.
The fact that the cloths are missing actually helps suggest premeditation. But
if she is lying and there is Type B blood on the victims then who knows? Maybe
O.J. had someone help him do the killings and maybe he stumbled on someone else
doing the crime and is completely innocent. 

  As Rumple of the Bailey would say, "it's all in the blood". 

  George 

> Wonder how the incident of chest pains sending one of
> the prosecutors to the hospital will play out.....

	I just heard about that!  Hogemen himself was the prosecutor.
	Either the the defenses mis-conduct in regards to discovery
	has realy upset him more than Ito thoght, or the DA are learning
	a few new delaying tactics of their own (though I'm guessing
	if he went to the hospital it would be hard to fake) ....

>      Most courtroom observers gave Cochran a 9.5 for yesterday's
>     performance. This is a home run.

	He certainly did a good job.  Now if Cochran's assertions actually
	end up backed with real evidence they have given the jury the
	reasonable doubt.  What took them so long?  If they had all
	this stuff way back in June/July/August could of they prevented
	OJ from being held over for trial?  And couldn't they of motioned
	for dismisal with all this "evidence" way back when so OJ could
	have been home with his kids for Thanksgiving :-)

    	Maybe the weak link in this whole deal is Judge Ito! His
    performance has to be in question at this point. Perhaps the
    defense may be playing on his weakness even more than they will surely
    play on the problems of the LAPD and the coroner.       

     it was disclosed yesterday, by Johnnie, that the blood under Nicole's
     fingernails was type B. this could end up being a major or minor
     point depending on the pursuit of the theory that OJ acted alone
     or had an accomplice (or the mysterious 4 men - "3 ski-masked")
     spotted by a witness near the scene.
    
     Chip

I agree, what was up with the dyslexia comment about how "OJ has dyslexia, 
and look at all he has accomplished!"  I had to laugh, lots of people have 
dyslexia, so what does that mean they cant do anything in life?  He went on 
to be a football player not a rocket scientist!

Hey I have a theory, you know how they showed how OJ didnt have any bruises 
or scratches on his body 3 days after the murders and the defense says if 
Goldman put up such a terrible fight the attacher should have been banged 
up.  Well, maybe OJ was wearing his football uniform to protect himself. :-)

I can't beileve the defense pulling a low blow tactic such as entering 
envidence in at the last minute and Ito allows it, no wonder Hodgman ended 
up in the hospital with chest pains!!!! 

    Low blow tactic or not- this is the real thing. It's the all or nothing
    round. Clark et al are going to do everything they can get away with to
    secure a conviction, Cochran et al are going to do everything they can
    to provide reasonable doubt to prevent the conviction. It's really a
    clash of the titans, with both sides pulling out all the stops.

    What blood type did Goldman Have?

    red?

    -1 don't know, but it wasn't B
    
       Chip

| <<< Note 34.209 by XANADU::KMAC::moraros >>>


| I agree, what was up with the dyslexia comment about how "OJ has dyslexia, 
| and look at all he has accomplished!"  I had to laugh, lots of people have 
| dyslexia, so what does that mean they cant do anything in life?  He went on
| to be a football player not a rocket scientist!

	But it explains why he ran for so many yards. The defenses were going
after the pulling gaurds, while oj ran to the oppisite side, where no one was
standing! :-)

	Can you imagine the lawyers getting a warrent for the Hall Of Fame to
get his uniform to run DNA tests on it???? :-)

| I can't beileve the defense pulling a low blow tactic such as entering
| envidence in at the last minute and Ito allows it, no wonder Hodgman ended
| up in the hospital with chest pains!!!!

	Yeah, I wonder how much of his ending up in the hospital was a ploy to
stop dear ole johnny from continuing on.


Glen

    
    doubtful it was a ploy, the guy ended up in the intensive care unit.
    pretty hard to fake your way into that nice little area.
    
   

    i think it was guilt from that large picture of OJ... :-)

I heard OJ is going to be on Larry King Live tomorrow night. I watched LK 
last night and he never mentioned it.  Can OJ do an interview while on 
trial?

    
    imagine Simpson setting there with a number of sheriffs deputies
    standing right behind him.
    
    I don't think he can do the interview, and I doubt his lawyers would
    let him. He may not even testify.
    
    

| <<< Note 34.215 by SWAM1::MEUSE_DA >>>


| doubtful it was a ploy, the guy ended up in the intensive care unit.
| pretty hard to fake your way into that nice little area.

	My grandmother was very good for faking strokes. He downfall was her
memory. The side that was paralyzed seem to be different depending on which day
you went to see her.


Glen

>    	I've ignored it almost from the beginning, and I
>    	think my life is much better for it!

I agree. I took it as one of those rare opportunities where the actual
occurrences and the outcome have absolutely no bearing on my life,
regardless of what happened or happens. As such I've taken advantage
of it as something to disregard altogether.

    Amen Jack!!!! Exactly!!!!
    
    -b

  In terms of elapsed time I've probably spent 1/3 of my O.J. time listening to
people explain at length how they ignore this trial and will spend no time
discussing it. 

  It's funny, most people don't pay any attention to brusel sprouts but you
rarely hear anyone remind you of that fact. 

  George 

    I'd not kept up much with the case, after the initial theatrics
    and low-speed chase.
    
    Now that an actual trial has begun, I've been interested in
    hearing how a "real-life" courtroom scene works.  I've been
    listening to the opening arguments on WBZ radio during my 
    evening commute and found it interesting to hear what all a
    lawyer can include there.  (dyslexia, for example) 
    
    I've been been avoiding the sound bite news and Expert Commentary
    that's all over the place, since it hasn't added any value to
    what I've listened to myself.
    
    I want to find out if anyone ever actually shouts, "You're out
    of order!  You're all out of order" in a courtroom.
     

  If you are interested in what goes on in a real court room ask your cable
company if they have Court TV. They cover real trials all the time and their
experts are the best around. They are the ones that are running the pool camera
for the O.J. trial and are probably the only ones that Judge Ito trusts. 

  George 

    
    
    Marsha is screaming bloody murder on the defense.
    She is calling them liars. That the defense willfully withheld the
    witnesses names. 
    
    She is pissed off to the max. My radio speaker just broke!
    
    

    Actually, I do have Court TV and look in on it occasionally.
    Been kind of interesting to have Radio OJ, though, and just
    focus on the words, not appearances.
    
    Plus I'm not engaged in anything useful while driving anyway.
    ("Westford?  How did I get to Westford?"	;^)	)
    

RE            <<< Note 34.226 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>

>	Except when they have that idiot (<-- in deference to our dear
>	Mr. Sacks) Jerry Spence on.  Egads, what a winner he is.

  Jerry Spense almost never loses. He's the idiot I'd want sitting next to
me if I got in trouble with the law down in the South West.

  George

>>  Jerry Spense almost never loses. He's the idiot I'd want sitting next to
>>me if I got in trouble with the law down in the South West.

	Yeah, okay, he's not an idiot per se, but he's such a boor when
	he's on Court TV.  Ego the size of Texas.  I can't stand watching
	him.

| <<< Note 34.227 by SWAM1::MEUSE_DA >>>


| Marsha is screaming bloody murder on the defense.

	It's much better than Jan screaming:




                            MARSHA MARSHA MARSHA!

    Jerry Spence....  the silver-haired gentleman with a cowboy
    hat or a ponytail or a bolo tie or something?
    

    This just in! Judge Lance Ito shifted in his chair. Yes, he was
    sitting on the right one, but now he's giving the other cheek a
    go. Another exciting day in the court as Judge Ito admonishes
    court TV for putting the camera on him while he fixed a wedgie.
    
    -b

>>    Jerry Spence....  the silver-haired gentleman with a cowboy
>>    hat or a ponytail or a bolo tie or something?

    yeah, and that gawdawful fringed jacket.
    

    
    the camera is showing a great view of Marsha's legs.
    
    

>My grandmother was very good for faking strokes. 

Different strokes...for different folks...

(Am I dating myself here? Ms. Deb will tell I'm sure!)

    Brandon,
    
    That phrase it timeless.  Please feel free to use it and feel as
    contemporary as you wish.  
    
    Brian

    I always wondered what that expression means. I know
    what it means in the context that it is used (a variant
    on "to each, his own"), but exactly what are we talking
    about stroking here?
    
    -b

    
    Marsha's legs.
    

    You think Marsha ever watches any Sharon Stone films? :-)
    
    -b

>   If you are interested in what goes on in a real court room ask your cable
> company if they have Court TV.

	Or even better, go down to your county (or local) court house
	and sit in on a few trials ....

    Whoever said that the outcome of this trial doesn't effect them is full
    of prunes.  All court cases effect the "public" especially if they set
    "precedences".
    
    This case should be particularly interesting to women.

    
    .236
    
    You're only dating yourself if you can sing the rest of the song,
    Brandon 8^).

            <<< Note 34.226 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>


>	Except when they have that idiot (<-- in deference to our dear
>	Mr. Sacks) Jerry Spence on.  Egads, what a winner he is.


	But if you are ever accused of a crime, he's the guy to call
	(if you can afford him). I understand that he has never lost
	a case.

Jim

    <<< Note 34.242 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


	It's been to calm in here. ;-)


>    This case should be particularly interesting to women.

	How so? Do you beleive that all abusive husbands should be charged
	with murder?

Jim

    Jessica Fletcher would sort it out.

    ...you're only dating yourself if you're a schizophrenic!
    
                                 :-)

    Jim, the case is important to women because there is proven abuse
    in this case. This would support the continued battle of women to
    be taken seriously by the courts and the law agencies when 
    a) reporting an abuse  b) filing restraining orders  c) the
    treatment of the abuser (counseling or jail time). I think
    this is what Nancy was poking at. The system doesn't always
    do its best to protect women. I think this is another connection that
    Nancy was attempting to make and I agree with her 100%. Men who
    abuse women are simply worthless animals and should be treated
    as such. 
    
    Of course, I don't want to put words in Nancy's mouth either...
    
    Marsha did get ballistic. Rightly so, I believe. The dream team did
    withhold information and admitted to it. What Lance has to do is 
    make the ruling on how many pieces were in violation of disclosure.
    The prosecution listed a dozen(+) and defense downplayed it to only
    one (I believe). In any event it added up to another delay.
    
    They also attacked (very effectively) the character of the "witnesses",
    e.g. one was a "court certified" pathological liar, drug abusers,
    chronic law breakers, etc...
    
    The prosecution severely admonished the defense's ethics. Marsha used
    words like appalling and disgusting. Johnnie went into defense mode
    (literally) by attacking the amount of resources the prosecution has
    at its disposal. Marsha countered with the 80k case load on the DA's
    plate against Johnnie's assertion that LA had 9000 court officers.
    Even at that, it's spreading things a little thin... His point was
    that they have limited resources and it takes them longer to come
    up with and properly process their evidence and witnesses.
    
    One personal observation... Johnnie is smoother than a baby's butt. 
    He rebutted Marsha's assertions with the old "two sides of my mouth"
    presentation. He opened up his presentation stating that he would
    not resort to the name calling or insulting tactics used by the 
    prosecution. Then within minutes did exactly that. At one point he
    actually degraded the DA team saying (paraphrasing here) that he has
    worked both sides of the street (DA & private practices) and that when
    they get up enough courage to go out on their own blah, blah... He's
    good, very good. You could barely notice he was doing the same thing
    unless you were looking for it.
    
    Johnnie also made some comment about being a "blue-collar" lawyer. He
    must be speaking about the Beverly Hills blue-collar set. I don't think
    the common man could afford him. :-)
    
    Anyway... Lance is supposed to rule on the discovery issues, Johnnie is
    supposed to finish his opening statement, Lance will rule on the time
    asked (1 month) to allow the DA's office to investigate the new
    "witnesses", and maybe, just maybe the trial will start...
    
    Strap in for this one! I'll bet the objection and side bar events will
    set new records...
    
    Chip 
    

    Come on Jim... admonish can be used out of context of the law, but
    nice try anyway. (a smart guy like you knows this, I sure)
    
    What does "no assualt charge" have to do with. Another nice try.
    BTW, assault has been proven and accepted in this case as a
    matter of record. Hope this helps.
    
    And... finally, the prosecution (even you and I) could have got that 
    information on those witnesses very quickly (public record). Don't
    you think they'd like the opportunity for an interview for some
    (maybe important) information like where they were, finding
    corrobortive support, etc... Nice try, again...
    
    Chip

    Gimme a flipping BREAK.  No, duuuhhh, it ain't assault.  It's
    M*U*R*D*E*R.
    
    Shheeeeeeeeeeesh.
    

    -1 agreed, but for some of the technically obsessed... :-)
    
       gotta cajole the whole crowd ya know.
    
       Chip

                    <<< Note 34.250 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    Come on Jim... admonish can be used out of context of the law, but
>    nice try anyway. (a smart guy like you knows this, I sure)
 
	I said it was a nit.

>    What does "no assualt charge" have to do with. Another nice try.
>    BTW, assault has been proven and accepted in this case as a
>    matter of record. Hope this helps.
 
	One case of physical abuse has been proven and that was some
	years ago. OJ pleaded No Contest, was found guilty and had
	to undergo therapy by court order.

	THIS case is about a double murder, not spousal abuse.

>    And... finally, the prosecution (even you and I) could have got that 
>    information on those witnesses very quickly (public record). Don't
>    you think they'd like the opportunity for an interview for some
>    (maybe important) information like where they were, finding
>    corrobortive support, etc... Nice try, again...
 
	Well, one of them is the person that Furman interviewed. You 
	know, the one that he negelected to tell anyone about. As for
	the others, I don't believe that the discovery rules require that
	the DA be allowed to interview defense witnesses. THey merely must be
	told about the witnesses. If the DA wants to question their
	crdibility, it seems that they already have enough dirt on them.

Jim

    Jim,
    
    ... but they weren't told about some of the witnesses. the defense
        a-d-m-i-t-t-e-d that they didn't inform.
    
        can't you agree that if Lance has allowed the abuse (more than 
        one) as evidence (pertinent dimension to this case) it is a
        part of this case? murder (IMHO) is the ultimate abuse.
    
    
        i have to think that if the defense had a chance at making an
        issue of the DA's office violating discovery they'd be all over
        it like stink on poop. 
    
        i think it was summed up best by the observations made by the
        Court TV folks when they said it was becoming more a contest of
        egos and personalities and that the focus on the victims is
        playing "second fiddle."
    
        Chip   
        

  Today should be an off day in the O.J. Trial. The prosecution gave the judge
about 27-28 points to consider in a motion against the defense and he's taken
it under advisement. 

  The prosecution has asked the judge for sanctions against the defense for
springing surprise witnesses during their opening statement. The prosecution
wants the judge to admonish the jury to disregard those statements and to tell
them the defense is guilty of misconduct. 

  Judge Ito asked the prosecution for a more specific charge suggesting that he
didn't want the jury to disregard the entire opening. Both the prosecution and
the defense are to have suggested statements to the jury in to the judge by 9AM
today. 

  Once again, the Dream Team has outlawyerd the prosecution. The judge will not
tell the jury to disregard the entire opening but rather he must remind them of
each point and tell them to disregard that point thus allowing them to hear
the arguments over again. By the time they get the case 5-6 months from now
they will have long forgotten the part about how they were suppose to disregard
those points. 

  This is shaping up to be one of the best legal battles of all time. It will
easily equal the Scopes trial as both prosecution and defense go after blood on
each point. 

  My guess is that the State's case will take just under 2 months then the
defense will go about 3-4 months. The jury should take about 20 days to decide
that they can't reach a verdict. That should wrap things up just in time for
the start of the 2nd Menendez trial now scheduled for June.

  George

    Dream Team?!?! Just when I thought this couldn't get any more
    farsical... 
    
    

    
    The behavior of Cochran, Shapiro and Bailey is outrageous. Each and
    every one of them is totally cognizant of what the California statutes
    require vis-a-vis discovery of either witnesses or (purported) expert
    testimony.
    
    With the criminal justice system falling down around us, how is it that
    lawyers risk nothing more than a mere reprimand for clearly and
    egregiously violating courtroom ethics? 
    
    Would that they face million dollar fines Monday morning (ha!).
    
    

    Reading the summaries in here, I'm surprised that the prosecution
    hasn't requested that a mistrial be declared.  Can they do this?
    Would it be in their best interests?
    
    Chris

    
    As "Greta" said yesterday, Ito has lost control of this courtroom.
    
    And she may be right.

                    <<< Note 34.254 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>        can't you agree that if Lance has allowed the abuse (more than 
>        one) as evidence (pertinent dimension to this case) it is a
>        part of this case? murder (IMHO) is the ultimate abuse.
 
	It is part of the prosecutions attempt to prove murder. But the
	case at hand is STILL a murder case.

	The commentary of spousal abuse should have happened a long time
	ago.   
    
>        i have to think that if the defense had a chance at making an
>        issue of the DA's office violating discovery they'd be all over
>        it like stink on poop. 
 
	THey did. Last week. Judge Ito allowed the DA to proceed after
	ADMONISHING ;-) them concerning not turning evidence over to
	the defense.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 34.258 by DECWIN::RALTO "Gala 10th Year ECAD SW Anniversary" >>>

>    Reading the summaries in here, I'm surprised that the prosecution
>    hasn't requested that a mistrial be declared.  Can they do this?
>    Would it be in their best interests?
    
  The prosecution asking for a mistrial would be a lot like a visiting football
team backing off the line of scrimmage because of crown noise. Once they do
that the noise just grows and grows.

  Mistrials are disruptive to the process and if you are the prosecution that
is exactly what you do not want. Disruption and chaos usually work for the
defense.

  If the prosecution backs down and asks for a mistrial they will just get the
same thing next time around.

  Right now, the prosecution has the edge with evidence and the defense has
the edge with better lawyers. It should be quite a battle.

  George

    -1 common opinion. Johnnie seems to running the show.
    
       the prosecution could file for mistrial, but they stated they
       wouldn't because they were happy with their position, strategy,
       and the general position of things.
    
       Gee George, that exactly what Marcia Clark predicted (4-6 wks).
    
       "the prosecution being outlawyered" <- your opinion. i do agree
       with your observation on the time element. all this maneuvering
       will mean little toward the outcome.
    
       Chip

> Reading the summaries in here, I'm surprised that the prosecution
> hasn't requested that a mistrial be declared.

	This is similiar to what Ito himself said if the DA asked
	for the supreme sanction on the Defense's last minute turn
	over of evidence.  Ie. if Ito barred the evidence from
	being used as a sanction, and then OJ is convicted, the
	defense then has a pretty good chance at an appeal.

	Something overlooked by the previous replies on yesterdays
	oj events.  The DA has also asked that they be allowed to
	present a NEW opening statement to the jury.

    ... yes Jim, but i believe that was one point. Ito seems to be
        a little biased - my opinion - in allowing liberties with
        the defense and not the prosecution.
    
        one reason identified was that Ito does not want a decision he
        has made to be overturned by the appellate (if an appeal - ha -
        is filed after a guilty verdict).
    
        i get it, Jim. it's a murder trial...
    
        Chip

    yes the DA's did make the request, but could site no case law. my
    guess is it won't be allowed. (re-opening statement)
    
    Chip

RE                    <<< Note 34.262 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>       "the prosecution being outlawyered" <- your opinion. i do agree
>       with your observation on the time element. all this maneuvering
>       will mean little toward the outcome.
    
  Of course they are getting outlawyered. Think of the possible outcomes here.
The judge will now have to remind the jury of what they heard which means the
thing the prosecution least wants them to hear they will hear twice. Then he
will tell them to ignore it and that what they heard is not evidence but he
will have to point out that nothing the lawyers say in their opening is
evidence anyway.

  The jury will scratch their heads over that one for a few days but by next
summer when they are deliberating they will have long forgotten the confusing
message of how they were to disregard what is not evidence to begin with. 

  Mark this one a slam dunk for the defense.

  George

| <<< Note 34.242 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| This case should be particularly interesting to women.

	Nancy, how so? If by his past with spousal abuse, no, this case won't
have anything to do with that as far as helping women. If by murder, a guy was
killed brutally too. What am I missing?

    ... i agree that it was a brilliant thing to do. slimey, but brilliant.
        in the context of ethical lawyering, it wasn't out-lawyering. they
        also run the risk of legal consequences but Ito is of the
        persuasion to initiate this. However, on Ito's behalf, he's
        not being pressed by the prosecution to do so either.
    
        Chip
    
         

| <<< Note 34.246 by SNOFS1::DAVISM "And monkeys might fly outa my butt!" >>>


| Jessica Fletcher would sort it out.

	And Ben Matlock would be the defense team. One lawyer, not SEVERAL. OJ
could have saved himself a ton of money......

    this whole thing is probably a ploy for OJ to make millions. his
    new book is out and is moving like poop thru a goose  :-)
    
    re; matlock... and ben would have uncovered the real murderer in the
        process! :-)

| <<< Note 34.256 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>

| Dream Team?!?! Just when I thought this couldn't get any more farsical...


	Brian, I think they're called the dream team cause they actually
believe he will be set free..... :-)

| <<< Note 34.270 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>


| re; matlock... and ben would have uncovered the real murderer in the process! 


	Yeah, it would have been Jessica Fletcher! She may look frail, but
she's been killing and blaming others for YEARS!


Glen

	Chip, you may have answered my question for Nancy. Let me see if I got
this right. 

	The spousal abuse of the past was kind of brushed aside because of his
being a celebaty and all, so while he continued to abuse, it boiled over to
murder. So what would help women in this case is to show how far spousal abuse
can go, and hopefully effective laws will be put into place, and women's
complaints of spousal abuse will be taken more seriously. Is this what you
meant?

>>They cover real trials all the time and their
>>experts are the best around. 

	Except when they have that idiot (<-- in deference to our dear
	Mr. Collins) Jerry Spence on.  Egads, what a winner he is.

    NOT a slam dunk for the defense! Their ploy could work, but it could
    just as easy blow up in their faces. Ito is the key. The trial will
    take months, but the next 2-3 weeks may well tell the tale.

  In what way could it blow up in their face?

  George

                    <<< Note 34.264 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    ... yes Jim, but i believe that was one point. Ito seems to be
>        a little biased - my opinion - in allowing liberties with
>        the defense and not the prosecution.
 
	Funny, I've seen just the opposite. Ito's rulings have, to date,
	seemed to favor the DA.

>        one reason identified was that Ito does not want a decision he
>        has made to be overturned by the appellate (if an appeal - ha -
>        is filed after a guilty verdict).
 
	This is one of his concerns. Preventing the defense from presenting
	evidence would almost certainly be reversed on appeal.

Jim

 
>>	Funny, I've seen just the opposite. Ito's rulings have, to date,
>>	seemed to favor the DA.

	Absolutely.  A good man, that Ito, methinks.

It could blow up in their face if the Judge tells the jury that Cochran 
comitted misconduct in his opening statement.

The defense is not outlawyering the prosecution.  The defense, supposedly 
"The Dream Team," the finest lawyers in the country are pulling some sleezy 
moves.  This is supposed to be about justice and a fair trial and Cochran 
claims he is the only one interested in the truth if that's the case then he 
and the defense team would be complying with the law, and they weren't and 
they knew it.

I know lots of people think that Cochran was masterful in his opening 
statement and that he is brilliant.  If I were on the jury I would have 
fallen asleep during his opening statement and yesterday all he seemed to do 
is ramble on and on to the Judge about things that didn't have to do with 
the issues they were discussing.

I agree with Greta, Ito shouldn't have let both sides yesterday go on and on 
and state their point three times, he should have shut them off after they 
made their point.  Ito is taking some real heat for letting his courtroom 
get out of order and wasting the taxpayers money.

    Glen... precisely. Propensity for the obvious is reaching some very
    lofty intellectual levels, doncha think?  :-)
    
    Ito is much more abrasive in the way he handles Marcia v.
    smooth-Johnnie...
    
    Maybe call-for-call (rulings) you're right Jim. Demeanor and the latitude
    being allowed (behavior) is definitely in favor of the defense. And I
    know this is not what will determine the outcome. Just an observation.
    
    Chip

    George, what precludes the finest lawyers in the country from not
    pulling sleazy moves? (if this is what you meant by the contradictory
    observation)
    
   Chip

RE                  <<< Note 34.278 by XANADU::KMAC::moraros >>>

>The defense is not outlawyering the prosecution.

>The defense, supposedly 
>"The Dream Team," the finest lawyers in the country are pulling some sleazy 
>moves.  

  Wait a minute, I'm confused. Those two statements seem to contradict each
other.

  Remember this is the adversary system. A great lawyer is one who can win his
case and not get disbarred in the process. It's up to the judge and jury to
seek truth and justice. 

  And keep in mind, it works both ways. I know a lawyer who started out in
Texas and down there they have a saying that goes "any prosecutor can get the
death penalty for a guilty man, but it takes a truly great prosecutor to get
the death penalty for an innocent man". 

  George

	Chip, then I DO see what this will do to help women. 

RE                    <<< Note 34.280 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    George, what precludes the finest lawyers in the country from not
>    pulling sleazy moves? (if this is what you meant by the contradictory
>    observation)
    
  Tactics.

  If a lawyer's best chance at winning is to avoid sleazy moves, they will
avoid sleazy moves.

  If their best chance at winning is to be sleazy, then they will be sleazy.

  Anything less and they are failing at their fiduciary responsibility to
zealously represent their client.

  George

    -1 agreed...

    
    
    
       IMO,....it dosen't matter,....it just dosen't matter. If Ito
       imposes sanctions or admonishes the defense or whatever it
       won't matter. The key to this trial is the LAPD. The jury is
       predominantly Black and the dislike, mistrust and hate between
       Black folks in L.A.County and LAPD and the DA office is astonishing.
    
       The N.Y. Times did a piece last week on that relationship outlining
       incidents over the last thity years with Blacks, Hispanics and
       the police,....and it's truly amazing. Fuhrman's the key,....if
       he's falsified or altered anything,......I mean ANYTHING,......
       it's over! Cochran is very convincing,.....and F. Lee bailey is an
       assassin. When this is over,...you'll think that Fuhrman 
       participated at Auschwitz!
    
       You see,....Simpson,....whether he committed the murders or
       watched,....will likely be the "beneficiary" of past "injustices.
    
    
       Ed
    
    
       Don't you think that Marcia's skirts are a little too short..:-)?
    

 re:.243

>You're only dating yourself if you can sing the rest of the song,
>Brandon 8^).

Never let it be said that I backed down from a challenge. (And it might do some
good here to see those time-honored lyrics. Out of the evyl 70's.)

	Sometimes I'm right

		But I can be wrong

	My own beliefs are in my song

	You love me, you hate me, you know and then...

	You can't figure out the bag I'm in

	IIIIIII

		Am Everday People...

	[Yeah yeah yeah]

	There is a yellow one

	Who won't accept the black one

	Who won't accept the red one

	Who won't accept the white one

	And different strokes for different folks

	And so on and so on and scooby doo be doo be....

[ I like Arrested Developments' version too ]

    Man, I enjoyed my dialogue this morning! :-)
    
    Whoever you were that spoke for me... well, you did a fine job!

Getting back on topic for a moment...I'm sure I heard about witnesses to several
men seen at the crime scene/Ford bronco seen at O.J.'s house (and even speculation
on the witnesses veracity) several months ago.

Is it just their submission to the official list at the last moment that has
everyone in an uproar? I can't believe the prosecution was totally ignorant of
their existence. Both prosecution and defense have been less than quality in
this nightmare.

	so far it would seem that the juice is getting his money's
	worth though.

    Why Ms Nancy, anytime... :-)
    
    It seems incredible that a statement can be made that the DA's office
    should have know what they possibly could not have known.
    
    The facts are... the DA's office has turned over 20k+ pgs. of
    discovery, the defence approx. 140 pgs (half of that this week).
    On the surface it looks pretty ludicrous.
    
    Chip

    Yeah, the old "swamp 'em and make THEM separate the wheat from the
    chaff" routine. Can be very effective.

    The ONLY evidence that concerns me or would cause me to question OJ's
    guilt is the "under the fingernail blood" that doesn't match anyone on
    the scene.  The question, I'd ask.. does it match the kids?  That to me
    as a juror would cause reasonable doubt.
    
    
    

    -1 no one they know of (at the moment) at the scene...
    
       Chip

RE<<< Note 34.288 by STUDIO::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

>Getting back on topic for a moment...I'm sure I heard about witnesses to several
>men seen at the crime scene/Ford bronco seen at O.J.'s house (and even speculation
>on the witnesses veracity) several months ago.

  This is what really has the prosecution steamed. 

  There was a witness that claimed to see several men at the scene of the
murder. Problem is that the witness is not very credible. She has a record of
fraud and convictions for something or other and would be very easy to impeach
on the stand. 

  When the defense submitted their original list she was not listed as a
witness. The prosecution gave their opening and said nothing about her figuring
she wouldn't be part of the trial. 

  After the prosecution opening, the defense submitted her name on their new
list and Johnnie Cochran told the jury how "someone will come and tell you they
saw the men in front of the house ...". 

  Now the Prosecution knows, the Judge knows, the press knows, and everyone
involved knows that the defense has no intention of letting her anywhere near
the stand because she would crumble on cross examination. 

  So the prosecution has been had. Cochran managed to slip this "evidence" in
to his opening after the prosecution's opening without them knowing in advance
and they will never have a chance to impeach the witness because the witness
will never testify. 

  Their only recourse is to have the judge remind the jury of this fact again
and have him instruct them to ignore it which, as one Court TV expert said,
is sort of like telling someone "don't think about pink elephants" which would
naturally make them think of pink elephants.

  Of course as Johnny Cochran said, the prosecution does have the option of
reminding the jury of this "testimony" once again during closing and argue
against it which should take care of those jurors who had forgotten about it
just as they are about to deliberate. 

  It was a fine touch by the defense. About 20% more sleazy than when the
prosecution dumped their list of 200 witnesses on the defense about 2 weeks
before the trial. 

  Expect a whole lot more of this from both sides before this trial is over.

  George

    Couple of nits:
    
    The maid saying she saw the Bronco at the precise time she claims,
    puts her in direct conflict with the chauffeur.  Remember the chauffeur
    called his boss and beeped him and his claims can be verified.  The
    maid might be confused on time; remember Nicole's mother was wrong 
    about the time she spoke on the phone with Nicole and it took records
    from the Telco to pin down the exact time.  There is no reason to think
    the maid is lying; I just think she's mistaken.  They specifically asked
    the chauffeur about seeing the Bronco by the side entrance and he said
    it was not there when he went around to check the other entrance for
    any signs of OJ.  I WOULD like to hear why Furhman didn't tell anyone
    he talked to the maid though.
    
    Asst. DA Darden said they had been able to learn about the woman
    who claims she saw 4 men via LAPD computer system.  Apparently there
    are arrests warrants out for her because she's papered LA with about
    $10,000 worth of rubber checks. <--- This was all they had been able
    to find out in 24 hours.  BTW the woman's whereabouts are unknown to
    the DA (bad checks have anything to do with this)?  She sounds like
    a VERY credible witness!! Since she faces arrest if she comes forward
    to testify, I wonder if Cochran really has any intentions of producing
    her.
    
    Asst. DA Darden advised that Bailey had already asked him if he was
    interested in a mis-trial; methinks this is what the defense was hoping
    for when they pulled the stunt they did.  I'm not sure that even a 
    hefty monetary penalty would change these guy's mode of operation;
    Cochran, Shapiro and Bailey are all multi-millionares - a fine would be
    an annoyance.  If they get away with this behavior they'll add to their
    bank accounts big time if they get OJ off; however if they wind up 
    with their reputations tarnished as reputable lawyers, that could hurt.
    Up until now these men enjoyed reputations and very capable, albeit
    tough lawyers; I've already heard the word "sleaze" being used to
    describe their present antics.
    
    IMO Ito has lost control of the entire situation.  With the buffoons
    in the coroner's office and the LAPD, I'm afraid the prosecution team
    has an almost impossible task in front of them now.
                                                       

	Fuhrman has been out of town recently buying property in Idaho.

	He says that he and his family will not be safe in L.A. after
	this trial is over.


/john

    Shouldn't that be Idaho(e)?

    -1 yes...

	As in "Idaho, but I had to bury it after killing the neighbor."

/john

    Why did you kill the neighboor?  Isn`t that against the law or
    somethin???

    <<< Note 34.292 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>The question, I'd ask.. does it match the kids?  That to me
>    as a juror would cause reasonable doubt.
 
	Well they said Nicole was not type B, and, if I remember correctly
	OJ is type O. It could come from the kids if they are not really	
	his kids, but there's has been no allegation made to that effect.

Jim

   
    
    

	Maybe Furman will star in, "My own private Idaho, the sequal"!

    Ummmm, I seriously doubt it Glen, considering what the first one was
    about...
    
    -b

It's true the prosecution is going to face some tough times ahead.  Putting 
that loser coroner on the stand is going to be real trouble.  The defense is 
going to crucify him.  Did you all see Golden (??) on the stand during the 
pre-trial hearings.  He was terrible and it was downright embarrassing for 
the prosecution!  PrimeTime did a segment on him, where he had screwed up 
several other murder cases.  It's too bad, I think they said there are about 
a half a dozen coroners in L.A. and they got stuck with him!

Also, Furman is going to be in real trouble too, if he really did say those 
racial slurs about Afro-Americans/interacial couples, etc. then he deserves 
to get what's coming to him by the defense!  Also if he really did interview 
that maid next door and never recorded it, well that's going to be a big 
issue for the jurors.

I think OJ may get off or it will be a hung jury and not because he didn't 
do it but because there were too many screw ups by the LAPD, Coroner's 
office, etc.

But then again there are some strange things about how he didnt have any 
bruises on him and also I found it strange that those bloody socks were 
found in his bedroom.  I would have thought if he got rid of all his other 
bloody clothes why would he keep his socks and left them in the middle of 
his room.  The only thing I can think of is that they were dark colored and 
there may have only been a tiny speck of blood on them and he didnt see it.  
But still I think if I was going to get rid of all my clothes I wouldnt have 
taken any chances and would have thrown the socks out too.

It sure is a mystery.

| <<< Note 34.304 by MPGS::MARKEY "Investors in fine Belgian jewelry" >>>

| Ummmm, I seriously doubt it Glen, considering what the first one was about...

	But he could play the cop. The one who pulled over the motorbike??? 

    
     This is such a sloppy murder. So sloppy it's hard to believe anybody
     could be that sloppy. I am not convinced at all that Simpson did
     it.Then again, the defense is going to have to explain how his 
     blood showed up, along with the others in all of those areas.
    
     If it were 4 strange men that did it. Did somebody also plant
     the socks and glove? Did the detective do that? Did he see an
     opportunity to do that, or did somebody else do that. And how
     did he or she get into the house to leave the blood and socks
     etc.
    
      

  It's not so much his blood at the crime scene or Nicole's blood as his house.
That can be explained away by an injury when he was visiting the kids or she
was at his place. The Ace card for the prosecution is Ronald Goldman's blood in
O.J. Bronco. The only reasonable explanation for that is that O.J. was at the
crime scene. 

  If someone else was involved that actually starts to make more sense. If O.J.
helped with the murder but someone else did the bulk of the work and got the
bulk of the blood on his cloths then that explains the small amount of blood in
O.J.'s truck and bedroom. 

  Problem is that if there was someone else involved, that makes it very
difficult for the prosecution because then it becomes almost impossible for
them to determine O.J.'s role, if any. Did he hire someone to help murder his
wife? Did he stumble on someone else murdering his wife? Something inbetween?
Who knows?

  George

>  If someone else was involved that actually starts to make more sense. If O.J.

Ever think OJ might not be involved, but that someone who had access to the
house and the bronco might have been? (Cato??? Someone else?)

Also, for setting up OJ... I would imagine that someone could open up his
bronco and plant blood in there... Did the LAPD ever check to see if the
Bronco was forced open? From what we've seen so far, they probably have
not bothered checking that... What are those thin things, that go into
the window and unlock the door? Do they leave any obvious signs of 
tampering??? 

Also, if OJ fell asleep in his house, he might not have had any alarm systems
turned on. If so, someone could have gotten into the house to plant blood...
Or, if he was rushed to get into the limo, he might have forgotten about
turing the alarm on...

I think there are a lot more questions in my head about this case now...
I've avoided it pretty much till the start of the trial... I think if the
blood under her nails is true, another footprint and tire tracks at the
crime scence is true, then it looks good for OJ...

And lets not forget that there were no obvious cuts or bruises on OJ's 
body... so where did he bleed from if he did the murders??? 

/Scott

RE              <<< Note 34.309 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>

>Ever think OJ might not be involved, but that someone who had access to the
>house and the bronco might have been? (Cato??? Someone else?)

  Maybe but not Cato. He's got the Limo driver as an alibi. The two of them
waited for O.J. together. And before that he's got the phone call to his
girlfriend.

>Also, for setting up OJ... I would imagine that someone could open up his
>bronco and plant blood in there... Did the LAPD ever check to see if the
>Bronco was forced open? 

  This is the conspiracy theory and it's probably the one the defense will
use. In fact they are hinting that they will accuse the LAPD of planting the
evidence. They've already accused Mark Fuhrman of planting the glove.

>And lets not forget that there were no obvious cuts or bruises on OJ's 
>body... so where did he bleed from if he did the murders??? 

  This is also a big defense point. Along with the missing bloody cloths and
his arthritis it's one that leads me to believe that someone else was involved.

  George

    I heard that one of the standard tests is too look for
    blood in the 'plumbing'...and they found blood in the
    pipes from his shower.  They actually come in and remove
    the pipes and test the inside for blood.

    I think the country will convict him.  And it will be a hung jury.
    bob

>    pipes from his shower.  They actually come in and remove
>    the pipes and test the inside for blood.

that is a new one... but of course, if his girlfriend just had her 
period, they could easily explain this away...

But I would think all the rushing water would rinse the blood away,
wouldn't it???? How far down into the pipes would they need to go???

/scott

    RE: .308...
    
    I happened to be out sick Mon/Tues/Wed this week, and watched the
    entire thing unfold on live TV (stupid me!).  I was absolutely riveted
    to Ms. Clark presenting her opening statement, as was my Mom, who was
    with me.  One of the things that most impressed us being strange was
    the complete lack of Goldman's blood or Nicole's found in the Bronco, 
    only OJ's.
    
    According to the *defense*, however, there is also a small spot of Type
    B blood on the steering column of the Bronco.  This, along with the
    Type B blood on Nicole's thigh, stomach, and under her nails, went
    unmentioned in the Prosecution's opening.  Gee, I wonder why? :)
    
    Verrrry, verrrry interesting stuff, let me tell you!  My list of things
    that don't compute within the prosecution include: 
    
    *	The defense claims that forensics will prove that some of the knife
    cuts were consistent with straight blade, some with a serrated knife. 
    What, he's ambidextrous?!
    
    *	The complete lack of non-OJ blood trail leading back to the
    Rockingham house, except for one small drop on a sock.  Gee, if OJ
    changed his clothes at home, why didn't some of the blood rub off on
    the seats of the Bronco or on his lovely white carpeting?  If he 
    changed his clothes in Nicole's yard, why didn't some of the blood 
    rub off on her sidewalk?
    
    *	The prosectution claims that the socks were "literally soaked" with
    blood; why was "none observed"?  And why did none seep into the white
    carpeting?
    
    *	Why in heaven's name would the killer only remove *one* glove
    before leaving the scene of the crime?!  That's not just stupid and
    careless, it doesn't even make any sense!
    
    *	If OJ was so controlling that he chose all of Nicole's clothes and
    friends, and was completely jealous and possessive, why would he choose
    to dress his possession like a high-class call girl?
    
    *	If all of the defense's impeaching witnesses (the lady
    who saw four men leaving Nicole's, the man walking the dog, etc.) are
    all, as Chris Darden put it, thieves, addicts, felons and pathological
    liars, and they are also all Nicole's neighbors, then why was OJ the
    only suspect?  Really, I live in SoCal, and I had no idea that
    Brentwood was such a tough area! :)
    
    Anyway, it just doesn't all add up for me, never has.  Personally, I
    think that this will wind up a mis-trial, and the State will never,
    never, ever be able to obtain another "impartial" jury.  (which is not
    to say that I believe *this* jury can bring themselves to be impartial,
    either!)  Who could be impartial after this week?!
    
    M.
    
    

    P.S. - obviously, I am no relation to the deceased Mr. Goldman!
    
    M.
    

                     <<< Note 34.310 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  This is the conspiracy theory and it's probably the one the defense will
>use. In fact they are hinting that they will accuse the LAPD of planting the
>evidence. They've already accused Mark Fuhrman of planting the glove.

	All it would take is for one of the detectives that had been
	at the murder scene to admit that he got into the Bronco
	looking for evidence. The way they were tramping around
	at Nicole's house, I can't imagine that they didn't have
	blood on their shoes.

Jim

>     *	The defense claims that forensics will prove that some of the knife
>     cuts were consistent with straight blade, some with a serrated knife. 
>     What, he's ambidextrous?!

	This is old news and was discussed at length during the prelim.
	hearing.  It's very possible that both knifes made both type
	of cuts depending on how each individual cut was made.

	And of course if OJ did have help (Al Cowlings :-), that could
	also give 2 knifes.

>     *	Why in heaven's name would the killer only remove *one* glove
>     before leaving the scene of the crime?!  That's not just stupid and
>     careless, it doesn't even make any sense!

	This is also old news discussed during prelim. hearing.  It's
	very possible the killer did not *remove* the glove, but that
	the glove came off during a struggle (this is also why it
	is possible if OJ is the killer, that he got the cut on his
	hand after the glove came off during the struggle w/Ron).

>     *	If OJ was so controlling that he chose all of Nicole's clothes and
>     friends, and was completely jealous and possessive, why would he choose
>     to dress his possession like a high-class call girl?

	He's kinky?

>     *	If all of the defense's impeaching witnesses (the lady
>     who saw four men leaving Nicole's, the man walking the dog, etc.) are
>     all, as Chris Darden put it, thieves, addicts, felons and pathological
>     liars, and they are also all Nicole's neighbors, then why was OJ the
>     only suspect?  Really, I live in SoCal, and I had no idea that
>     Brentwood was such a tough area! :)

	Who told you they all live in Brentwood?  For example, I believe
	the court-certified path. liar they are talking about is the
	one brought up during the prelim hearing.  This same guy has
	also confessed for example to accidently killing the man that
	John Gotti was accused of killing while he was really trying to
	kill a couple of arabs or something.

	And with all the publicity of this case, it's amazing even more
	weirdo's haven't come out of the clost trying to get their
	"15 minutes of fame".

    re -1:
    
>	This is old news and was discussed at length during the prelim.
>	hearing.  It's very possible that both knifes made both type
>	of cuts depending on how each individual cut was made.
    
    Depending, of course, upon whose expert witness you speak with, yes? 
    We all know that.  However, you must admit, the defense's forensics
    witness does create a reasonable doubt.

>	And of course if OJ did have help (Al Cowlings :-), that could
>	also give 2 knifes.
    
    Gee, gosh, golly.  I wonder how the accomplice got there and away;
    certainly not in the Bronco, since only OJ's blood was found, except of
    the mysterious spot of type B on the steering column (an odd place for
    a passenger to touch...).  

>	This is also old news discussed during prelim. hearing.  It's
>	very possible the killer did not *remove* the glove, but that
>	the glove came off during a struggle (this is also why it
>	is possible if OJ is the killer, that he got the cut on his
>	hand after the glove came off during the struggle w/Ron).

    Okay.  So why didn't he just take the other one off and leave it there,
    too.  I mean, he took the time to carefully bleed little spots from his
    small hand cut all the way to the back yard.  Why not take a second to
    remove the glove.  After all, according to the prosecution, this is
    *not* a careless, heedless crime of passion, but rather a carefully
    planned act of ultimate control.
    
>	He's kinky?
    
    Or maybe he really doesn't fit the *profile* of a possessive, abusive
    spouse.

>	Who told you they all live in Brentwood?  For example, I believe
>	the court-certified path. liar they are talking about is the
>	one brought up during the prelim hearing.  This same guy has
>	also confessed for example to accidently killing the man that
>	John Gotti was accused of killing while he was really trying to
>	kill a couple of arabs or something.
    
    It is not the same person.  And one of the witnessess is already
    bringing suit against Chris Darden and LA DA's office for publicly
    defaming her character.  And several of the witnesses to whom the
    prosecution objects live in Nicole's neighborhood, as evidenced by
    their South Bundy-area addresses and the fact that they were walking
    their dogs or taking a late evening stroll on a summer's night.

>	And with all the publicity of this case, it's amazing even more
>	weirdo's haven't come out of the clost trying to get their
>	"15 minutes of fame".
    
    I see.  And isn't it entirely possible that anyone on the prosecution's
    witness list is doing the same thing?  I take it you also believe that a
    person's financial status or romantic past eliminates the possibility
    of their being credible, too?   What about the type B blood on Nicole, 
    the lack of bruises on OJ (combined with the abundance on Ron), the
    total lack of non-OJ blood in his house (including his plumbing, which
    I read came up abundantly clean, contrary to the prosecution's
    expectation)?  One or two little disconnects I could easily let slide
    and say "guilty as sin, let him rot!".  There are just so many that
    it's hard to drop them.
    
    M.
    

    One theory by the defense, which I haven't completely bought, is that
    Detective Fuhrman, being a racist, has staged the whole thing in order
    to frame OJ.  I can't buy it, because I can't see the motive.
    
    However I picked up on the radio today one interesting tidbit about his
    house-hunting trip into Idaho.  Why Idaho?, I had asked myself before
    when I first heard of this trip.
    
    Well Idaho has always had a bit of a history with White Supremacy
    clans.  According to the story, Furhman was visiting one town up there
    known for having strong WS beliefs.  If this story is true, he sure
    picked a bad time to go shopping.
    
    -- Jim                           

    >    *   If OJ was so controlling that he chose all of Nicole's clothes
    >and friends, and was completely jealous and possessive, why would he
    >choose to dress his possession like a high-class call girl?
    
    To be the envy of all the "guys" of course!  It's VERY common for men
    to put on display what they have in a mate or girlfriend, and then go
    into rage when the attention gets "too close".
    

    And....
    
    Anybody check Al Cowlings blood type?  Could it be B?

    Per CNN, Johnny Cochran is taking some heat about mis-stating the
    Type-B blood under the fingernail.  As best I could understand the news
    story, what he claimed in the opening statement about this was bogus.
    
    As Larry King quipped, "this story has got everything except a plane
    crash".  And I bet that we'll have some sort of untimely death before
    the trial ends.
    
    -- Jim

    .313 You basically present only the questions that support your
         position. There are an equal number of facts that present
         argument against your position... I'm assuming, by the tone
         of your notes, that you think he's being railroaded (I'm
         not saying that you think he's innocent or guilty).
    
         1) The B type found does not, in any way, support or preclude
            OJ's involvement. It's an unknown.
    
         2) I can't recall the presecution using the words "soaked." In
            fact, they didn't see anything on the first inspection, but
            decided to use a more sensitive method of testing.
    
         3) Stupid mistakes are made by criminals all the time. That's 
            how they get caught. A first time murderer is an ameteur
            murderer.
    
            Any murder makes no sense. 
    
         4) That should've been "why did the murderer remove only one glove
            and... the ski mask?" I don't believe they were "removed."
    
            It was a night, the photos should the items partly concealed
            under a plant. There probably was light in the area, but my
            guess is the murder(s) might have been in a hurry to get the
            heck outa there. Especially if there was a violent struggle
            (which would lead you to believe there was noise).
    
         5) Fibers from the Bronco's carpet and Ron Goldman's shirt (plus
            Nicole's hair) was found on the glove at OJ's house. Not good,
            but you failed to mention that.
    
         6) B blood under Nicole's nails is under question. Even if it
            weren't, the prosecution (like the defense) does not have to
            mention every detail/fact. The jury members would cashing-out
            from old age if that were the process... :-)
    
       There are so many things on both sides of the fence that are highly
       questionable. I'm very interested in seeing the re-creation of the
       crime. That might help explain some of the strange evidence.
    
       Chip

    
    
    
        Any speculation as to what Ito might do this a.m.?
    
        How much damage do you think the prosecution will absorb
        if Hodgedon{sp} is out for another week.Marcia Clark clearly
        dosen't want to proceed without him.
    
        When Cochran finishes his opening statements today about the
        LAPD,...I think that both Clark and Darden will check into
        the hospital.
    
    
        Ed
    

  I heard that what they found under Nicole's fingernail was a Type B enzyme
but what they couldn't tell was it's age. 

  So for instance, if Nicole had been involved with some sort of activity
several days earlier in which she dug her fingernails into someone with Type B
blood, that would have accounted for the material under her nails. 

  I have no idea what that activity might have been,
  George

    Ito has ruled that the prosecution can re-open their argument.
    
    Ito will slap OJ's team on the hand.
    
    the "B" enzyme has been clarified (somewhat) by a statement that almost
    any blood type that has deteriorated will asssume the B type. this
    piece of evidence seems to be neutralized since it appears to be "old."
    this also explains the prosecution avoiding it in their statement.
    
    Maryann G-whatshername has been researched a little more to find 34
    outstanding lawsuits against her. credible witness? hmmmmmm...
    
    Chip

    So -- if the blood type has deteriorated ... and assumes B type (which 
    sounds bizarre -- does this mean O type will assume B type??))  anyway,
    if it's old and deteriorated, would it have affected all the OTHER
    blood tests performed, including dna??
    
    Carla
    

    it assumes "B" enzyme type (not blood type). it should not have
    anything to do with any other tests.
    
    during an inteview spot i saw yesterday with Johnnie C. he referred
    to it as B enzyme, not B type blood. i think her referred to it as
    type B blood during his opening statement which is what i think the
    rift is about on the team...
    
    Chip

> Ito has ruled that the prosecution can re-open their argument.

	What do you mean by "argument"?

	In regards to the prosecution's "opening statement", Ito hasn't
	ruled on that yet.  Ito said he'd "entertain" the idea as long
	as the prosecution kept the request that they would narrow the
	opening statement addendum to something like "if the defense had
	told us about these witnesses we could of told them this and
	that" or something like that.

    re: .324...
    
    Actually, as I noted, I was at home, hearing every word of the
    prosecution's opening arguments.  They noted quite clearly that
    Nicole's and Ron's blood and hair were found on the glove in OJ's back 
    yard, and that fibers that appear to be from Ron's shirt were on it,
    but they did not, repeat, not mention fibers from OJ's Bronco.
    
    Just clarifying.
    
    M.
    

>>    but they did not, repeat, not mention fibers from OJ's Bronco.

	they most certainly did.

    -1 ditto... maybe you were in the can (-2)?
    
       okay, okay... i meant opening statement. 
    
       Chip

    ::michaud... hmmmm, i'll have to get clarity from wife. she told
    me he would allow it.
    
    Chip

> ::michaud... hmmmm, i'll have to get clarity from wife. she told
> me he would allow it.

	No need to clarify, I was watching it before I headed to work :-)
	(your note was posted right after 9am PT, before Ito even got
	on the bench today).

	We shoudn't expect him to rule on the procutions request to
	ammend their opening statement until after the defense finishes
	theirs (when I left for work Ito had just requested that the
	jury be seated)

Re: .313  Some of the statements you make are incorrect.  I watched all of 
Marcia Clark's opening statement and she never said the socks were soaked 
with blood. Infact there wasn't much on them at all and maybe that is why OJ 
didnt notice the blood on them.  Who knows.  She did say that tests came 
back and show that both Nicole and Ron's blood is on them.

Also I think you stated that ONLY OJ's blood was found in his Bronco.  
Although most of it was his blood, there was one or two spots that were his 
and Nicole's blood and I think maybe even Ron's but definitely it wasn't 
only all his.

The gloves were not removed but are speculated that one fell off at the 
scene probably due to a struggle and the other at O.J.'s due to him running 
through his back yard when Kato heard a noise.  This is not proof but this 
has all been stated in the pre-trial hearings.

That's interesting about the type B blood, I was wondering how Cochran was 
going to explain that.  Interesting how in his opening statement he claims 
they found type B blood under her nails.  Now we hear that is NOT the case.

Greta from CNN said today he (Cochran) may be in trouble with the Bar 
Association for some of the things he's done so far.

I wonder if Ito will rule that the prosecution can reopen, he sounded at 
lunched today as if he might rule that way.  I didn't hear, when is Hodgman 
coming back?

    .335 --
    
    The prosecution maintained in the pre-opening arguments regarding
    certain defense exhibits that the sock was (and I *quote*) "literally
    soaked with blood".  I remember this specifically, because the entire
    argument was over the defense noting that an initial report regarding
    the socks noted "none observed", and both my Mom and I thought it
    awfully strange that the socks were "soaked", but "none" was
    "observed".  
    
    Otherwise, I stand by my rendition of the opening statement regarding
    the gloves and Bronco fibers, only because when I was not watching 
    (i.e., took a biological break), Mother was, and we've probably hashed
    this out at home as much as ya'll have here -:)!
    
    M.
    

    
    "contaminated, corrupted and compromised."
    
    
    I'm sure all the jurors have these words etched in their brains 
    after listening to Cochran repeat them over and over and over.
    
    Ito's admonishment to the jury seemed real light compared to what
    he said prior.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

RE      <<< Note 34.336 by SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA "Blondes have more Brains!" >>>

  Was it Bronco fibers or was it Goldman's shirt fibers in the Bronco? Seems I
remember something about Goldman's shirt fibers being somewhere either in the
truck or at the house. By the way, you any relation? 

  At any rate, it looks like the Type B blood under the nails will go away but
the defense still has one really good point, that being the missing bloody
cloths.

  It still looks as though there was a 2nd person involved. That would explain
the shortage of blood on O.J.'s cloths. If there was a 2nd person then whether
he helped O.J. do the crime or whether O.J. stumbled on the crime is the big
question. 

  George

>>  Was it Bronco fibers or was it Goldman's shirt fibers in the Bronco?

	I watched the opening statements too.  Both Bronco fibers and
	Goldman's shirt fibers were discussed.  The commentators on 
	Court TV commented afterward, in fact, that the Bronco fibers
	might be of a general type that could be found in many different
	locations, rendering the evidence somewhat questionable.

    
    Cochran just finished his opening statement.
    I must say, he has created doubts about the prosecutions theory.
    
    

    
    	Judge Ito ruled late this afternoon that the prosecution would be
    allowed an additional opening statement! 
    
    	If the other sanctions imposed by Judge Ito weren't bad enough, this is 
    a real problem for the defense. Perhaps, the jury will begin to wonder that
    maybe "the faith with the jury" that Johnny Cochran vowed that he would 
    keep has already been broken. This would be extremely damaging for the 
    defense's strategy. IMO.
                       

  No, the defense has turned chicken feathers into chicken salad. 

  Remember, the whole defense here is going to be that the big bad THEY led by
the LAPD framed O.J. who was doing nothing but grieving over the death of his
wife. 

  If they can get the Judge lumped in with THEM, so much the better. 

  George 

   The poor jury has been sequestered for 20 days...how much of that has been
   spent in court..less than 3 days?




 Jim

    IMHO they've turned chicken feathers into chicken shite. The
    defense continue to hurt themselves (so does the prosecution
    at times) with their petty whining and name-calling.
    
    Dershowitz (sp?) gets on TV and says he thinks both sides ought
    to get on with business and stop all the whining and complaining.
    What he conveniently left out is "get on with business in accordance
    with the rules..." 
    
    Marcia went ballistic (again) on Johnnie's presentation of the Type B
    findings saying that the defense had presented intent of reading the
    paragraph, but Johnnie (conveniently) left out parts of it that would
    mislead the jury. He ended up reading only one sentence.
    
    One thing, however, was the stupidity that Marcia exhibited by showing
    up late. Particularly after Ito made demands to start on time, every
    time. She stated she was at a meeting.
    
    M. Gerchas was massacred as was Lopez. With respect to Gerchas, the
    DA's office found only 4 rulings on all those lawsuits, but never
    revealed the findings. With respect to Lopez, I thought Marcia 
    should have just dropped the whole non-admittal thing. If the DA's
    do have solid contradictory (testimony) they can take her apart on
    the stand. She can also damage Johnnie's credibility about his opening
    statement remarks on how he manipulated the EPA findings by omitting
    some of the report information.
    
    I think Ito said that he'd give Marcia 10 minutes for the addendum
    (to the opening statement).
    
    Interesting arguments on the ESPN interview. I thought Darden would
    have had the citing down cold on the stuff he wanted as evidence.
    
    Ito also warned both side to stop insulting each other (again).
    
    I thought Johnnie had lost a great deal of compassion and energy
    while finishing up. 
    
    CTV also messed up again with a quick shot of Nicole's back. The delay
    person missed it. It came right after the reports that were being
    showed.
    
    They also mentioned that Nicole's hand was on her throat when they
    found the body. That tells me that she must've been alive after she 
    hit the ground. From the description of the wound it must truely
    have been a horrible death.
    
    Next to the victims, I feel sorry for the jury. 
    
    If I were OJ I'd be feeling a little nervous about my dream team. While
    both sides do show up like amateurs, the defense team is pulling down
    professional salaries.
    
    Chip  

    Thank you for that.  Why not give the rest of the trial the same
    coverage?  TYVM.
    

    i'm a prisoner of the thing :-) my wife is glued to this. she's 
    even taking notes in casae she needs to see if someone's trying to
    pull a fast one! really, she's not obsessed, just very interested.
    
    i'm afraid i'll miss some tonight... double action night at the pistol
    club... bummer.
    
    Chip

    oh, and besides, if i gave that kind of coverage your life would be
    pretty empty now wouldn't it :-)

    
    I think Clark is holding up pretty good considering the amount of
    pressure that must be on her. Especially with one of their team 
    missing. 
    
    Wonder how much sleep she is getting lately.
    
    

    .349
    
    >  think Clark is holding up pretty good considering...
    
    i wonder if you'd even think about saying that if clark were a man.

    I was home yesterday afternoon and caught a "glimpse of the trial" and
    was rather disgusted at what my tax dollars [I live in CA] was going
    towards.  Ito sounds like chihuahua whining out his decisions.  He's
    wishy washy and I thought he was way OFF on the ruling around "self
    authenticating" the video interview of OJ!
    
    He asked something really stupid imo about the fact that written
    letters are not self authenticating, therefore, the video must not be
    self authenticating.  
    
    My 12 year old asked me if OJ had paid Ito to act that way. :-)
    
    

    -1 could've been a guy in one of those OJ masks :-)
    
       i agree with you... i think Ito should prove who he is! :-)
    
       Chip

| <<< Note 34.352 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>


| i agree with you... i think Ito should prove who he is! :-)


	I thought people only had to do that at the registry... :-)

    Furthermore, I'm also appalled at his "comradary" with the defense. 
    It's apparent, or should I say transparent.  
    
    I also thought it was rather BIASED for Ito to rule that the exercise
    video must be left completely in tact with sound for the first segment,
    in which OJ makes a referrence to his bad knees, but must be turned off
    for the second segment in which he makes a remark about wife abuse.
    
    Blatant, blatant favoritism imo.  I was *so* angry when I saw this I
    could hardly keep breathing.. and Marcia Clark had to be even more
    upset than I... Man, I've begun praying for the prosecution in this
    case.
    
    
    

    Johnnie is extremely charismatic and is a vitual professional at
    working relationships with judges and juries.
    
    Johnnie always call Ito "judge" whereas almost everyone else addresses
    him as "your honor." Both are acceptable, just an observation.
    
    Chip

     Why not dispense with the "fair trial" charade and get right to the
    part where we string him up, right Nance?

>>  think Clark is holding up pretty good considering...
> i wonder if you'd even think about saying that if clark were a man.

	that's bull.  there is nothing sexist in the remark that you
	quoted.  but you know what they say about the first person
	who smells a fart .......

    -1 they're unlucky? :-)
    
       Chip

    > Why not dispense with the "fair trial" charade and get right to the
    >    part where we string him up, right Nance?
    
    String who up?  OJ or Ito?  
    
    What about the "fairness" towards Nicole?  

RE    <<< Note 34.354 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    I also thought it was rather BIASED for Ito to rule that the exercise
>    video must be left completely in tact with sound for the first segment,
>    in which OJ makes a referrence to his bad knees, but must be turned off
>    for the second segment in which he makes a remark about wife abuse.
    
  I think the reason for this is that the prosecution is using the video to
rebut the claim being made by the defense that O.J.'s physical condition was
too poor to allow him to do the crime.

  If the defense were also claiming that O.J. never said anything about wife
abuse, then the 2nd part would be admissible but they are not making that
claim and there is other evidence to show O.J.'s tendencies in that area.

  In fact, that's dangerous evidence for the prosecution. It could help them
win this trial but it could cause them problems on appeal.

  George

    .357
    
    > but you know what they say about the first person
    > who smells a fart
    
    yeah, i do.  they say, michaud, get your nose out of binder's ass.

    Re .354:
    
    > I also thought it was rather BIASED for Ito to rule that the exercise
    > video must be left completely in tact with sound for the first segment,
    > in which OJ makes a referrence to his bad knees, but must be turned off
    > for the second segment in which he makes a remark about wife abuse.
    > 
    > Blatant, blatant favoritism imo.
    
    Blatant, blatant ignorance of the judicial system.  The purpose of a
    trial is not to prove the defendant is a bad person.  The purpose of a
    trial is to prove whether or not specific events occurred.
    
    If the defendant has bad knees that prevent them from committing the
    crime, that's proof that the events did not occur.  So evidence about
    knees is relevant to the trial, and you must allow it.
    
    If the defendant made a remark about spouse abuse, or even if the
    defendant did commit spouse abuse, that's NOT proof that the events in
    question in this trial did occur, so the judge must NOT allow it
    (barring other factors that would make it relevant).
    
    Having remarked, or even committed, abuse in the past isn't proof of
    murder any more than a rape victim's consent in the past is proof of
    consent in a particular instance.  If you wouldn't allow the latter at
    a trial, why should you allow the former?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                             

    Why would it cause them problems on appeals?
    
    

    Just finished listening to the "analysis" of Clark's amended opening
    statement (was in the cafeteria when she was actually delivering most
    of it).
    
    She only used 6 of the 10 minutes alloted to her.  I only heard the
    last few minutes when she was discussing Maryann G. indicating that
    MG only came forward *after* Shapiro set up the 800# that offered pay-
    ment for testimony that could be validated.  Shapiro set up the
    hotline, but Cochran talked about MG to the jury; now Cochran will
    have to produce her and hope she comes across as credible.  Clark
    reminded the jurors that the statements on witness credibility as
    detailed by Cochran yesterday also applies to defense witnesses too.
    Apparently MG does not live in the Bundy area and her explanations of
    of what she was doing in that neighborhood will be put under close
    scrutiny if she testifies. Some of us have been accused of being overly
    fascinated by this case, but apparently there are people close to MG
    who can testify that she is obsessed with the case and eventually 
    started acting as if she knew the people involved personally (insert
    them music from Twilight Zone here).
    
    The "great" Gerry Spence agreed with another attorney analyzing
    the case who said that Cochran went too far in his opening statement,
    i.e. OJ was outside practicing his golf swing when the murders took
    place.  Spence feels it was a mistake because NO ONE so far has tes-
    tified that they actually saw OJ on his property during the time frame
    in question.  Spence says Cochran might very well have to put OJ on
    the stand (apparently Spence feels this would be a big mistake).
    Someone else pointed out that the OJ golf practice might also go a
    long way to refuting defense's claim that OJ was too feeble to commit
    the murders because of his arthritis.
    
    Spence also thought Cochran erred in mentioning OJ used the phone in 
    the Bronco to call his girlfriend Paula.  Why would anyone walk quite
    a distance to use the phone in his car when there are as many phones
    as doornobs in his house.  Spence (who is great a spinning "whatif"
    scenarios) again said he thought such statement would force the de-
    fense to put OJ on the stand to explain why he'd use the phone in
    the Bronco.  I think Spence was trying to make the point that when
    the defense offers an alternate explanation of OJ's activities the
    defense also has to do more than spin tales.  He says defense doesn't
    have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but they have to have
    at least a reasonable explanation to back up the theories.
    
    Spence was asked if he'd put OJ on the stand if OJ were his client.
    Spence said he would avoid it at all costs; but he feels Cochran will
    have no choice now.  Spense said Clark and Darden have appeared rattled
    and scattered quite a bit so far (I agree); but he said this will be a
    long trial and he expects Clark and Darden to regain their composure.
    He said they are both very tough cookies on cross-examination.  Even
    though OJ wants to testify and may be confident he (OJ) can handle
    cross, the reality of it might be another story.
    
    Clark has the sloppy LAPD & coroner's investigations (or lack thereof)
    as her cross to bear.  The defense has thrown out a lot of theories
    that may be impossible to backup; in conjunction with the reprimand
    to the defense by Ito, this could be the defenses' cross to bear.
    
    Noticed that now Bailey is ducking the press as well as Shapiro; kind
    of looks like they might feel that Cochran can walk out and stay on
    that limb by himself :-}
    
    Don't know if it's possible under Ca. law, but if I were the State
    Attorney General I'd investigate the LAPD AND the Coroner's office;
    someone needs to take a big broom and sweep (or are these incompetents
    protected by civil service laws)?
    
    

Mr. Binder, you are a salty dog and a witty knave.
You are the Falstaff of Soapbox.

Re    <<< Note 34.363 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    Why would it cause them problems on appeals?
    
  For just the reason given by edp.

  All of the evidence relating to wife abuse in this trial falls under the
category of "propensity evidence". Propensity evidence is that evidence which
doesn't relate to the incident itself but shows that the defendant was
predisposed to do that sort of thing. 

  In just about every state in the nation, propensity evidence is not allowed
because it is considered prejudicial. For example, say that O.J is really
innocent and that while he did beat his wife he didn't kill her. In what way
would this evidence help the jury reach the right decision? 

  There are exceptions in most states that allow "modus operandi" or "signature
evidence" which are types of propensity evidence. That would be something like
a case where a serial killer always put a purple ribbon around the victim's
neck or always left their head in the bird cage, something of that sort, but
that would not apply here. 

  Judge Ito said he was allowing evidence of abuse, such as the 911 call for
the purpose of showing motive but he really close to the line on that ruling.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them get overturned on that point alone if
there is an appeal.

  George

    would be nice, but Ito (IMHO) is allowing some (abuse supporting
    evidence) but not others. it should have been an "all or nothing"
    decision. it isn't, however.
    
    MG was supposed to be walking the neighborhood scouting out apartments.
    plausible i suppose...
    
    Chip

    I didn't see EDP's note.  I understand now why the "Appeal" would
    becomne plausible.
    
    I don't however, agree with the principle.
    
    I'd like to see a precedent set in this trial in admitting previous
    abuse.  And I'd like to see the Apellate [sp] court uphold the
    precedence making new law.
    
    Nancy

    
    I've heard that Det Furhman will leave the LAPD after all this is over,
    and it isn't exactly his decision. Anyone else hear this?? I'm tired of
    all the pissing and moaning by both sides, lets get on with it for
    crying out loud. Glad I'm not a member of the jury, this could go on
    for another 4-5 months. They couldn't pay me that much money to be
    sequestered for up to 6 months!!! That could also play a part in their
    decision as well. IMO
    
    Mark

 I wonder how many other murders happened on June 12th where the perp has
 been tried/convicted and is now serving time..




Jim

    
    
    
    re.371
    
    I wonder how many murders took place on June 12th,.....and the LAPD
    and DA falsely accused the wrong person and that person is now
    serving time.
    
    
    Ed
    

    Jim
    
    Believe it or not 7 months from arrest to trial is pretty speedy, most
    don't get to trial for up to a year or so. This came to trial very
    quickly for such a major case. 
    
    MARK

Re: .364- I think Cochran had to come up with some story as to why OJ used 
his car phone to call Paula B.  There are records that show he used his car 
phone so they have to explain why he would use his car phone when he claims 
he was home at that time.  I think that is where they came up with the golf 
swinging story.  It's a strange story, that's for sure.

MG was supposedly out looking at apartments after 10:00 pm?  How many people 
go looking for a place to live at that time of night.  Also, can she even 
afford to live in Brentwood, although that's another story.  Prosecution 
says MG's friend is going to testify that MG called her and said she never 
went to Brentwood that night.  

I'm surprised Clark didn't take the whole 10 minutes.  I was expecting her 
to go over the 10 minute mark and hear ITo yell at her infront of the jury.

I bet we'll see Bailey doing quite a bit of cross examination, he's very 
intimidating.

    <<< Note 34.368 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    I'd like to see a precedent set in this trial in admitting previous
>    abuse.  And I'd like to see the Apellate [sp] court uphold the
>    precedence making new law.

	If this were an abuse case I would agree with you. But it's not.
	It's a murder case. Evidence of previous acts of murder might
	be admissable, but the abuse angle is skating close to the edge.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 34.368 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    I'd like to see a precedent set in this trial in admitting previous
>    abuse.  And I'd like to see the Apellate [sp] court uphold the
>    precedence making new law.
    
  Ok then how would you handle the cases where a man abuses his wife, someone
else murderers her, and he gets charged with the crime?

  Now those cases might be in the minority but if you were on the California
Supreme Court what would you instruct lower court judges to do to prevent
the man in those cases from being falsely convicted because the jury was
prejudiced by the testimony of his former abuse?

  Keep in mind, the judge doesn't know at the time he does what ever it is you
would have him do, if the guy is guilty or innocent.

  George

    
    I guess we can't expect detailed, precise argumentation from Johnnie
    Cochran -- based on what I watched yesterday. 
    
    

	Funny how two people can watch the same proceedings and have
	such different opinions of what's going on.  Nancy seems to think
	Ito's blowing it.  I think he's doing a good job, considering 
	the unprecedented rogues' gallery of lawyers he has to coddle
	lest he risk a mistrial or appeals up the wazoo.

RE           <<< Note 34.373 by POBOX::BATTIS "Contract Studmuffin" >>>

>    Believe it or not 7 months from arrest to trial is pretty speedy, most
>    don't get to trial for up to a year or so. This came to trial very
>    quickly for such a major case. 
    
  I agree, 7 months is pretty quick. Normally it takes 9 months to a year.
In the case of the Menendez brothers it took 3.5 years and it will be 1.5
years between their two trials.

  One of the reasons this one happened so quickly was that O.J. demanded
a "quick and speedy trial" which under California law must be started within
60 days of the end of the preliminary hearing.

  Technically this trial started late last September,
  George

    
    The trial does resemble a board meeting.  The defense has 5-6 lawyers,
    and the prosecution the same, and Ito's expected to keep them all in 
    line and sort it out, without error, as he goes.  That can't be an
    easy job.
    
    

    The spousal abuse issue IS tricky, but if I remember correctly the
    prosecution did not lay this out in a manner that would indicate murder
    was part of the pattern (let's face it, ya only get dead once).  It
    was layed out that the spousal abuse grew and the murder was the cul-
    mination of what had become increasingly violent behavior on OJ's part.
    Remember Darden stating that "this murder was 17 years in the making".
    
    I've watched several interviews with experts on abusive behavior;
    contrary to what Cochran says his expert will say, everyone I've 
    watched said that the abused wife/ex-wife is at GREATEST physical risk
    when she starts to take steps to put herself out of the control of her
    abuser.  This marriage had gone thru quite a few stops and re-starts;
    the last reconcilation attempt had ended in failure shortly before the
    murders.  I wonder if this will hold up under appeal; but I think it's
    worth a try because I do feel this crime was evolving for a long time.
    
    FWIW; Fuhrman's lawyer was on Nightline after the incident at the air-
    port.  The lawyer did not confirm that Fuhrman was moving to Idaho
    for certain but he did say Fuhrman had been the subject of threats and
    he was concerned about his safety and his family's safety.  He said
    Fuhrman was looking into several areas for a retirement home. IMO,
    Fuhrman doesn't look old enough to be of retirement age (assuming this
    is to take place in the near future).  If Fuhrman really is a racist,
    he has no place on any police force.  However, I still think it is a
    stretch to believe that he set up to frame OJ.  As I recall from the
    preliminary hearings, Fuhrman, Van Natter and 2 other detectives were
    beeped at their homes after the murders had been reported.  I'll agree
    their "detecting" is very sloppy at best, but Fuhrman would have had
    to obtain cooperation from 3 other detectives to pull off a frame <---
    a conspiracy will be hard to prove.  The defense contends Fuhrman acted
    alone. Hmmmmmm......
    

  Regarding the conspiracy once again remember they are not playing to the TV
audience they are playing to the jury and there seems to be quite a history of
distrust between the African American community in L.A. and the LAPD going back
to the Darryl Gates days. 

  Also the other 3 cops don't help Fuhrman much on cross. The story the 4 of
them concocted as to why they went to O.J.'s house was ridiculous. 

  They claim that the reason they went to O.J.s house that morning was just to
inform him that his wife had been killed. When Mark Fuhrman was asked during
the preliminary hearing why he and his partner went along with the other two
cops he said it was because he was afraid that they would get lost. 

  No one believed him and he was beaten up badly on cross by either Shapiro
or one of the others. That will be nothing compared to what F. Lee Baily does
with that on his cross during the real trial. 

  The defense will show that Fuhrman was obviously lying about that and once
they have him caught in one lie the others will be easy to suggest. 

  George 

    As I said George, Furhman is DEFINITELY a liability to the prosecu-
    tion :-)  If I were Marcia the thought of putting that coroner on
    the stand would have me gulping Prozac and Valium :-0
    
    It's really sad to see what has happened to the LAPD.  When I lived
    there in the early 70's there was really a sense of pride about the
    officers.  I can remember reading that at that time the LAPD had more
    college grads as street cops than any other city in the country.  The
    force seemed to be working overtime to overcome the reputation it had
    gained in the 30s/40s/50s as one of the most corrupt police forces in
    the country.
    
    Can any of the Left Coasters confirm if the State Attorney General is
    the TOP COP in California?  Can he/she do anything to shape up the
    sorry mess? (I don't mean the Simpson case).  Are these nincompoops
    protected civil servants or can they be fired for incompetence?
    
    

    Hello Mr Fence, tell me... what do you think the outcome of this 
    here trial will be then ?
    
    Well I'm not sure really butt monkey, what do you think ?
    
    Hard to say.
    
    Is isn't it.
    
    Yes, the prosecution has a case and the defense appears to talk
    only bollox. Which therefore leads me to deducce that it was 
    indeed the butler but he was paid of by the mayor.
    
    Poirot, you've done it again my good man.

    deduce, I know.

    .381
    
    Yup that's it, that's what I would have said if you hadn't said it
    first! :-)
    
    Having been on the end of spousal abuse I can attest to the fact that
    death to one's partner comes to the mind of both the abused and the 
    abuser.  Had OJ been the one murdered, I'd suspect his abused wife.
    
    Regarding the question of "past abuse isn't relevant" is bull.  Ever
    hear of crimes of passion?  That's what it would normally be ranked as,
    and men would get away with it, as though they were "born" to have this
    over controlling mechanism with their "woman".
    
    It's a crock and its about time the court system faces up to the fact
    that prior abuse IS RELEVANT in a murder case.   
    
    Someone else asked, how would you protect the ones who may have abused
    their wives but didn't murder her?
    
    This comes down to the age old question, is the *one* more important
    than the masses.
    
    I honestly don't know... but the masses are screaming bloody murder.
    
    

> If I were Marcia the thought of putting that coroner on
> the stand would have me gulping Prozac and Valium :-0

	In court (but not in front of the jury) the cockran made
	a statement something to the effect that if the DA doesn't
	put the coroner on the stand, that the defense will.  So
	Marcia may have no choice because if she doesn't and the
	defense does, it may appear the DA has something to hide ....

    Re .386:
    
    > Regarding the question of "past abuse isn't relevant" is bull.  Ever
    > hear of crimes of passion?
    
    Ever hear of proof?  You don't send a human being to jail because they
    have passion; you send them to jail because you can PROVE they
    committed a crime.  Past abuse proves past abuse.  It isn't proof that
    the current crime was committed by the defendant.
    
    I and several other people here have explained why past abuse does NOT
    normally constitute the necessary proof that the defendant committed
    the crime.  What have you offered to show that it is relevant? 
    Nothing.  Not a damn thing.  You treat a trial as if the only purpose
    is to slander the defendant so badly that the jury will think they are
    evil and find them guilty.
    
    That's a travesty of justice.  Too many people think of defendants as
    "bad" people who ought to be locked away forever just because they are
    "bad".  If that were what we did in our courts, it would be evil. 
    There would be no justice, only the lucky free citizens and the
    subjugated victims of the hysteria for punishment.
    
    The only way to have a fair trial is to PROVE the defendant ACTUALLY
    committed the crime.  Proving they MAY have committed the crime is not
    enough justification for you to punish a human being.  How can you even
    suggest that we harm a human being without that proof?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    <<< Note 34.386 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    Regarding the question of "past abuse isn't relevant" is bull.  Ever
>    hear of crimes of passion?

	Yes. These generally denote a spur of the moment action. THIS case
	is about pre-meditated cold-blooded murder. Not a crime of passion.

>    It's a crock and its about time the court system faces up to the fact
>    that prior abuse IS RELEVANT in a murder case.   
 
	Well, THIS court has ruled that the evidence is relevant on the
	theory that it shows a motive for the murders.

	Nancy, none of us are dismissing the seriousness of spousal abuse,
	or in any way saying that it should be overlooked. The issue is
	that a prior history of spousal abuse does not neccesarily lead
	a person to commit murder. This case is about murder and the
	prosecution is certainly going to have to prove that OJ did
	more than hit his wife.
   
Jim

RE    <<< Note 34.386 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    Someone else asked, how would you protect the ones who may have abused
>    their wives but didn't murder her?
>    
>    This comes down to the age old question, is the *one* more important
>    than the masses.
    
  It also asks the age old question which is worse, putting an innocent person
in prison (or to death) or letting the guilty go free.

  Our Constitution and our idea of freedom is based on making the error on the
side of letting the guilty go free rather than seeing the innocent get
punished. To change that would go far beyond O.J. and far beyond the one
crime of family violence, it would be a fundamental change to our system
of justice.

  To keep things in perspective ask yourself the following question:

    Say you had two children and one was murdered and the guilty went free
    and the other was tried, convicted, and put to death for a crime that
    they did not commit.

    Which would be worse?

    I say the 2nd would be worse.

  George

	Ito has just made another contraversal ruling.  The DA is going
	to be allowed to admit into evidence a statement that oj said
	he "had several dreams about killing nicole" (paraprased).  What
	will not be allowed is a statement made just before the above
	about being afraid to take a polygraph.

	CNN lawyers saying the DA has gone on the deep end, and that Ito
	has just made a reversable error if it goes to appeal (assuming
	conviction).

	..... Ito could reverse this ruling.  A 403 hearing is going to
	be held before the statement is admited .....

    
    Lance
    
    It's been years since I've taken a law class, but what exactly is a 403
    hearing?? I assume its got something to do with either evidence law or
    case law, before it is able to be introduced in front of the jury for
    consideration??
    
    Mark

  Yes the 403 hearing is held to determine of evidence can be admitted.

  George

    .393
    I thought it was the time of day>>>

    
    Ray, my you are suddenly so witty today!!! :-) :-)
    
    I guess that's because its hump day??
    
    Mark

    .395
    I don`t know...it just came over me. 

>    I guess that's because its hump day??

hump day? Can we watch?

/scott

    
    So what you're saying is that homosexuality is unnatural but voyeurism
    isn't 8^)?

    
    .398
    
    BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

    OJ Snarf!

    
    set you up nice Steve...

    yes, and i really do appreciate it...  8^)

    Re .391:
    
    Wonderful.  Welcome to the country where people are held accountable
    for their dreams, but not their actions.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>	Ito has just made another contraversal ruling.  The DA is going
>	to be allowed to admit into evidence a statement that oj said
>	he "had several dreams about killing nicole" (paraprased).

A further interesting item about this:  The witness who may make this
statement is Johnny Cochran's first cousin.

/john

>>	Ito has just made another contraversal ruling.  The DA is going
>>	to be allowed to admit into evidence a statement that oj said
>>	he "had several dreams about killing nicole" (paraprased).
> A further interesting item about this:  The witness who may make this
> statement is Johnny Cochran's first cousin.

	yup, and cochran has already indicated he will not be the
	one to cross-examine his cousin ......

	this case and with everyone knowing everybody makes it sound
	like LA is a small town!

The testimony on Simpson saying "I dreamed of killing Nicole" has been given.

The cross-examination by the defense tried to portray the witness as
not a real friend, having made up the story, and trying to become famous.

/john

    Under what circumstances was this comment made?
    

    I still question the reason MG gave IF she was in the area that
    night.  My ex and I lived in West LA (borders Brentwood).  Trust me,
    most of the apartments have resident managers that live on the prem-
    ises.  They make appointments for people to see the property during
    normal business hours, not after 10PM at night!!  Checking out various
    apartments would be very difficult to do at that time of night; can't
    see much walking around on outside sidewalks and it *used* to be very
    difficult to get past security on to the actual property.
    
    

    i think the defemse will stay away from using MG since Marcia insulted
    the living crap outa her during the addendum to the opening statement.
    
    the context of Shipp's testimony was something testified to his being
    asked by OJ to come up to his bedroom to talk the day fter the murders.
    it was there (Shipp testified) that OJ asked him questions about how
    long DNA tests generally take. as a part of this conversation, OJ
    allegedly told Ron Shipp that he dreams. it was also connected to
    some conversation about a polygraph and questions around whether
    the dreams would effect the results of a polygraph. the context
    surrounding the polygraph was ruled inadmissable, but the dreams 
    where allowed. this is another area which is risky when (if) 
    presented in the appellate. Lance has even recognized its
    "unprecendented" status along with a couple of other decisions.
    
    i thought Thomas did a good job, the information was just not as
    effective as they'd hoped.
    
    i also thought Cochran was ineffective his questioning of the detective
    that responded to the battery call.
    
    these side bar conversations are making things very tedious...
    
    Chip

    Re .407:
    
    > Under what circumstances was this comment made?
    
    In the context of polygraph tests, O.J. Simpson reportedly said he
    didn't want to take a polygraph test because he had had dreams about
    killing Nicole.  California law prohibits any mention of polygraph
    tests, so Ito disallowed that but allowed the witness to report the
    statement about the dreams.
    
    Thus the jury heard:
    
    	Simpson said he had dreams about killing Nicole.
    
    instead of:
    
    	Simpson didn't want to take a polygraph test because he had
    	had dreams about killing Nicole.
    
    The purpose of the California law is to prevent mention of polygraphs
    from affecting the jury, because polygraph tests are so unreliable. 
    However, the first statement above gives a much worse impression of
    Simpson than the second statement, so Ito screwed up.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

	According to Court TV, Ito allowed the dream testimony not for
	for the content of the dream, but as evidence to support the
	cornerstone of the prosecution's case - that being that OJ was
	obsessed with Nicole.

    
    
     I think the media should be forced to put all this crap on one "OJ
    channel" and leave the rest of us alone!!
    
      They're even reporting this crap on ESPN!!!!

  I think there were two statements, one which was allowed and one which was
not. The prosecution wanted to have the witness testify that he heard O.J. say
that he dreamed of killing Nicole and that was allowed. 

  At another time (perhaps the same night) Sharpe talked about polygraph tests
with O.J. and Sharp said O.J. asked if the fact that he thought about killing
Nicole might cause him to fail the test. That conversation seems to have been
excluded. So it appears the dream was in, the thoughts were out. 

  After the jury was excused the judge asked the lawyers from both sides to
give their thoughts on when the jury should see the murder site and when they
should see O.J.'s house. It appears that they are going to see them both during
the daylight about 2 weeks from now and they are going back to see them at
night some time late in the defense portion of the case. 

  Judge Ito pointed out that if they did that the jury might actually be able to
see the crime scene at the same time of year as the crime (Early June). At that
lawyers from both sides groaned but no one disagreed. 

  Cochran and Clark then started to get into a fire fight as to whether or
not the jury would get to see the inside of the Bundy site (Nicole's condo).
The defense wants that included in the tour but the state does not.

  This has to do with the fact that the state wants to keep the jury focused on
the murder itself while the defense wants to suggest other people were inside
Nicole's condo that night. The judge stopped the argument and told them to both
submit written statements on what they want included. 

  Just before they adjourned for the day one of the prosecutor's beepers went
off and the judge had the bailiff confiscate it. He's now taken one from the
defense and one from the prosecution. 

  They will start a bit late today because Johnny Cochran has to attend a
hearing in another case at around 8:30. They all had a good laugh from everyone
at Marcia Clark's expense when Cochran pointed out that if they didn't start
until 9:15 it would matter all that much since Clark probably wouldn't be there
until then anyway. MC has a reputation for showing up late. 

  George 

 Re .412



 Yes!  And all the newspapers should have an "OJ section" so that those of
 us who don't want to read about it can toss that section out.




 Jim

    David Letterman's Top Ten list last night pointed out that in Spanish,
    "Judge Ito" means "Little Judge."  %^)
    
    -- Jim

	>According to Court TV, Ito allowed the dream testimony not for
	>for the content of the dream, but as evidence to support the
	>cornerstone of the prosecution's case - that being that OJ was
	>obsessed with Nicole.
    
    I dreamed about Steve Leech the other night.  Does that mean I'm
    obsessed with him?
    
    Honestly.

    <<< Note 34.416 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Organic Jewelry" >>>

>    I dreamed about Steve Leech the other night.  Does that mean I'm
>    obsessed with him?
    
>    Honestly.

	Well MAYBE......

	But if anything happends to him, you'll certainly be contacted.

	;-)

Jim

    
    Prediction: by the end of the trial, every lawyer in America will
    have been interviewed on TV.
    
    

>      I think the media should be forced to put all this crap on one "OJ
>     channel" and leave the rest of us alone!!
>     
>       They're even reporting this crap on ESPN!!!!

	I have a similiar feeling about sports.  They should put *all*
	sports on ESPN and leave all the other channels alone!  But
	that's a different soapbox :-)

>> According to Court TV, Ito allowed the dream testimony not for
>> for the content of the dream, but as evidence to support the
                          ^^^^^
>> cornerstone of the prosecution's case - that being that OJ was
>> obsessed with Nicole.
>     
>     I dreamed about Steve Leech the other night.  Does that mean I'm
>     obsessed with him?

	I can see your confusion.  The text you quoted was inaccurate.
	OJ didn't say he had "one dream", he had "many dreams" about
	killing her.

	Your one dream about Mr. Leech is not evidence you are obsessed
	with him.  If however you had recurring dreams about him then
	it *may* be evidence of such :-)

    IMO  Yesterday was a bad day for the defense. The cross-examination of
    Ron Shipp was poorly done! His testimony under cross was far more
    effective than it was under the prosecution. The defense kept
    "grilling" him with questions to which Shipp could and did give open
    answers about the convictions behind his testimony.

  I'm confused, are you guys saying

    - They should figure out what we like and force everyone to watch that

or

    - Put everything on it's own channel so that no one has to ever see
      anything they don't want to see

  I'm looking for the general rule here.

  Actually once TV, PCs, and the Information Highway are fully integrated the
2nd choice above may become a reality.

  George

    This morning I tuned into CNN Headline News on the hour, trying to
    get an update on the postponed shuttle mission for one of my kids
    who's having a "Know the News" test today.  They "do the news"
    every half hour, and roughly the first fifteen minutes is spent
    on world and national news.
    
    The first 6-7 minutes of the news was O.J., that we had to sit
    through before we could see any real news.  According to CNN,
    O.J. is worth roughly 40% of their world and national news time
    allotment.  It's pretty much the same thing on radio news.
    
    Please, this is ridiculous.  Who's making these decisions?  If they
    must spend so much time on O.J. at least they could do it at the end
    of the newscast, so those of us who want real news could get it up
    front and then tune out.
    
    Chris

    
    "real news" -- ?   what a strange concept.

  It's all figured based on ratings.

  George

    <<< Note 34.423 by DECWIN::RALTO "Gala 10th Year ECAD SW Anniversary" >>>

>    Please, this is ridiculous.  Who's making these decisions? 

	The Neilsen families.

Jim

    re: .420
    
    You just burst my bubble.  <sigh>   8^)

    Re .420:
    
    > OJ didn't say he had "one dream", he had "many dreams" about
    > killing her.
    
    Shipp was asked if Simpson indicated how many dreams.  He said Simpson
    said "dreams", plural.
    
    
    				-- edp
    

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    This is a relief, I must say 8^).

> Shipp was asked if Simpson indicated how many dreams.  He said Simpson
> said "dreams", plural.

	out of curiosity, does anyone know what the actual quote in the
	book is about the "dreams" attributed to Shipp (under a false
	name in the book)?

	I noticed my mistake about "dream" vs. "dreams", but decided
	not to bother correcting it, since all the dreams were about the
	same thing.  Guess I should have.  8^)  

	The consensus of "da experts" seems to be that Ito has handed
	the defense one "get out of jail free" card by allowing this
	testimony.

Jim

    George, who's Sharpe?
    
    Chip

  Sharpe, Shipp, something like that.

  The guy who testified about the dreams.

  I think he's called Lou in the book.

  Man of many names,
  George

    
    
    	One of my friends came up with a new drinking game:
    
    	Watch TV, every time someone says OJ you drink.  I figure
    	between the news, Hardcopy, Current Affair ad nauseum we'd
    	be good and plowed after an hour or two!
    

    RE: .435
    
    That would be a good game to bring over to the NOOK Cafe 
    Note ... I have the radio on now in my office. I've had to take
    three drinks already in the last 90 seconds!  (Unfortunately
    it's root beer.)
    

    The dreams testimony is silly; nothing was gained by allowing it and
    much can be lost.  Sometimes the prosecution needs to exercise a
    little restraint; this was one of those times.  Aside from the
    appellate court, Ito has already indicated that he'll allow leeway
    to the defense if he's done the same for the prosecution; this could
    bite Clark big time.
    
    Is Shipp considered a hostile witness?  I caught part of his testimony
    on CNN and he said he'd kept quiet because he didn't want to be the
    one who "nailed OJ".  
    
    Caught Gerry Spence later in the night (is he on EVERY TV show)?
    Spence was coming down hard on the defense lawyer (Douglas) who's
    doing the cross on Shipp; said he'd like to take Douglas over his
    knee and spank him.  Says it doesn't matter how righteous the cause,
    if you get the jury mad at you, it will cost you.  Spence thought
    that even though Douglas got Shipp to admit that he'd lied/withheld
    the info about the dreams in an earlier interview, Shipp came across
    as credible because of his demeanor.  Cochran must be having a cow,
    Shipp is his first cousin and a former LAPD officer.
    
    Looks like Shipp was part of the coterie of people OJ's kept around
    for years (remember the discussions of LAPD officers who would go to
    OJ's off-duty and drink/snort coke?  A lot of that group are now
    retired; wonder if the reason OJ got away with using Nicole for a
    punching bag for so long was that some of these guys would be the
    officers responding when 911 calls went out? Hmmmmmmm......
    
    Apparently Officer Edwards wasn't part of that group :-}
    

    George, that was Ron Shipp. The name in the book was Leo. My wife
    and I were wondering if the author for the name used in the book
    from:
    
           Law
           Enforcement
           Officer
    
    which is what Ron Shipp used to be (before his illustrious acting
    career) 
    
    Chip

 Is the CRT now appearing on Ito's desk something new?  And, it's obviously
 a Sony..




Jim

    -1 i dunno... whaddya suppose he's servin' at the side bar

    Shipp ... a credible witness??  I thought he was "over-acting" 
    especially when he directly addressed O.J. with the comment ... "it's
    sad, O.J.... " or something like that ... it gave me the direct
    impression of someone trying to show sincerity, but, to me, came
    across as very contrived.
    
    

Some interesting tidbits from yesterday & today

	Shipp said he used to do license plate checks for OJ.  This
	was not said in front of the jury, and Shipp did not elaborate
	on why OJ wanted license plate checks.  Conjucture: OJ wanted
	to find out the names of men visiting OJ

	Ito today gave Clark a case reference that he wanted Clark to
	look up (he later said he would get her a photocopy).  Clark
	asked what it was in reference to, Ito replied, "Dreams".

    Heard on the radio news at lunch that Shipp, on further testimony this
    a.m., *mouthed* (not spoke, but just mouthed) the words, "Tell the
    truth" in the general direction of the defendant.  As a former theatre
    major and semi-decent actor/critic, I must say that I agree with the
    noter who said Shipp is overacting -:)
    
    M.
    

    Even if ya'll think Shipp is overacting, that doesn't mean he's 
    lying :-)  Remember, if it can be proven a witness has lied on the
    stand, they face perjury charges.
    

  Shipp knows that they could never prove he was lying so he's not that much at
risk for perjury charges. The only way the state could prosecute him for
perjury would be for them to use O.J. for a witness since he was the only one
to hear those comments and that's not likely to happen.

  Rather, the defense will try to plant the seed of doubt in the jurors minds
so they think Shipp is probably lying in hopes that they will then disregard
his testimony.

  Shipp's testimony doesn't prove much, just that O.J. probably said that he
dreamed about killing Nicole, but along with everything else it is one more
piece of evidence that might help them show motive.

  George

    I dunno George.  Shipp is being raked over the coals; they've brought
    out his past problems with alcohol abuse, they're alluding to a
    possible affair with Nicole.  He said he knew that he would be put
    under a microscope and his wife and family are aware of what will
    probably come out on the stand and they told him to go ahead.
    
    Let's face it with Cochran as his cousin, the defense certainly knows
    where to look for the "dirt".  This guy doesn't come across as an
    airhead like Kato did.  I find it hard to believe that any individual
    would put themselves through the ringer because they have "hopes" of
    an acting career????
    
    Maybe I'm being naive here, but I really can't believe people lie on
    the stand all that easily.  I know it happens, but Shipp has stood up
    to 2 days of non-stop grilling and he hasn't lost his composure yet.
    He's been embarrassed and humiliated, but he hasn't lost his cool <---
    I think a person can only hold up under this if they ARE telling the
    truth!
          
    
    
    

RE    <<< Note 34.446 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I think a person can only hold up under this if they ARE telling the
>    truth!
          
  So 4 days each of intense cross examination of Lyle and Eric Menendez failed
to get them to break down because they truly were innocent and felt that their
parents were going to kill them, right?

  George

    It's going to be interesting when Mark Fuhrman gets on the stand.
    He seems to be losing it already based on his meeting with a 
    reporter and cameraman in either Idaho or Iowa. 

    It should be interesting when Marcus Allen testifies.  Cochran 
    referred to a "friend" who had an affair with Nicole, but OJ forgave
    him and allowed him to be married on the grounds of his estate.
    
    I noticed Darden commented (very tongue in cheek) that he's "positive"
    Mr. Cochran couldn't possibly be referring to Marcus Allen because
    Allen denied ever having an affair with Nicole when Darden interviewed
    him in Kansas City.
    
    Looks like a lot of people are going to pay a high price in OJ's
    defense.
    
    

    George,
    
    Lyle and Erik Menendez are sociopaths; Shipp is not.
    
    

	Darden was pretty slick when he was cross-examining Mike Farrell
	on Tuesday.  He must have said "domestic violence" about ten times
	in the span of a minute or so.  

>>    I think a person can only hold up under this if they ARE telling the
>>    truth!
>   So 4 days each of intense cross examination of Lyle and Eric Menendez failed
> to get them to break down because they truly were innocent and felt that their
> parents were going to kill them, right?

	Hey, hey.  I'm surprised Eric hasn't replied to that statement yet.
	Those brothers are still innocent!  "innocent until proven guilty".
	they very well could be innocent :-)

RE    <<< Note 34.450 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    Lyle and Erik Menendez are sociopaths; Shipp is not.
    
  How do you know if Shipp is a sociopath or not?

  George

    Personal opinion here, complete conjecture:
    
    Day after murders, OJ says to Shipp something like "I had awful dreams
    about Nicole's murder last night", followed by asking if his dreams
    would change a lie detector reading.  Doesn't make him guilty, doesn't
    make Shipp a *liar*, per se.  
    
    Hey, it could (have) happened!
    
    M.
    

	Well Thursday they played the famous Oct. 1993 911 tape, minus
	the section where Nicole says she's afraid OJ would "beat the
	s**t out of her" because the court ruled it would be too
	prejudicial.  The defense went pretty easy on the witness
	(911 operator who took the call) on cross-examination, and
	the DA did *not* do any re-direct.

	Thursday night the Jury picked "The Flintsones" (the movie)
	to watch.  Ito said it wouldn't of been his first choice.

	For Friday Nicole's sister is on the agenda to testify.

    
    When is Det Fuhrman due to testify?? Next week possibly?? That is one I
    would like to tape, so I can see how he handles Cochran or F. Lee
    Baily's cross exam. That will be entertainment in its finest hour.
    
    Mark

    
    
    	Why did Det Fuhrman cross the road?
    
    
    
    
    	to plant the chicken on the other side!
    
    

    .454
    
    I could buy into your scenario; since Shipp is a retired LAPD officer,
    it's possible that OJ could have mentioned the dreams in the context
    of "how" such a dream would affect a polygraph test.
    
    This is where I personally believe Ito blew it big time.  California
    law forbids the mention of polygraph tests; since the dream question
    was in conjunction with a possible polygraph test Ito should not have
    allowed anything on the subject, it IS prejudical IMHO.
    
    OJ's team didn't go ballistic when Ito decided to allow the testimony;
    I believe the "dream team" let it go because they know they've been
    handed an appeal.
    
    

  I 1st heard about this the day before he testified when Kristen Jannett Myers
of Court TV was standing there with the book in her hand talking about the
character Leo who was suppose to be Shipp. 

  She said there were two different references in the book that would be
discussed during the hearing. The 1st was when O.J. asked Shipp if "thoughts"
of killing Nicole could compromise the polygraph test. The 2nd and completely
separate reference was when he told Shipp about his dreams of killing Nicole. 

  From what she said, there is no relationship between the dreams and the
polygraph test, they were two different conversations. 

  George 

    I like the idea of a seperate OJ cable station, I can not take much 
    more. Two nights ago both Letterman, and Leno told the same joke
    about OJ, something about OJ having such bad arthritis, that he could
    not sign Johnny C's check. I could not believe my ears, Letterman's
    deliverey was better.

    George, we don't have Court TV on our cable; the legal beagle talking
    heads were discussing it on one of the CNN or CNBC shows and they were
    just discussing the one conversation.  I didn't catch anything about
    a second conversation centered on dreams.
    
    I still think the dream stuff is a mistake; the prosecution supposedly
    has tons of sold evidence, why risk everything with this nonsense?
    Personally, I still think OJ is guilty, but I also think this stuff
    is stupid.
    
    Heck, if I'd acted on some of my dreams about my ex-husband, I'd have
    been famous long before Lorena Bobbitt :-}
    

>     OJ's team didn't go ballistic when Ito decided to allow the testimony;
>     I believe the "dream team" let it go because they know they've been
>     handed an appeal.

	My current theory is that Ito is on the take (ie. on the defenses
	payroll) and that's why he handed the defense this reversable error ...

    
    This should really be an interesting day with Nicole's sister 
    testifying. 
    
    The experts say the defense team really has to be careful with the way
    they question her. I don't see Douglas as the one doing the
    questioning. He just doesn't have that ability.
    
    

RE                     <<< Note 34.463 by SWAM1::MEUSE_DA >>>

>    The experts say the defense team really has to be careful with the way
>    they question her. I don't see Douglas as the one doing the
>    questioning. He just doesn't have that ability.
    
  No, it will probably be Johnny Cochran and he'll be smooth. Douglas was
doing the cross of Shipp mainly because Shipp is Cochran's cousin and having
Cochran do that cross would have been a conflict of interest.

  George

    Re .458:
    
    > OJ's team didn't go ballistic when Ito decided to allow the
    > testimony; I believe the "dream team" let it go because they know
    > they've been handed an appeal.
    
    Generally, having cause for an appeal requires the appellant to have
    tried to exercise their rights -- you can appeal a mistake the judge
    made, but not mistakes you made.  If the defense did not object
    sufficiently to improper testimony, they may have lost their right to
    appeal based on it; the appellate court can rule the defense allowed
    the testimony.  Particularly when Ito mentioned a case the defense
    could have used as grounds for objection, a case in which a court ruled
    dreams were speculative.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

  I believe they had a 401 hearing before Shipp testified at which time the
defense entered their objections.

  Alan Dershowits, who seems to be in charge of getting the appeal ready, has
already said that he feels that the dreams are reversible error so he must
feel that they laid sufficient ground for appeal.

  George

>     In opening Nicole's safe deposit box they find:
>     
>     	Photos of a bruised and beaten Nicole
>     +	Two letters from OJ asking forgiveness

	They also found some newspaper clippings about the 1989 assult,
	but that wasn't admitted into evidence

>>    = Nicole: "If anyone is reading this and I've been murdered here's the
>>    guy that did it!"

    Perhaps the lady was thinking more in terms of law suits and divorce
    settlements than her own untimely demise.
    
    

	Diane, please don't add logic into all this. They may actually figure
things out that way. We wouldn't want that.... :-)

RE                      <<< Note 34.467 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    = Nicole: "If anyone is reading this and I've been murdered here's the
>    guy that did it!"
    
  So what if someone else did it? How could she be sure in advance that
someone else wouldn't murder her for some reason that never occurred to her?

  George

    
    Denise Brown just stated that Simpson and her sister were at a bar
    dancing. Denise was there. She mentioned that Simpson grabbed
    Nicoles crotch and stated that "this belongs to me!".
    Denise thought it was humiliating for her sister to be treated
    that way. And in front of total strangers.
    
    Heck, if i did that to my wife.....I would get a swift kick
    to the same area. But wouldn't even think of doing something
    like that.
    
    She's only been on 3 minutes, and they had 3 sidebars.
    
    She definitly wants to hurt Simpson bad, real bad.
    
    

    
    jury is gone for the week. Denise Brown broke down after reviewing
    another incident where Simpson went ballistic. Throwing Nicole
    against the wall and tossing everybody out of the room.
    
    I think at the end of this trial, Simpson will be dead meat.
    
    

>    	I haven't been following along here or elsewhere, so maybe
>    	this has already been addressed, but if the prosecution can't
>    	account for the unidentified blood from under Nicole Simpson's
>    	fingernails,

It has.  The defense lawyers were claiming there was type B blood
found, when there wasn't.  All blood decomposes eventually such
that it passes the type B test; the blood in question is old,
undateable blood, and probably Nicole's own.

/john

    .469
    
    But Di, she didn't use it at the time of divorce.  It sounds like
    OJ was fairly generous with Nicole, but she definitely didn't get half
    his income.  I can't remember whether or not Nicole signed a pre-
    nuptual agreement, but even if she had, the stuff in the safety deposit
    box might have gone a loooong way in making OJ dig a little deeper into
    his pockets.
    
    Too bad Nicole didn't tell OJ "look, I've got pictures etc. put away
    where you can't get them; if anything happens to me........"
    
    

             <<< Note 34.475 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>the blood in question is old,
>undateable blood, and probably Nicole's own.

	This would imply that Nicole had somewhat questionable personal
	hygiene habits.

	Or that the DA did not have blood tests run on what was found under
	her nails at the time of the autopsy.

	Which of these two scenarios is more likely?

Jim

>> the blood in question is old,
>> undateable blood, and probably Nicole's own.
> This would imply that Nicole had somewhat questionable personal
> hygiene habits.

	I fail to accept the "implication" that you inferred.  Even
	with average hygiene habits I believe dried blood could
	remain under the nails for a while (and the closer to the
	quick the longer it would stay there).

	Does anyone know how many nails blood was found under?

	Anyone else see Dershowitz being interviewed last night by
	Grodin?  He sounded as though he thought the defense had quite
	a strong case.

Dersh is being paid to think that.

I'll be interested to see how the prosecution prepares during direct testimony
for the expected cross examination of Nicole's sister on her previous denials
that there was any abuse, and how they handle the redirect.

/john

I heard Shapiro is doing the cross exam on Denise Brown.

Of course Dersh is going to say the defense has a strong case.

>>Of course Dersh is going to say the defense has a strong case.

	I figured someone would say that.  I'm talking about listening
	carefully to how he said things, not just what he said.

    So far they haven't proven motive...they haven't proven that OJ
    actually committed the crime.  All they have proven is domestic
    violence which is present in many homes.  They have proven he is
    capable of violence but as it stands now, OJ is winning!
    
    -Jack 

> .... but as it stands now, OJ is winning!

	No one is winning, and no one is losing.  The only evidence that
	has been presented so far is laying ground work.

> So far they haven't proven motive...they haven't proven that OJ
> actually committed the crime.  All they have proven is domestic
> violence which is present in many homes.  They have proven he is
> capable of violence ....

	If you believe they have proven (actually "shown" is a better
	word) that then the DA is doing good.  As the DA said in their
	opening arguments, they wanted to show OJ has two faces.  Most
	people only knew his "public" face, and even with the best
	circumstantial evidence, they would never be able to convict if
	the jury personally didn't feel OJ was capable of the crime.

    Just catching up... 
    
    There was prenuptual signed... Remeber OJ's initial apology letter?
    
    The prosecution has (in detail) explained the B type blood found on
    her hip and under her fingernails. Jim, hygiene????????
    
    There is case law in Ca where dreams have been submitted. The real
    question comes in on whether it's reversable based on the polygraph
    context. The jury does not have the "dreams" statement in that
    context.
    
    Denise Brown is finishing today. The interesting thing will be
    whether Shapiro is hard on her or soft on her... Either way, he
    needs to be very, very careful. The jury needs to be read very 
    closely. This is where the "jury expert" (the blond that sits
    with OJ) will earn her money.
    
    All of the analysts seem to agree on one thing. OJ should be getting
    nervous because his "dream team" are showing up like a bunch of
    amateurs. If there was one, the there were a dozen articles from
    interviews with defense and DA's saying the performance is pretty
    sad.
    
    Denise is clearly/painfully obvious about wanting to skewer OJ...
    I think she will be successful in creating a sympathetic leaning.
    
    The witness (neighbor) Catherine Boe was pretty good.  She avoided
    being led by the defense like a pro... Particularly when she explained
    away (botanically) why OJ didn't park in front of Nicole's house one
    time to avoid parking under certain trees (avoid berries/fluids). She
    basically said there was no reason for OJ to park around the corner of
    Nicole's house because a) the trees were in front of Boe's house
    b) not that kind of tree... 
    
    Chip
    
    

    I remember seeing Dersh on a talk show before he was on O.J.'s
    payroll (he was one of the last "name" attorneys to come on board),
    and he thought O.J. was toast.  Interesting effect money has on
    the human thought processes... :-)
    
    Chris

	One could also posit that he wasn't familiar with, or wasn't as
	familiar with, the defense's case at that time.

    The best cross-examiner on the Dream Team (ugh!) is sitting on the
    sidelines (Bailey).
    
    I'm not impressed with Cochran or his sidekick Douglas.

    re: .476
    
      Yeah, but supposing Simpson did it (which I'm like 99% sure he
      did assumign the media is accurate), he must have been in some
      severely altered state of mind.
    
      If you want to do someone in, you get an untraceable gun with 
      a silencer attached.  You wear gloves and you unload two or
      three shots in the head and leave the gun at the scene.
    
      Then you just walk away.  (Leave the gun.)
    
      Its a hideous thing to talk about, but my point is, if you're gonna
      leave a trail of blood like what is alleged, you must have been off
      your rocker.

    re: 489
    
    >> need to be off your rocker.
    
    I submit he WAS off his rocker. Anybody who beats up on his wife like
    this moron did is a SICK-O to start with. Coke or no coke.
    
    Professional psychiatric evaluation
    complements of the
    /Intern
    
    
    

> If you want to do someone in, you get an untraceable gun with 
> a silencer attached.  You wear gloves and you unload two or
> three shots in the head and leave the gun at the scene.

	Me thinks you've been watching too many movies and/or TV :-)
	From what I'm told, a silencer may be quieter, but it's by
	no means "silent".  Are they even legal (not that that doesn't
	mean you couldn't get or make one ....)?

    If your gonna kill someone do you think he/she will call the police to
    find out if a silencer is legal? No, I can`t think of any place in the
    U.S. where they are legal but I`m sure that some one will correct me if
    I`m wrong.

    
    
    	You can use silencers/suppressors with the proper license in some
    states. New Hampshire being one that you can have them, Massachusetts
    being one where you can't.
    
    jim (who had the distinct please of observing a suppressed HK-MP9 in
    full auto)
     

    I don`t think we can have them in N.J./N.Y.
    
    

    it matters very little whether a silencer is legal if your purpose is
    to commit a crime with it, nyet?

    .495
    Thats the point I was tryin to make.

    Anybody know how's it going today?
    
    

re: .497

Does anybody care?

Bob

    i almost wish somebody cared, so i could get this...

    ...snarf
    

    
    
    Oh Geeeeez Dick!!!!!
    
    Not you too!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Never thought I'd see you in this snarf-fest thing....

    aw, jeez, andy, i'm real sorry, honest i am, i know better, i just sat
    here wondering for so long if anyone else was gonna do it, oh crap, i
    really put my foot in it this time, didn't i.

    
    
    I dunno Dick....  It seems the next time I see you enter anyone of the
    frays with your usual intelligent and thoughtful comments, I'll have to
    think twice and remember this incident...
    

    
    re. 497
    
    Denise Brown has been testifying for the prosecution. She went through
    at least a box of tissue for that part.
    Defense had a photo of Nicole thrown out. No date or time established
    as to when the photo was taken. Nicole Simpson was beat up in the 
    picture. Jury told to forget about the picture....sure they will.
    
    Defense (Shapiro) began questioning Denise Brown. Lasted about 30
    minutes then lunch. Real low key questions. Denise no longer 
    crying.
    
    Defense questioning to resume at 1:30pm.
    
          
    
    
    
    

> jim (who had the distinct please of observing a suppressed HK-MP9
> in full auto)

	so how "silent" was it?

ps: geez you kids are bad.  i even stated in my note that legal or not
    it doesn't matter.  the real point/question is whether a silencer
    is all that silent (like as protrayed on TV and the movies) ....

    
    re: .505
    
    
    Nope!!!!!
    
    It's:
    
     "Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!"
    
    
    :) :)
    

        <<< Note 34.506 by NETRIX::michaud "Kill a commie for mommy" >>>

>the real point/question is whether a silencer
>    is all that silent (like as protrayed on TV and the movies) ....

	The real answer is no, they are not like portrayed on TV or
	in the movies. They supress the noise but do not eliminate it.

Jim

    I thought I heard some explanation of the blood type found under
    Nicole's fingers, i.e. some blood types AB positive/negative etc.
    breakdown in short period of time to where it would appear to be
    plain old type B???
    
    I agree that Denise Brown IS going over the top; very obvious.
    
    Wonder why Johnnie Cochran did that 3/4 part interview with Ms. Couric
    that's been shown end of last week thru today?  He's still making 
    statements similar to those thrown out by Judge Ito last week.  Many
    have made the point that if Cochran can't prove what he's promised,
    OJ will definitely suffer and it won't help Cochran's reputation when
    all is said and done.  Cochran's tune has changed since he made the
    "dream team".  He was one of the "analysts" that popped up all over
    the place during the preliminary hearings along with Dershowitz.
    

    
    
>>the real point/question is whether a silencer
>>    is all that silent (like as protrayed on TV and the movies) ....
>	The real answer is no, they are not like portrayed on TV or
>	in the movies. They supress the noise but do not eliminate it.
    
    	Jim is correct......it's not that little 'pffft!' that the movies
    like to make you think it is. HOWEVER it is significantly quieter than
    an unsuppressed/silenced firearm. The loudest thing on the HK-MP9 I
    saw/listened too was the bolt clacking back and forth and the piles of
    brass hitting the ground. :)
    
    jim

    .510
    
    which means that the silencer was doing a damn fine job.  without one,
    the fire makes enough noise that you can't hear the brass or the bolt
    at all.

    
    
>    which means that the silencer was doing a damn fine job.  without one,
>    the fire makes enough noise that you can't hear the brass or the bolt
>    at all.
    
    	Yer right that without the suppressor it makes one heck of a
    racket.
    
    	The gent was using subsonic 9mm loads with about a 6-8" suppressor.
    Fairly elaborate setup, but it worked as advertised. :) 
    
    jim

        Speaking of silenced vs unsilenced (heh!) and movies/tv - don't
        you love it when  you  see  a movie shootout followed by normal
        conversation (or ever whispered  conversation!) among the folks
        doing the shooting?
        
        

RE:    <<< Note 34.497 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

   > Anybody know how's it going today?
    
    

   Fine thanks, and you?

    It looks like Hogman will be back next week. Guess what he's doing right
    now, resting? Not! You can bet he's pouring over the DNA information
    in preparation for its introduction/examination. You can also bet that
    there's agreat deal of strategic planning (by the DA's) to turn the
    defense's Nobel winning expert into their witness...
    
    I'm not entirely sure what a comment like "Denise going over the top"
    means. Frankly, her sister was brutally murdered by her ex-husband(?).
    Denise witnessed some abuse and degradation. I would speculate that
    her initial comments about OJ not having anything to do with it was
    a less than thoughtful reaction during an extremely stressful point.
    My opinion is that she's highly stressed and very, very angry. I also
    believe that she is sincere in her presentation. She is disgusted and
    convinced that OJ did the act. I think you'd be going over the top 
    too.
    
    I told my wife last week that Shapiro would treat Denise with kid
    gloves. He really had no choice. They need to get closer to the
    jury. Up this point, the dream team has been flat, interruptive,
    and incompetent in more than a few instances.
    
    I had to laugh at Shapiro when watching the video of the recital the
    day Goldman and Brown were murdered. He asked Candace Garvey is she could
    tell OJ was screaming in pain when lifting his son from a vehicle...
    Really funny stuff.
    
    Candace Garvey did not help set any foundation for the defense. I think
    she hurt them.
    
    Marcia also wanted to introduce photographs of Goldman and Brown when
    the questioning of the witnesses from Mezzaluna began. Naturally,
    Johnnie objected with the argument that there wasn't a need to identify
    the victims. Ito countered ( and restated) with Marcia's  explanation
    that the photo's purpose was to verify the presence of them at the
    restaurant (by the witnesses).
    
    IMHO, Ito entertains the defense and craps all over Clark. He treats
    Darden fairly well, but for some reason he seems to have a hair across
    his butt for Marcia.
    
    I have to admit, the whole process is getting very tedious for me. Some
    interest is wanning.
    
    Chip
    

Clark goes topless.

Apparently some newspapers are printing pictures of clark sunbathing.

I'm not sure if this will help her case. The new hair dew didn't.

	Allan

    SFW?

    Where can I buy these at?

    somebody needs to put a gun to the media's head and pull the trigger,
    PDQ...
    
    Chip

 I'm sick of the whole stinking mess.  One can't turn on TV without seeing
 this stuff, can't read the newspaper, can't listen to the radio..sheesh..



Jim

>     IMHO, Ito entertains the defense and craps all over Clark. He treats
>     Darden fairly well, but for some reason he seems to have a hair across
>     his butt for Marcia.

	Maybe Ito doesn't like assertive women?  Ito is Japenese-American;
	which generation?  The Japenese society traditionally believes women
	are sub-servant to men.  Maybe that has something to do with it?

  Ito is not favoring the defense at all. He's given the prosecution what
amounts to propensity evidence by allowing the 911 tapes and the other evidence
relating to abuse by allowing them to say it goes to showing motivation. The
dream discussion was also a big win for the prosecution. 

  The prosecution will now turn to evidence of the crime itself. For the next
few weeks we should be hearing all of the blood evidence. That will be followed
with more abuse testimony which they have to place at the end of their case
because the names of their witnesses were submitted late.

  George

    -1 i never meant to imply that Ito was giving anyone an advantage.
       the observation was simply one of his demeanor (if that was in
       response to my "crapping on Clark" remark).
    
       Chip

    re: -1 -
    
    Perhaps Ito's attitude toward Clark has something to do with Clark's
    attitude toward Ito.  Marcia has a tendency to argue a point to death,
    and prior to opening statements, when Ito made a decision, she would
    continue to argue some more when decisions were not in her favor.  In
    watching her the day opening statements were *supposed* to begin, I
    felt her tone of voice when speaking to Ito was often leaning to the
    condescending side.
    
    Just my opinion - not based on any facts.
    
    M.
    

    Oh boy.  The circus has just added a freak show.  "Come on in and see
    the topless Prosecutor!"  "Watch the defense team rotissierie in
    action!"  "See O.J.'s football scars!"  
    
    Turn the cameras off, shoo the reporters out and get on with it.  
    
    Brian

    .525
    
    Is it as good as Penthouse?

 One can almost hear a caliope...

Perhaps she will be a guest on babewatch.

    
    
    the picture was taken in 1979.  the enquirer got a copy of that pic
    from clark's first husband's mother...
    
    

    oh, and Cochran doesn't impose himself on Ito in the same manner as
    Clark? 
    
    gimme a break...
    
    Chip

  Cochran doesn't seem quite as argumentative. When the judge tells him to stop,
he stops. Now Shapiro got himself into trouble with the judge a few times
last fall by making what seemed like personal comments about the way the trial
was being run.

  George

    i think Darden has been much more argumentative and even sarcastic
    with comments like "who's the judge here?"... IMO more than Marcia
    anyway.
    
    Chip

    Chip,
    
    Marcia Clark has been much more strident and whiny than Darden or
    Hodgman; she's been getting on my nerves and I'm hoping the prose-
    cution will prevail :-)
    
    I'm among those who feel Denise Brown is over-doing it.  Ever since
    the murders occurred she has been the most vocal and out-spoken member
    of the Brown family; and very much in control.  I don't blame her for
    wanting to nail OJ because personally I feel he is guilty; BUT, if
    her testimony starts coming across as "staged" the jury will catch on
    (if they haven't already) and she could hurt the prosecution badly.
    
    Again, I blame the prosecution team for this because they do "prepare"
    witnesses.  Her narrative about how spooky OJ's behavior was at the
    recital was too much AND the defense teams has produced a video that
    seems to refute a lot of what she's said.  The video shows Denise
    kissing OJ goodbye in front of the school; it also shows a smiling
    Lou Brown waving to a smiling OJ <---- dark, intense, moody behavior?
    It sure didn't look that way.
    
    Who knows, maybe there's a method to her madness.  Maybe she thinks if
    she puts it on thick enough OJ will lose his cool and explode in court.
    I'm just speculating here, but if she and the prosecution are enter-
    taining such a notion they are playing with fire.
    
    

    re; Denise & Marcia, okay... I accept your opinion. I don't agree,
        but I accept it.
    
        However, you missed the point from both Denise's and Candace's
        testimony as to OJ's behavior. The video was shot outside (prior
        to the recital). The testimony was pointed at the time during
        the testimony.
    
        Chip

>     if her testimony starts coming across as "staged" the jury will catch on
>     (if they haven't already) ....

	yesterday she answered a question from the prosecution before
	she was asked the question.  the q&a was obviously rehersed,
	and she seemed a little too nevous and/or eager ....

    I must also note that the defense is pushing it by stating that OJ was
    "screaming with pain" or whatever when picking up his son (on the
    tape).  He did not appear to pick up the child easily or anything, but,
    geez, he managed, y'know?  
    
    M.
    

    He wasn't limping or didn't seem physically impaired in anyway. 
    
    He shot 18 holes of golf that day but couldn't deal cards. Then later
    in the day he supposedly practicing chipshots in his yard (night)
    which is what the defense is using to wash his Bronco cellular 
    phone usage... This'll be some fancy footwork when the defense 
    presents this....
    
    Chip

	I'm glad Denise Brown's time on the stand is done.
	I sympathize with a tragic situation...  young
	mother, brutally murdered.  But the black clothes,
	crucifix, and one angel earring was over the top.
	I didn't watch any reports of yesterday's testimony.
	Did she go all out and weat a Mothere Teresa ensemble?

	This just in ....

	one of the jurors has been dismissed.  no additional info yet ...

    Chip, are we watching the same video? :-)
    
    CNN indicated the video was taken AFTER the recital; Lou Brown waved
    to OJ as he prepared to drive away in the van.  IF the video was 
    taken before the recital then OJ's demeanor is OK; if it was taken
    after then it tends to blow away Denise's contention about the dark,
    brooding, spooky demeanor.
    
    

>>    CNN indicated the video was taken AFTER the recital; Lou Brown waved

	It was after, according to Court TV too.

>>    after then it tends to blow away Denise's contention about the dark,
>>    brooding, spooky demeanor.

        Both Denise and Candace noticed it.
    
    

    He had on his PUBLIC FACE then!  That was one of the themes that
    the prosecution was bringing out in testimony!

> one of the jurors has been dismissed.  no additional info yet ...

	a little more info just in, the juror relaced was
	a 63 year old white female and was replaced with a 53
	year old black male.

	also recall one juror was dismissed before opening statements
	were ever made.  at this rate they could run out of alternates
	before deliberations (in which case it would be an automatic
	mis-trial?)

	This just in.  Ito carries a pocket knife.  He just loaned
	it to Marcia so she could open a box containing evidence
	(she was fetching Goldman's beeper).

	I also just noticed that Ito's "Sony" monitor no longer has
	the "Sony" in large black print (though it still has "Sony"
	in white lettering that blends right into the color of the
	monitors frame).

 Thanks for the tip, Michaud..:-)

    Have more than three (3) jurors been replaced now?  That was 
    the count that I heard last.  This leaves nine (9) alternates
    to go!  The analysts are saying that that should be enough.

	This also just in that may be related to why the juror was dismissed.
	Before breaking for lunch, Ito gave the jury the strongest warning
	yet to not discussed the case.  He told them not to discuss ANYTHING
	to do with the case, including how long the trial is taking, what
	the lawyers are wearing on a given day, etc etc.

	This leaves only one complete white person on the jury ....

>	This leaves only one complete white person on the jury ....

This would indicate that there are caucasian amputees on the jury?

... or a striped person.  No wonder they won't show
the jurors on television.

Maybe Demi Moore is a juror and she's got that body
paint stuff on again.

    
    Has a news organization actually said that there is a "biracial" person
    (or persons) on the jury?  
    
    I'd doubt that.

 Well, I'm sure there'll be plenty of analysis about this on the tube
 tonight

                    <<< Note 34.533 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    i think Darden has been much more argumentative and even sarcastic
>    with comments like "who's the judge here?"... IMO more than Marcia
>    anyway.
 
	A couple of the commentators mentioned that Darden is lucky
	that he's pulling that stuff on THIS case. Any other 
	courtroom and he'd be in the same cell as OJ.

Jim

                    <<< Note 34.535 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>        However, you missed the point from both Denise's and Candace's
>        testimony as to OJ's behavior. The video was shot outside (prior
>        to the recital). The testimony was pointed at the time during
>        the testimony.
 
	Actually I think they said it was AFTER the recittal, when he
	as saying goodbye to everyone.

Jim

I thought there was only one white on the whole jury and it was a 22 year 
old female. How do they replace one with another? Do they choose someone 
outside the 22 jurors in the courtroom everyday? There are 22 jurors all 
together, do they specifically know which ones are jurors and which are the 
alternates?  I remember in the Pam Smart trial, they had all the jurors in 
the courtroom and the judge didnt say who the alternates were (he picked 
them out of a hat basically) until the end of the trial when they went into 
deliberations because alternates do not go in the deliberating room.

What did the juror do to get replaced?  Maybe they just complained so much 
that they didn't want to be on the jury anymore.  Can you do that? 

What was that whole Sony dispute about?  Who was complaining that Sony's 
letters were too big?  Other competitors?  IBM said they weren't going to 
change their logo.  Why did Sony? Was it displayed larger than what they 
normally display on their monitors?

           <<< Note 34.545 by NETRIX::michaud "Peanut Butter Cups" >>>

>	I also just noticed that Ito's "Sony" monitor no longer has
>	the "Sony" in large black print (though it still has "Sony"
>	in white lettering that blends right into the color of the
>	monitors frame).

	Some competitors complained about the "free advertising". Sony
	graciously agreed to apply the whiteout.

Jim

                  <<< Note 34.555 by XANADU::KMAC::moraros >>>

>How do they replace one with another? 

	By lot.

>There are 22 jurors all 
>together, do they specifically know which ones are jurors and which are the 
>alternates?

	Yes. The jurors and alternates know who they are. All of them must
	sit throught the whole trial. The alternates will be dismissed 
	before deliberations start.

Jim

>What was that whole Sony dispute about?  Who was complaining that Sony's 
>letters were too big?  Other competitors?  IBM said they weren't going to 
>change their logo.  Why did Sony? Was it displayed larger than what they 
>normally display on their monitors?



 Who cares?  We're talking a murder trial (circus) and these guys are 
 worried about ad space?




 Jim

    So just how much is advertising space on Ito's robes going for these
    days?  
    
    Brian

    The Blooper show that is airing this week is having the out-take
    of Ito being hit with the Boom while taping an interview.

RE                  <<< Note 34.555 by XANADU::KMAC::moraros >>>

>I thought there was only one white on the whole jury and it was a 22 year 
>old female. 

  Last I heard the actual jury consisted of 8 blacks (6 women, 2 men), 2
whites, and 2 other. It appears that one of the whites has been replaced by
a black male.

>I remember in the Pam Smart trial, they had all the jurors in 
>the courtroom and the judge didnt say who the alternates were (he picked 
>them out of a hat basically) until the end of the trial when they went into 
>deliberations because alternates do not go in the deliberating room.

  This differs from state to state. In California they know at all times who is
on the jury and who is an alternate. In Massachusetts, for example, only the
jury foreman is guaranteed to be on the jury, the alternates are selected and
excluded from deliberation after closing statements. 

  George

Can someone explain this one...  Boston's WBZ-TV keeps
advertising that it's using New Technology to examine
the evidence in the case and bring it to us, the viewers.
And this technology would be, uh, Jack Williams camping
out in Alan Dershowitz's office?

I'm sorry, I must've missed the story where Jack and Liz
announced that they'd switched careers from news readers
to P.I.'s.

    
    
        ....."one complete white person"...:-)
    
    
        Ed :-)
    

    Yep, someone complained about SONY (large black letters) :-)  I
    heard that the logo on his IBM Thinkpad was supposed to be reduced
    to its normal size.
    
    It was my impression that the logos on both units had been "high-
    lighted" for the trial?
    

>    The Blooper show that is airing this week is having the out-take
>    of Ito being hit with the Boom while taping an interview.


  And the sports shows will show him playing tennis, the fishing shows on
 TNN will have a "Fishing with the Judge" special, cooking shows will
 have a variation...

    re.555
    
    reports last week out here stated that materials such as a magazine
    or newspaper had been found in one of the jurors rooms. Don't know
    if that news bleep last week is connected to the 63 year old white
    female juror being let go today. Ito will not comment on why.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
       Just think of the money that's "on the line" here. Either way,
       this is "Ito's Retirement",......book,...interviews = millions.
    
       Whoever wins (prosecution or defense),....more books,..interviews
       = millions.
    
       If OJ is acquitted,.....he'll be swimming in money.
    
       This case has everything that sells,....sex,....violence,..drugs
       and celebrities.
    
       Ed
    

> Has a news organization actually said that there is a "biracial" person
> (or persons) on the jury?  
> I'd doubt that.

	You're always free to doubt, but the facts are that the racial
	make up the jury is old news.  The bi-reacial person on this
	jury is 1/2 white and 1/2 american indian I believe, as reported
	by CNN today (after the juror was replaced).

	FWIW, Warner Cable in Nashua is adding adding "Court TV" to
	the channel line-up effective March 1st ....

	Well the official reason has been given why the juror
	was dismissed today.  Turns out the juror has the same
	doctor as OJ, and that doctor is one set to testify for
	the defense .....

    catching up... my mistake, it was after.
    
    Chip

    i didn't get to see much testimony yesterday (league shooting night).
    
    i heard a little of Crawford's testimony (manager/bartender Mezzaluna).
    
    also heard the arguments on the envelope being passed to the jurors.
    
    my wife told me that Cochran brought up a little angel pin that Marcia
    was wearing. Ito told Marcia not to wear it anymore. I know Ito in-
    structed OJ's family not to wear buttons with OJ's face on them in the
    court room. i wonder if Ito wasn't stomping on some constitutional
    rights (freedom of expression) by imposing these instructions. i could
    understand actions or expressions that would be obviously distracting
    or persuasive. i guess it gets into the definition of what Ito believes
    is inappropriate. funny though, he didn't think that "billboard" sized
    picture of OJ and his daughter (w/flowers) was inappropriate.
    
    Marcia made some strong points about OJ's defense team constantly
    (daily) planting their mugs in media cameras and stating how unfair
    and irresponsible the DA's handling of the case is while the prosecu-
    tion has avoided that.
    
    i'm still stuck on some opinion around Denise, e.g. black clothes,
    angel earing, etc... my guess would be that if she came in with a
    professional suit negative comments would be made, if she came in
    with jeans and polo top she's get negative comments... smells like
    bias and she can't win regardless. 
    
    one thing that had been disturbing me was nearly all the focus
    surrounding Nicole and not Ron Goldman. I was glad to see that
    some attention to the other victim was paid.
    
    Chip

                    <<< Note 34.572 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    one thing that had been disturbing me was nearly all the focus
>    surrounding Nicole and not Ron Goldman. I was glad to see that
>    some attention to the other victim was paid.
 
	Given the DA's theory concerning the crime (OJ fixated on Nicole)
	the majority of their case will focus on her as a victim. Goldman
	was an "innocent bystander" in this scenario. If they were trying
	to prove that OJ killed them both in a jealous rage then we would
	hear more about Goldman. But then, of course, it wouldn't be 1st
	Degree murder.

Jim

>     Marcia made some strong points about OJ's defense team constantly
>     (daily) planting their mugs in media cameras ....

	The defense team has had coffee mugs made?  What does it say
	on the mugs?  "Dream Team"?

    	I don't know about you guys, but this OJ Trial is getting to be as
    bad as the BoxTrial we had here a few months ago.
    
    ME

    The Great Boxtrial of 94' was for a just cause and was indeed colorful. 
    We were not subjected to merchandising however.  Sounds like it's time
    for a little money making scheme.  Does the Harvard Law Review accept
    advertising?  
    
    Brian