Conference hbahba::cam_sports

>   <<< Note 171.0 by SOLANA::MAY_BR "one bourbon,one scotch, and one beer" >>>
>                             -< Official OJ topic >-
>
>    I thought I'd start this topic for anyone who wanted to talk football,
>    not OJ, and didn't want to wade through a bunch of OJ notes to find
>    something.


why not just put it in jurisprudence/

    Sounds like the prosecution is bringing out the Big Guns today ....
    
    
    - ACC Chris

      Just say no to OJ coverage!!

    
    Did you hear about the new Nicole Simpson doll?
      skip this if you are squeamish
    
     It doubles as a Pez despenser

    I'm glad I wasn't eating or drinking anything...

	Pez, cherry flavored pez.  No doubt about it.

    
    
    re .5
    
    
      I can laugh at sick humor with the best of 'em, but that
     was tasteless.
     
      I must be gettin' old.
    
     

    
    yea, I know.  I was considering sending it to Jake so he could put it
    in.
    
    brews

    
     If any of you sick humored people are interested in O.J. Simpson
     jokes check out the HUMOR note (724) there's about 40 good ones.
    
    
     Unfortunately I think he's guilty, and may receive MAXIMUM sentencing.
    
    
     As to the Nicole Simpson PEZ dispencer, that may be a million dollar
     idea, they do have stat cards on serial killers which seem to be a
     collectors item.
    
     
     Later, Scott  ;-)
    

    
    >>yea, I know.  I was considering sending it to Jake so he could put it
    >>in.
    
    >>brews
    
    Hey, even I have standards.  I wouldn'ta put that one in here...
    
    
    UNLESS I GOT COMPLETE CREDIT FER IT!!!!!!!
    
    
    I thought it very sick, but also funny.
    
    JaKe
    

    It seems during his ride of suicide, the juice had with him his
    passport and ten thousand dollars in cash...
    
    Puts a different spin on his splitting the scene.
    
    Don't make him guilty, but it sure don't help his pr case Shapiro is
    running in the papers.
    
    The dude wasn't grieving, he was running...
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

    Man if he's guilty he has to be the stupidest killer of all time..
    
    Not only does he leave a glove at the scene he drives home in his
    vehicle leaves it parked out on the street with blood on the door
    hides the other glove outside on his own property and then when he
    does try to run, his escape car is his own vehicle....????
    
    								MaB

> Man if he's guilty he has to be the stupidest killer of all time..

Keep in mind that if he is guilty that these murders go under the heading
of "crime of passion". Almost by definition these are not well thought
out crimes.

re: money+passport

that sure doesn't help the PR stuff; but to present a contrarian point of
view: people deal with grief in different ways.

Trial will start soon enough.

The Crazy Met

    I dont see how on earth he could have planned it ?  I watched a few
    shows and some people said OJ was a very intellegent man ? Was he ?
    Regardless of the incidents over the past few months, was he regard
    a somewhat intellegent person before this all happened.  I just dont
    see how he could have planned this, nothing looks planned or thoughout
    from what I can tell...???
    
    Glove, Hat, confrontation, blood on car/parked on street, Glove at home
    Blood in house, witness waiting at gate (Limo Driver) ???
    
    If it were me, I think I would have borrowed/stole a car, burnt it,
    drove myself to the airport.. Having no alliby has to be better then
    having witnesses that would prove you wernt home, how can the go for
    murder one when there's nothing that shows me it was planned/thought
    out at all 
    
    (Again innocent until proven guilty).
    
    								MaB

    RE: Dealing with grief.  
    
    I guess so, but making yourself a fugitive when wrongfully identified
    as the killer of your wife and kids seems like a move few people would
    make...
    
    RE: BROOKS
    
    Actually M_Air, a crime like that ain't an easy thing to pull off.
    
    If OJ did it, he would have struggled with two people that were doing
    everything in their power to stop from being killed.  It is entirely
    possible that Goldman grabbed at an arm/wrist/hand and pulled the 
    glove off.  Have someone at you home put on a glove, grab their wrist
    and have them try to wriggle out of your grip.  
    
    Next, not only would he have had this struggle, but it was dark
    outside.  Tell me that you could get rid of a weapon, clean you cloths,
    and make a limo parked outside your house in 45 minutes and catch every
    drop of blood coming off your body.
    
    If speculating that OJ did it, I would further speculate why that
    Bronco was parked on the side street (away from the limo street) when
    the juice had plenty of parking space on his property.  The reason? 
    He got home after the limo.  He parked it on the street, climbed over
    the side wall (three thumps heard by KATO) and dropped a glove in the
    dark of the night in his rush to make the pick-up.
    
    I would also speculate that someone had to help OJ during or after the
    killings, to ditch his weapon, get him cleaned up, and dispose of the
    blood soaked cloths.  Seeing how his "pals" will take monster chances
    with their own freedom to help the juice, it seems probable that they
    may also help him clean up from a person they felt had this coming to
    her...
    
    Just speculation, mind you, but since tomorrow is my last day, I wanted
    to offer an opinion on how this may play out in court...
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

The thing that still gets me is the way Goldman was killed.  That's the
mark of a pro -- or someone who's had some heavy duty training in the
service (special forces etc)

I don't know if OJ could have pulled that off, because he probably wouldn't
have thought of it, if it's the "crime of passion" thing....

'Saw

    IF he had help its even more mind boggling, if one of his friends was
    willing to help why not be willing to lend an alliby, drive directly
    from scene to airport, bags already in trunk make sure many people see
    you at the airport and have your friend clean the car/dump weapon
    clothes etc... No Blood at OJ's house, NO GLOVE, No witness to when he
    left for airport ???  Maybe my mind is sadistic but if this was planned
    and if he had someone willing to help he desinged the worst planned
    crime of the century....  Im waiting for them to find the weapon, how
    could he have been so neglagent with so many aspects of this crime yet
    smart enough to dispose of the weapon were NO ONE can find it ???
    
    The evidence deffinatly does not favor OJ, but I see no way they will
    get him on 1st degree murder.  If he plays his cards right he can use
    crime of passion.  
    
    One of the guys here was saying they think there were 2 different
    weapons used ??? Is that true... He said OJ's lawyers will use this to
    have OJ change his testimony that he got there found his wife dead and
    in a rage killed goldstein (Whatever his last name was, Im sure thats
    wrong).....
    
    								MaB

    
> re: money+passport      
>  
> that sure doesn't help the PR stuff; but to present a contrarian point of
> view: people deal with grief in different ways.
    
    Assuming that this information is true, I don't think even Shapiro
    would pass it off as a grief response.  The guy was under arrest; 
    the international shopping spree in Monaco is pretty much out of the
    question at that point...
    
    glenn
    

    In every multiple stabbing the wounds *can* look like different blades,
    thats pro forma.  In every case the criminalist has to say this.
    
    But, in regards to Frank and Goldman.
    
    Goldman was (speculation) the first to die, maybe as much as ten
    minutes before Nicole.  He was just at the wrong place at the wrong 
    time.
    
    Proof is in the fact that the sun glasses were found on the ground,
    next to his body.  Goldman was unlucky that night.  Nicole had very
    little defense wounds on her and was probably killed much quicker.
    
    So, the killer probably killed each person alone, one-on-one.
    
    Also, having been a Criminal Justice major and had many classes in
    forensic science, the murders were far from that of a pro.
    
    A pro would have killed them dead.  A pro would never had made a bigger
    mess than he would have had to.  A pro would not have done it outside,
    where chance may have had a witness, and a pro would have made a fake
    motive available.  (i.e., stole something to make it look like a
    robbery)
    
    Nope.  This person did it with unmatched rage.  He killed the bodies
    with anger, and kept killing after they were dead.  Very much like
    one would expect from a person that felt personal about the people
    they killed.  This was the work of either a psycho (one would expect
    bodies to be turning up all over LA with the same MO if this was true)
    or the work of someone that had a button pushed.
    
    MaB, do not make the mistake of believing OJs TV persona is the real
    guy.  Also, with as much money as he stood to gain by her death, and
    his obsession with her, murder may have been a very agreeable solution
    to keep her off other guys and save 7K/month + 15K/month for life...
    (Nicole got the 750K condo and 7K divorce and 15K for the kids...
    
    Greed and jealousy can turn "seemingly" normal people bonkers.  Don't
    believe the TV OJ is the real McCoy, its just PR.
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach 

    Another thing to remember (if OJ did this)...
    
    OJ didn't, and couldn't call in consultants on this, or "run it by
    friends", or call up a consultant to help him develop a strategy
    for this task.
    
    He had to do it all himself.  Remember, rich people can be smart and
    still have many smarter people investing their money, work their PR,
    etc.  For a premeditated murder it is all up to the persons intellect.
    
    It is easy to get things screwed up, too.  The best laid plans...  All
    it took was a jogger or a car or a delivery man to screw this up.
    
    Maybe if Goldman wasn't there, there would have been more time to make
    it look like a robbery.  Maybe this is what screwed up the whole thing.
    
    Maybe Rons appearance that night brought out the rage in OJ and that
    is why the crime was so damned brutal.
    
    There are very few perfect crimes, even by rocket scientists, maybe his
    plan was better than what turned out?  Given what I've heard, this is
    what I think...
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

                 <<< Note 171.13 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>
                   -< A child could plan a better crime... >-

>    Not only does he leave a glove at the scene he drives home in his
>    vehicle leaves it parked out on the street with blood on the door
>    hides the other glove outside on his own property and then when he
>    does try to run, his escape car is his own vehicle....????
    
Please, can we finally put this to bed?  It wasn't *OJ's* car that was used
    in the highway chase.  It was Cowling's.  Simpson's car was long since
    impounded by the authorities.
    
    Mark.

    

    The White Ford Bronco used in the chase is owned by OJ.
    
    JaKe
    

    Huh?  I thought it was AC's...  I know the other car was a Hertz
    rental...
    
    Was the cash/passport found in the Hertz (impounded) car or the chase
    car?
    
    Having that much room on your property, and leaving it parked on the
    street with 10 grand in it is still mighty suspicious...
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

    All I've heerd said the Bronco was OJ's.
    
    JaKe
    

    It was repeated last night on all the network news channels in their
    story on AC's (potential) indictment.  THE BRONCO WAS COWLING'S.
    How would OJ's Bronco be used when it was in police custody?
    
    Please try to keep up.
    
    Mark.

    The Bronco in custody is owned by Hertz.  (Leased to OJ)
    
    I heard this morning that the other Bronco belonged to Cowling and
    that is the Bronco that had the money stash and passport.  I tend
    to agree with the other noter, $$$ and passport is a pretty clear
    indication of PANIC, not GRIEF...
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

Chip, 

You made some good points.  I was just talking about that one wound -- slit
up the back like that.   It's not typical of someone in a crime of
passion -- unless of course OJ did it after he stabbed the living sh*t
outta him.

Actually, a trained killer probably would have gone for the kidneys or
just slit the throat.   And probably wouldn't have left such a mess (good
point there).....


'Saw

  I think the evidence shows that Nicole was killed first.

  The crime scene looked as follows.


            |   Nicole's apartment   |                            | side |
            |                        |                            | walk |
            __________     ___________                            |      |
                     |     |                                      |      |
                     |     | Goldman's Body                       |      |
                     |     |    glasses                           |      |
   ------------------       --------------------------------------|      |
     <........................|                       Nicole's    ! gate |
        bloody footsteps                                body      !      |
   ------------------       --------------------------------------|      |

  The bloody footsteps leading away from Goldman's body and the lack of blood
between the bodies suggest that Nicole was killed 1st without injury to the
killer. Then a fight ensued between Goldman and the killer in which Goldman was
killed and the killer injured. The killer blead as he left. 

  One possibility is that the killer had a well thought out plan to kill Nicole
but after killing her saw Goldman who had witnessed the killing. He then
attacked Goldman, got injured, lost his glove, got delayed, and the whole plan
fell apart. 

  Of course that's more speculation,
  George

  Today several media and press outlets are reporting that Deputy District
Attorney Marcia Clark was at O.J.'s house before the search warrant arrived. The
L.A. County D.A.'s office is saying that it was issued before she arrived. 

  If this is true, then the state will have to explain why they sent a Deputy
D.A. to prevent someone from bleeding to death or to inform a father that his
kids mother was killed. 

  At the very least, I see probable cause that the cops perjured themselves
when they said that O.J. was not a suspect before they saw the red spot on his
car. 

  George

Gee George, your diagram rivals the famous Walt Ashe diagram of the
Knicks-Suns melee....


8^)

    Ya know with as bad as things look for O.J. it crossed my mind that he
    might consider hiring me/Dean to represent him.  After all, we got a
    guilty person off the hook once and we might be able to do it again!
    
    Haw!!
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    Update on the DA being at the house before the warrant was issued.
    
    KCBS said that the there was a mixup since the technician worked the
    night shift and that the tape was taken a few hours after 10:30. They
    apologized to the DA's office; issue closed.
    
    

    New twist:
    
    The defense will supposedly claim that a policeman planted one of the
    gloves on OJ's property to frame him.  
    
    Another twist to the plot.
    
    Lee

  Knock knock ..

>
>  Knock knock ..
>

No George, they said it was THREE knocks on the wall.....

  Knock knock ..

    Is this the OJ joke?
    
    
    Who's there
    
    OJ
    
    OJ who
    
    You don't know who OJ is.You can serve on the jury.

  ... so much for that bit of fun.

  George

    Update?
    

    	::SPROTS is slipping.  I need my O.J. fix!
    
    				  /Don

|    	::SPROTS is slipping.  I need my O.J. fix!
 
A couple of PEZ should take care of your fix.

  Lessee ... 

  O.J. was arraigned in Superior Court. The defense is still arguing that they
want blood samples but the prosecution is arguing that there is not enough
blood to go around. They have run one kind of DNA test but they need the rest
of the sample to run the other DNA tests. 

  Under California law the defense only gets samples if the prosecution has
some left over after their tests. 

  Opinion poles are showing a big difference in public opinion with regard to
questions about O.J. based on the race of the people asked. Whites are more
likely to feel O.J. did the crime and are more likely to believe he can get a
fair trial. 

  Under California law, unless O.J. waves his right to a speedy trial the trial
has to take place within 60 days. They have calculated this date to be some
time around September 27. Both sides say they will be ready. 

  By contrast, the Menendez brothers, who's trial went from last July until
last January, have waved their right to a speedy trial and are due back in
court in mid October to hear another round of motions. Experts are saying
the trial will happen no earlier than next spring and perhaps not even then.

  These two trials are compared often because they are both alleged double
homicides of family members with famous defendants. The Menendez brothers
didn't start out famous but they are famous now. 

  George

What did OJ say to Larry Bird and Michael Jordan ?



Over the fence,
across the porch, 
down the walk, 
nothing but neck. 

    
    	This one is for MikeyC.
    
    	What do OJ and John Elway have in common?
    
    
    
    	OJ drives a slow Bronco.  John Elway is a slow Bronco.
    
    Claybone

	You knew it had to happen.  Goldman's mother has filed a lawsuit
	against OJ claiming wrongful death or some such.

	Kevin

    How the he'll can they sue before he's found guilty or not.. Talk about
    pathetic, his body is barely cold and his mother want some of OJ's
    money before the lawyers get it all...
    
    Does she forget that there's a few small children who may be parentless
    that need that money to survive....
    
    								MaB

  This seems to be a new trend these days. In fact, in the case of Michael
Jackson the father of the kid involved threatened to bring a suit while the
D.A. was trying to decide if charges should be filed. 

  To me this all smacks of double jeopardy. At the very least, forcing a
defendant to defend himself in civil court threatens his 5th amendment right
against self incrimination.

  George

Can't a person invoke the 5th amendment in a civil case??

The Crazy Met

RE              <<< Note 171.50 by METSNY::francus "Mets in '94" >>>

>Can't a person invoke the 5th amendment in a civil case??

  Sure, but it may mean that they lose the civil case. 

  Say for example that the defense decides that they want to wait until the
prosecution is done in the criminal case before they commit themselves in
their defense. 

  But say that their civil case comes to trial 1st. They would then be in a
position of having to decide if they should put on their defense at the civil
trial or remain silent and possibly lose the civil trial. 

  If they put on their defense at the civil trial at worse it could be used to
impeach their witnesses in the criminal trial and at best would tip their hand
to the prosecutors. 

  And then there's "discovery". In a civil trial the plaintiff has far more
rights to order the defendant to produce materials than the state has in a
criminal case. 

  It's double jeopardy pure and simple and shouldn't be allowed, at least until
after all criminal litigation is complete. 

  George

First, as long as a prosecution is on going I believe the civil case
is put on hold. With Michael Jackson no criminal case had been filed.

Second there was a recent case where the Supreme Court allowed the
federal gov to bring the same charges that a state had brought and where
the defendant had been acquitted. What constitutes double jeopardy does
not seem to be as clear cut as .51 presents it.

The Crazy Met

  I was putting my own emphasis on that final point. In my opinion this is a
clear case of double jeopardy.

  Due to a number of witch trial judges that have been elevated to various high
courts recently our constitutional rights are not what they should be. 

  George

Goldman's mother hasn't seen him in five years.  I heard that on the radio.

That makes it even more rich.


I don't know whether OJ did it or not, but I sure would be laughing good
and hearty if it really was someone else who did it -- that would make
the LAPD and the prosecution and Goldman's mother all look like asses.

How cool would THAT be?


'Saw

Could get even wierder.

In the criminal case the prosecution has to prove its case beyond
a reasonable doubt. In a civil case the plaintiff needs only to
prove that there is a high probability that the defendant (OJ) is
liable. So OJ could be acquitted in the criminal case and then
lost the civil case.

The Crazy Met

    
    
    	Yabbut FOX tee vee announced they're shooting a OJ made for tee
    vee movie.  Supposed to be broadcast around early September.
    
    and the circus continues......
    
    I remain,
    wondering if they can also make a Saturday cartoon?
    Kev
    

  The latest twist in the O.J. case is Ice Cream. Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. 

  The defense claims that a container of half frozen Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream
was found near the bodies at about 12:10 AM which if it were being eaten by
either victim would have put the murder later than the prosecution claims that
it took place. By midnight O.J. was on a plane to Chicago. 

  The story seems to be coming from Newsweek and as yet has not come from a
2nd source.

  George

    According to Watson, Sherlock Holmes once solved a case for which the
    critical clue was "the depth to which a sprig of parsley has sank in
    butter"
    
    So someone needs the b&j and the same temp and humidity to run the
    test.  Perhaps some butter and parsley as a control mechanism.
    
    And of course in this OJ saga the dog did indeed bark its fool head off
    thus eliminating the groom (see SILVER BLAIZE for details)
    
    Note that the notorious canary trainer and former owner of the bills
    are both wilsons

Ben and Jerry's ROOLZ!!!!!!

  Well, it sounds like the liars..er..I mean Lawyers finally got their
  conveyor belt set up between OJ's bank and their bank. It was reported 
  yesterday that OJ just sold a very large stock portfolio.

	Keith

  Hearings resumed today with the trial one week away. The defense filed a
motion asking for the charges to be dropped based on lack of evidence. They
argued again that the search of O.J.'s house was an illegal search. The
prosecution argued that it was legal. The motion was denied, the trial will go
ahead. 

  Last estimate I heard was that once the trial begins next week it will take
several weeks for jury selection and several more for pre trial motions. The
trial itself should go from mid fall to mid winter.

  Alan Dirchiwitcz (sp?) made his 1st appearance in the court room today.
Speculation by Court TV experts was that he was there preparing for an appeal
if necessary. 

  George 

This trial is on TV???  NOW I know what I'm going to do next month
instead of watching baseball.

If I don't report back into this conference on 7 Nov, send out the dogs.

Steve

  It's already on TV, I've been watching it all week on Court TV. They are
currently doing pretrial motions and both sides are still claiming they will be
ready for the trial to begin next week. 

  Yesterday the defense argued once again that the evidence at O.J.'s house
should be suppressed. They cited cases saying that items to be taken in a search
must either be specified in the warrant or there must be an obvious reason why
the item they take is relevant to the case. 

  The motion had 2 parts, in one part they argued that several items should be
excluded and in the 2nd part of the motion they said everything should be
excluded. The defense went on to say that 29 officers descended on the house and
only 1 actually read the search warrant which described items that could be
taken. They also said that officers took over his house for personal use and
watched his TV. 

  Marcia Clark argued for the state that the defense was interpreting the
precedent case the wrong way and that officers were allowed to use their
discretion when taking evidence. She went on to say that the TV was only being
used to examine the "frog man" tapes to see if they contained evidence. 

  The "frog man" tapes consisted of tapes of O.J. working on a frog man
production for Werner Studios. The state wanted them because they feel that
they may show O.J. wielding a knife. 

  The prosecution also stated publicly that they would limit their theory of
the case to a one assailant theory because there was only 1 set of bloody
foot prints leaving the scene.

  Judge Ito has promised to rule on the defense motions this morning at 9AM
(noon Eastern time). After that there will be motions by the defense to suppress
the evidence found before the warrant was issued including the evidence found
in O.J.'s Ford Bronco.

  George

During the prelim hearing I seem to recall hearing that the defense could
not appeal to the trial judge the decision that was made re: evidence at
the prelim hearing. Isn't this essentially what the defense is trying
to do??

The Crazy Met

RE      <<< Note 171.64 by METSNY::francus "There is no joy in Mudville" >>>

>During the prelim hearing I seem to recall hearing that the defense could
>not appeal to the trial judge the decision that was made re: evidence at
>the prelim hearing. Isn't this essentially what the defense is trying
>to do??

  No, as I understand they are not allowed to add new items of evidence to what
they asked to have excluded. They committed themselves to challenge a given set
of evidence. They can keep repeating that challenge at all levels they just
can't change it.

  On the surface that doesn't seem to mean much since they challenged just
about everything but it may prevent them from asking that selected items be
excluded if their request to have everything excluded fails. 

  For what it's worth, this is a restriction in California law, not federal
law. 

  George

  There's been an interesting O.J. development. 

  Late last week the defense made a motion to suppress DNA evidence that was not
going to be available by a certain date. Judge Ito asked the prosecution for
their argument and an assistant D.A. filling in for Marcia Clark said something
to the effect "well if the court wants to rule that evidence as not admissible
I guess that's your right". 

  On Friday Marcia Clark tried to reopen the issue but the Judge would not
allow it saying that the People had already had an opportunity to be heard on
the DNA issue. Clark said that the assistant D.A. was tired when she made those
remarks but the Judge still refused to allow them to argue in favor of allowing
the DNA evidence. 

  This ruling only effects DNA evidence that will not be available until after
the deadline which is in about a week. DNA evidence that comes in before the
deadline will not be effected by this ruling. 

  George 

    they say he may toss out the glove today too.

  Juror number 32 asked to be excused and was excused by Judge Ito yesterday.
When jury selection began a couple weeks ago, the 1st juror to have their
number drawn was juror number 32. As most people know, number 32 was O.J.'s
number. 

  The Juror said that the other jurors were always making fun of her number and
she had even been lampooned on Saturday Night Live. The judge agreed that it
would be a distraction and she was excused from serving on the jury. 

  George 

 freakin' rediculous....and what assine treatment by the other jurors....

 mike

|freakin' rediculous....and what assine treatment by the other jurors....

pssst, Mikey - I think this woman was looking for an excuse...

 Yes I realize that =Bob= but for the judge to grant it was FR....imo of
 course........

 ;^)

    Hey,Scoone i think that number[32] should have been skiped just like
    number [13] on highrise buldings.
      mike.

  I was at a party full of lawyers over the weekend and got to chatting with a
defense attorney about the O.J. case. He feels that the prosecution has a real
problem and that their problem is blood. 

  He pointed out that the crime scene indicated that the perpetrator should
have been drenched in blood but that O.J.s car and clothing had far less blood
then they would have had if he had killed the victims and driven away. 

  He went on to say that if the prosecution tries to say he changed his cloths
then they have two new problems. First, they will have to come up with a theory
of where the cloths went? How could he hide those cloths if he couldn't even
hide a bloody glove? 

  And second, their motive seems to be a crime of passion by a perpetrator who
flew into a rage in seconds. People who kill out of rage are entirely different
than people who coldly plan a murder and would have spare cloths around. 

  Meanwhile out in L.A., jury selection should end soon. Rumor is that the
remaining 15 alternates should be selected from the batch of potential jurors
being questioned now. January and February should be pretrial motions and
opening statements should be in March. 

  George 

Well, I know that one problem the prosecution is going to have is the fact
that Dr. Henry Lee is working for the defense.  8^)

Lee is pretty incredible.  His record is unbelievable, and he has a reputation
for putting the truth ahead of which side he's working on, so he is highly
valued as a witness.

For folks outside of Connecticut, he's the head of the Forensic section of the
CSP.  He helped to solve the infamous "Woodchipper Murder" -- the first case
in Connecticut where they got a conviction without a body, and he's had
several other big cases too.

I guess he's going to be a "watchdog" on the DNA testing....


There was a big article on him a couple of weeks ago in the Sunday paper.


'Saw

    >> I was at a party full of lawyers over the weekend 
    
       You have our sympathy.

Did they serve Shark Meat?   

No, that would have been canniblism.

Paul

  According to Court TV, the Opening statements in the O.J. trial could be as
early as this week. Since jury selection ended in December, prosecutors and
lawyers for the defense have been arguing motions before judge Ito. 

  The latest issue to be discussed is whether or not the defense will be
allowed to present evidence that the lead detective on the case is a racist.
The defense claims that it should be admissible to suggest that O.J. may have
been framed by police but the prosecution says it is irrelevant. 

  Judge Ito has taken it under advisement which means he won't decide until
later but he can't wait long. If the prosecution mentions the detective during
opening arguments, which they are likely to do, then the issue will have to be
resolved so that the defense will know if they can raise the racesism issue in
their opening arguments. 

  Defense attorney F. Lee Baily made his 1st appearance for the defense last
week to cross examine an expert testifying during one of the motions. According
to reporters, when Baily got up a hush fell over the court room. He did a good
job on cross and will most likely handle the difficult cross examinations
during the trial. 

  George 

    George, what's the big deal?

  I haven't heard of any deal. Latest I've heard is that evidence of O.J.
beating his wife, a 911 call, and something else having to do with prior
violent behavior are being allowed in while a bunch of other evidence of prior
abuse including statements made to family members is being excluded.

  Also rumors are that Shapiro and Baily are speaking to each other again.

  Opening statements are now scheduled for Monday,
  George

well the biggie I heard yesterday was that cop had an affair with Nicole???
I missed the news so anymore details will be appreciated......

He maybe quilty but I still say he's going to walk...........

mike

  A couple days ago Shapiro made a statement reminding everyone that so far
all that they've heard are statements from the prosecution and that the
defense hasn't started yet.

  He went on to say that there would be a big surprise during the opening 
statement from the defense that would answer the charges.

  With regard to the affair rumor, that might be the big surprise or it might
be a rumor gone wild as people are trying to guess what the big surprise might
be.

  George

With all the squabbling among his lawyers, you have to wonder whether,
regardless of how many fortunes he spends, Simpson is getting a quality
defense.

Steve

    
    
    All the squabbling is just to divert attention away from the wife
    beating/abuse evidence that was ruled admissable.
    
    Jerry

Having affairs was not the issue in court, nor should it be.  The issue
is whether or not Simpson (a former professional football player) beat
the tar out of his wife on more than one occasion, and, if so, whether
evidence to that effect is admissible at his trial for her murder.

Glad to hear that it is.

Steve

  It's a touchie issue. 

  If someone beats his wife then kills her, the information that he beat his
wife helps the jury reach the right verdict. 

  However if someone beats his wife and someone else kills her, the information
that he beat his wife helps the jury reach the wrong verdict. 

  This is called "propensity evidence" and in most jurisdictions it's not
allowed. In fact, in California it's not allowed, I'm not sure what Judge Ito
is thinking about. 

  One exception to the propensity evidence exclusion is if the crime being
discussed shows "modus operandi" or what is called a "signature". That is, if
the crime is so much like the one committed that a reasonable person would
conclude they were done by the same perpetrator. 

  For example, if a serial killer always ties a purple ribbon around his
victim's neck, that would be modus operandi. 

  The reason they are giving for allowing the evidence in this case is that
it shows motive, but in the past that has not been accepted by the appeals
courts. Most likely if O.J. is convicted, this will be grounds for appeal and
will get him a new trial. 

  George

Ito doesn't wanted to be lynched???????????

mike

    
    
    	Is the OJ Trial a Sport???
    
    

    I hear that they are going to give the jury scorecards.  After the
    opening remarks they will hold up a number, from 1 - 10, to score the
    respective lawyers "speeches".  The winner will then get to high step
    around the cortroom screaming "In your face loser!", and will grab all
    of the legal tomes off of their desk and spike them onto the floor.
    
    Court will them resume.
    
    I think that this qualifies the trial as a sprot.
    
    UMDan

  RE is this a sport?  Well it certainly is a diversion. 

  Opening arguments are scheduled for today. All the networks will be carrying
the opening arguments. Most likely as the months drag on, the major networks
will drop out quickly, CNN will go next, and finally just us Court TV hounds
will be watching the play by play. Marcia Clark will be the starting pitcher
for the Prosecution while Johnny Cochran is scheduled to get the start for the
defense. 

  The purpose of opening statements is for the attorneys for both sides to
establish a rapport with the jury. The prosecution will be laying out the theory
of their case while the defense, if they chose to give an opening statement,
will reveal their general plan of defense and begin the process of trying to
poke holes in the state's case. 

  George 

> We'll prove that he didn't do it.


not a chance in he*l the defense will say anything close
to that. All the defense needs to do is show reasonable
doubt. They do not need to prove anything and unless they have
prrof of who the murderer is (real far fetched) they will likely
stick to reasonable doubt. You've been watching too much Perry Mason :-)

The Crazy Met

    Everything I've read or heard about this case seems to come down to one
    point for the jury to consider:
    
    		Do they trust and believe in the integrity of the LA
    Police?
    
    One jury in the King beating voted YES and let the officers go.  In
    fact not substantiating the integrity of the enforcement arm would be
    big news OJ or no.
    
    Turow's first big one has something to do with discrediting blood work
    as I recall.

> Turow's first big one has something to do with discrediting blood work

correct.

The Crazy Met

RE         <<< Note 171.97 by AKOCOA::BREEN "It's all in the outcome" >>>

>    		Do they trust and believe in the integrity of the LA
>    Police?

  Well, it's not so much the L.A. Police, but one or two individual officers.

  George

NY Time magazine had an article on the LA Police force yesterday. Very
interesting; sounds like it is the whole PD they could put on trial.

The Crazy Met

Who's providing the wardrobe for:

	-  Mr. Simpson ?

	-  the jurors ?

 and over/unders on:

	How many trials there will be?

	How many objections raised?

	How many objections substained?

	How many witnesses?

	mike

RE           <<< Note 171.102 by CNTROL::CHILDS "The Mekons ROOOOL" >>>

> and over/unders on:

>	How many trials there will be?
>
>	How many witnesses?

  Just for comparison, I believe there were 101 witnesses for the Menendez
trial. That trial lasted 6 months with about 5 months between opening and
closing testimony and just under 1 month for the two juries to decide they
were hung.

  About a month before the trial each side in the O.J. case submitted witness
lists with over 200 witnesses each. Many of them will not be allowed or will
not be used but many will.

  George

  The general consensus from Court TV was that "Team O.J." out lawyered the
prosecution in what was suppose to be the day of opening statements. 

  Among other things, Defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey gave a classic style defense
argument in a motion to convince Judge Ito to allow testimony about Detective
Mark Fuhrman's past racial comments. Although they will not be allowed in
opening statements they will be allowed to address some racial issues during
trial. 

  According to Court TV this is a big win for the defense because it is now a
matter of tactics as to how much of the racial argument they can get admitted
and where the defense "Dream Team" is strong on strategy they promise to be
even stronger on tactics. 

  The prosecution sent up a twenty-something lawyer to argue against Bailey's
Clarance Darral type motion but she got smoked. Bailey's vocabulary alone was
enough to throw most lawyers off guard. One Court TV commentator remarked that
they had never heard the words soilation and defilation used together in the
same sentence. 

  The defense also threw the names of 34 new witnesses at the prosecution
including one who they claim was interviewed by Detective Mark Fuhrman and who
can place O.J.'s Ford Bronco in front of his house at the time of the murder. 

  But the main reason for the defense tactic of bringing this information up at
the time scheduled for opening statements is to disrupt the timing of the
prosecution. It is not unlike the defense in a football game calling a time out
just as a kicker is about to attempt a critical field goal. It means that
Marcia Clark will have to spend one more night than she planned trying to psych
herself up for the State's opening statement. 

  Opening statements for both the State and the Defense are now scheduled for
today. 

  George 

    
      George, this is not a shot at you but honestly, I could do
     without months and moths of OJ trial updates. There will be
     enough coverage every where else.

    I like the updates, keep'em coming
    
    Jimbo

    
    
      Tommy you see that long rectangular button way over on your bottom
    right of your keypad? Hit it. :-)
    
    
    
    
    Chap

    
    
    >> Tommy you see that long rectangular button way over on your bottom
    >> right of your keypad? Hit it. :-)
    
       You mean the one marked "Chappy". Seriously, I was just voicing
       my opinion. That *is* allowed. Personally, I'm sick of hearing
       about OJ, Nicole, Lance Ito, Johnny Cochrane, Robert Shapiro and
       all the rest. The sooner this is over the better. And pretty much
       anything that's been posted here has been hashed and rehashed in
       three hundred other places and will be for the forseeable future. 
       But if there's a place for endless debates on whether or not figure
       skating is a sport then I guess there's a place to wear the OJ thing
       out, too.

    Being a real 'company man' I'd hate to see a drastic increase in the
    rate of keyboard failures caused by folks beating the crap out of 
    their 'NEXT UNSEEN' key.
    
    IMHO this crap has no business whatsoever in a SPORTS related file.
    
    
    billl

    
    
         Thats true, afterall it's not like OJ was ever a SPORTS figure or
    anything like that.
    
    
    chap

    Personally speaking, I seldom read the newspaper.  I don't watch
    much TV, I don't spend much time in any other notesfile, and listen 
    to a little radio.  I like the updates cuz it is kind of comical yet
    informative.  But hey if SPROTS does not want to do this then I'll
    live.
    
    But tell me where this tiring debate of Ice Skating fits in Sprots?????
    

A columnist in the Globe wrote on Sunday that she wants to be on the jury
hearing the OJ case so she could be sequestered. This way she would only have
to hear about the case from 9AM to 5PM. Otherwise she will hear about it
going to sleep and then again when waking up.

The Crazy Met

    In terms =Bob= would appreciate, OJ coverage hasn't even made Natick.
    
    George you've got me fooled as knowing something about the law and I'm
    not about to venture into New_Hamphire or one of them notes.

RE        <<< Note 171.107 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>

>      George, this is not a shot at you but honestly, I could do
>     without months and moths of OJ trial updates. There will be
>     enough coverage every where else.

  If we stopped all discussions in this file where there is coverage available
elsewhere that would be the end of this notes file. 

  George 

RE                       <<< Note 171.113 by BSS::MENDEZ >>>

>    But tell me where this tiring debate of Ice Skating fits in Sprots?????
    
  I guess it fits in note 171.113 where you just raised it again.

  George

    >> If we stopped all discussions in this file where there is coverage 
    >> available elsewhere that would be the end of this notes file. 
    
       Nothing but nothing has ever been covered to the extent that the
       OJ trial is. That's the point. But apparently, some people like
       the updates so knock yourself out. I just know that I could do
       without them. Like I said I'm completely sick of hearing about it 
       all.

  Big screwup by "Court TV" in the O.J. Trial yesterday. At one point as Marcia
Clark was giving her opening for the state, the pool camera, operated by Court
TV, panned back just as a juror was leaning forward and the juror's face was on
screen for about 2 seconds. There is a 7 second delay but the operator didn't
notice and the juror's picture went out over the feed to all the media. 

  During the break after the state's opening Court TV notified Judge Ito of
what had happened and he went ballistic. Back in court he chewed out the media
and threatened to pull the plug excluding TV from the court room for the
duration of the trial.

  The defense objected saying that the state had the opportunity to broadcast
their opening to the nation and that the defense should have an equal right to
broadcast their opening to the nation but they agreed to have media terminated
after their opening statement. 

  The judge decided that he had to think it over and recessed for the day. The
defense then complained that they were being treated unfair because they were
ready to go then not allowed to respond to the prosecution's opening. 

  Court TV was selected last summer to operate the pool camera because of their
experience with court room TV. They have covered over 200 trials live without a
problem of this sort. Court TV producers had assured Judge Ito last summer that
their "fail safe" system of the camera operator and the 7 second delay would
prevent this sort of problem. At a "980" hearing in November Judge Ito agreed
to allow the cameras in the court room. Rule 980 in California is the law
governing TV camera's in the court room. 

  A 980 hearing is scheduled for this morning in which Judge Ito will decide
whether or not to pull the plug and if so whether to pull it before or after
the defense opening statement. 

  George 

  One other motion that was decided in the O.J. trial before opening statements
was that O.J. will not be allowed to address the jury during the defense
opening statement nor will he be allowed to show them the scars on his knee.
The defense is hinting that the scars on O.J.'s knee will prove he could not
have committed the murder because of physical limitations. 

  During the prosecution opening statement, Marcia Clark laid out the state's
theory and discussed the evidence they would be showing during trial. According
to the state, the evidence includes O.J.'s blood along with the other blood at
the crime site, O.J.'s, Nicol's and Ronald Goldman's blood in the Ford Bronco,
and O.J.'s and the victim's blood on a pair of socks found at the foot of
O.J.'s bed. 

  It also includes various items of clothing found both at the crime site and
at O.J.'s home containing either hair or clothing fibers of O.J. and the
victims. 

  George

    I saw where Tom Brokaw was complaining about the slow pace of the
    proceedings.  I wonder if Ito saw his remarks and was doing a slow burn
    about the media thinking they were going to run things in his
    courtroom.
    
    The camera kluge was just the thing to set him off (or just the excuse
    he needed to get back control).

  Yesterday the Defense gave most of it's opening statement in the O.J. trial.
Defense Lawyer Johnnie Cochran got the call and spent most of the day giving
his opening. 

  He spent some time talking about how the evidence would show that O.J. did
things for the community but then he went on to say that evidence would
contradict the prosecution's evidence. He said that the defense would be
calling in witnesses to refute the State's claims about DNA testing and spousal
abuse. 

  Perhaps the strongest point for the defense, if they can make it, is that he
claimed evidence would show that Nicole Simpson had Type B blood under her
fingernails which does not match O.J. or either victim. If that is true then he
will be able to prove that Marcia Clark lied when she said that all the blood
evidence points to O.J. 

  In a rather dramatic moment, the defense produced the mystery envelope and
showed it to the jury. The prosecution later objected and they fought for a
time over the use of the envelope. Supposedly it contains something that the
defense will use to impeach prosecution witnesses later in the trial. The
envelope 1st appeared at the preliminary hearing just after the prosecution had
made a big deal of having witnesses testify that O.J had bought a large knife
just prior to the killings.

  The defense also was allowed to have O.J. stand in front of the jury and show
them his knees which they claim have arthritis. The defense says that the
arthritis when it is active would make it impossible for O.J. to kill someone
like Goldman with a knife. They said that earlier in the day he could not play
cards because the arthritis prevented him from holding the cards in his hands. 

  Generally the consensus was that it was a good opening, a bit better than the
prosecution but that right now the prosecution seems to have a lead in the
quality of their evidence. 

  Cochran will finish his opening today but baring any more surprises they seem
to be about tied as the state starts it's case in chief. 

  George 

                     <<< Note 171.122 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  He spent some time talking about how the evidence would show that O.J. did
>things for the community but then he went on to say that evidence would
>contradict the prosecution's evidence. He said that the defense would be
>calling in witnesses to refute the State's claims about DNA testing and spousal
>abuse. 

The constant on evry point he made was that he precluded it with 
"we believe" as in "we believe the evidence will show....". 
That's a strong statement of how comfortable they are with 
actually being able to prove what they're saying. Instead of 
saying something you'd expect to hear like "We will show 
evidence to prove this or that or to contradict this or that", 
they went with what "they believe the evidence will show".

The difference is that if they presented it the other way and 
then failed to prove the point they said they would, the 
prosecution would rip them to shreds in closing and their case 
would fall apart.

It leaves them an easy out.

daryll

    re .123 Darryl,
    
    	The reason they were saying things like "We believe the evidence
    will show". Is because during opening statements, you are not allowed
    to say "The evidence will show". During opening statements you can not
    argue your case. So a statement like "Mr Simpson is innocent" is not
    allowed. Yet, "We believe Mr Simpson to be innocent" is allowed.
    Granted there is a fine line between a statement and argument.
    
    Ron

RE            <<< Note 171.123 by SALEM::DODA "Stop Global Whining" >>>

>The constant on evry point he made was that he precluded it with 
>"we believe" as in "we believe the evidence will show....". 

  Well maybe. It could be a matter of Johnnie Cochran's style. Also Marcia
Clark got beat up pretty bad by Judge Ito for drawing too many conclusions
in her opening and he might be doing that just to keep Ito in his seat.

  George

Any gueses of what is in the envelope?? I heard its either the knife or pictures
of that cop and Nicole...

    WTFC?

RE     <<< Note 171.127 by PCBUOA::LEFEBVRE "PCBU Asia/Pacific Marketing" >>>

>    WTFC?

  You do or you wouldn't be replying in this note.

  George

RE                    <<< Note 171.126 by SALEM::DIFRUSCIA >>>

>Any gueses of what is in the envelope?? I heard its either the knife or pictures
>of that cop and Nicole...

  Speculation is that it's the knife. At least the defense wants everyone to
think it's the knife. 

  During the preliminary hearing the state first encountered the problem that
they didn't have the murder weapon. They brought on witnesses to testify that
O.J. purchased a large stiletto shortly before the murders and that they did not
find the knife when they searched his house. The suggestion was that O.J. used
that knife during the murders then disposed of it somewhere between L.A. and
Chicago. 

  A day or so later in the preliminary hearing the defense produced the
envelope. The judge at the hearing decided, for what ever reason, to seal the
envelope and leave it up to the trial judge (Ito) to decide when if it should
ever be used. 

  The suggestion hinted at by the defense and bought by the press was that the
envelope contained the knife and that the knife had tested negative for any
blood thus putting the prosecution back to square one on the murder weapon. 

  They are also suggesting that "what ever it was" (knife, knife, knife) it was
at O.J.'s house and the fact that police were unable to find it is evidence as
to the sloppiness of their search and of their entire investigation. 

  George 

 I see Ito is bending over backwards again for the prosecution allowing them
 10 more minutes to refute the new witness. Why can't they just break them
 down on the stand and get on with it. If I'm the defense I'm pissed that
 the prosecution gets this last crack at the jury. Any bets they go longer
 than 10 minutes???????

 mike

	One thing I found amusing was that OJ supposedly has an alibi for the
	time the murders were committed.  Cochran says that OJ was in his front
	yard practicing chip shots.  The funny thing is, Cochran said he was 
	using a 3 or 4 WOOD!  Any golfer would convict him on the spot.  Also,
	this was just a coulpe of hours after his hands were allegedly so 
	gnarled that he couldn't shuffle a deck of cards.

	Kevin

  The defense seems to be using the tactic of entering lots of evidence that
when looked at closely either goes away or the witness is seriously
compromised.

  With respect to him playing golf, as yet no one knows of anyone who actually
saw him play golf. So to enter that information as evidence, they will either
have to come up with a surprise witness or O.J himself will have to take the
stand.

  It's a stretch but then again this entire defense is aimed at the sequestered
jury, not at the general TV watching public who has the benefit of TV experts
keeping track of what's been proven and what has not been proven.

  George

Yep,

OJ was practicing chipping in his yard despite the fack that he had
played 18 holes that day despite the fack that he's too feeble to grasp a
golf club.

And, oh yeah, it was at night and he used a wood.

Sounds like we're buying time until the mistrial.

TTom

>And, oh yeah, it was at night and he used a wood.


Hey, I use my wood at night.....  what's so unusual about that?  8^)

Hey, if'n OJ had done what you describe maybe this whole situation woulda
been different.

I can hear Judge Ito saying right now: Mr. Cochran, I refuse your request
to allow Mr. Simpson's right hand to testify.

TTom

    
    
    
       Huh Huh he said wood(ie)
    Huh Huh

>Hey, I use my wood at night.....  what's so unusual about that?  8^)
    
    That you require tweezers?

>    That you require tweezers?

No Mark, those big tongs they use in a restaurant aren't called tweezers,
although they resemble them on a grander scale....8^)

    
      Ah yes. The witty repartee of ::SPORTS. Oscar Wilde and Dorothy
     Parker didn't have anything on you guys.

  I don't think that Johnnie Cochran really said he was pitching with his
woods. He was said something to the effect that O.J. would practice his golf
swing all the time. He kept clubs in both cars and all rooms of his house and
sometimes he'd practice chipping and sometimes he'd swing his woods. 

  As I remember he slurred that last part a bit and it may have come out in
print more like practicing chipping (**garble**) w his woods, but when he
said it there was no confusion as to what he meant.

  George

    
    
    
        I agree George that was the way I took it too.

    Yabbut didn't Shapiro say that OJ was asleep during the time of the
    crime?  I wish the dream team would get their facts straight.  Maybe he
    was sleep golfing?
    
    UMDan

    
    Late Breaking story out of LA regarding the Simpson murder trial.
    
    	The defense now feels that the DOG should be considered a prime 
    	suspect due to the traces of blood found on the paws.
    
    Quite the Shocker!
    	
    	Yuk-Yuk
    
    		ED

    Heerd that during a phone interview the other day from his jail cell, a
    reporter asked OJ if he watched the Super Bowl, to which he replied he
    did watch it.
    
    The reporter then axed OJ what he thought of the game to which OJ
    replied:
    
    
    Second worst slaughter I've ever seen!!!!!
    
    
    
    JaKe
    

    
    
    
    BAHHHHHHHHHHHH

    
    	Hey man,
    		Someone dumped some of OJ's blood on the fence after he
    	have it to them for testing.
    
    	Come on now, how many cuts did OJ have on himself?  How could there
    be soo much blood of *his* all over the place anyway?  How can you tell
    his blood from anyone elses blood.....is it a different color?
    
    	I would really like to know how many of you guys think he is guilty
    from what you have seen through the trial right now.  
    
    	Me, I haven't seen enough to say he is guilty yet.
    
    	Browns sister is a drunk....how could she remember anything???
    
    	I also can't believe they will take into consideration what
    someone thinks is strange look....durring the play or whatever.....
    
    	From what I heard last week, the defense already has grounds for 
    a mistrial because of the photo that was put up on video without proof
    of when or where it was taken.....
    
    
    Can't someone update this file with the new information???
    
    Hal

    Get a life, Hal!  Work is the only time during the day when I don't
    have to listen to that crap.
    
    					Steve

    All I can say is that I've seen 3 LAPD officers testify so far and
    I haven't been impressed. 

  From what I've seen from pretrial discovery, the best evidence the state has
is Goldman's blood inside O.J.'s truck. The rest of it can be explained away.

  O.J.'s blood at Nicole's could have happened when he was visiting the kids
and her blood at O.J.'s could have happened when she was visiting him but there
is no connection between Goldman and O.J. that would explain Goldman's blood in
the Bronco.

  The biggest problem with the defense case is that it relies on two separate
conspiracies. First, there would have to be some sort of conspiracy by some
unknown persons to kill Nicole and Goldman and 2nd there would have to be a
rather extensive conspiracy within the LAPD to frame O.J. So far there is no
evidence of either conspiracy nor is there any hint of a motive for either
conspiracy. 

  The biggest thing going for the defense is the missing bloody cloths. From
the looks of the fight that would have had to take place between O.J. and
Goldman, O.J.'s cloths would have been drenched with Goldman's blood but no
such cloths have been found. And if he was able to dispose of such clothing,
why wouldn't he have disposed of the bloody glove at the same time?

  There is still a lot to hear but my guess is that someone else committed the
actual murder but O.J. was at the scene. Now whether he was there with someone
whom he hired to kill Nicole or whether he stumbled on the bodies shortly
after the attack, who knows but a 2nd person would explain the limited but
not extensive amount of blood on O.J.'s cloths.

  George

>   be soo much blood of *his* all over the place anyway?  How can you tell
>   his blood from anyone elses blood.....is it a different color?

Oh, Hal, give me a break.  Haven't you ever heard of blood typing?  Not
to mention DNA?

>   	I would really like to know how many of you guys think he is guilty
>   from what you have seen through the trial right now.  

On the basis of what I have seen (two nights a week in my hotel room
in Nuremberg on Sky News, about 30-60 minutes a night), this trial is
the best sleeping aid since individual synchronized swimming.

Sky News, of course, is TV's answer to tabloid newspapers.  The anchors
assume the audience has an attention span measured in double-digit
seconds, and immediately breaks in with commentary if there have been
30 seconds of silence in the courtroom.  They also have the obligatory
scorekeeping lawyers, both in the studio and in LA, announcing who got
the best of each exchange.

I tune in to it after Eurosport's 10 o'clock boxing show.  I just nod
off nice and easy.

Oh, and George:  if you came from LA like I do, you'd find it very easy
to believe that an LA cop would plant evidence to help convict a black
man of murdering his white wife.  In fact, you'd be surprised that they
waited for somebody else to murder the wife.

Steve

>On the basis of what I have seen (two nights a week in my hotel room
>in Nuremberg on Sky News, about 30-60 minutes a night), this trial is
>the best sleeping aid since individual synchronized swimming.

There's something heavy about that fact that you're watching America's
most publicized (I won't say most important, cause it ain't) trial in 
a city famous for another set of trials.

That's too weird...8^)



>Sky News, of course, is TV's answer to tabloid newspapers.  The anchors

I'll vouch for that.....

The guy bled from LA to CHI, you'd think that he'd start feeling 
cold at some point....

daryll

> There's something heavy about that fact that you're watching America's
> most publicized (I won't say most important, cause it ain't) trial in 
> a city famous for another set of trials.

You know, it never occurred to me.  I've been traveling there every week
for more than three years now, I know the people that work for my customer
better than some of the people in my own group, the staff of my hotel
treat me better than they treat the owner, and somehow I never make any
historic associations (and I'm Jewish!).

I guess it is weird, isn't it?

Steve

>You know, it never occurred to me.  I've been traveling there every week
>for more than three years now, I know the people that work for my customer
>better than some of the people in my own group, the staff of my hotel
>treat me better than they treat the owner, and somehow I never make any
>historic associations (and I'm Jewish!).
>
>I guess it is weird, isn't it?


Well, sometimes if you're right on top of something, you don't notice it.

I'm sure that most folks in Gettysburg PA don't think of their town as
a mecca for tourists.

It just kind of struck me as strange.


I don't have a map -- how far is Nuremburg from Munich.  I know it's not
in northern Germany, but there's not much that ISN'T north of Munich... 8^)


'Saw

Nuremberg (actually, Nuernberg, the ue is the umlaut u--the u with two
dots over it) is about a 90 minute train ride north of Munich.  Both
are part of the State of Bavaria, of which Munich is the capital, but
Nuernberg is the main city of a historical part of Germany called
Franken (Franconia).  These are the same Franks who migrated west to
found the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne.  They are amused to
refer to themselves as "Bavarians by force" ("Zwangsbayern").

HTH

Steve

    Well there have been two major alleged conspiracies in my time: the
    first the Kennedies (a major dead horse), the other the Gulf of Tonkin.
    
    The latter during one phase of it's life was (consensus) considered
    exposed, it has evolved again into not officially exposed.  Since the
    incident occurred during a democratic administration, a republican
    insider may refer (on Imus) to it as a consipiracy (this was McFarlane
    who attempted suicide when the Iran-Contra revelations occurred
    (another conspiracy).
    
    The point is that the Gulf "conspiracy" was kept secret for eight years
    and it's unraveling led to the Ellsberg break-in part of Nixon's
    demise.  So consipiracies can be known by many and still be secret.
    
    Now with OJ my guess is that a decision was made the morning after by
    the LAPD as to who did it.  It is very possible that all potential
    evidence relating to the case was then obtained or hidden according to
    whether it was Pro-OJ-Guilt or the opposite.  This sort of thing was
    apparently Boston Police routine practice for years.
    
    As I said earlier, the essential point that the jury will answer is
    "Was the original decision of the LAPD a sincere, objective,
    experienced, unbiased "verdict"?"  Only that initial decision by the
    LAPD could be truly objective.
    
    Billte

    
    	So, what is the latest???  Don't get alot of time to see much....
    
    	Thanks,
    
    		Hal
    
    
    		I still haven't seen or heard enough to say he is guilty.
    
    

  Today is the 1 year anniversary of the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald
Goldman. According to the prosecution they were both killed at about 10:15 PM
on June 12, 1994. The defense claims that the murders took place about 20
minutes later. 

  About a 3 or 4 weeks into the trial the jury was taken on a tour of the crime
scene and O.J.'s house. Just before that trip Judge Ito said that there would
be a 2nd field trip late in the defense portion of the case at night time. He
predicted half in jest that if the trial went long enough that might even be
around the one year anniversary so the jury would see the actual lighting
conditions. 

  As of today the State has not completed their case in chief and the defense
has not even begun their arguments. The most optimistic predictions are that
the defense will go at least 10 weeks plus another 2 weeks to a month if O.J.
testifies.

  George

    One of the dumbest moves in years by the prosecution yesterday. They
    had OJ try on the gloves that were supposedly worn by the murderer.
    With plastic gloves OJ put the gloves on and they "appeared" not to
    fit. They seemed too small. The defense also is going to make a motion
    that Ito not throw off any more jurors.
    
    Mike

You're right, it was dumb.

The gloves in question are Aris gloves, which I believe are made at least
partially of spandex-type material.  If that's the case, it'd be really easy
to make it look like they don't fit.

    
    	Yes,
    
    		But that brand of Isotoner (sp?) gloves. Were only sold for
    about 6 months. The kicker is that they were only sold at
    Bloomingdales. The nearest Bloomingdales is Chicago. The Prosecution
    is suppose to have Nicole Browns credit card records. From the
    Bloomingdales in New York. Where they can proove that Nicole bought
    OJ a pair of those gloves in New York. The gloves are size XL, so
    they should fit OJ. Leather gloves tend to shrink when not used.
    	Wonder if the procecustion is going to look through old NBC,
    sideline reports done by OJ. I bet they could find OJ on the sidelines
    in Buffalo. Wearing a pair of leather gloves while holding the mike.
    Either that or the defense looks through the tapes and shows him.
    Wearing brown gloves instead of black?
    
    Ron

  That was a real bone head move by the state. The problem is that even if they
do manage to make a case about him being able to wear other gloves or provide
testimony about gloves shrinking, it won't stick in the jurors mind anywhere
near as much as O.J. standing there struggling to put on the gloves. 

  That type of testimony would of course be analyzed and highlighted by the
talking heads so the public in general might be convinced but the jurors who
are not allowed to watch TV will only go by what they saw in the court room
which was O.J. not fitting into the one pair of gloves that mattered. 

  George

As the analysts have said, you NEVER ask a question where you're not 100% sure
of the answer, and you NEVER give a demo where you're not 100% sure of the
outcome.

As Imus said, if I was a citizen of LA I'd be pissed at the way the prosecution
is spending my tax dollars.....

Too bad PT Barnum isn't alive today -- he'd love THIS circus!


'Saw

    fwiw...the glove "specialist" that spent over an hour on the stand
    is a local guy who lives here in lovely Merrimack, NH.
    
    one point to remember...OJ is/was an actor.  Maybe not a good one,
    but that glove-trying-on scene should net him an ocsar.
    
    
    billl

    Heard on the radio this morning that the prosecution claims the gloves
    may have shrunk due to the dried blood on them.
    
    
    
                                 JS

Whether you believe OJ is guilty or not, whether you believe it was an act or
not, you still have to agree that it was damned stupid for the prosecution to
give this one a try......

    I can hear Cochrane now in his closing statements (if it gets that far).
    Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The state has said that they
    recovered the gloves that the killer used while killing the 2 victims
    after the murder. One at Mr.Simpsons house and one at the crime scene.
    We think that one of these gloves was planted at OJ's house. The gloves
    in question as you observed didn't even fit Mr.Simpson.
    That alone should leave you with reasonable doubt that the defendant 
    should be found not Guilty.

    Cochran, some omnths ago, informed OJ that he had good news and bad
    news for him.
    
    Oj asked for the bad news first, to which Cochran replied, "they've
    found your blood at the murder scene, and proved it's your's thru DNA
    testing."
    
    OJ then asked for the good news, to which Cochran replied"
    
    
    "they said your cholestorol is only 132!!!!!"
    
    JaKe
    
    

    If he does get off, I'd LOVE to be the script writer for his 1st Hertz
    commercial! All sorts of scenerios (SP?) come to mind with OJ being in
    one hell of a hurry!!
    
    
    
                              JJS
    
    
                                    
    
    
    
    
    
                                  

	Hey Paul, OJ is simply following the time honored tradition of 
people with gobs of money buying their justice.  I don't know if the 
current outrage over the possibility of his being found not guilty is 
because he's black, or if because the femminists adopted a guilty and 
cannot be proven innocent attitude towards this case.  Maybe it's a little 
of both.

				   /Don

    	There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that OJ is guilty. 
    However, I believe he will be found innocent by this jury.  It is
    outrageous but not uncommon.
    
    	Cullen Davis, of the billionaire Davis boys in Texas attempted to
    kill his wife and succeeded in killing a young girl.  Davis had tons of
    money and a stable of hot shot lawyers, including "Racehorse" Haynes.
    He got off two or three times.  The prosecution tried different tactics
    in appeals trials and failed.
    
    	Clous Von Bullow attempted to murder his wife, but only succeeded
    in putting her into a vegatative coma.  He had lots of money and big
    name lawyers too.  Among Von Bullows lawyers was scum bag supreme,
    Allen Durshowitz.  Von Bullow is a free man now.
    
    	The mafiosa types have been murdering people for years and rarely
    been found guilty.  It happens all the time.  Its disgusting, but that
    is the American justice system.

    
      In the cases of Davis and Von Bulow, you left out the critical
     word "allegedly". They "allegedly" murdered their wives. Both were 
     able to hire attorneys who could create a reasonable doubt and that's 
     what it all comes down to. They didn't prove themselves innocent. If 
     they had to do that much they'd probably be rotting in prison now. All 
     they did and all OJ has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt". Fort-
     unately for OJ, the prosecution has gone and done that for him.

RE                      <<< Note 171.176 by MARIN::DODGE >>>

>    	Clous Von Bullow attempted to murder his wife, but only succeeded
>    in putting her into a vegatative coma.  He had lots of money and big
>    name lawyers too.  Among Von Bullows lawyers was scum bag supreme,
>    Allen Durshowitz.  Von Bullow is a free man now.

  I'm not sure about the other cases but from what I've seen the evidence is
not all that convincing that Von Bullow drugged his wife. Do you know something
that the rest of us don't know?
    
>    	The Mafioso types have been murdering people for years and rarely
>    been found guilty.  It happens all the time.  Its disgusting, but that
>    is the American justice system.

  Tell that to Jimmy Hoffa (if you can find enough pieces), Bobby Kennedy put
quite a few of those guys in jail and lately the Feds have been quite
successful breaking up the mob in Boston and elsewhere. Whighty Bolger has
probably seen his last free days in South Boston. 

  Since 1980 the total number of people incarcerated in jails, prisons, and
houses of correction from around the country has gone from around 350,000 to
over 600,000 and with truth in sentencing laws it will probably go over 1
million. Just how many more people do you want to put in jail? 

  George

|>    	The Mafioso types have been murdering people for years and rarely
|>    been found guilty.  It happens all the time.  Its disgusting, but that
|>    is the American justice system.
|
|  Tell that to Jimmy Hoffa (if you can find enough pieces), Bobby Kennedy put
|quite a few of those guys in jail and lately the Feds have been quite
|successful breaking up the mob in Boston and elsewhere. Whighty Bolger has
|probably seen his last free days in South Boston. 

Probably the BIGGEST of the Mob bosses to fall had to be John Gotti.

If you want to read a good book, read _Gangland_.  It's the story of how the
FBI finally managed to get the goods on the teflon Don.

Course, word has it that he's still running the "empire" through his son, from
prison, but I'm not sure how accurate that is....


'Saw

IMHO, I think most of these MOB guys finally got caught because they 
got lazy and cocky more than anything else.

YMMV.
daryll

>IMHO, I think most of these MOB guys finally got caught because they 
>got lazy and cocky more than anything else.


Well, actually, in Gotti's case, he didn't realize that the FBI had gotten
a wiretap into the one spot where he thought he was safe, and could talk
freely.   They had.

If memory serves me correctly, he then started getting paranoid about 
Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, and planning to whack him.  That was ultimately used
to turn Gravano against him, so that he turned State's Evidence, and he
testified against Gotti.

They'll put Gravano in the Witness Protection Program when he finishes his
time, but I sure wouldn't want to be MY life on the success of THAT program....


'Saw

>    Does the F in F. Lee Bailey stand for "Fug"?

Fug....reminds me of Norman Mailer's _The_Naked_and_the_Dead_, I think.


I might be wrong, but isn't is Francis? 

    
    	Nah, who would scar a kid by naming him Francis?  :*)
    
    Claybone

>    
>    	Nah, who would scar a kid by naming him Francis?  :*)
>    


Hey, I resemble that remark.


Could be MUCH worse -- it could be short for Franklin  (YEWWWWWKKKKK!!!!!!!!)

>    I just hope his celebrity status,
>    cash, and claims of racism don't allow him to walk away from the
>    two people he murdered.

I think one way or the other, this thing is going to drag on even longer
than any of us can comprehend.  God forbid they lose any more jurors -
Cochran (or is it Cockroach - no, never mind, I'm thinking of Dershowitz...)
will go for a mis-trial in a heartbeat.

The only good thing that may come out of this trial is that people may
be disgusted enough from this spectacle to back some type of judicial
reform.  You always knew that money improved your chances, but I don't think
we've ever seen this axiom so blatantly proven before.

  The only evidence that O.J. had a cut before he went to Chicago comes from
the statement he gave Det. Vanadder during his interview a couple days after
the murder. O.J. claimed at that point he had the cut. 

  What's happening is that the defense is baiting the prosecution to enter that
statement as evidence. Due to a law in California, if they want to enter any
part of that statement, they have to enter the entire thing. Most of the half
hour interview consists of O.J. insisting he is innocent. 

  If it is entered then the defense can explain away the statement as O.J.
misunderstanding that one question while reminding the jury over and over about
O.J.'s repeated claims of innocence.

  Most important, this would result in what is effectively testimony by O.J.
without the prosecution having a chance to cross examine him which they would
have if he took the stand.

  George

   > The prosecution is not dumb enough to introduce the statement.  Based
   > on the DNA evidence, he should be convicted.
    
    Is this the same prosection team that had OJ try on in front of the
    jury a shriveled up glove? 
    
    
    

    The defense rebuttal of the dna evidence is to come.  I doubt that dna
    alone will convict him, just imo.  The trial is more about whether the
    jury will be convinced of the sincerity and integrity of the LA police
    who obviously were convinced of OJ's guilt from the gitgo.
    
    The police have come out as very convincing, the defense failed there
    as bad as anywhere else un the trial.

    
    I heard about the "poor fitted glove" and laughed.  Every few years I
    purchase a new set of gloves.  When this occurs I go through several
    stores trying to find ONE pair that fits.  I could care less if it was
    neon green, just as long as it fits.  So far, I have NEVER found a pair
    that fits.
    
    Therefore, I'd like to see someone discuss (notice I didn't say argue)
    how the trying on of this pair helps to determine his innocence or his
    guilt.  It serves no purpose, IMHO, to either side of the case.
    
    Marc
    

  Don't forget, the lawyers on both sides are well aware that on this planet
there are about 5 billion people that mean nothing and another 12 that mean
everything.

  This jury does not understand the DNA evidence. That was pretty clear from
the comments of several of the jurors dismissed and from observing when they
take notes and when they don't. And it has little to do with who they are, they
just don't get the hours of explanation by commentators and their experts
putting it all into prospective. 

  Yes the DNA evidence is strong but as Johnny Cochran said about 3 weeks ago,
"I have four words for Christopher Dardin, 'The gloves didn't fit'". There's
not a man or woman alive anywhere that doesn't understand what that implies.

  George

    
    >"I have four words for Christopher Dardin, 'The gloves didn't fit'".
    >There's not a man or woman alive anywhere that doesn't understand what that
    >implies.
    
    It doesn't imply a thing as I already pointed out.  The glove didn't
    fit, big deal, I've never had a glove that fit and if *one* person on
    the jury sees that too, then it stops being an issue or there is a hung
    jury.
    
    Marc
    

  Remember, this wasn't suppose to be a random pair of gloves that O.J. was
trying on in the store, this was not only a pair that he supposedly tried on
and bought, it was supposedly the pair he selected to ware during a fight
and a murder.

  Do you buy those pairs that don't fit? If you do, do you wear them when you
know that dexterity is going to be important?

  It was a major blunder by the prosecution. They had everything to lose if
they didn't fit and almost nothing to gain if they did. Now they are in the
position of having to argue that the gloves shrunk because of the blood which
leads to two new problems, one there wasn't enough blood to make them shrink
and two, if there was it must have been applied by the police.

  No, I don't believe that either but then again, I'm one of the 5 billion, not
one of the 12.

  George

    
    >Do you buy those pairs that don't fit?  If you do, do you wear them
    >when you know that dexterity is going to be important?
    
    Hmm, I guess all cap'ed words aren't sufficient.  Why do you buy
    gloves?  To keep your hands warm.  I (that being the person writing the
    note) have never (that meaning not even once, 0%, nil, nada) found
    gloves that fit.
    
    Here's the opinion part:  My guess, based on observation, is that OJs
    hands are quite large.  That is also my problem.
    
    Hence the statement:  Whether or not a pair of gloves fit or not does
    NOT (as in, has no basis on) whether or not OJ owned the gloves.
    
    How about a show of hands?  How many of you readers have ever owned a
    pair of gloves that didn't fit "perfectly" like the ones in question? 
    If I can get *ONE* person to raise their hand, doesn't that mean that
    your statement which was something along the lines of "and there isn't
    one person alive that..." is wrong.
    
    Whether or not a person INFERS that the non-fitting glove means
    something has NOTHING to do whether it was IMPLIED.
    
    Marc
    

  >> If I can get *ONE* person to raise their hand, doesn't that mean that
  >> your statement which was something along the lines of "and there isn't
  >> one person alive that..." is wrong.
    
     No, it doesn't mean George is wrong at all. George's statements was that
     *everyone* knew what Johnny Cochrane was implying when he said, "I have
     four words - the glove didn't fit." We all knew what he meant, we just
     might not all agree on the significance of the glove not fitting.

     PS _ I believe OJ to be guilty but it was a huge tactical error to have
          him try on the gloves.    
    

>MSBCS::BRYDIE

>No, it doesn't mean George is wrong at all. 

Plagues of locusts.

Rivers run red with blood.

Polar ice caps melt.

The devil orders a space heater.

Film at 11...  :-)

  After the debacle with the real gloves which O.J. struggled to tug, pull and
push onto his hands then couldn't move his fingers with them on, he tried on a
pair of gloves from the same manufacturer. He slid them on and moved his hands
and fingers with no problem. 

  The implication was that some gloves do fit O.J. and he can move his hands
and fingers easily with them on but the particular pair found by police didn't
come close to fitting. 

  By the way, I've found gloves that fit, do you have 6 fingers or are you
trying to put them on your feet? 

  George 

    
    re: .199
    
    Oh really?!!?!  "I have four words - the glove didn't fit."  Hmm, what
    was he implying.  Was he implying that the prosecution was incompetent? 
    Or was he implying that OJ must be innocent?  Or was he implying that
    the 12 jurors will see OJ as innocent?  Or was he implying that the 12
    jurors think the prosecution was incompetent?
    
    Not so cut and dry as you think.  Just because YOU infer something from
    a statement does not mean that "everyone alive" infers the same thing. 
    You, George and most people will conclude that the statement suggested
    a particular meaning.  I just gave you 4 potential ones above. 
    Therefore Georges statement is catagorically incorrect.
    
    Marc
    

 >> Oh really?!!?!  "I have four words - the glove didn't fit."  Hmm, what
 >> was he implying.  Was he implying that the prosecution was incompetent? 
 >> Or was he implying that OJ must be innocent?  Or was he implying that
 >> the 12 jurors will see OJ as innocent?  Or was he implying that the 12
 >> jurors think the prosecution was incompetent?
   
    I'd vote for all of the above as they aren't mutually exclusive. They
    all boil down to - the prosecution screwed up. Badly. Very badly. And
    until your note, I had yet to hear from a single person anywhere in
    any medium, especially lawyers, who did not think the prosecution had 
    blundered. So I guess George's statement isn't completely accurate because 
    at least one person in the world (you) and probably just one didn't know 
    what Johnny Cochrane was implying.

    
    

  He was implying that O.J. is innocent. That's his job, to persuade, convince,
suggest, prove, whatever that his client is not guilty. And success is measured
by one thing, the jury coming back and saying O.J. is not guilty. 

  That is his responsibility to his client as defined by California law. When
he says the gloves didn't fit clearly he's saying that O.J. is innocent because
he couldn't have been wearing the evidence on the night of the crime. 

  But I guess you are right, there are people who don't understand the job of a
lawyer under a system of common law. In fact there are probably many people who
don't understand the job of a lawyer under a system of common law.

  George 

    
    Shouldn't he have said "I have three words and a contraction," though?
    
    brews

    Just when you think things couldn't get wierder for OJ another
    bombshell hits. I want to start by saying until 3 weeks ago I thought
    OJ was screwed and was guilty. I now think he could have been framed. 
    The Mark Furman tapes are being ruled on today and Judge Ito may step down 
    from the case. According to transcripts of a conversation between Ito and
    the lawyers Furman is on tape using the N word 33 times. On these tapes
    Furman supposedly tells how he hates just about everyone who isn't a
    white Christian male. He also goes and tells how he's framed blacks and
    mexicans over the past 10 years using names and dates. He also
    reportedly says that without his testimony there wouldn't be a case
    against OJ and if he goes down the prosecutions case goes down. There's
    a chance of a mistrial and if that happens OJ could walk. 
    
    Mike
    

  Well the blood evidence against O.J. is still pretty strong and there's no
way Furman could have planted all of that. Plus there is the problem that there
is not a shred of evidence pointing to anyone else. 

  But I agree the prosecution is in trouble. If Ito has to recuse himself
because of wrong doing by a key prosecution witness and L.A. police officer
there is the real danger that the case would be declared a mistrial with
prejudice. That would mean O.J. would be protected from further prosecution
due to double jeopardy. Johnny Cochran is preparing for that by objecting to
Ito stepping down and demanding the trial go on. 

  However if Ito steps down there are other possibilities. They might continue
with another judge or if there is a mistrial it is possible that the California
appeals courts which are becoming increasingly conservative, might decide that
the mistrial was declared without prejudice which means they could try him
again. 

  At any rate, it was a very bad day for the prosecution. 

  George 

    
    	Even if there is a mistrial. OJ sits in jail until the appeal
    is heard. There is no bail for a suspected murderer.
    	I personally think OJ paided someone to kill his wife. While he
    went and watched. I think some of the evidence is real, while other
    pieces were planted. Just to sure up the case. Ex. The blood on the
    back gate, wasn't found until 10 days after. Some of the blood in
    the Bronco. You need to examine the Bronco 4 times, before you
    find everything? If there is a blood trail going up the driveway, then
    how did the glove get in the back yard? Or How did he jump the back
    fence and drop the glove? When the blood is in the front? They couldn't
    find a blood spot with 25 yrds of that glove. Last but not least, where
    are the bloody cloths/knife? He would have barely enough time to
    kill his wife and make it back home. Never mind hiding the clothes.
    
    
    Ron

  Not to jinx anything but the O.J. trial seems to be nearing the end. The
defense is talking about resting next week and Ito has told the jury that they
could start deliberating in 2 weeks. Of course they are always predicting that
things will happen sooner than they actually do but it appears the defense is
winding down. 

  It hasn't been a very good week for the prosecution with Mark Fuhrman taking
the 5th amendment in court without the jury present and witnesses talking about
him showing hostility toward blacks and using the "N" word quite frequently. 

  The prosecution has the right to present a rebuttal case to refute testimony
presented by the defense but so far no one seems to be talking about that
happening. If it doesn't, then the jury may really get to start deliberating
before the end of the month. 

  George

    So what's your prediction George or is it still a little early?  Both
    sides still seem to have a few tricks up their sleeves (mysterious
    witness?; glove experts? - anyone know a glove expert?).
    
    I'll go out on a limb and predict a straight not guilty - I'm sure
    it'll be hung for awhile but I'd expect the jury may decide that a
    unanimous verdict, ever, will be impossible and reluctantly let him
    walk.

    
    
       > Anyone know a glove expert?
    
    Yup.   Don Mattingly

  It's still a little early. The prosecution is doing it's rebuttal and after
this the defense gets to put on it's rebuttal. And there's always the chance
that they will try to call O.J. during the rebuttal since that would prevent
the prosecution from calling further witnesses to refute anything he says on
the stand. 

  For a short time there it looked like it could end quickly but now it's
anyone's guess. If the defense starts feeling nervous about losing 3 more
jurors they could wrap up quickly but if they decide to crank up the circus
again their "rebuttal" could go on for another month or more.

  We're getting close but hold tight for a bit.

  George

    I saw a show this weekend where one of these OJ analysts said that the
    vast majority of defense lawyers now feel OJ will be acquitted where
    before they were predicting a hung jury.
    
    Mike

    
    I think Furhman's taking the 5th sealed.........

  Remember the jury doesn't know he took the 5th. 

  Also juries can fool you. Two or three strong personalities with views that
are not main stream for what you would expect from that group and anything can
happen. 

  Anyway it's still too early to tell. As I said, they may still try to put
O.J. on the stand. Now that may not be allowed since their rebuttal is suppose
to be restricted to what the prosecution had in their rebuttal but then again
if they tried to put him on the stand the state would probably not object.

  And if O.J. takes the stand, the jury will pretty much forget 90% of what
they've heard this past year. A Clark/O.J. battle this late in the trial would
overwhelm anything else that happened earlier.

  I don't think the defense will put O.J. on the stand but in this case just
about anything can happen.

  George

Well, let's face it, OJ ain't going to be petitioning for MENSA membership
any time soon.

The spelling in some of those letters he wrote made RCASO and MairB look
like Albert Einstein's cousins.


So, if'n I were the dream team, the LAST thing in the world I'd do is 
put OJ on the stand.....

    
    	The defense HAS NOT rested its initial defense. Judge Ito is
    letting them keep there case open. Until they get a final ruling. From
    the appeals court. As to what the jury will be told about Furhman
    taking the 5th. He is also letting them keep it open. Until this
    surprise witness thing is cleared up.
    	It is very rare that the prosecution starts its rebuttal case.
    Before the defense rests its initial defense. Judge Ito did this so
    the jury wasn't sitting around hearing nothing for 2/3 weeks.
    	If the defense doesn't get an acceptable ruling on the Furhman
    issue. There is speculation that O.J. will take the stand for the
    defense. Then when cross examination time rolls around, he will plead
    the 5th outside the presense of the jury. With the old adage of what
    goes around comes around. Hey, if the prosecution witness who ALREADY
    testified. Can now turn around and plead the 5th. Why can't a defense
    witness do the same thing? Which will send this case to the California
    Supreme Court. Before it ever reaches a jury.
    
    Ron

    IMO if the defense puts OJ on the stand it would be as a last resort. 
    Articles that I read said that OJ did poorly in mock cross-examinations
    that were done recently.  I think Marcia would just love to get him on
    the stand and start pushing his buttons.
    
    JMHO
    
    UMDan 

>    IMO if the defense puts OJ on the stand it would be as a last resort. 

Yeah, the kind of last resort where you call the artillery right down
on top of your position because the enemy has overrun you....8^)

>   OJ may walk for now, but he will eventually go to prison for these
>   two murders.

I don't follow this.  Is double jeopardy now permissible in the US
legal system?

Steve

>I don't follow this.  Is double jeopardy now permissible in the US
>legal system?

Sorta.

Like the cops who beat up on poor ol' Rodney King, they were acquitted of
the criminal charge and convicted in fed court on civil rights
violations. This is possible but unlikely for OJ. In their case there was
irrefutable evidence that they beat him up.

Unfortunately for the City/County of Los Angeles and State of California,
no such evidence exists against OJ.

TTom

Yeah, I though of Rodney King about 4 microseconds after posting the note.

> Unfortunately for the City/County of Los Angeles and State of California,
> no such evidence exists against OJ.

Actually, the DNA evidence is extremely powerful, but of course not quite
irrefutable.

BTW, I'm not sure the prosecution is permitted to comment on a defendant's
failure to take the stand.

Bottom line:  I think he'll walk.

Steve

>
>BTW, I'm not sure the prosecution is permitted to comment on a defendant's
>failure to take the stand.
>

That's kind of one of them things that they will do though.

Up front, I don't know the rule, but even if they're not allowed to say it
I know the jury is not allowed to factor it into their deliberations.

However, we're all human, so it goes something like this:


	Pros:	OJ didn't even speak on his behalf on the stand

	Ito:	Strike that, you can't say that.


	Jury guy sitting there listening:  'Yeah, he didn't did he'....



One thing you know for sure.  After being sequestered for EIGHT months,
that Jury is gonna want outta there but fast....


'Saw

RE      <<< Note 171.221 by ROCK::GRONOWSKI "Sox swept by Yankees again!" >>>

>    If I'm the prosecution, the first thing I bring up in closing
>    arguements is this - here's a man accused of murder, could spend the
>    rest of his life in jail, and in his defense, he has *NOTHING* to
>    say.

  They won't say that because they know that Johnny Cochran would just say "Of
course O.J. didn't take the stand. It's the state that has the burden of
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty and they failed to do that.
O.J. shouldn't even be here never mind have to suffer further insults at the
hands of the state."
    
>    OJ may walk for now, but he will eventually go to prison for these
>    two murders.

  The only way he can walk is if he's acquitted and if that happens there will
be no further trials. And I doubt any sort of federal charge would work, it's
very difficult to get a civil rights charge to stick against a private citizen.

  George

    
    	O.J. not taking the stand will have no effect on the jury.
    EVERYBODY in America, knows that the defendant doesn't have to
    take the stand. Especially in murder trials.
    
    Ron

>    
>    	O.J. not taking the stand will have no effect on the jury.
>    EVERYBODY in America, knows that the defendant doesn't have to
>    take the stand. Especially in murder trials.
    

Knowing that someone doesn't have to, and having it affect the jury
are two different things.

As hard as they try to get preconceived notions out of their heads, and as
hard as they try to make sure the jury disregards certain things, human nature
will take over.

If a person on the jury is swayed by OJ not taking the stand, that's going
to affect that person's judgement, whether admitted or not.


'saw

    What would happen if the Jury saw Fuhrman take the 5th in person
    especially when asked if he planted evidence in this case? What happens
    if this "surpise FBI witness" comes in and testifies that the FBI lab
    planted evidence in this case or changed reports by other officers? What 
    happens if the gloves found don't fit (oops they already have shown that 
    they don't)?
    The point I'm trying to make is if a juror is fair thre is a lot of
    holes right now in the prosecutions case beginning with what time did
    the murders occur did OJ have the time to do it? Where is the murder
    weapon? Where are his bloody clothes? why would he leave bloody socks
    on the floor when he supposedly took everything else? What did Furman
    do during his time by himself. Remember OJ has to be proven guilty by
    the D.A. and staff. His lawyers just need to put reasonable doubt at
    the least in the jury's mind.
    
     Mike

  19 years ago, I was a juror in a 1st degree murder trial. The defendant 
  never took the stand. The prosecutor never brought up the fact that the 
  defendant didn't testify. However, when we went into deliberation, we all wondered
  why he never said anything when his life was on the line.

  After we reached a verdict and the trial was over, we found out that
  the defendant was already in prison on a previous armed robbery conviction.
  If he had taken the stand, the prosecutor could have made us aware of
  his armed robbery conviction but we nothing about his criminal background
  until after the trial was over.

	Keith

    PERSONAL OPINION - OJ is guilty
    
    EXPECTED VERDICT - Not Guilty
    
    
    	There is no doubt in my mind that OJ is guilty.  The prior beatings
    of Nicole, the blood found in the Bronco, on the driveway, on his
    socks, Goldmans blood found in the Bronco, the limo driver saying the
    bronco was NOT there when he first arrived, the cut on his finger, the
    bloody glove, the shoe prints, etc., etc.  There is NO evidence
    pointing to ANY other person.  The defense has not raised any
    reasonable alternatives. (I know they don't need to).  There is just
    too much evidence pointing to guilt.
    
    	HOWEVER, many people have gotten away with murder with more
    evidence against them and with less talented defense lawyers.  The
    defense has done a brilliant job, much as I hate to say it.
    
    	Cullen Davis, a rich Texas oilman, got away with attempting to kill
    his wife on TWO occasions.  On one occasion he succeeded in killing a
    little girl.  Claus Von Bulow got away with killing his wife too. 
    There are hundreds of examples of people getting away with murder.
    Oj is one of the most publicized cases.  Get used to it, he is going to
    walk.  The only consolation is that he has spent a year in jail and
    probably spent $5M on his defense.
    
    Don

  A similar thing happened in the William Smith rape trial. The defense managed
to get the court to suppress the testimony of 3 women who wanted to say they had
also been the victims of date rape by the defendant. 

  One expert on Court TV said that if the prosecutor had asked Smith if he had
raped the woman and had Smith answered by saying "I would never do something
like that", he would have effectively opened the door to having that evidence
come in to evidence. Knowing that the defense risked putting him on the stand
anyway and despite baiting by the prosecution Smith avoided making any
statement that would have allowed that evidence to come in. 

  It's a tough decision and part of being a good defense lawyer is being able
to figure out if your client can handle the pressure. Of course even then
you can only recommend your decision, ultimately it will be up to O.J. to
decide if he should testify or not.

  George

    
    	I'll believe he is guilty. Once someone can explain the following.
    There is blood drops going up the driveway. From the front gate to
    the front door. Yet, the glove is found in the back yard behind the
    guest house. Kato heard a thump, thump, thump like someone jumped
    the back fence. Did he jump the back fence? Or did he walk up the
    front driveway?
    	I don't buy the argument that the blood on the driveway. Is from
    when he left the house, to walk to the limo. What did he do stop
    bleeding when he entered the limo?
    	Someone mentioned OJ has spent about 5 million on his defense. If
    the prosecution has spent 8 million to try him. I suspect OJ has
    spent in the 15 million dollar range. All the lawyers got there money
    up front. Johnnie Cochran has said that if there is need for a
    appeal. He will still be OJ's lawyer. Without any additional
    compensation.
    
    Ron
    

    RE .230
    I don't know that he is guilty. I may think he's guilty but I don't know
    it for sure. Especially when one of the detectives is asked if he
    planted evidence in this case and had to take the 5th. Also the gloves
    didn't fit, no murder weapon is found etc. 
    There is also a lot of polls out there that show some people think he
    is innocent so not everyone knows he is guilty.
    

    I have always thought that this trial would essentially come down to
    the LAPD being the ones on trial and given that there's a chance that
    the jury will choose to back the police again like the King jury. 
    Ironically this could be a strange turnaround for the defense that
    seemed to be wavering about actually accusing the police of planting
    evidence etc, but finally seem to have chosen to do just that (put
    Fuhrman etco on trial).

I still can't get over the circus aspect of the entire case.

I must admit that when the whole thing started I had a mild interest.  I
thought it might be a good chance to see the justice system in action, and
as I don't get Court TV, it was an opportunity to learn something.

It didn't take long for me to see what this was all about.  I could engage in a
little East Coast prejudice and say, "well, what do you expect, it's a trial
out in la-la-land", but that wouldn't be fair.

I hope that on the whole our justice system works a little bit better than
what I've seen.

As to the conspiracy theory, I've often thought that while it is certainly
possible, it seems like it's an awfully complex theory that hinges on a lot
of things for it to all fall into place....


But I guess at this point, it doesn't really matter, because I don't really
care.

One thing you can say for sure -- even if OJ did it, and he gets off, in a
sense he's kind of ruined.  I mean, what product is going to want OJ Simpson
as a celebrity endorser -- (save perhaps Buck Knives....8^))


'Saw

Nine of the twelve jurors are black, and if you tell a black person in
LA that the police department is made up of racists who are capable of
planting evidence to frame a black defendant, his or her answer will
likely be, "Hey, dude, you just now finding that out?"

The question is, did the defense get the real ugliness of Fuhrman's
character across?  We've heard and read a great deal more than the jury
has; they've only heard two brief tape excerpts, that do nothing
more than establish his use of "the N-word" within the last ten years.

If an appeal should be necessary (doubtful in my view), one of the
hottest questions will be Ito's refusal to allow the defense to introduce
evidence that Fuhrman has admitted to frame-ups.

Steve

    re -1
    
    	Saw,
    
    		If OJ is found innocent. We will see if NBC keeps its word.
    They have not fired OJ Simpson. They said before if he is found
    innocent. That he will be offered is old job as commentator.
    
    Ron

>    	Saw,
>    
>    		If OJ is found innocent. We will see if NBC keeps its word.
>    They have not fired OJ Simpson. They said before if he is found
>    innocent. That he will be offered is old job as commentator.
    


Ron, I was not aware of that.

But I guess I was more referring to celeb endorsement stuff like Hertz and
things like that.  I'd bet a good portion of OJ's money came from that.

Of course, seeing that I'm a little under the weather today, and in a weird
mood, I'm seeing OJ doing an Isotoner Glove commercial in the future....


8^0

    
    	I could see OJ doing an isotoner glove commerical. The phrase
    could go something like this. "For a glove that really fits, wear
    Isotoner gloves."
    
    Ron

RE          <<< Note 171.234 by SNAX::ERICKSON "Two and counting..." >>>

>    	I'll believe he is guilty. Once someone can explain the following.
>    There is blood drops going up the driveway. From the front gate to
>    the front door. Yet, the glove is found in the back yard behind the
>    guest house. Kato heard a thump, thump, thump like someone jumped
>    the back fence. Did he jump the back fence? Or did he walk up the
>    front driveway?

  The prosecution's theory seems to be that O.J. entered the estate the
following way: 

  Hit return

                fence
    ==============================================================   O.J.'s
          +........................................................<  path
 glove -> w...........................................
   ** thu(*)mp **                                    :               +-+
        ----------------------------------------+    :               | | Bronco
         KK                                     |    :               (_)
        Apt      O.J.'s House         Garage    |    : <-}
                                     +----------+    : <--} Blood seen in
                                     |               : <-}  these areas
                          front door } <.............: <-}
                                     |

  The blood was seen on the driveway in front of the Garage and house on
the pavement but would have gotten lost in the leaves and near the house.

>    	I don't buy the argument that the blood on the driveway. Is from
>    when he left the house, to walk to the limo. What did he do stop
>    bleeding when he entered the limo?

  The theory is that the blood is from when he came home, not from when he
left. The blood trail continues up the stairs in his house.

>Johnnie Cochran has said that if there is need for a
>    appeal. He will still be OJ's lawyer. Without any additional
>    compensation.
    
  No biggie, Alan Dirshewits is already working on the appeal. The question
is, if he is convicted and the appeals court grants him a new trial will
Johnny Cochran handle that as well without compensation.

  George

Well, I must say.  

George, that diagram rival Walt Ashe's abilities...  In fact, I'm kind of 
taken with it....


'Saw

    Why should OJ testify when his lawyers have pretty much proven him not
    guilty? Legally he doesn't have to. 

RE      <<< Note 171.242 by ROCK::GRONOWSKI "Sox swept by Yankees again!" >>>

>    If OJ is innocent, why not testify.  

  If you are a defense lawyer, the decision on whether or not to have your
client testify is based more on how he will help or hurt your (excuse me his)
case than anything else. 

  If you feel you have punched enough holes in the state's case to win but
your client is arrogant and not that quick, then the last thing you want to
do is put him on the stand regardless if he is innocent or guilty.

  It's true that some jurors may feel that if he didn't testify he must be
guilty but both Cochran and Judge Ito will be reminding the jury that it is
the responsibility of the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and
that the defendant has a right to remain silent.

  George

About the onliest reason I can see for OJ testifying is trying to save
his career. If'n he can put on a_impassioned and convincing act on the
stand, he might get back some pieces of his public life, like maybe help
NBC hire him back.

However, the down side of this is huge. In trying to save face, he could
blow what now looks like a fairly easy win. 

Put me down in the category of believes he did it and believes he will
be found not guilty.

Has anyone given much thought to how OJ will act assuming he's let off?
For some reason, based mainly on how he looks and still remembering the
Bronco episode and suicide letter, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if'n he
followed through and did hisself in.

TTom

Well, as I previously stated, OJ is not going to be getting any invitations to
join Mensa.  He's the last person I'd want on the stand if I were the defense
lawyers. 

He might have been quick getting to the hole, but let's face it -- Marcia Clark
or any one of the prosection would get ol' OJ turned around pretty quick in the
mental department....

To paraphrase Mark Twain:

	Better he keep his mouth shut and let people wonder, than
	to open it and remove all doubt....


'Saw

  Remember, there have been a number of cases that have come out as predicted
lately and lots of pundits are predicting the safe course but any seasoned
trial attorney will tell you that once the jury gets the case all bets are
off.

  Right now I'd say there's about a 

   40% chance of a hung jury
   30% chance of an acquittal
   20% chance of a conviction on a lesser charge
   10% chance of a conviction on murder 1.

  If it were anywhere but L.A. County I'd put the numbers more around

   20% chance of a hung jury
   10% chance of an acquittal
   40% chance of a conviction on a lesser charge
   30% chance of a conviction on murder 1.

but then if it were anywhere but L.A. County the defense would have looked
entirely different.

  George

    speaking for George in case he's not around...   I think the lesser
    charge is a compromise sometimes when a jury can't quite to the big 1.
    
    I still think that if "tampering" is the only way the jury can get by
    the blood evidence then it comes down to a vote on the police.  If the
    jury gets to that point they may convict to avoid tainting the la
    police.

  Technically it's still a bit early but what the heck, baring any really big
surprises in the next few weeks here's my 2 cents as to how I'd vote and why if
I were on the jury. 

  I think at this point the state has a really good case for homicide but a
really weak case for 1st degree murder because they have hardly any evidence
for premeditation so I'd vote guilty on a lesser charge of homicide for the
following reasons. 

  O.J. was known to put on dark cloths and go spy on Nicole and several people
testified to having seen him do that at other times. If anything his clothing
and the other circumstantial evidence suggest that spying was what he had in
mind when he went over to the Bundy residence, not murder. As for the weapon
there is no evidence at all as to what the weapon was or where it came from.
For all we know Nicole was using it to open the ice cream containers and
carried it out of the house herself. Not likely but we just don't know beyond a
reasonable doubt where the knife came from.

  As for O.J.'s intent, think about it, he had just over an hour before he had
to catch his plane. That's plenty of time to put on the dark cloths and go peek
in a window but it's not enough time to pull off a murder. Also the reason
Nicole was outside was because Goldman had come to give her the glasses which
was something O.J. could not have known was going to happen in the brief time
he was going to be there. 

  To me the evidence suggests that O.J. was planning to spy on Nicole but just
after he took his spot in the bushes Goldman showed up. Seeing them together
reminded him of seeing Nicole make love a week or so earlier while he was
spying and he snapped. In a blind rage he jumped out from behind the bushes,
killed Nicole, got in a fight with Goldman in which they both stepped in
Nicole's blood, killed Goldman and then ran off. 

  Once home in a panic he ran behind the house to dispose of the evidence
but changed his mind. Turning around he bumped into Kato Kalin's wall and
dropped the glove. Then he went inside, changed, hid the knife and bloody
cloths in his golf bag (that's why the knife was not detected at the airport)
and flew off with the golf bag to Chicago. 

  Flying out to Chicago he was in shock and denial having convinced himself
that none of this had happened which is why he appeared calm and normal to
others on the plane. While out there he was informed of the murder then denial
no longer worked, it sank in what he had done, and he flew home. The next day
his lawyer/partner who had full knowledge of what had happened helped him
retrieve the golf bag with the knife and bloody cloths which he had left in
Chicago and when they returned his partner (who was known to have possession of
the golf bag) disposed of the evidence. 

  If this is what happened, then under California law O.J. should be found
guilty but not of Murder 1 since the state was not able to prove that he
planned the murder. Depending on his state of mind it was either manslaughter
if he was in a blind rage or 2nd degree murder if it was spontaneous but done
with cold malice aforethought. 

  While I do believe the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J.
was responsible for the killings I don't believe the state has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that his state of mind was clearer at the time he killed
Nicole hence that would be manslaughter. Because he had no reason to feel
passion toward Goldman that more closely fits the more sever definition of 2nd
degree murder. 

  Note: this does not mean I approve of killing out of passion or feel it is
any less sever but that's the way I interpret California law as it applies to
the various levels of Homicide and as a juror you are duty bound to work with
the law as is. 

  As for Mark Fuhrman I do believe he is a racist but I don't believe he
planted the glove because at the time he would have done that he had no idea
if O.J. had been home at the time of the killing. As for the bumbling L.A.
county crime lab, yes they made many mistakes but I don't believe that by
coincidence every single mistake ended up switching the evidence to point to
O.J. 

  O.J. did it but he didn't plan it. His intent was to spy but he snapped and
killed out of rage and anger without premeditation

    - Guilty on 1 count of voluntary Manslaughter in the death of Nicole Brown.
    - Guilty on 1 count of 2nd degree murder in the death of Ronald Goldman.

  If that were the verdict and I were the judge I'd throw the book at him.

    - He should get one sentence of life WITH parole and one sentence of about
      15-20 years to be served consecutively. With good behavior He should be
      eligible for parole in about 30-35 years. 

  George 

  It's not clear if they could have forced O.J.'s friend/lawyer to testify due
to client/attorney privilege. Also he could plead the 5th. Then after the
"what does he have to hide" speech Johnny Cochran would start in about how
"First they go after O.J. then they go after his friends. Of course he had to
take the 5th to protect himself from the conspiracy". 

  Like so many individual pieces of circumstantial evidence, the testimony
about the golf bag and the friend/lawyer's involvement seemed credible enough
to add another piece to the puzzle but it didn't seem solid enough to stand
alone as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this one event happened. 

  Because of that the state was much better off having people testify about it
but leaving the lawyer himself out of the case. Had they put him on the stand,
he and Cochran would have had a free ticket to put on any show they wanted on
cross. The last thing you want to do if you are the state is to allow two
defense lawyers to get talking to each other in front of the jury unless you
have something really solid to destroy their credibility.

  George 

  Closing arguments are under way. Yesterday the state gave their detailed
closing. Marsha Clark spent all day going over the pieces of evidence talking
about how they point toward O.J.'s guilt then Christopher Dardin gave a closing
that talked more about "using common sense". Dardin may have more to do today. 

  After the state finishes, the defense gives their closing then the state gets
the last word with one final rebuttal. The defense is not allowed a rebuttal. 

  Clark did a good job laying out the physical evidence then spent made an
effort at saying why this was premeditated but that part of the argument was
really weak. Unlike the proof of O.J.s involvement in the homicide which is
based on powerful physical evidence, the evidence of premeditation is almost
all speculation and parts of it just don't make sense at all but she delivered
the argument very well and no doubt many will be convinced. 

  The closings should go all week and if all goes as planned the jury should
get the case either on the weekend or early next week.

  George

The bestest part of yesterday was when Ito pulled the plug on the TV.

While Clark was making her case to the jury, the TV panned over and
showed OJ writing something down and giving it to Cochran. Ito said that
was inappropriate and ordered the audio shut down and the video to point
to the seal of California, like they do during the sidebars.

What was funny about this was all them experts had nothing to talk about
and that really steamed their clams.

Some lawyer promised to whine until Ito reconsidered which prompted Ito
to re-allowed the TV coverage.

TTom

A judge of some repute recently joined an organization to which I belong.
Last Saturday, at a cocktail party prior to a dinner we were having, I had the
opportunity to speak with him, and inquired of his opinions about Judge Ito.

He answered unequivocally that Judge Ito was giving judges everywhere a bad
name......


'Saw

>A judge of some repute recently joined an organization to which I belong.

Reminds me of the Groucho line about him not joining any organization
that would have him as a member ;@}.

I kinda feel for Ito. He's stuck in a lose-lose situation. Rightfully so,
he's giving serious attention to not wanting to have anything overturned
on appeal and as a result has caught a lot of flak about bending over for
the lawyers. I'm sure that he's way up on the list of those of who want
this travesty to end.

Me too.

TTom

> I kinda feel for Ito. He's stuck in a lose-lose situation. Rightfully so,
> he's giving serious attention to not wanting to have anything overturned
> on appeal and as a result has caught a lot of flak about bending over for
> the lawyers. I'm sure that he's way up on the list of those of who want
> this travesty to end.

    I think he'd have gained a world of respect, though, if he'd just 
    tossed F. out on his besotted butt the very first day, mistrial or
    no mistrial.  Ito's only going to get one shot at the limelight
    whether they go to instant replay or not, and the book deal should
    carry him through expected retirement anyway...
    
    glenn
    

    
    sure seems to me though that every major ruling went to the
    Prosecution.........

Not that Cochran would have you believe.

Certainly, they din't get their way on the Furhman thing. 

Actually, both sides did more damage to their cases than ever was done by
the other. I liked the big, hot sheet witnesses that the defense brought
in to tell how bad the forensics were handled only to find out that they
themselves had never actually done this sorta thing, consulted about it,
or had anything ever to do with it.

Now, exactly when was that dog barking...

TTom

RE                     <<< Note 171.262 by EDWIN::WAUGAMAN >>>

>    I think he'd have gained a world of respect, though, if he'd just 
>    tossed F. out on his besotted butt the very first day, mistrial or
>    no mistrial.  

  Do you mean F. Lee Bailey or Furhman?

  Bailey hasn't been the one causing what people perceive to be Ito's problems.
About all he did was to cross examine Furhman and it was a pretty straight
forward cross with few objections or side bars. That's actually one part of the
trial that went pretty smoothly. 

  As for listening to judges talk about other judges I'd take it with a grain
of salt. Judges rival surgeons as some of the most egotistical people on the
planet and they generally take every opportunity to pat themselves on the back.
I would expect any judge to say he could do better than another judge even
if that judge was God himself.

  George

>I would expect any judge to say he could do better than another judge even
>if that judge was God himself.

Well, surprisingly enough, he didn't say that.

He just said that Ito was making life tough for judges everywhere, and that he
was "damned glad *I* don't have that one."


Hey, for a judge, he's a nice enough guy......

>Hey, for a judge, he's a nice enough guy......

It's not for us to judge...

I think the OJ trial has greatly diminished the entire judicial system.

Ito makes the judges look bad. Cochran, Shapiro, Clark, et. al. make
lawyers look bad. The witnesses make witnesses look bad. Even the jury
makes juries look bad.

They pretty much lowered the national opinion of everything to do with
the process.

TTom

|>Hey, for a judge, he's a nice enough guy......
|
|It's not for us to judge...

I meant my friend the judge.


|I think the OJ trial has greatly diminished the entire judicial system.
|
|Ito makes the judges look bad. Cochran, Shapiro, Clark, et. al. make
|lawyers look bad. The witnesses make witnesses look bad. Even the jury
|makes juries look bad.
|
|They pretty much lowered the national opinion of everything to do with
|the process.

I'm setting the whole thing to music for a Comic Opera.  Some of the music
I'll use is Fucik's "Entry of the Gladiators", Fillmore's "The Circus Bee"
and that old chestnut, "The Billboard March"

If you've ever been to the circus, you've heard those pieces...


'Saw

    Don't forget - 
    
    Judy Collins -"Send in the Clowns"
    
    Flip Wilson -  "Here Comes Da Judge"
    
     ?    - "I Fought the Law and the Law Won"
    
    UMDan 

>If you've ever been to the circus, you've heard those pieces...

I've been to the circus and heard them pieces but din't know what their
names were called.

The beauty of the circus is the power of distinctions. Acting like
complete idiots and doing all manner of things just for the show is a
very proper thing to do in the world of idiots and show business. A
circus is supposed to have clowns and show biz types.

It doesn't play that well when you're in a domain where idiots and show
business are not what's called for. A trial is not supposed to have
clowns and and show biz types, at least not playing the part of the
lawyers.

TTom

    
    Well I "I Fought the Law" was originally written by an S. Curtis, it's
    hard to beat the Clash's version of said song........

One they'd have to leave out for the OJ trial:

"I fought authority and authority always wins" by John [Cougar]
Mellencamp.

TTom

    
    
    
    
    
    
    re ?    - "I Fought the Law and the Law Won"
    
      Bobby Fuller Four me thinks.

RE              <<< Note 171.267 by HBAHBA::HAAS "arpecay iemday" >>>

>I think the OJ trial has greatly diminished the entire judicial system.

  This is true, a lot of people have interpreted it that way but I don't agree.
What the judicial system in the O.J. trial has done is exactly what it's
suppose to do, uncover injustice. 

  What people should doing is wondering how a police force like LAPD in what is
suppose to be a free country could become so racist and get so badly out of
control that it lost the confidence of a major part of the citizens of L.A.
County. At the same time we should be thankful that the judicial system is
still capable of exposing that type of organization for what it really is. 

  What's the alternative, silence and restrict the judicial system and let
rogue cops like Mark Fuhrman run wild? As long as there are cops like him we'll
need a strong judiciary and lawyers like Johnny Cochran. Remember, Marsha Clark
knew exactly what Fuhrman was all along but she didn't turn against him until
he got caught. That shows you how much you can trust prosecutors.

  George 

    
>                            -< Clash does it best >-
>    
>    Well I "I Fought the Law" was originally written by an S. Curtis, it's
>    hard to beat the Clash's version of said song........
    
    Would this be a sidebar?  ;-)
    
    
    glenn
    

I think the OJ trial is more a_exercisse in showing injustice than
uncovering anything.

I agree with what you're saying about Furhman and the LAPD and I agree
that the more this is overtly described, the better off we all are.

However, there are many other aspect of justice that are taking a real
hit. This trial has done about everything other than what it's supposed
to, namely, concentrate on the guilt of innocence of the accused.

You argue against rogue cops but it sounds like you accept rogue lawyers,
a rogue judge and a rogue procedings where we, the public, get to hear
material that isn't presented to the jury, all in the name of protecting
us against the Furhmans of the world.

And this trial has done nothing to the Furhmans of the world except to
remind them of the cardinal rule: don't get caught. It wasn't even within
these proceedings that you think are so great that he got caught. He was
selling a story to some NC journalist/author.

I agree with one thing:

>... That shows you how much you can trust prosecutors.

I also agree that these glorious proceedings have taught us that you
caint trust the defense, judge, jury or TV, neither.

A complete injustice for all.

TTom

  The adversary system has been working for years. For as long as anyone can
remember defense lawyers have been putting everyone and anyone on trial to
defend their client, that's nothing new.

  What's different here is that there is so much hatred between the majority
of people in the jury pool and the police that the tactic works unusually
well.

  Had the people of L.A. taken care of business and thrown the racists out
of the LAPD years ago this trial would have been entirely different. It would
still have been big, you can't help that considering that O.J. is the most
famous person to be tried for a homicide since Arron Burr, but the problem
of not being able to obtain justice would not have been the same.

  Without the racist cop issue, this trial would have been a slam dunk for
the state with or without the dream team. It would have been more like the
Patty Hurst trial where a top defense team was assembled but couldn't make
a dent in the mountain of evidence against their client.

  The courts are getting a bum wrap on this one, the finger should be pointed
at the LAPD and who ever is responsible for them being what they are. I guess
that would be who ever has been electing officials in L.A. County and the
state of California for the last few decades. 

  George

    George,
    	You mentioned Clark turning against Fuhrman which she did in her
    closing.  I was surprised she threw him to the wolves; I thought there
    was still some official doubt about whether he was quoting in contect
    vs using his own language.  No doubt anymore, my personal opinion was
    she should have said "Fuhrman has indeed used the n word he may still
    be an honest cop" - did she have to completly throw him out like that.
    
    	Also, re. LA county and the LAPD.  Didn't a county jury BACK the
    police in the King trial?  I'm still thinking that if Cochran backs
    them to the wall to the point that a not-guilty is a guilty for lapd
    then that could backfire.
    
    	Clark was effective in pointing out how any of 6 or 7 pieces of
    evidence is enough to convict OJ and if OJ killed Goldman to escape
    justice that is pre-meditated murder(-1).
    
    	However, I still think if jury is convinced that one piece of
    evidence (from Fuhrman) is tainted then it all is then OJ walks.

    
     I know the jury didn't hear Fuhrman take the 5th but they have to
    wonder why they didn't hear any recall testimony which I would think
    Cochran would point out. By totally washing her hand of him, Clark
    effectively has beaten Cochran to the punch on dismissing any of
    his testimony that Cochran may want to bring up?
    
    mike 

RE                      <<< Note 171.278 by AKOCOA::BREEN >>>

>    	You mentioned Clark turning against Fuhrman which she did in her
>    closing.  I was surprised she threw him to the wolves; I thought there
>    was still some official doubt about whether he was quoting in contect
>    vs using his own language.  

  It's not a question of doubt. Remember, Clark is not trying to seek justice
for the victims of a horrible crime, she's trying, like any lawyer, to win her
case. What she decided is that her odds of winning are better by throwing
Furhman to the wolves than by backing him up. If Fuhrman really is guilty of
being a racist and a liar then so much the better. 

>    	Also, re. LA county and the LAPD.  Didn't a county jury BACK the
>    police in the King trial?  

  The cops were acquitted in the trial run by L.A. County. That lead to the L.A.
Riots. They were convicted of civil rights violations by a federal jury in the
2nd trial. In the L.A. Riot trial, Dameon Williams got off fairly easy (about
10 years of which he'll serve 6) for nearly beating Reginal Denny to death
after Henry Watson dragged him out of his truck. 

>    	Clark was effective in pointing out how any of 6 or 7 pieces of
>    evidence is enough to convict OJ and if OJ killed Goldman to escape
>    justice that is pre-meditated murder(-1).

  Well I agree she was effective to many listeners and she did a fine job of
showing that the evidence points to O.J. being the killer but she really put on
the straw hat and tap shoes when she made her pitch for premeditation. The
evidence just isn't there and what there was she invented. For that she blew
some smoke that would make even Johnny Cochran proud. 
    
>    	However, I still think if jury is convinced that one piece of
>    evidence (from Fuhrman) is tainted then it all is then OJ walks.

  The jury might let O.J. walk even if they believe he's the killer but then
again if they do it's for political and racial reasons. If this trial were
anywhere else but L.A. county 3 or 4 of those 7 pieces would be more than
enough for two counts of 2nd degree murder.

  George

    Well for an acquittal the jury will have to have something to go on and
    that is obviously the reasonable possiblilty that Fuhrman planted
    evidence.  If the jury decides that is reasonable then the key issue
    is:
    	If any evidence is tainted then can the rest be considered beyond 
    reasonable doubt?
    or
    	Can we beyond reasonable doubt believe that this evidence in
    general is trustworthy? (eg considering the source: the dept that
    has tolerated Fuhrman).
    
    If the pro-simpson jury members get that far then the only hope for the 
    pro-police side is to determine that one of the "seven" pieces of
    evidence is pristine (eg untaintable vis a vis police/fuhrman).

  If they follow the evidence yes, but there's always the chance they will
just cut him lose for political reasons. When that happens it's called "jury
nullification". In fact the tendency of some juries to pay more attention to
the needs of the community than the letter of the law has long been one of
the most powerful arguments in favor of juries.

  George

    
    well imho Johnie Cochran was nothing short of brillant last night.
    In the begining I figured OJ would walk because of his money now I
    believe he'll walk cause he was framed. I don't think Marica Clark
    has it in her for the rebuttal she's going to need.......
    
    mike 

    
    	Well not to belittle the tragedy of two murders but...
    	I thouroughly enjoyed Johnnies closing arguements.  I got 
    	some real belly rolls especially when Cochran put on a knit cap and 
    	asked the jury if they could still recognize him.  Then when he
    	threw up these gigantic posters that read in HUGE letters
    	VANATTERS LIES, FUHRAMS LIES ya gotta love it.  It was like
    	watching Peewees Playhouse.  Johnnie did what he's being paid for.
    	He doesn't have to prove ANYTHING, just cast a reasonable doubt.
    	In my opinion he did it superbly.  
    
    						Shark
    
    
    
    
    

  Cochran was incredible, he's a master at the old classic style in giving
closings. 

  But Clark will have no problem with her final closing. She probably wrote it
last year and no doubt she's been polishing it up as the trial has gone along. 
She won't have to make changes as such, just preplanned variations to highlight
things Cochran highlighted in his closing. It won't be Cochran but it will be
good.

  Next up for the defense will be Shiek (sp?) (the little obnoxious guy who
cross examined Mr Fung the criminalist and others) to talk about the technical
stuff like DNA and blood testing. Then most likely Cochran will go one more
time just so he can have the last word for the defense.

  After that Clark gets her final shot then Judge Ito will give his charge to
the jury in which he will inform them of the law. He'll tell them exactly what
type of thing they should consider and what choices they have to make.

  Then it's up to the jury,
  George

Yeah, even the ol' Chainsaw got sucked into the trial last night.

Johnny Cochran was nothing short of spellbinding.  It was enjoyable to
watch, quite frankly.

George, I think you mean Barry Sheck(sp) the lawyer from Brooklyn....

    
    	Well Johnnie Cochran did something I was waiting for last night.
    He put on a pair of leather gloves. Then showed the jury how difficult
    it is to remove leather gloves. They don't just pull off. You have
    to go 1 finger at a time. Wearing the knit cap was great.
    	He also reminded the jury. About all of the cobwebs and everything
    else behind Kato's room. Back by the AC unit. The prosecution is
    claiming that OJ ran back there, to hide evidence. In the process he
    bumped into the AC unit and dropped the glove. The cobwebs weren't
    disturbed and there are no foot prints back there. Which I think will
    convince the jury that Fuhrman planted the glove.
    	Lets hope Barry Scheck doesn't get too technical today.
    
    Ron

    Don't worry about Sheck, no one in jury or in the courtroom, certainly
    including Ito will understand him.  He follows a logical path that
    Ignatius himself would envy.  Ito simply hates his guts as does Clark.
    
    I kind of like him.  I wonder how many objections he'll get.

as per usual, a little outta sync...

My take on Cochran, like it's been since day 1, is that he'll do anything
except confront the charges head on.

The way he kept harping on lack of motive for OJ reminded me of a little
kid that repeats the lie to try to make it sound more real.

I don't know who's ever been robbed but the knit cap is usually
accompanied with dark glasses and it is the most common and effective
disguise if'n you're into that sorta thing. Have you seen the Unibomber
rendering?

Finally, his personal animosity for Darden really came through to the
point where he was going out of his way to impugn him personally. The ol'
argumentum ad hominem.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd hire Cochran in a heart beat if'n I had the
money and needed that level of mouthpiece. He just comes across to me
like he knows OJ did it.

One question to our legal panel: What happens when during the closing
arguments one side or the other lies? Like what if Cochran says something
blatantly contradictory to the evidence, can the other side object or
something? And vice versa for Clark, can Cochran object.

TTom

    In the closings in the Smith trial there were objections (at least by
    defense to prosecutor) and they were upheld.

    
    Clark objected last night when Cochran wanted to introduce the
    brown glove dectective's found inside OJ's house. Ito substained.
    
    mike

Thanks, I wondered how this was handled.

Also, why does the prosecution get to speak again after Cochran and his
crew finish? Can Cochran speak again after that?

Thanks,

TTom

    
    nope when the defense rest that's it. I guess because the burden of
    proof is on the prosecution they get an extra go round to dispute
    the defense...........

I was wondering what the hail was going on.

Everytime I've been on trial, I mean at a trial, it's one lasted shot by
both sides and then to the jury.

Is this some California type law?

And speaking of California, this whole OJ thing prolly wouldn't happen
anywhere else but the land of Rodney King and the Mendendez Bros.

TTom

>And speaking of California, this whole OJ thing prolly wouldn't happen
>anywhere else but the land of Rodney King and the Mendendez Bros.

Can't have a celebrity trial without celebrities.

I can't help wondering, though, if there would have been as much
grandstanding without the presence of cameras.  I'm sure the case
for the prosecution could have been presented in 30% less time than
it actually took, and I frequently found myself thinking that one
or another lawyer was asking a question for the fifth time in the
fifth different formulation because he/she had the VCR running at
home.

Steve

RE     <<< Note 171.287 by SNAX::ERICKSON "Red Sox - 1995 AL East Champs" >>>

>     [Cochran] also reminded the jury. About all of the cobwebs and everything
>    else behind Kato's room. Back by the AC unit. The prosecution is
>    claiming that OJ ran back there, to hide evidence. In the process he
>    bumped into the AC unit and dropped the glove. The cobwebs weren't
>    disturbed and there are no foot prints back there. Which I think will
>    convince the jury that Fuhrman planted the glove.

  Cochran is spinning his own web trying to get mileage out of this one. During
his testimony Mark Fuhrman testified that he walked from the front of the house
to the ally between the house and the fence then walked down the ally to the
back wall of Kato's apartment. That's when he found the glove. 

  He said that next he walked further back down the ally beyond Kato's
apartment and that's where he felt the cobwebs. In other words, someone had
recently walked from the front to/from Kato's wall but no one had walked from
Kato's wall to the far end of the ally for a long time. 

  When Cochran talked about that he "forgot" to mention that Fuhrman was
talking about the far end of the ally which no one is claiming factors into
the crime in any fashion.

RE              <<< Note 171.292 by HBAHBA::HAAS "arpecay iemday" >>>

>Also, why does the prosecution get to speak again after Cochran and his
>crew finish? Can Cochran speak again after that?

  In California the order of closings go

      Order     People who seem to be talking
      -----     -----------------------------
    - State    (Clark, Dardin)
    - Defense  (Cochran, Sheck, maybe Cochran again)
    - State    (most likely Clark)
    - Court    (Ito)

  Then it's the jury's turn.


RE              <<< Note 171.294 by HBAHBA::HAAS "arpecay iemday" >>>

>And speaking of California, this whole OJ thing prolly wouldn't happen
>anywhere else but the land of Rodney King and the Mendendez Bros.

  Every lawyer that talks about this says the same thing. I've talked to a
number of lawyers from Massachusetts who talk about how they would be found in
contempt for saying .10th of what these lawyers get away with every day. 

  Also the Brookland County D.A. was on Court TV last night and he couldn't
believe how the lawyers get away with talking about the law during their
closing arguments. In New York lawyers are restricted to discussing evidence
heard during trial and only the Judge can discuss the law. In Massachusetts you
can try to discuss the law but if you vary from the word of the law by one
syllable the judge will stop you and make the correction while you stand there
with egg on your face. 

  But as you say, this is California where they do things differently. 

  George 

This whole thing with the 2nd degree murder sure could come into play.

The jury is more eager to resolve this than anyone else. I can imagine
them sitting down and taking a_initial vote. Assuming that it's not
unanimous one way or the other, caint you almost hear 2nd degree being
mentioned as a compromise? 

That way they don't give OJ the big time and they don't let 'im go,
neither. Saves all that hung jury nonsense, a la Mendendez.

Man, if'n they have to retry this whole thang, I know I'm skipping the
sequel.

TTom

	You know, since I wasn't able to get into the file much
	yesterday, I was excited to find over 120 unseen notes
	when I got in today.

	Much to my shagrin, the majority was dedicated to 
	"As the Worm Turns".   :(



	billl

RE              <<< Note 171.297 by HBAHBA::HAAS "arpecay iemday" >>>
>                           -< 2nd degree compromise >-

>That way they don't give OJ the big time and they don't let 'im go,
>neither. Saves all that hung jury nonsense, a la Mendendez.

  Well that could end up with big time anyway. Two count's of 2nd degree murder
would probably both result in life sentences and I believe the judge could
sentence him to serve them consecutively. That would mean that he'd have to
do double the minimum time for a single life sentence before being eligible for
parole. 

  Just guessing I'd say that would keep him locked up for 30+ years making
him at least in his late 70's when he 1st came up for parole and perhaps 80+
when he actually got out.

  George 

    
    It certainly would make the autobiography better, if he got convicted,
    escaped and caught the real killers himseld.....
    
    ;^)

	Is it just a co-winky-dink that "lair" and "lawyer" sound
	so much alike?



	billl

  Are a pitcher and catcher liars when they change the signals with a guy on
2nd base because the batter can't tell what they are going to throw? 

  Is a quarterback a liar when he calls an automatic then uses a code word to
cancel it confusing the defense? 

  It's an adversary system. If you are a lawyer you try to win and if you do
anything less you should get disbarred.

  George

    Yep,
    	You can do it in baseball,football and even murder-defense; just
    not in bridge.
    	One of James Bonds bridge opponents was a cheater and 007 dealt out
    a Culbertson and cleaned him out.

	Me thinks thou doth protesteth too much....



	billl

>	Is it just a co-winky-dink that "lair" and "lawyer" sound
>	so much alike?
    
    That's just 'cuz you're from Pittsburgh, billl.  In fact, in 
    Pittsburghese, "lawyer", "liar" and "lair" all have the exact
    same pronunciation...
    
    glenn
    

	Okay, I get it now.



	billl

I actually got a kick out of Johnny Cochran telling how his parents had wanted
him to be a doctor, but that he sucked at science, so he became a lawyer
because he could talk.

I once thought about becoming a lawyer.  Lord knows I've got the memory and
logic ability.....  But no matter what people think of lawyers, it's a
tremendous amount of responsibility no matter what kind of law you pursue.

We make cracks about lawyers, but how many of us would work well know that a
man's life and freedom was riding on how well we did our jobs?  That's a heavy
reponsbility.


'Saw

re: Cochran.

Again, I agree with George that ol' Johnny is just doing his job and
doing it well. Notice that the talk is very centered around him and OJ's
innocence and/or guilt almost mentioned in passing.

Certainly, he's not above lying, cajoling, pleading, or otherwise
pandering to the jury, if'n he thinks it'll help his client.

George, isnt' there almost a golden rule that says the a good defense
lawyer will make the case be about the law, the police, the judge, the
prosecution or even society so it won't be about the defendant?

re: Culberton.

Ol' Ely is one of the truly great bridge players ever. He played circles
around Charles Goren. Ely, unlike my buddy Terrence Leah, invented a
system that's named after him and you're even allowed to play it. 

TTom

RE              <<< Note 171.308 by HBAHBA::HAAS "arpecay iemday" >>>

>George, isnt' there almost a golden rule that says the a good defense
>lawyer will make the case be about the law, the police, the judge, the
>prosecution or even society so it won't be about the defendant?

  I hadn't quite heard it that way but in general it's a good tactic to make
the trial about something else. After all, the state is trying to make the case
be about your client. 

  There are rules of ethics that say a lawyer is not allowed to lie in court
nor can he knowingly have a witness lie. A lawyer who violates those rules can
get sanctioned and brought up before the bar association, but you'll notice
Cochran doesn't really lie. 

  Using this example we were discussing earlier, Mark Fuhrman testified that he
walked half way down the ally, found the glove, then when he walked further
down the ally he found cobwebs meaning no one had walked there. Five months
later in closing Cochran said Fuhrman found cobwebs in the ally meaning no one
had walked there. 

  It's not really a lie, in fact Fuhrman did say that. And you can't say he hid
information from the jury changing the context because they were there to hear
Fuhrman themselves and if they have any doubt during deliberation they can ask
to have the transcript read. Also Clark has a chance to remind the jury of the
missing information in her rebuttal. 

  It's spin but it's not a lie and both sides do it. That's just part of what
you get when you rely on an adversary system like British Common Law. Now if
they used French Civil law which is more of an inquisition form of trial it
would be different but somehow the idea of replacing our system of trials with
inquisitions doesn't have a friendly ring. I'd rather we keep what we've got. 

  George 

>  It's spin but it's not a lie and both sides do it. 

Yeah, that's the fine line you have to walk.

But of course, if'n you're a lawyer you have no conscious, much less one
that gets troubled by trifles like the truth ;-)

TTom

Well, you're not really after the truth anyway.  You're trying to make a
logical argument to convince the jury of something.

There's nothing wrong with saying "There were cobwebs in the alley" and leaving
it like that, in the hope that a juror will fill in the missing pieces, jump to
the conclusion, if you will, that no one had been back there....

What he said was true.  He added nothing about where, or nothing about anything
else, and with some other careful statements he was leading them to a
conclusion that no one had been back there.

Was it untrue?  No.  Could it be considered misleading in relation to what
all the statement in the transcript build up as reality?  Yes.


JMHO,
'Saw

RE      <<< Note 171.311 by CAM::WAY "Nine to the front, six to the rear" >>>

>Well, you're not really after the truth anyway.  You're trying to make a
>logical argument to convince the jury of something.

  Well put. You can't expect someone to be seeking the truth on one hand while
saying on the other that he's duty bound to zealously represent his client's
interest. That makes no sense. 

  It is the responsibility of the judge and jury to seek the truth. A lawyer's
job is to represent his client. As long as he follows the rules he is basically
right if he wins and wrong if he loses and if someone's version of the truth
prevails, well that's a nice side effect.

  Now if this is a bad system then I'm sure everyone would like to know what
would be better but unfortunately the lawyer bashers outnumber anyone who's
ever thought of a better way to do things by about a gazillion to zip.

  George 

    re -.1
    
    I agree with you. I can't believe all the attention to "what do you
    think is the verdict Joe Expert". Can a judge keep a defendant another
    day in the brink when he knows the verdict is in and may be "not guilty". 
    I don't think so!
    
    rick

    
    	Judge Ito shouldn't even read the verdict. Some of the jurors
    packed there suitcases. Before going to the court house yesterday.
    So it should be declared a mis-trial, because of jury misconduct.
    It will never happen though.
    	What did they want to hear about the limo drivers testimony?
    They stopped Judge Ito, before the part about him seeing a 6',
    200 lbs, black person enter the house. So I'm speculating they
    just wanted to know. Was the Bronco there when he arrived at 10:20?
    Were they just looking for the wording? His testimony was that he
    didn't recall that it was there. He did not say it was definitely not
    there. He said he didn't remember seeing it. Was the Bronco there?
    	I always thought the trial would end in a hung jury or acquittal.
    The verdict will be quilty. Since the jury believes that the Bronco
    wasn't there at 10:20. So O.J. had plenty of time to committ the
    murders.
    
    Ron

  So far the pundits are split on what the verdict will be. Early verdicts
usually favor the defense but the fact that the jury looked solemn and wouldn't
make eye contact with O.J. suggests a guilty verdict.

  Johnny Cochran looked really rattled when he was interviewed in the airport
but that might just be jitters. F. Lee Bailey looked confident. Carl Douglas
and Christopher Darden who were in court looked shocked and confused.

  Police are on "tactical alert" in L.A. (what ever that means) but say they
don't expect problems and will have the normal number of people on duty. 

  George

The jury got out of there so quick because they were sick of being there.

I mean, let's face it.  Everything else about this trial has had the air of a
circus, so why not one rather large male juror telling the others "We're outta
here today -- anybody gonna disagree with me?"

I have no idea what the verdict is.  I don't think the State proved its case,
which is what it has to do, and which has nothing to do with whether or not OJ
really did it.  Question is, what does the jury think....


'Saw

    
    	Left out the fact, that they are bashing Judge Ito again. He
    had the verdict by 3:00 yesterday. He should have given everybody
    until 7:00 then read the verdict. It seems far fetched. However
    if one of the jurors, died over night. The verdict wouldn't count
    anymore. Also if one of the jurors changes there mind over night.
    They go back into deliberations.
    
    Ron

    
    Ito was asked by the lawyers to allow 4 hours to get back (since some
    of the dream team was in NY) and if that was after 5pm, do it the
    following morning.
    
    One of my co-workers had the best line on the trial I've heard in a
    while;
    
    	"Well of course it wasn't going to be a hung jury.  If there was 
         a hung jury, then none of the jurors would get their book deals"
    
    Marc
    

    
    	Johnnie Cochran the lead attorney was in San Franciso. Plus,
    Marcia Clark took a well deserved day off.
    
    Ron

    
    
    If O.J. is aquitted I didn't think they could try him again.  That
    double jeopardy deal.

    The verdict is in,
    
    NOT Guilty ALL Counts
    

	Fine...now can we write lock this mess and get on to sports....



	billl

Wow.......

>    Was justice served?

That's a matter of personal opinion.  You could have asked the same question
regardless of the verdict.

<PERSONAL OPINION WARNING>
I think this has moved "justice can be bought in America" to a new level.
<END PERSONAL OPINION>

  I've got this nasty feeling that there's a Jack Ruby out there and
  sooner or later OJ's gonna be offed. You can add Johnie Cockran to that 
  list.

	Keith

    >>>-< Claim Racism and ignore the facts >-
    
    Which fact? The glove didn't fit? Furman taking the 5th when asked if
    he planted evidence? The LA cops and detectives screwing everything up?
    
    

    Im am in shock and can't believe the verdict, Unfortunately for Women,
    Does this verdict declare Open season in California??

    
  >> When OJ returns to the NFL broadcast booth (he was promised his job
  >> back if acquitted), will his co anchors be buddy buddy with him?
  >> Will you watch games that he broadcasts?
    
     Do you honestly believe that NBC is going to employ a guy who a
     large percentage of the public believes committed a double murder?
     Not likely. Not that he'll need the money.
    

RE: .334

Tommy, I believe NBC had stated that OJ still had his job as long as he
was "not guilty".

A nice sentiment, but now they're damned if they do, damned if they don't...

     >>The jury never knew of this - Furman taking the 5th when asked if
     >> he planted evidence?
    
     Maybe not but they saw that the gloves didn't fit. 
    
    I don't know if OJ was innocent or guilty only 3 people for certain
    know if he is and 2 of them are dead. But when you see that the gloves
    don't fit, The prosecutions DNA expert screwed up his calculations,
    Furman taking the 5th, blood mysteriously showing up on his socks and
    in the Bronco, no weapon or bloody clothes found doesn't it raise some
    doubts?

    I heard(can't remember where-probably a tabloid show) that O.J. already
    hired someone to find him a place out of this country.  Reports were
    that they were looking in Mexico somewhere, I think the Yucitan
    Penninsula.  
    
    Let's face it, justice may not have been served in the courtroom, but
    he'll never lead a normal life again!  As if he wasn't a celebrity
    before, he can never show his face again!  I don't think he'll be doing
    any broadcasting anytime soon, especially with black leather gloves...
    
    I'd have to agree that there is another Jack Ruby out there!  He just
    had a target painted on his back.  I'd rather see Johny Cockroach take
    one before Juice.  He's going to walk around like a arrogant fool, and
    we're going to have to listen to his ramblings- as if the trial wasn't
    bad enough!  
    
    A moment of silence for the L.A. Judicial System please...
    
    Jim

    
    
    	The decision can't be appealed...as said earlier that would be
    	concidered double Jeopardy.....there is speculation the Goldman
    	family will file a class action suit against him though and that
    	it will be settled out of court....another side note....The browns
    	have custody of OJ's children right now....so that should be
    interesting...
    

    
    	In retrospect it all comes down to time. I believe there was
    a jury instruction issued. That said something to the effect. If
    you feel that the defendant. Did not have the time to commit the
    crimes. You must find the defendant not guilty. This is why they
    wanted Alan Parks testimony re-read.
    	Parks could not remember if the Bronco was there or not. Plus,
    Parks didn't see a Bronco arrive. After he was already there. So
    was the Bronco there or not? The jury felt that it was there. Thus,
    he couldn't have committed the crime. Or he didn't have the time
    to commit the crime.
    
    Ron
    
    P.S. I watched on TV the verdict. I am still shocked. I thought it
    would be a hung jury. 

    
       Think about it...
    
       OJ interviewed on PPV. $29.95.

    
    
    	This is another slap in the face for the justice system. With enough 
    money you can buy anything. 

    I guess the only thing that can make sense out of this is the old
    statement..
    
    Its better a 100 guily men walk the street then 1 innocent man go
    to jail.
    
    Was he guilty, doesn't matter now, he was found innocent by a jury
    of his peers.  WE as a society shouldn't treat him guilty.  The who's
    and why he was found not guilty, the incrediable amount of mistakes made
    by all level's of the justice system the Furman factore etc etc should
    all be reviewed and who knows maybe some good will come out of it.
    
    Circumstation evidence is hardly ever enough... TRUE motive, witness
    murder weapon, they needed something more (OBVIOUSLY)..
    
    Back to sports
    
    I still watch FOOTBALL if OJ is broadcasting, when FROGMAN comes out
    I'll rent it (Or see it at the drive-in), who knows maybe I'd even
    get OJ's book :-).  He was found innocent...
    
    								MairB

    
    I fail to see how this is a slap on the face of the justice system.
    What I see it as is further proof that some cops are crooked and will
    stop at nothing to get a coviction. While OJ's money certainly helped
    any good lawyer could have shown the evidence was tainted......
    
    mike

    
    Aren't the cops a part of the justice system?

    Yes but why can't ANY cop who breaks the rules face charges rather
    then have anyone ever get off on any techs.  You can't tell me that
    the members of the jury never heard anything about Furman pleading
    the 5th !  The 1st weekend they went home after Furman pleaded the
    5th they all started thinking about how he could have set this up.
    
    So many mistakes and simple so unfair.  I think rich or poor all
    people should get defended equally (100% public Defenders)...
    
    Has about as much a chance as a flat tax (2 chances)
    								MaB
    
    I really don't want to get dragged into this ... see ya in the bulls
    note
    

    
    WHO KILLED NICOLE BROWN AND RON GOLDMAN??

Lots of folks are missing the point, and I'm sure George will echo this point:


	The prosecution's job is to prove the State's case, beyond
	a reasonable doubt (and believe it or not reasonable doubt has
	a very specific definition, which I don't have here) to a
	jury of the accused's peers.

	The defense's job is NOT to prove the client innocent, but to
	create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.


Prior to the jury's verdict, I personally had serious doubts as to whether
or not the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Trite as
it sounded, when Johnny Cochran came up with his "if it doesn't fit, you must
acqit" saying, he did point out some holes in the prosecution's case.

Did that have anything at all to do with my view of whether or not OJ was
guilty?  Nope.


Is this open season on women in California?  That doesn't even enter into the
equation.  You wanna deal with that issue, wonder why OJ was never brought to
justice on that issue.  

All this verdict proves is that in the minds of the twelve people on the jury,
the prosecution did not prove to them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ
committed the crime.


IMO, the State got done in by a lot of factors, among them the glove incident,
centering parts of their case around Fuhrman, who basically perjured himself
(and that the jury knew from the little snippet of tape they heard), and the
ineptitude of the lab screwups.

IMO, you have to look to the State not proving its case more than you look to
any sweeping great and monumental Truths dictated by this case.   

'Saw

      >>WHO KILLED NICOLE BROWN AND RON GOLDMAN??
    
    
    Only they and their killer know for sure. Do you know?

>                                   -< WHO? >-
>
>    
>    WHO KILLED NICOLE BROWN AND RON GOLDMAN??


Someone obviously did.   I have my ideas.   Was I suprised at this verdict.
Yes.

Did the State prove that OJ did it, beyond a reasonable doubt?  Not according
to the jury.  At this point, that's all that counts.


Our system of justice may not be perfect, but until you've been in places where
you don't have the same rights as you have here, where you don't have the same
presumptions as you have here, it's kind of hard to criticize it....

    
      After the verdict was read Oj should have walked up to Ron 
     Goldman's dad, extended his hand and said, "No hard feelings?"

    
    
        When asked where he was going after the trial, OJ yelled,
    
    
    
    
           I'm going to disneyland!!!!

    
    
        Say what you want about our Judicial system but there was a
    reasonable doubt! (Some) LA Cops are racists and they are to blame for
    what happened in this case. Too many things just did not add up. The
    Gate, the socks, the glove, the missing blood, why they kept it a
    secret so long that Fuhrman was a racist. If I was on the jury I too
    would have voted not guilty. I had doubts.
    
    
    Chap

RE      <<< Note 171.347 by CAM::WAY "Nine to the front, six to the rear" >>>

>IMO, the State got done in by a lot of factors, among them the glove incident,
>centering parts of their case around Fuhrman, who basically perjured himself
>(and that the jury knew from the little snippet of tape they heard), and the
>ineptitude of the lab screwups.

>IMO, you have to look to the State not proving its case more than you look to
>any sweeping great and monumental Truths dictated by this case.   

  That about sums it up. The only thing I'd add is that the state did ok but
they got outlawyered by the dream team. If O.J. had been represented by a
regular set of lawyers or just one dream team type lawyer the best he could
have hoped for with evidence this solid would have been a plea bargain or
a less sever verdict like Susan Smith got. Only the dream team could have
pulled off this defense. 

  And in part the prosecution added to their problems by overreacting to the
dream team and going on for too long. No state case should ever take 6 months,
you lose everyone. Two months max should have done it. 

  And of course Johnny Cochran's four words, "the glove didn't fit". 

  As for what this all means, I tend to believe the court system did ok but
clearly L.A. needs to do something about their police force. The people of L.A.
at best have lost confidence in them and at worst hate the sight of them. 

  Other than that the lesson is never try to predict what a jury will do. 
Verdicts like this are the reason lawyers at all levels, on both sides, in
both civil and criminal, always try to work a deal. Once you go to the jury
the only thing you can be sure of is that your hair will turn gray.

  George

    I think it is interesting that the verdict was "not guilty".  That does
    not mean that OJ is innocent...  It is possible that OJ commited
    the crimes BUT not sufficient evidence to prove his guilt...
    

>    Which fact? The glove didn't fit? Furman taking the 5th when asked if
>    he planted evidence? The LA cops and detectives screwing everything up?
    
  Fact: A man matching OJ's description was seen running into the house	
        while the limo driver waited for OJ. The first lights to come on
	were immediately after the man entered the house. Soon OJ
	came to the intercom and said he over slept. The defense never tried
	to explain who the person was who went into the house.

  Fact: A shoe print made from an expensive and rare shoe was found in the 
        blood at the crime scene. The prosecution proved that OJ bought
	a pair of shoes exactly like the shoe print found.

  Fact: Blood, Blood, Blood....OJ's, Nicole's and Goldman's...everywhere...
	DNA matches everywhere....Lab errors could possibly explain 1 or 2
	mistakes but not the multiple samples.

  Fact: Furman is a racist and a liar but nobody proved he planted evidence.
	The fact that Furman is a racist and a liar does not prove OJ is 
	innocent and it does not prove he planted evidence. In most trials, 
	the prosecution puts convicted felons on the stand to testify against 
	the defendant. The jury should have treated Furman's testimony the 
	same as any convicted felon. You can't believe what he says. 

  Fact: OJ was photographed wearing the same type of glove and department store
	receipts prove he owned gloves like the ones presented as evidence.

  Fact: OJ eluded police and had a large sum of money on him.     

  Fact: If you believe the cops framed the scumbag then it would have required
	a lot more people than just Furman.

  Fact: Fibers which match the carpet of the Bronco were found in the blood
	at the crime scene. This was a rare type of fiber.

  I'm sure there's more.

		Keith

RE                       <<< Note 171.354 by BSS::MENDEZ >>>

>    I think it is interesting that the verdict was "not guilty".  That does
>    not mean that OJ is innocent...  It is possible that OJ commited
>    the crimes BUT not sufficient evidence to prove his guilt...
    
  That's exactly right. That's why the jury gets to choose between guilty and
not guilty instead of guilty and innocent.

  It is the burden of the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ties
go to the defense.

  George

    If OJ was white, would he have been acquitted?

   First they gave us the Menendez trial.
   Then they gave us the first Rodney King Trial.
   Then they gave us the the Reginal Denney, brick through the head, trial.
   Now the OJ trial.

   Justice has been turned inside out and upside down in LA. If I lived
   in LA, I'd be tryin my hardest to move. Heck, even that shaddy guy
   named Al Davis left LA.

   I wonder if there's anyway we can kick LA out of the USA and make em
   form their own country.

	Keith

    
    I heard that after the trial, OJ said "give me back my hat
    and my gloves."  ;-)
    
    OK, a little humor.
    
    Seriously though, I believe he was guilty, but with all the screwups
    and Furman spouting off on tape, I think there was reasonable doubt.
    The verdict was predictable.
    
    Glenn
    

  No, you guys are only looking at high profile cases. When you figure there
are something like 70,000 arrests a year in L.A. County, 10% of which result in
trials then starting from the Menendez trial in '93 it's more like: 

   First they gave us the Menendez trial.
   Then they gave us about 100 more trials.
   Then they gave us the first Rodney King Trial.
   Then they gave us about 700 more trials.
   Then they gave us the the Reginal Denney, brick through the head, trial.
   Then another 1000 or so trials.
   Now the OJ trial during which there were thousands of others running
     concurrently.

>   Justice has been turned inside out and upside down in LA. If I lived
>   in LA, I'd be tryin my hardest to move. Heck, even that shaddy guy
>   named Al Davis left LA.

  Justice was turned upside down in LA decades ago. Ask just about any minority
person living in the L.A. area. Only difference is that now the county and
L.A.P.D are having a much harder time sweeping it under the rug. 

  George

    
    	Something I saw yesterday on TV after the verdict. Is a clear
    indication that the LAPD has a credibility problem. An African-
    American male. Spray painted a message on a building. It read something
    like "OJ, you owe your life to so and so" With so and so being gang's.
    Well the LAPD shows up with 6 cruisers. The LAPD get out of there
    cars and have there weapons drawn. Until the guy got down on the
    ground face first.
    	I'm sure there is more to the whole thing. It just seemed that
    the LAPD. Was a little gun happy. To have there weapons drawn. On somebody
    who spray painted a message on a building. Seemed a little overboard
    for me.
    
    Ron
           

>    Which fact? The glove didn't fit? Furman taking the 5th when asked if
>    he planted evidence? The LA cops and detectives screwing everything up?
    
>>  Fact: A man matching OJ's description was seen running into the house	
        while the limo driver waited for OJ. The first lights to come on
	were immediately after the man entered the house. Soon OJ
	came to the intercom and said he over slept. The defense never tried
	to explain who the person was who went into the house.
    
   It isn't up to the defense to prove that it wasn't OJ.
    
    
>>  Fact: A shoe print made from an expensive and rare shoe was found in the 
        blood at the crime scene. The prosecution proved that OJ bought
	a pair of shoes exactly like the shoe print found.

 They never proved that OJ bought a pair like this. All they proved was OJ
    had a size 12 shoe.
    
    
  Fact: Blood, Blood, Blood....OJ's, Nicole's and Goldman's...everywhere...
	DNA matches everywhere....Lab errors could possibly explain 1 or 2
	mistakes but not the multiple samples.
 >> Then why were there witnesses who towed the car who never saw blood in
    the Bronco, didn't see blood on the socks, and on the gates?
    
    
 >> Fact: Furman is a racist and a liar but nobody proved he planted evidence.
	The fact that Furman is a racist and a liar does not prove OJ is 
	innocent and it does not prove he planted evidence. In most trials, 
	the prosecution puts convicted felons on the stand to testify against 
	the defendant. The jury should have treated Furman's testimony the 
	same as any convicted felon. You can't believe what he says. 

  Which then throws out a major chunk of evidence. If Furman didn't take
    the 5th when asked specifically if he planted evidence how can you say
    that he didn't?
    
>>  Fact: OJ was photographed wearing the same type of glove and department store
	receipts prove he owned gloves like the ones presented as evidence.
    
  Wrong Wrong Wrong. The receipts never matched up to what really was
    bought. And by the way were these the same gloves that didn't fit?
    
>>  Fact: OJ eluded police and had a large sum of money on him.     
  The man was depressed and is a millionaire?
    
  Fact: If you believe the cops framed the scumbag then it would have required
	a lot more people than just Furman.
   Like VanAder? The FBI lab? 
    
    
  Fact: Fibers which match the carpet of the Bronco were found in the blood
	at the crime scene. This was a rare type of fiber.

  
  I am not saying that OJ was not guilty. What I am saying is that it was a
    very circumstantial case. There was pieces of the prosecutions case
    that just didn't add up. OJ's defense team did a great job. What
    bothers me is that 90% of whites interviewed were ticked off about the
    verdict while 90% of the African-Americans were happy. 
    
    Mike 
    

    
    	All the fiber evidence is suspect. Remeber they took a blanket
    from Nicoles couch. Then placed it over the bodies. It is realisticly
    possible. That a week before the murders. OJ drives over to Nicoles
    to pick up the kids. He goes inside and sits on the couch waiting
    for the kids. Thus, you have the Bronco fibers. Getting transferred
    from the Bronco, to OJ, to the blanket, to the bodies.
    	If they saved the blanket. So that it could be analyzed for fibers.
    They could have disproved this type of transfer. They didn't so it
    was another mistake.
    
    Ron

  Guess what, OJ is thinking about having a $29.95 pay for view interview.
  He wouldn't take the stand and be cross examined but he's more than willing
  to answer questions from a hand picked host and rake in the cash.

  The profiteer of murder and racism. He just flew past Don King as the
  greatest sleaze alive.

  I think a lot of gas has been thrown on the fires of race relations in 
  this country. The LAPD certain added their share but OJ and Cochran 
  emptied their gas tank also.

	Keith

Well, it's kind of like Imus said this morning:  The jury found him not guilty,
which is what the official verdict is.

I don't mind folks talking about this, but lets be very careful with some of
the statements that get made.  Think twice about putting thing in here that
could be considered libelous or slanderous, in light of yesterday's verdict.

You don't have to agree with the verdict -- many folks don't -- but in the eyes
of the law, OJ was not guilty.


Just a friendly reminder from your moderator....
'Saw

>  I think a lot of gas has been thrown on the fires of race relations in 
>  this country. The LAPD certain added their share but OJ and Cochran 
>  emptied their gas tank also.

Hopefully a lot of change will take place because of this.  Maybe more
good than we think ?

RE                    <<< Note 171.368 by USCTR1::GARBARINO >>>

>>  I think a lot of gas has been thrown on the fires of race relations in 
>>  this country. The LAPD certain added their share but OJ and Cochran 
>>  emptied their gas tank also.
>
>Hopefully a lot of change will take place because of this.  Maybe more
>good than we think ?

  People keep talking about "changes" but I'd be real cautious as to what those
changes might be. I fear that what a lot of people mean by changes is that they
want changes that make it easier for a racist organization like the LAPD to
get convictions.

  Yes, I'd like to see changes also but the changes I feel are called for by
this trial have nothing to do with the judicial system. What's needed are
changes in the LAPD to weed out racist rogue cops and the mentality that
persecution of minorities is a substitute for prosecution of criminals. 

  George

Wail, good, bad, or indifferent, we can all expect the money to come
rollling in for OJ.

NBC has comfirmed that they are standing by their offer to keep OJ in
some capacity if'n he's acquited, which he was.

Book and movie deals are all over the place, with estimates of high as 20
million for OJ's rights.

PPV is being talked about.

Word is that OJ is going to do a commercial for a_ol' sponsor. The pitch:

	"Rent a Hertz and get to the airport with an hour to kill."

TTom

>Hopefully a lot of change will take place because of this.  Maybe more
>good than we think ?

  I hope you're right. Obviously, the LAPD needs an overhaul. I'm sure
  there's other PD's across the country that need improvement. 

  Maybe some new evidence will come up and there will be absolutely, positively
  no mistake about who committed this horrible crime.

  I just have this horrible feeling that the next membership drive of 
  every neo-nazi and race supremacy group will exceed their wildest 
  expectations. I certainly hope this doesn't happen.  

	Keith

>Barkley waxes poetic

Wow.  I was wondering when America's premier statesman would
chime in...

>    
>    A not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean innocent.
>    

I never said it did. 


But, making statements that he's guilty of, or gotten away with, murder, could
be libelous, or slanderous considering the verdict of not guilty.  I'm just
trying to save us any potential problems.

Regardless of what we all may or may not think about the outcome of this case,
we all have to keep in mind that for better or worse, OJ was found not guilty
by a jury of his peers, and in our system of justice, that closes the case.


Now, I'm sure George could make some logical argument that in the eyes of the
law OJ is considered innocent, because of the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty, which he wasn't, which means the law would presume him innocent
still, but I'm starting to wonder if that isn't angels dancing on the head of a
pin.


'Saw

	Before we start lableing ENTIRE organizations as "racists",
	ie. LAPD, we might think about the LAPD officers who do 
	not subscribe to Furman's "supposed" tactics.

	Also keep in mind that the laywers who "played the race card"
	were using body guards supplied by "racist-extrordinaire",
	Fara-con (sic).


	billl

RE      <<< Note 171.375 by CAM::WAY "Nine to the front, six to the rear" >>>

>Now, I'm sure George could make some logical argument that in the eyes of the
>law OJ is considered innocent, because of the presumption of innocence until
>proven guilty, which he wasn't, which means the law would presume him innocent
>still, but I'm starting to wonder if that isn't angels dancing on the head of a
>pin.

  You're twisting it all up.

  Often times people say that "someone is innocent until proven guilty". That's
sort of legal slang and is not really correct. It's more correct to say "A
defendant who appears before the bar is entitled to the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty in a court of law". 

  Saying that someone is presumed innocent is not the same as saying that they
are innocent. It only means that as far as the judicial system is concerned he
will be treated as if he is innocent. 

  Of course if we were to get dragged into a civil suit we would be going up
against that presumption of innocence in a civil court.

  George

    
    	If OJ was "presumed innocent..." then why did he spent over
    	a year in jail?
    
    Claybone

RE   <<< Note 171.376 by MKOTS3::tcc122.mko.dec.com::long "Some gave all..." >>>

>	Before we start lableing ENTIRE organizations as "racists",
>	ie. LAPD, we might think about the LAPD officers who do 
>	not subscribe to Furman's "supposed" tactics.

  The entire organization is racist. That's organization, not necessarily all
the people.

  After the '68 Watts riots the L.A. police department cracked down on
minorities and went to a system of using SWAT teams instead of having beat cops
that got to know the people in communities. They hired more and more racist
leaders until finally Daryll Gates became Chief of Police practically
institutionalizing racism in the L.A.P.D. 

>	Also keep in mind that the lawyers who "played the race card"
>	were using body guards supplied by "racist-extrordinaire",
>	Fara-con (sic).

  As Johnny Cochran said, if a lawyer knows that his client is in trouble
because of racism he'd be guilty of malpractice to leave it out of his case.
Shapiro is wrong, it was the right move to make.

  As a lawyer you have no responsibility to the community. Your responsibility
is to your client and as long as you don't break an explicit law or a specific
cannon of ethics you are duty bound to do what ever is necessary to zealously
defend your client no matter who's toes need a tromping.

  George

RE          <<< Note 171.378 by GENRAL::WADE "Ah'm Yo Huckleberry..." >>>

>    	If OJ was "presumed innocent..." then why did he spent over
>    	a year in jail?
    
  Oddly enough this goes back to another rather famous person who was accused
of murder. 

  Prior to about the 14th or 15th century anyone accused of a crime was slapped
in jail until his trial no questions asked. Then when Richard III became king
he instituted the practice of bail in which the court was given the descression
of releasing the accused until he stood trial. 

  Since then the court has also had the decression to refuse bail if they feel
the defendant is a flight risk or a risk to the community. 

  It's an old practice, holding the accused, but it's as old as trials
themselves and since Richard III we've actually been rather progressive
allowing some defendants to be set free. 

  As for O.J., in California there is a law saying that anyone accused of
1st degree murder with special circumstances is not eligible for bail. Hence
he had to stay in jail. Of course he can always sue the city for false arrest.

  George

Thanks George for clearing that up for me.   I think I was getting at the same
thing (or was wanting to) but I didn't say it quite right....


'Saw

    Who would actually spend money to see this, or for that matter spend
    money on his book ?
    
    Ive heard many radio stations talk about the race issue's brought
    about in this case and both sides of the coin are correct.  If OJ
    were white he'd be in jail and if the victims where black he'd be
    in jail.  The race thing had a HUGE effect (After listening to 2
    of hte joror's last night its even more evident).
    
    Doesn't mean that the entire PD is made up of racist, there's about
    100 more years of work to be done in the fight against racism, this
    just takes us back a few steps.  The media is the biggest problem in
    this case, how much longer is this going to be the headlines, lets 
    get on with it, there's other more important topics then who was at
    OJ's and what OJ did, etc, etc, etc....
    
    1 question, if OJ was found guily what were the odds of a riot ?  I
    don't think this case would have cause'd riots.  The rodney King case
    was very different there was no question weather the cops were guilty
    or not it was on freaking video tape so when the courts ever came back
    with a Not Guilty it was a HUGE joke... 
    
    We still don't know who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and will never no,
    but we(The World) knew who beat Rodney King...
    
    								MaB

You know I couldn't help but wonder, and perhaps lament just a little bit,
the other evening, when I got thinking about this trial and how much we'd
discussed it in Sports.

I couldn't help but think and wonder what it might have been like had the
Immortal MrT been around to give his no-doubt heartfelt viewpoints on some of
the relevant factors in the case.

Remember with pangs of nostaligia what it might have been like had he crafted
pages and pages and pages of his inimitable "T" prose and carefully assembled
logical arguments -- even if the geography may have been a bit off...

	Kinda makes me think about the oozing sore.



	billl

  Is it true that OJ asked for his hat and gloves back ?

  Anyone else hear the slogan for OJ's new limosene service...

	We'll get you to the airport with an hour to kill.


		Keith

    In an interview, I'd like to hear OJ's explanation of why he wrote a
    suicide sounding letter and held a gun to his head on the low-speed
    chase?  
    
    I wonder if he'll live in fear the rest of his life, being out in
    public?  If he did do it, the torture will eat away at him.  If not,
    he'll have peace of mind (but probably body guards just as well.)
    
    
    Spud

You all thought you had heard the last of this case, but since I was in LA
when the verdict was announced, I thought (some of) you might be interested
in a first hand report.

The most striking thing to me was the all-pervasiveness of the case.  On
the day it reported the verdict, the first fourteen pages of the LA Times
were devoted exclusively to that one subject.  In the four days following,
it published on each day an eight-page supplement, analysizing ad nauseam
every aspect of the case, from the race card to the LAPD to tabloid-style
"where are they now" profiles of various participants.  It also analyzed
its own coverage, compared to that of other major dailies, declaring that
it had made the editorial decision to act as "newspaper of record" for the
trial.  It published more than twice as many OJ stories as any other paper,
and its list of staff assigned to the case in whole or part looked like
the end credits for Star Wars.

The TV coverage was similar.  Most of the local stations assigned armies
to the courthouse, and a number of them showed the trial live.  One station,
however, dropped out early and returned to soaps and reruns, and improved
its ratings in the process.  Nevertheless, from what many people told me,
OJ was THE topic of conversation in Southern California for over a year.

Gil Garcetti, the DA, is being heavily second-guessed.  The conventional
wisdom is that he ran the prosecution case behind the scenes, though this
is denied by his office.  He was criticized especially for the decision to
try the case downtown rather than in West LA, the actual jurisdiction,
because the jury makeup would (allegedly) have been much friendlier to
the prosecution on the West Side.  Garcetti is up for reelection soon,
and is widely considered to be dead meat.

Virtually all reaction to the case was (IMO) tendentious and informed by
groupthink.  Women's groups saw this as a wife-battering case, blacks
saw it as the white establishment's attempt to screw a successful black
man, and so on.  The talk radio station I listen to when driving from
one bookshop to another (KABC) was still filling the air with various
rantings when I left town on Tuesday.  Its two afternoon commentators,
both conservative, one black, took it for granted that Simpson was guilty
and that the jury's decision was based on race.  The only point on which
there was any consensus across the population was (gratifyingly) that Mark
Fuhrman is pond scum and that it is necessary to root his likes out of the
LAPD.  In my view, this consensus is about 30 years overdue.

FWIW, I think Simpson probably did it, but I'm not sure I could have voted
to convict.  I'd like to believe that even after a long sequestration I'd
have wanted to deliberate for more than four hours, but there were enough
problems with the handling of the evidence that I'd have been damned uneasy
sending a man to the gas chamber or to jail for the rest of his life on the
basis of it.  The best thing that can come out of this trial is a realization
that Proposition 13 did significant damage to both the County Coroner's Office
and the LAPD Crime Lab, and that it's going to be necessary to spend a pile
of money to repair it.

I expect the hollering in the State Legislature for fixes to the legal system
to die down at the rate of a politician's attention span.  A number of really
terrible ideas have been voiced, like removing the requirement of unanimity
to reach a verdict (10-2 was the margin most often proposed) or eliminating
the peremptory challenge in jury selection, but I don't expect that any of
them will actually become law.

Reportedly, Christopher Darden was emotionally shattered by the verdict, and
as of three days ago had not resurfaced,  but if he manages to get over his
disappointment, he can be the big winner.  He is now a major star in a city
that worships stardom, and can write his own ticket.

Meanwhile, the second Menendez trial is underway, and has merited a single
story a day on the inside pages of The Times.

Steve

    Steve,
    	I forgot you were in LA which is home for you and I always have a
    hard time picturing someone being "from" LA.  And of course that always
    takes a month of so.
    
    	The day of the verdict one of the alternates said as a way of
    conclusion.. "So, maybe we made a mistake and a guilty black man walks
    - what about all the guilty whites that walked in the past".  
    
    	What made this statement interesting to me was that it seemed to
    never get picked up by the big media, I'd have thought they'd have ran
    with a statement like that.  Although that current of thought you refer
    to in your note.
    
    	I agreed with your thoughts, btw
    
    Ever hear of a place called Corn Hill in London, a friend told me its
    the greatest bar (?) he's ever been to.

.389, Billte:

>   	I forgot you were in LA which is home for you and I always have a
>   hard time picturing someone being "from" LA.  And of course that always
>   takes a month of so.

LA, as the saying is, is a great place to be from.  When I last lived there,
in 1977, it was a cultural desert and the air was poisonous, but it was a
very livable city.  What I liked best was the freedom to live any way you
like and nobody tried to lay his own values on you.

Today, the LA Opera is 10 years old and the air quality has improved, but
the traffic is impossible, what used to be neighborhoods are now fortresses,
and the most important concern of the population seems to be its physical
appearance.

>   Ever hear of a place called Corn Hill in London, a friend told me its
>   the greatest bar (?) he's ever been to.

Your friend is probably a Yank; a Brit would have called it a pub.  And no,
I've never heard of it.  Is Corn Hill the name of the pub?  Do you know
what part of London it's in?  I'm long overdue for a visit to London, and
I'd be delighted to look it up and report back to you.

Steve

  Looks like we're getting into O.J. again so let's move over here.

>       <<< Note 255.46 by CSLALL::BRULE "country in need of a leader" >>>
>
>    She could have prevented Darden from having OJ try on the gloves.
>    She could have checked the background of Furman better. She may be good
>    but if she's as good as it gets then we're in a heap of trouble.

  Well not really. Put it in context.

  Clark went up against the best team of lawyers ever assembled with evidence
from one of the worst crime labs in the nation run by a police department with
a decades old tradition of racism before a jury hell bent on making a political
statement. 

  And don't discount the fact that her boss, Gill Garcetti, is a rather stupid
self serving idiot who saw this as his chance to gain political ground most
likely to run for Governor or the fact that she had to fight off her
ex-husbands attempt to get custody of her kids in the middle of the trial. 

  And in spite of that she convinced almost everyone in the nation that O.J.
was guilty. How could anyone be expected to win such a one sided battle with
the deck stacked so much against them. She was playing with a hand of 9, 8, 6,
5, 3, different suits, while the Dream Team had the rest of the deck.

  If you check out her record of normal cases you'll see that she's practically
unbeatable. Remember, the O.J. trial says nothing about our judicial system.
There's never been a trial like it and it's likely that there will never be
a trial like it again.

  George

>  And don't discount the fact that her boss, Gill Garcetti, is a rather stupid
>self serving idiot who saw this as his chance to gain political ground most

I, fer one, do not discount this at all. The lasted big case Garcetti won
was about never.

Mainly, I fault the entire prosecution team. Start with a faulty game
plan, add in a bunch of things they coulda and shoulda done, and throw in
a bunch of things they shouldn'ta done.

So what you're saying is that Clark has a_excellent record in the
regular games but caint win the big one. Sounds familiar.

TTom

RE   <<< Note 171.392 by HBAHBA::HAAS "Extra low prices and hepatitis too!~" >>>

>So what you're saying is that Clark has a_excellent record in the
>regular games but caint win the big one. Sounds familiar.

  No, I'm saying Clark has an excellent record in the regular games, has won
championship games, but thrown into a lion's den with a lousy team playing
against the greatest all-star team ever assembled with the rules changed to
give her opponents an advantage and personal problems that would have reduced
most people to babbling fools, she had no chance to win.

  It's like the '92 Olympics when all the rest of the basketball teams agreed
that the semi-final was the real championship and the final against the "Dream
Team" was just a spectacle. The O.J. trial was not a real trial it was the
lions against the Christians and Marcia Clark was playing covered in A-1 sauce.

  George

>lions against the Christians and Marcia Clark was playing covered in A-1 sauce.

As I remember, the Christians lost early but lately, they now completely
dominate the series.

So you're saying that she wasn't up to the task in THE BIG GAME. On that
we agree.

TTom

RE   <<< Note 171.394 by HBAHBA::HAAS "Extra low prices and hepatitis too!~" >>>

>So you're saying that she wasn't up to the task in THE BIG GAME. On that
>we agree.

  No. I'm saying she won her big games. But the O.J. trial wasn't a fair game.
The odds were so stacked against her that she couldn't possibly have won. 

  A "big game" usually means a game where two championship teams go head to
head. If one all-star on a lousy team plays a game against a complete all-star
team that doesn't really fit the description of "the big one". That's more like
a spectacle.

  Marsha Clark has proven many times that she can win big ones. What she
failed to prove was that she could walk on water.

  George

    Which, of course, is what O.J. can do.
    
    
    CHARLEY;^)

>  A "big game" usually means a game where two championship teams go head to
>head. 

So when State won the NCAA hoops title against Phi Slamm Jamma, that
din't count as a championship? 

All you're repeating is that she won a lot of cases, some of them were
big cases, but when the national spotlight was on her, she folded. I
guess I would call that a lost opportunity and ACK would certainly chime
in with his excellent loss thang.

TTom

RE   <<< Note 171.397 by HBAHBA::HAAS "Extra low prices and hepatitis too!~" >>>

>All you're repeating is that she won a lot of cases, some of them were
>big cases, but when the national spotlight was on her, she folded. I
>guess I would call that a lost opportunity and ACK would certainly chime
>in with his excellent loss thang.

  No that's not all I'm repeating. Go back and read more carefully. You
keep ducking my major point.

  George

What point?

She lost cause the other team was better? She din't have a chance cause
the other team went out and bought better talent?

Like I said, in sprots, as in life, it happens all the time. And in
sprots, just like life, talent does not always prevail. Just ask Dean and
his Heels about some of his mid 80s' teams. Marcia Clark and her team
were no more a_underdog than many teams that went on to win it all.

TTom

    
      Marcia choked. Plain and simple. She had the preponderance of
     the evidence on her side and she helped pick the jury. Her court-
     room manor was about as warm as February in Anchorage and some of
     her decision making was braindead. She had a shot at the bigs and 
     got her head handed to her.

As Bill Cowher would say, it was a debacle!~

re: Anchorage

I liked the Michelle Shocked version, better.

TTom

  Ok, if you legal pundits want to believe that Clark had a chance and blew it
go ahead, be my guest. 

  Most legal experts feel the state had no chance against the Dream Team and
they also feel the jury was making a political statement having nothing to do
with the evidence.

  If you guys want to think this is like some sort of basketball game between
a couple college teams then go right ahead.

  On a similar note, what about those Christians? What a bunch of wimps, I
understand that the Lions went undefeated. Why old Ricktor Muldune and his
Clarton Aggies won a college basketball game back in 1907 when everyone thought
they would lose, clearly those Christians choked in what should have been an
easy win. 

  George

>  Most legal experts feel the state had no chance against the Dream Team and
>they also feel the jury was making a political statement having nothing to do
>with the evidence.

B.S. In fack, right up to the announcement of the decision, the legal
community, like the rested of us, were at best split on the prediction of
the outcome. 

>  On a similar note, what about those Christians? What a bunch of wimps, I
>understand that the Lions went undefeated. Why old Ricktor Muldune and his
>Clarton Aggies won a college basketball game back in 1907 when everyone thought
>they would lose, clearly those Christians choked in what should have been an
>easy win. 

Ancient freakin history. The Christians hired a new coach who brought in
a new game plan and they've been kicking lion ass fer years now.

And I'd appreciate it if'n you wouldn't make any more Texas Aggies slurs,
neither, too, also ;-)

TTom

  Yes people guessed he'd walk but not because of Clark. They felt he would
walk because of the race issue.

  And the Lions were undefeated in Rome. The Christians didn't win until long
after that league was disbanded and a new one formed with different rules.

  George

    <<< Note 171.404 by CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI "Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs" >>>

 > And the Lions were undefeated in Rome.

   Obviously this was before Wayne Fontes arrived....

   daryll

    
    >> Yes people guessed he'd walk but not because of Clark. They 
    >> felt he would walk because of the race issue.
    
       That's a cop out. They teach 'em in Ambulance Chasing 101 that
       you don't ask a question for which you do not know the answer.
       And then Marcia! Marcia! Marcia! goes and has OJ try on the
       gloves in open court. Every one from Alan Dershowitz to Al
       the bartender knew it was a major major blunder. She also didn't
       check her witnesses thoroughly. The contrast between her 
       robotic style and Cochrane's charismatic style was so marked 
       as to be textbook. Johnny talked to the jury at their level and
       Marcia came off like that overly stern 6th grade teacher that 
       everyone hated. The girl got schooled. Hard.

  No one on the jury said they made their decision based on the gloves. It made
good theater but they said Mark Fuhrman being a racist was the thing that had
the major impact.

  Also, if race had nothing to do with this trial and if she did such a bad job
then why do so many people outside the L.A. area think he's guilty? Why doesn't
he have his job back at NBC?

  George

 >> No one on the jury said they made their decision based on the gloves. 
 >> It made good theater but they said Mark Fuhrman being a racist was the 
 >> thing that had the major impact.

    I don't remember it happening like that but even if I believe that it 
    did - Furman was *HER* witness. She was completely taken by surprise
    by all of the revelations about Furman and his past. Being ill-prep-
    ared is suicidal in any profession but even more so in a nationally
    televised murder trial.

 >> Also, if race had nothing to do with this trial and if she did such a 
 >> bad job then why do so many people outside the L.A. area think he's 
 >> guilty? 

    Seems ass-backwards to try and prove that she's a good lawyer by 
    pointing to the fact that practically everyone on the planet be-
    lieves he committed the crime but the jury that she helped choose
    found him not guilty. She's a minor leaguer who was in over her
    head and as a result a murderer is walking the streets.
 
 
    

  I remember a long time ago reading a story called "The Devil and Daniel
Webster". It's a story about how some guy sells his soul to the devil and when
Ol' Scratch comes to collect his soul the guy hires Daniel Webster to defend
him. 

  In the story the Devil only agrees to the trial if he can pick the jury and
he hand picks a bunch of rogues from Hell who are extremely biased toward his
point of view. The idea is to suggest that Webster did walk on water and could
do things with a jury that a normal person could not have done. 

  Now I'm not saying the O.J. jury were rogues from Hell, if anything they and
their friends had been the victims of rogues in the form of the LAPD for
decades, but clearly anyone who could convince that jury to ignore all those
years of racial persecution would have been able to work summers as a life
guard and save lives by strolling out onto the ocean and breathing life back
into the dead without getting their feet wet. 

  Clark could never have gotten away with keeping the guy who jumped the fence
off the stand. At least by putting him on the stand herself she had some
control of his testimony on direct. Had she not called him they would have
called him after presenting the testimony of him using the "N" word and he
wouldn't have been able to plead the 5th. The jury would have seen him admit he
used that type of language and all she would have been able to do would be
to resurrect him on cross which would have been like breathing life back into
the dead.

  No one could have won that case with a jury from that jury pool. You'd have
better luck trying to convince Al Capone to spare the life of an informer.

  George

    
    
    
      I saw that episode of The Simpsons.  Isn't that the one that Marge
    shows da devil a weddin picture signed by Homer promisin his soul to
    her?
    
    Jerry

I come down somewhere between George and the rest of you on this.  I think
it's clear the prosecution made some mistakes, of which the greatest was
dragging its presentation out so long.  A result of that was juror attrition,
which resulted in a jury whose composition was quite different from day one.

But I also believe that, from the day Gil Garcetti made the decision to move
the trial from the West Side to Downtown, meaning the jury would be chosen
from among a much larger pool of citizens with first hand experience of the
deep seated racism of the Los Angeles Police Department, the case was lost.
Marcia Clark and her team never had a chance.

And as for the so-called experts, the TV talking heads who couldn't figure
out that short deliberation meant acquittal, either they chose to blind
themselves to the power of Johnny Cochrane's play of the race card, or
they had no idea from the beginning what they were talking about.

Just in passing, I wonder how common it is for a prosecution team to
investigate the policemen who hand a case over to it?  If Clark and Co.
had actually investigated Mark Fuhrmann, what kind of an uproar would it
have created?  And don't forget that Fuhrmann was exposed, not because of
what was on his record, but because he chose to brag to a would-be
filmmaker.

Steve

Well, I know one thing.

OJ Simpson (who ain't no Toni Morrison when it comes to puttin' words together)
sure is talkin' hisself into a corner.

No matter what you believe in terms of his guilt or innocence, his statements
in this civil case are painting a better picture of what he's like, I think.

I know one thang -- after seein' all them fancy-dancy LA folks, like Faye
Resnick and all of them "trendy people" I shore am glad I live out here on this
coast.

Oh yeah, if if'n Nicole was getting all them bruises from pickin' "facial
blemishes" I guess she musta been pickin' at 'em with a ball peen hammer....


'Saw_who's_tired_of_the_whole_thing....

    
     If Johnny Cochrane was the prosecutor instead of the defense attorney
    OJ would be sitting on death row today. 

    
     If Johnny Cochrane was the prosecutor instead of the defense attorney
    Mark Furhman would be sitting on death row today.

  :*)}

  George

>    Mark Furhman would be sitting on death row today.

Maybe this should happen anyway...

Lest it go without saying, if'n I'm in a jam and have previously won the
lottery, I'd hire Cochrane in a heartbeat.

TTom

If Johnny Cochrane had been the prosecutor, the defense team would have
been considerably weaker.

Even if Johnny Cochrane had been the prosecutor, Gil Garcetti would still
have been his boss.

Steve

    
    	As I said in another note or a while back. OJ is free because
    the defence gets to go 2nd in a trial. In using his right to a 
    speedy trial he didn't give the prosecution time to come up with
    everything. Remember the Furhman tapes were found after the defense
    started there case, about six months after Furhman was on the stand for
    the prosecution.
    
    Ron

RE    <<< Note 255.60 by ROCK::GRONOWSKI "iceMAN - 1995 SPORTS NOTY Winner" >>>
    
>    I've written to blockbuster video and asked them to buy copies at each
>    store and put them on the shelves for free rental, just like the public
>    service videos.  Not that I want to watch the video, but this should
>    keep other people from buying it.  The other option is to transcribe
>    the whole video on-line or put the video or audio on line.

  This might be a copyright violation.

  George

  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Regardless if O.J. is
guilty of murder or not, why would Blockbuster, or anyone else, want to open
themselves up to charges of copyright infringement? 

  Unlike a defamation suit, you can't use "but he did it" as your defense.
O.J.'s guilt would probably not even be admissible, only whether or not you
infringed on his copyright.

  George

Geroge,

There's a minor issue here.

OJ has already spilt the beans on some of what is contained in the video.
If'n you can show that you read/heard it when he was pitching his spiel,
then you might be able to skate on some of the copyright problems.

I'm sure Blockbusters would be glad to sell his video, though. After all,
it's only about money.

TTom

  The question from Blockbuster's point of view comes down to a simple business
decision. What's in it for them take a chance on having to fight O.J. and his
lawyers over copyright laws? 

  - Maybe O.J. has no copyright protection.
  - If that's true maybe he would not win a copyright case anyway.
  - Then again maybe he'd win.
  - At the very least it would cost you a ton of money to defend the copyright
    suit.

  I just don't see where it would make any sense to expose your company to that
type of risk. You'd probably just end up inventing yet another way to make
O.J. rich.

  George

    Regarding the pundits and their predictions on the OJ verdict just look
    at Will McDonough's NFL picks not to speak of Gerald Strine.
    
    Marcia lost the case irretrievably when evidence of Fuhrman's rascism
    surfaced and despite what happened in the courtroom the full story
    obviously reached the jury via conjugal visitation.

  Yes, that's when the state lost the case, but I can't think of any way
she could have kept that testimony out. Mark Fuhrman's racism was exclupatory
evidence (evidence of O.J.'s innocence) and no court in the country would
have excluded it. No conviction would have stood appeal if it had not been
allowed.

  George

    Well Ito kept most of it out but I'm sure the missing piece reached the
    jury behind the scenes.  The other thing is jury interviews showed that
    the quick decision was based on the circumstantiality of the case.  The
    big blood weapon was blunted by Fuhrman's tape.
    
    Someone has a point about perhaps the biggest story being the total
    inability of the myriad commentators to digest what should, in
    hindsite, have been a very simple conclusion - that the final case to
    the jury was hopeless.

  Depends on who you were watching. The Court TV commentators were talking about
the race question from the start and throughout the trial they were talking
about the split along racial lines. Tons of people were saying "O.J.'s guilty
but he's going to walk".

  As for Fuhrman's statement, Ito didn't keep it out at all. The defense called
the woman who recorded the tape and she testified at length about Fuhrman's
racial statements. He only allowed the jury to hear 3 or 4 excerpts from the
tape with Fuhrman saying the "N" word but Johnny Cochran had that woman on the
stand for quite some time and hammered it home for the better part of one day.

  You are right that once Fuhrman went down, he took the circumstantial case
with him but I don't think anyone is arguing that, it's pretty obvious. Of
course Barry Sheck helped quite a bit by exposing the inept L.A. crime lab.
Remember his "MIS-ter FOng" cross examination of the LAPD lead criminalist?
It was a back breaker for the state.

  George

    
    
        Two years ago today....
    
            Ron and Nicole were brutally murdered. Oj is still looking for 
    the killer(s). His latest lead is that it was a Golf pro...
    
    
    
    Chap

    And everyone connected has written at least one book. 

Just curious, but what's the over/under on when OJ kills hisself?

We can also get a pool going on how big the tab will be on his civil
proceedings.

Then we can do another on how much he actually pays, with zero being
excluded as a_entry for obvious reasons.

TTom

Can anyone explain the civil suit ?  If he's been found innocent in
the criminal trial, what can be proved in the civil suit, and what's
his "worst case scenario" ?

This is the neo-traditional semi-double-jeapordy thing.

See he's not being tried again in criminal court, he's being tried again
for the firsted time in civil court.

The main difference is that in civil court the deciding factor is a
proponderance if evidence. In criminal court it's beyond reasonable
doubt, a much higher standard.

His worst case scenario is he gets to give all the money he has and all
the money he'll earn to the families of the victims.

I would think that any kinda guilty verdict will about ruin ol' OJ who
aint lookin all that good lately. He's starting to develop a tic de la
guilt.

TTom

OJ's video didn't even do as well as one put out by the weather channel.

10:1

We never find out how much he pays.

zamboni

  If it goes to trial and he loses we will learn the amount of the judgment at
the same time the court learns it which is when the jury announces their
verdict. 

  If they settle then most likely there would be an agreement that the amount
be kept quite.

  George

    
    The Goldman's refuse to settle.  They want the public to hears OJs
    testimony.  He will be found guilty.  Its a lock.

>He will be found guilty.  Its a lock.

Isn't that what most of the world thought a year ago?

Settlement or not, I'd be surprised if OJ's band of lawyers don't fight like
heck to get the whole thing shut down to the press.

zamboni

This being a civil action, the verdict will be a judgment for one side or
the other, not "guilty" or "not guilty".  The charge is "wrongful death",
which need not be murder.

And I hope OJ's attorneys do manage to keep the cameras out.  The last
thing the American legal system needs is another televised trial.

Steve

************************************************

>THE OJ TRIAL AS TOLD BY DR. SEUSS
>
>     I did not kill my lovely wife.
>     I did not slash her with a knife.
>     I did not bonk her on the head.
>     I did not know that she was dead.
>
>
>     I stayed at home that fateful night.
>     I took a cab, then took a flight.
>     The bag I had was just for me.
>     My bag! My bag! Hey, leave it be.
>
>     When I came home I had a gash.
>     My hand was cut from broken glass.
>     I cut my hand on broken glass.
>     A broken glass did cause that gash.
>
>     I have nothing, nothing to hide.
>     My friend, he took me for a ride.
>
>     Did you take this person's life?
>     Did you do it with a knife?
>
>     I did not do it with a knife.
>     I did not, could not kill my wife.
>     I did not do this awful crime.
>     I could not, would not anytime.
>
>     Did you hit her from above?
>     Did you drop this bloody glove?
>
>     I did not hit her from above.
>     I cannot even wear that glove.
>     I did not do it with a knife.
>     I did not, could not kill my wife.
>     I did not do this awful crime.
>     I could not, would, not, anytime.
>
>     And now I'm free, I can return
>     To my house for which I yearn.
>     And to my family whom I love.
>     Hey now I'm free -- Give back my glove!!

  Well O.J. II has gone to the jury. And to continue the never ending saga,
Sheriff's Deputies have visited one of the jurors from the 1st trial because
of a rumor that the old juror had been trying to contact members of the new
jury.

  What's strange is that no one, not even the lawyers in the case, are suppose
to know who the new jurors are. The report is that the reason the old juror
knew the identity of the new jurors was because she worked for the court.
Another report said that she was not trying to influence the jury, she just
wanted to mail them all some tips as to how to deal with the media after the
trial. 

  As for the jury itself, they asked to review the blood evidence presented by
the defense. Pundits have no clue as to what this may mean in terms of when or
what the verdict will be. 

  George 

    
      As much as anything this trial highlights the incompetence
     of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden. It took the guys taking to
     OJ this go 'round half as much time to make an even more com-
     pelling case. Meanwhile, Clark and Darnde are out there getting
     rich for letting a double murderer skate. What a country.
      

    
    
    What Clark and Darden didn't have is the idjit on the stand.

 hey Ito deserves as much credit as Clark and Darden imo. 

RE            <<< Note 171.508 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "Bang! Bang! Bang!" >>>

>      As much as anything this trial highlights the incompetence
>     of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden. It took the guys taking to
>     OJ this go 'round half as much time to make an even more com-
>     pelling case. Meanwhile, Clark and Darnde are out there getting
>     rich for letting a double murderer skate. What a country.
      
  Well, it's not quite that simple. First of all, the plaintiff in this trial
had the advantage of hindsight. They got to see the cards the defense was
holding and played in the criminal trial.

  Second, they don't have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, only
negligence by the preponderance of the evidence, a much easier standard.

  Third, they only need 9 votes, not 12.

  Fourth, race was not an issue in this trial.

  Fifth, they didn't have an idiot boss like Gill Garcetti doing things like
moving the trial from where the crime occurred to down town L.A. and who knows
what other interference behind the scenes.

  Sixth, the plaintiff seemed to get better rulings on evidence than the
prosecution got in the criminal trial. That may be in part because the
standards for admitting evidence are different in civil trials but it's also
because this judge is not as liberal as Ito.

  And finally, even if they find for the plaintiff, juries are much more
reluctant to send a man to jail than they are to part a rich guy from his
money. 

  George

    
      The plaintiffs introduced different and compelling
     evidence in this trial that Clark didn't. And in a 
     mananer that didn't come across like the National
     Spokesperon For PMS in Clark's case or the student 
     before the master in Darden's case. 

  Much of that "compelling evidence" consisted of proving that O.J. had lied
on the stand much as the defense in the 1st trial proved that Fuhrman had
lied on the stand. Clark had no chance at doing that because she couldn't call
O.J. to provide testimony which she could later impeach.

  Also, this judge didn't allow the defense to put forward any theories of
drug dealers nor did he allow them to criticize the entire LAPD Crime Lab
the way the defense did in the 1st trial.

  And of course race is not an issue as it was in the criminal trial.

  George

    
    Once again the idjit forgets the IMO.

    Trial I was much simpler in that it depended on the point of view that
    the jury took on tainted evidence.  The LAPD has to take the rap there.
    The view the jury took was some "taint", all taint.
    
    And that blew the case entirely  since all that was left was a limo
    driver.   And I doubt that a pair of shoes would have been the
    difference.
    
    That view btw, (and IMHO if you like) is pretty reasonable.  And may
    seem reasonable to this jury too.
    
    Stupid question, George.  Can the jury pull a compomise which in effect
    is saying "we think there's a 67% chance he's guilty so we'll aware
    670k or something to that effect?
    
    Oh, one more author I've read off and on is Kipling.  He's the one that
    looks like he's saving keystrokes and is pretty tough to penetrate.

RE               <<< Note 171.515 by MKOTS3::BREEN "Sans Doute" >>>

>              -< Folks are getting there hopes up for a guilty? >-

  Their hopes will be dashed. There is no chance of a "guilty" verdict,
the jury isn't given that choice. Their only choices are "Find for the
plaintiff and award damages" or "find for the defense".

>    Stupid question, George.  Can the jury pull a compomise which in effect
>    is saying "we think there's a 67% chance he's guilty so we'll aware
>    670k or something to that effect?

  In some states juries give a percentage of comparative negligence in addition
to awarding an amount. If the jury finds the defendant 49% or less responsible
he pays nothing. If they find him 50% or more then he pays that percentage
of the award. I believe Georgia does it that way but I don't think they do
that in California.
    
  Yesterday the jury started deliberating all over with the new replacement
juror. The defense brought a motion to declare a mistrial claiming that because
the juror who's daughter worked for the D.A. spent some time deliberating, she
"tainted" the rest of the jury. The judge denied the motion but there is little
doubt it will reappear if an appeal is necessary. 

  George 

There are also some comparative-negligence states where the 50% test
doesn't exist.  I sat on a civil-trial jury where we found the defendant
10% at fault -- resulting in the plaintiff receiving just 10% of the 
damages he was seeking.

    George, I confess that the term "guilty" doesn't apply and may be
    careless to someone living with a lawyer but in practicality a "guilty"
    finding regarding OJ would precede the final verdict.

 The Juice has been found liable for both deaths. Can you
imagine that?


                Lil Ed

    The verdict is in: *GUILTY*. I'm not going to open a can of worms with
    my opinion on this trial or the criminal trial. My greatest fear now is 
    that the perception of this verdict will divide America along racial     
    lines again. 
    
    A portion of white America has made it clear that they believed O.J.
    was guilty and that the African-American jurors in the criminal trial
    made a decision based on race rather than evidence and they did it in
    record time. 
    
     Now a white jury comes back, after a much longer debate and decides
    that O.J. is guilty. 
    
     Maybe both juries did their civic duty without race being an issue.
     Maybe both juries listened carefully to the evidence and decided the
    issue fairly, based on that evidence.
    
    Maybe the jury in the criminal trial was trying to exact a measure of
    revenge for the many years of crimes against African-Americans that
    went unpunished or the prosecution didn't present a good case.
    
     Perhaps the jury in the civil trial got their measure of revenge with
    a guilty verdict, or they too based their decision on the evidence.
    
    The bottom line is that nobody knows what went on with either jury,
    except the jurors themselves. But despite all the rhetoric blaming
    Johnny Cochran for introducing the "race card", race has always been an
    issue and both of these juries have gotten caught in the middle. Thus,
    no matter whether both juries were right or wrong, the perception from
    black Americans will be that the civil jury made a biased decision and
    the perception from white Americans will continue to be that the
    criminal jury made a biased decision.   
    
    But what really saddens me about this whole case is that two human
    beings(their race is not an issue to me) are dead and despite the        
    decision in the civil trial, no one except the killer or killers and     
    the victims, really knows who did it. 
    
    I'm beginning to wonder if anybody really cares about the truth or
    about the fact that there really is only one race: *THE HUMAN RACE*.
    
    
    
     Gary S.

    
    Not to nit pick, but the verdict was not "guilty".  It was "liable".
    There's a difference - OJ is not going to jail.  But (pending appeal
    of course), he's going to have to pay at least $8.5 million, and
    probably much more.
    
    I guess there were more counts that the families could have gone for,
    but for the additional counts (regarding Nicole), it would have
    required testimony by the children.
    

  They found him Clupable and responsible. They did not find him Guilty.

  The Jury was given 8 questions more or less along the lines:

  1). Was O.J. Negligently responsible for the death of Ron Goldman - Yes
  2). Did O.J. Batter Ron Goldman - Yes
  3). Some technical question about the battering - Yes
  4). Was the battering of Ron Goldman done with malice - Yes
  5). Did O.J. Batter Nicole Simpson - Yes
  6). Some technical question about the battering - Yes
  7). Was the battering of Nicole Simpson done with malice - Yes
  8). Compensatory damages awarded, $8.5 million

  Only the Goldmans filed for wrongfull death so they get just about all the
compensatory damages. Damages for battery are limited to immediate things. For
example I believe the Browns can get $100 for Nicole's dress and some money to
clean up the Condo but nothing for the wrongfull death. The Judge will decide
which of the Goldman's gets the rest but most of it should go to Fred Goldman
since Ronald Goldman's mother was not involved with Ronald all that much. 

  The technical questions coming back "YES" means that they move on to the 2nd
phase which is to determine punitive damages. The Compensatory damages are only
meant to make up for the financial loss suffered by the plaintiff, the punitive
damages are aimed at things like the malice involved. 

  In the punitive phase, which begins tomorrow, lawyers for both sides can
present evidence as to how much money O.J. has and how much they feel the
punitive damages should be. Once that is done the court will issue a judgment
for what ever money is involved. Collecting that money (if there is any left)
is another matter that will no doubt lead to Round 3 of the O.J. saga, not
counting the inevitable appeals.

  The award for Compensatory damages is very high. One thing to look for will
be motions by the defense asking the judge to lower that amount. They could
argue that it's not at all clear that had Ronald Goldman lived he would have
provided his father with $8.5 million. After all this figure is suppose to be
"compensation", not punishment.

  On appeal, at least 3 things can happen. The appeals court can overturn the
verdict if they feel there were legal errors, they can uphold the verdict but
reduce the amount, or they can uphold it as it stands. Quite often appeals
courts in civil trials uphold the verdict but reduce the amount. That may well
happen here since some Court TV reporters have indicated that the jury might
not have been aware of what Compensatory damages really are and they might not
have known they would get another chance at giving the Goldman's more money. 

  Other issues that will no doubt come up on appeal will be the lie detector
tests which many feel should not have been admissible, the judges refusal to
allow the defense to call Mark Fuhrman, and the "tainted" juror. If the appeals
court feels these things were errors that prejudiced the jury they could order
another trial. If they feel they were not errors or that the jury would have
come to the same conclusion anyway, they could let it stand. 

  George

man I can see the sequel already. Fred Goldman takes the 8.5 million dollars
and persues OJ to the ends of th earth until finally out of fustration that
he can't shake him, OJ attacks Fred Goldman who's wired. Under duress OJ cops
to the the first killing ..............

 seriously though if the verdict isn't overturned what does Goldman do with the
 cash?

 mike

    All Goldman has to do to shadow OJ is buy a bunch of country club
    memberships...

>OJ cops to the the first killing ..............

One of the talking haid pundits suggested that this is what OJ should do.
Write a book about how he really did do it. It'd sell millions and he
could pay the Goldmans et. al. outta the proceeds. 

>They found him Clupable and responsible.

George, we find you clupable, often. Sometimes ya make us wanna clup ya
up the side of yo haid. I'd never acuse you of the latter, though.

TTom

RE   <<< Note 171.523 by PECAD8::CHILDS "Steelers get a pants-down spanking" >>>

> seriously though if the verdict isn't overturned what does Goldman do with the
> cash?

  What cash?

  There are several different versions of how much O.J. is worth but they seem
to average out to something like this. O.J.'s worth was originally estimated at
around $10 million. About $3 million of that is tied up in retirement funds
that can't be touched by the Courts.

  He's paid millions for his defense in two trials, the criminal and the civil
one of which consisted of the "Dream Team".

  So $10 million - $3 million = $7 million.
      $7 million - $x million = $y  where x = Dream Team plus Civil Defense

  Now it's not clear what $y is but it's one heck of a lot less than the $8.5
million the jury awarded already never mind the "punies". And they both have to
go through appeals and another set of hearings to collect the money if O.J.
claims poverty. 

  Now assuming that Fred Goldman can collect $z which is some percentage of
$y minus O.J.'s appeal and collection defense, take what ever "$z" comes to,
take out 1/3rd for the plantiff's lawyers, subtract the $100 paid to the Browns
for Nicole's dress, and that's what Fred splits up with his ex-wife. 

  All things considered, somehow I don't think Fred Goldman will be pursuing
O.J. anywhere unless it's on a 10 speed he already has in his garage. 

  George

Wail, the real losers in all this are the Houston Rockets and poor ol'
JC Watts.

When OJ took hisself that little slow ride, no one watched or cared that
Hakeem won the championship.

And lasted night, with all the breaking coverage, they were barely able
to work in Slick but JC had no chance. Being a multiple TV household - my
cat and I caint always agree on what game to watch - I noticed that CNN
was about the onliest network covering 'im and they cut away as quick as
they could.

The real irony of lasted night was that the events that started with a
white bronco may have been settled when OJ left in the black suburban.

And, of course, continuing with his abject contrition that he's shown all
along, OJ stopped at Baskin Robbins afore going home.

TTom

    Nit-picking aside Fred Goldman has all he ever wanted:  "Guilty".  They
    had to make a decision that OJ was guilty of the crime, albeit only a
    "fairly certain" vs "sans doubt".
    
    I think this is getting around double jeopardy but I'm not a lawyer.
    
    Perhaps if it goes to appeal the plaintiffs won't bother to pursue the
    case although I've wondered where the money to conduct the case came
    from in the first place. 

>   Nit-picking aside Fred Goldman has all he ever wanted:  "Guilty".  

 so he said. so what does he do with money? He should start some sort of
 charity in his kid's name with the cash..........
 

RE               <<< Note 171.528 by MKOTS3::BREEN "Sans Doute" >>>

>    Nit-picking aside Fred Goldman has all he ever wanted:  "Guilty".  They
>    had to make a decision that OJ was guilty of the crime, albeit only a
>    "fairly certain" vs "sans doubt".

  No court has ever decided that O.J. was guilty of a crime in the death
of Ronald Goldman. If that's all Fred Goldman wanted, he came up short.

>    I think this is getting around double jeopardy but I'm not a lawyer.

  They are not getting around double jeopardy because double jeopardy protects
your right against being prosecuted for a crime two or more times. O.J. was
only prosecuted for a crime once and he was acquitted. He can never be found
"Guilty" of murdering Nicole or Ronald Goldman.
    
>    Perhaps if it goes to appeal the plaintiffs won't bother to pursue the
>    case although I've wondered where the money to conduct the case came
>    from in the first place. 

  Plaintiff's lawyers work on Contingency. They get 1/3rd of what ever is
collected.

  George

    
    I'd like to start a poll. DO you think he did it?
    
    
    I vote yes

    Yes.  DNA doesn't lie and is color blind.

    But cops do and aren't.

  Real question would be, who's changed their mind as to whether or not he did
it because of the verdict that came in last night? 

  Who changed their mind because of this last trial? 

  Turns out some polls did show that O.J. lost support after his testimony that
he never beat Nicole was refuted by A.C. and a few others. So the civil trial
itself might have had some impact although I doubt the verdict will change
many minds.

  George

>  Who changed their mind because of this last trial?

It really didn't change mine.

Going into the criminal trial it was my opinion that OJ was guilty of 2
counts of murder.

After that trial, I agreed with the jury in that the state had not proven
their case.

After this civil trial, I still think that there is reasonable doubt
which doesn't really matter. 

Clearly, OJ stepped on his own thang with his blanket denials of ever
thing this side of where the sun rises. Does he look guilty? To me he
does. Has it now been proven that he committed the murders? To me it
still hasn't been proven.

TTom

    Didn't change mine either.

    I was just pondering the fact that O.J. was found liable in the deaths
    of Nicole and Ron, yet he was found not guilty of their deaths in the
    criminal trial. Wouldn't that be like telling Dennis Rodman that
    you're innocent of kicking the photographer but we are going to     
    fine you for it anyway? I don't get it.
    
     Only in America. 
    
     BTW, back in note .520 I was trying to make the point that guilty or    
    liable isn't the issue anymore. The issue, IMHO, is whether either      
    verdict was reached based on the evidence or on the basis of race. If
    both decisions were based on the evidence, then both juries should be
    commended. If the decisions, in either trial, were not based on the
    evidence, then justice hasn't been served. 
    
    Personally, I think O.J. is guilty. I just don't think anyone has
    proven it. And just saying he's liable still doesn't prove it to me.
    
    
    Gary S.

RE                     <<< Note 171.539 by HOTLNE::SHIELDS >>>

>    I was just pondering the fact that O.J. was found liable in the deaths
>    of Nicole and Ron, yet he was found not guilty of their deaths in the
>    criminal trial. Wouldn't that be like telling Dennis Rodman that
>    you're innocent of kicking the photographer but we are going to     
>    fine you for it anyway? I don't get it.

  Well, technically he was only found libel in the death of Goldman. He was
found responsible for battering Goldman and Nicole. But no, the verdicts are
not technically inconsistent due to the different standards used in the two
trials under California law.

  In a criminal trial the jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt and to
a moral certainty that the defendant is guilty. In the civil trial the standard
is only the preponderance of evidence. In other words, if there was evidence
that would convince the average citizen that the defendant probably did it
but they couldn't be certain then you would expect them to acquit in a criminal
trial and find for the plaintiff in a civil trial which is what happened here.

  Now had it come out the other way around, that would be a problem.
    
>     BTW, back in note .520 I was trying to make the point that guilty or    
>    liable isn't the issue anymore. The issue, IMHO, is whether either      
>    verdict was reached based on the evidence or on the basis of race. If
>    both decisions were based on the evidence, then both juries should be
>    commended. If the decisions, in either trial, were not based on the
>    evidence, then justice hasn't been served. 

  Good question, one everyone will ponder. Many people have pointed out that
the jury made up of citizens down town where tension and distrust has existed
between the people and the LAPD for decades acquitted where as the jury made up
of Ron and Nicole's neighbors found for the plaintiff.

  Then again, in the original trial the defense proved in open court that Mark
Fuhrman was a liar and a racist and O.J. didn't testify where as in the civil
trial the defense was not allowed to call Mark Fuhrman but O.J. was caught
telling a number of lies on the stand. 

  George

    >in the civil trial the defense was not allowed to call Mark Fuhrman
    
    Not allowed or permission denied to subpoena across state boundaries etc.  
    If Fuhrman had agreed (hardly likely) then he could have testified.  Small
    nit but the wording may be important for the appellate court.

All together now...

*yawn*

RE        <<< Note 171.542 by SALEM::DODA "Apparently a true story...." >>>

>                                   -< WTFC? >-
>All together now...
>*yawn*

  This story is so popular that it cast the network news into near panic trying
to decide just how long they had to stay with the State of the Union address
before cutting over to the O.J. verdict. O.J. has practically created an
industry becoming the main bread and butter for cable channels such as Court TV
and E! 

  So the answer to the question WTFC? Lots of people. More people than you
will find caring about any other news story.

  Baring an outbreak of nuclear war I think it's a lock that the O.J. story
will be the #1 news story of the 90's and may in fact duke it out with drugs
and the internet to become the defining event of the decade.

  00's Kitty Hawk
  10's WWI
  20's Prohibition
  30's The Depression
  40's WWII
  50's Affluent Society
  60's Anti-War
  70's The Me Decade
  80's The My Decade
  90's O.J.

  George

    
    	Since it wasn't on TV, I don't think many people have changed there
    minds. In the Criminal trial, on the East Coast you could watch the entire
    afternoon session. In the Cival trial all you could do is read about
    it, which doesn't have the same effect.
    	I think both jurys made there decision on the evidence and race
    wasn't an issue. There is plenty of evidence that says he did it. While
    there is also evidence of police tampering and planting of evidence.
    If the police collected all of the evidence in the 1st two days, he
    would have been convicted in the criminal trial. They threw doubt into
    the case, when they had to search the Bronco 4 times. Plus, finding the
    blood on the back gate, weeks later. Along with "When did the socks,
    end up on OJ's floor?"
    
    Ron

  >> 60's Anti-War
  >> 70's The Me Decade
  >> 80's The My Decade
  >> 90's O.J.

     60's Civil Rights
     70's Watergate
     80's The Fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War
     90's Internet

   
     Every so often we get a Trial Of The Century and with the advances
     in the media anyone and everyone knows about this one. Subsequently
     all the get-a-lifers can focus on the OJ trial. It ain't historic
     and twenty years from now it'll be looked on in the same light as
     the Shepard trial or Hauptman trial - sensational but not a history
     making event. I can't wait until this circus is over.
    

RE            <<< Note 171.545 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "Bang! Bang! Bang!" >>>

>     Every so often we get a Trial Of The Century and with the advances
>     in the media anyone and everyone knows about this one. Subsequently
>     all the get-a-lifers can focus on the OJ trial. It ain't historic
>     and twenty years from now it'll be looked on in the same light as
>     the Shepard trial or Hauptman trial - sensational but not a history
>     making event. I can't wait until this circus is over.
    
  You are thinking like a Boxing fan Tommy. True every year there is a fight
of the century but all those other trials people talk about the defendant
became famous BECAUSE of the trial. They were not superstars going into
the trial.

  Baring political overthrows, I can't think of a time when anyone who was
already as famous as O.J. was tried for murder.

  Ali-Fraser really was the fight of the century and O.J. really was the
trial of the century.

  George

        
  >> 60's Anti-War
  >> 70's The Me Decade
  >> 80's The My Decade
  >> 90's O.J.


     60's Stan Musial
     70's Death of Roberto Clemente 
     90's Oksana Baiul arrested for DWI

  What happened to the 80's?

  George

 
    >> I can't think of a time when anyone who was already as famous 
    >> as O.J. was tried for murder.
    
       Aaron Burr.

  80> AIDS
  90> Ethical Cleansing

RE            <<< Note 171.549 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "Bang! Bang! Bang!" >>>

>       Aaron Burr.

  Either he was pretty old when he came to trial or that would have been the
trial of a different century.

  George

|  This story is so popular that it cast the network news into near panic trying
|to decide just how long they had to stay with the State of the Union address
    
    George, this is more of a damning of our current administration and
    sorry political system than anything else.

    10s   Harry Frazee
    70s   Bucky Dent
    80s   Bill Buckner
    90s   Dan Duquette

    Wasn't the Fatty Arbuckle(sp) trial in the 20's or the 30's a TOTC
    also?  I think that one involved a big celebrity who was famous
    before his trial on murder and other sordid charges.

    UMDan 

    
    The OJ trial won't even be the biggest of the year, nevermind the
    decade and certainly not the decades defining event.  The biggest trial
    of the year is currently in the Supreme Court.  The right to assisted
    suicides.
    
    Marc
    

RE            <<< Note 171.554 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "Bang! Bang! Bang!" >>>

>    You statement was that you couldn't remember a time when someone 
>    who was already as famous as OJ was tried for murder. Well, there
>    was a time and he was probably more famous than OJ and so was his
>    victim. 

  You're right, I can't remember that time. If you can then you must be a
bit older than I thought you were.

  I said at the start I wasn't counting political overthrows and I'd lump the
Burr trial right in that category. Burr was clearly innocent of murder. He shot
Hamilton in a duel that was fair and square after which his enemies came after
him for reasons which were strictly political. 

  Someone mentioned Fatty Arbuckle. True, he was known before his trial. So
wasn't Manuel Noriaga but neither came close to being as well known as O.J.
I never heard anyone mention Fatty Arbuckle before the O.J. trial and Noriaga
was only in the news for a short time before his trial.

  George

RE                     <<< Note 27.12566 by SNAX::ERICKSON >>>

>    Garcetti moved the trial from Santa Monica to downtown, because he knew
>    that he would get more African-American jurors in the juror pool. They
>    thought that there case was so strong. That even an all
>    African-American juror would convict OJ of murder. He didn't want a
>    predominate white jury from Santa Monica convicting OJ. He was trying
>    to not have race be an issue in the final verdict. 

  Well that's one theory on why he moved the trial. Another version I heard was
that he simply goofed thinking that since the grand jury was down town the
trial had to be down town. By the time he got that straight the case had
already been taken away form the grand jury, the preliminary hearing was set to
begin and it was too late to move back. 

  No doubt others have other reasons. I guess only Garcetti knows for sure why
he made the decision and I certainly wouldn't trust him to give an honest
answer so we will never know. At any rate that may have been the single most
important decision by the DA's office leading to the acquittal. Mark Fuhrman
was the other reason but there the DA's office had no choice.

  George

    
      Your statement was "I can't think of a time". "Think" not "remember".

>re:CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI
>O.J. really was the trial of the century.
>
>  George


trial of the century????  not hardly...  Nuremburg comes to mind.

RE     <<< Note 171.557 by CSC32::MACGREGOR "Colorado: the TRUE mid-west" >>>

>    The OJ trial won't even be the biggest of the year, nevermind the
>    decade and certainly not the decades defining event.  The biggest trial
>    of the year is currently in the Supreme Court.  The right to assisted
>    suicides.
    
  The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal, not conducting a trial. All they do
is read briefs and hear arguments from lawyers. No witnesses testify, no facts
are brought into evidence, it's strictly a review of the way in which the law
was applied in the court of original jurisdiction. 
    
RE            <<< Note 171.560 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "Bang! Bang! Bang!" >>>

>      Your statement was "I can't think of a time". "Think" not "remember".

  Still, how can it be the trial of the century? Also, I notice that you keep
ignoring the fact that I excluded political overthrows, an attempt at which
that clearly was, despite how peaceful it may have been.

>   <<< Note 171.561 by ALASKA::LAFOSSE "WHEN THE BULLET HITS THE BONE..." >>>

trial of the century????  not hardly...  Nuremburg comes to mind.

  Nuremburg was a series of trials, not just one trial.

  George

    
>> trial of the century????  not hardly...  Nuremburg comes to mind.
>
>  Nuremburg was a series of trials, not just one trial.
    
    There you have it... OJ walks on a technicality...
    
    
    glenn
    

Can I get a *yawn* from the congregation!

Wail we finally have something to pay some attention to.

We've sorta got us a_over/under now on how much OJ is worth.

Kinda like the budget talks where the Dems and Reps differ on how much,
the defense and offense are pretty far apart, too.

So the range has been published:

	OJ is either +$15.7 mil or -$9.3 mil

Kinda like the IMJIMBO tallies ;-]

TTom

      When I saw Nicole Brown's battered face and heard the 911 
      call, over time the need to see OJ as a nice guy vanished.
      I saw him as someone who *could* do it.
    
      As far as I'm concerned, had it been someone with no fame
      and muchless dollars, he would've been found guilty very
      quickly.
    
      fwiw, Jim Brown the football player thinks he did it.  This
      (the personal idea of OJ's guilt or innocence) doesn't always 
      cross racial lines.
    
    						Tony

    
    .fwiw, Jim Brown the football player thinks he did it.
    
    Good enough for me.  He's an expert regarding battering.

Has anyone thought to ask Bobby Cox?

Jim Brown disliked OJ long afore he allegedly kilt Nicole.

In any case he's certainly not the onliest black who opined on OJ's guilt
after the civil suit.

When OJ bought his not-guilty, the ranks seemed to be nearly unanimous. A
large percentage of whites said "guilty" and a large percentage of blacks
said "not guilty".

Personally, I found it truly disgusting that when the criminal verdicts
were read the blacks partied in the street and when the civil verdicts
were read the whites partied in the street.

We shore got us a long way to go on this race issue.

TTom

    
    
    > We shore got us a long way to go on this race issue.
    
    
    
    You said a mouthful there TTom!!!
    
    
    Chap

Once upon a time, sprots was a heroic pursuit. Sure, the stars had their
problems which weren't always published. But I remember growing up
confident that there was not a finer human being in the land than the
likes of Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Bart Starr, Bob Gibson and many, many
more.

I looked up to these people not just as athletes but as role models for
how people oughta be. Now, these are few and far between.

So one of the real tragedies here is that I'm sure many fans thought the
same of OJ. When he was playing, his performance and behavior, at least
publicly as far as we knew, was exemplary. There was no doubt that he was
the star but he seemed to quietly and with a great deal of pride and
dignity do what was asked of him by his team.

And now this.

TTom

    This just in -

    Each family is to receive $12.5M ($25M total) in punitive damages.

    Verdicts are not unanimous.

    OJ's out $33.5M total.

    Don't believe OJ was in the court, but was hard at work at one of the
    local golf courses looking for the real killers.  Surprised that the
    murder rate on LA area golf courses isn't higher seeing as this seems
    to be the place that slasher suspects hang out (according to OJ).

    UMDan
    

    I heard today that OJ can't file a bankruptcy for damages from this
    kind of judgement.  He can borrow on his retirement money but if he's
    caught spending other monies that he can't account for he could be in
    trouble.  

    
    Wait a minute... I thought the Browns were NOT part of the civil suit. 
    How could they collect ANY punitive damages?
    
    Marc
    

RE     <<< Note 171.575 by CSC32::MACGREGOR "Colorado: the TRUE mid-west" >>>

>    Wait a minute... I thought the Browns were NOT part of the civil suit. 
>    How could they collect ANY punitive damages?
    
  The Browns were not part of the negligent homicide claim so they get no
significant part of the $8.5 million in compensatory damages however they were
part of the battery claim. Since the jury ruled that the battery of Ron and
Nicole was done with malice they were eligible for a share of the "Punies". 

  One problem on the horizon for the Browns is that under California law there
are guidelines for punitive damages. One of those guidelines says that the
punitive damages awarded have to bear some relation to the compensatory
damages. 

  Unlike Compensatory damages for negligent homicide which are pretty much open
ended, compensatory damages from a battery charge are limited to immediate
costs of the battery which the pundits are claiming consists of Nicole's $200
dress. Since the rule of thumb is that punitive damages are about 2-5 times
compensatory damages the $1.2 million is way out of line. Some of the other
factors may come in to play but the only way that $1.2 million will stand will
be if the courts completely ignore that part of the law. 

  Oddly enough, it may not be O.J. who objects to the Browns share of the
money. Since the laws regarding who gets paid first are at best murky he might
actually try to stiff the Goldmans by giving any money he has left to the
Browns who were suing on behalf of O.J.'s kids. If that happens then it might
be the Goldmans, not O.J. who try to argue that the Brown's $1.2 million is not
in line with the $200 of compensatory damages for the battery. Then again the
Goldmans have said that the money doesn't really matter so maybe they will
let it slide.

  George

    It's 12.5 million for each side, a total of 25 million in punitive,
    plus 8.5 compensatory for a total of 33.5 million.

Like someone said, these were not unanimous decisions.

Since the verdict was reached, one of the jurists was dismissed. The
alternate who replaced that jurist is black and voted against both
awards.

The divisiveness continues.

TTom

  O.J. wins one

    Even with his legal problems, O.J. Simpson ranks as a better
    pitchman than figure skater Tonya Harding for endorsing or
    advertising sports products. She's the only one he outranks.
    Almost 4,000 adults and youngsters over 13 were asked in the
    American Sports Data survey to rate 84 celebrity athletes, active
    and retired, on their effectiveness in influencing consumer
    purchase decisions. Simpson was 83rd and Harding 84th. Michael
    Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal were rated the most effective. 

 Goldman offers settlement money for Simpson confession
    
    By the Associated Press, 02/12/97 
    
    SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) _ Fred Goldman offered today to give up all
    claims to O.J. Simpson's millions in exchange for a signed, detailed
    confession to be broadcast and published across the country. 
    
    ``I don't want to play games,'' Goldman told The Associated Press in a
    telephone interview. ``But if he wanted to sign a confession with all
    the details of his crime and broadcast it all over the country and
    publish it all over the nation, I would drop the judgment.'' 
    
    Goldman added, ``All I ever wanted is justice. It's never been an issue
    about money.'' 
    
    Calls left for Simpson's attorneys were not immediately returned. 
    
    Goldman first issued the challenge Tuesday during an interview on Salem
    Radio Network, a Dallas-based, Christian talk network. 
    
    ``There was a talk show host here in L.A. that offered an idea
    yesterday on air and I'm going to steal it from him,'' Goldman told
    radio host Mark Gilman on the Alan Keyes Show. 
    
    ``The suggestion is that if the person, whose name I don't use, that
    murdered my son wants to write out a complete confession and publish it
    in newspapers around the country, we'll be glad to ignore the judgment.
    That will never happen,'' Goldman told the radio audience. 
    
    Gilman asked if it was that simple. 
    
    ``Easy to say, easy to do, never going to happen,'' Goldman said.
    ``This person hasn't owned responsibility for any of his actions
    through his lifetime.'' 
    
    On Feb. 4, a civil jury found Simpson liable for the June 12, 1994,
    killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Compensatory and
    punitive damages of $33.5 million were awarded, but those could still
    be changed by the judge. 
    
    Goldman's share of the award includes $12.5 million in punitive damages
    and $8.5 million in compensatory damages to be split with his ex-wife,
    Sharon Rufo. 
    
    Ms. Simpson's estate, whose beneficiaries are the two children she had
    with Simpson, gets $12.5 million in punitive damages. 
    
    If the awards are upheld by the courts through the many expected
    defense challenges, Simpson will spend his lifetime with lawyers and
    legal documents. 
    
    Simpson's legal team will likely start by trying to delay payment of
    the while they seek a new trial and reduction of the award, legal
    experts said. 
    
    In a brief conversation with the AP on Tuesday, Simpson acknowledged
    that his case has a long way to go. ``Obviously, I have feelings. But
    this is far from over.'' 
    
    Simpson said he was reserving comment until later because, ``I don't
    want to join in this circus atmosphere that's out there at this time.'' 
    
    Later Tuesday, Simpson, an avid golfer, played 18 holes at a local
    course. 
    
    While Simpson played, his chief lawyer, Robert Baker, remained silent
    about how he plans to fight the judgments. The $33.5 million total is
    more than double what even Simpson's accusers predicted he could ever
    pay. 
    
    Before week's end lawyers for the plaintiffs who sued Simpson for
    wrongful death said they will file a document to be signed by Judge
    Hiroshi Fujisaki entering the judgment against Simpson. That would
    finalize the verdicts against Simpson. 
    
    Baker is expected to ask Fujisaki to set aside the verdict, order a new
    trial or reduce the award. 

I like Fred's style. If I'm OJ I sign and hang on to my cash....

yeah, but like ol' Fred said, it'll never happen.

TTom