spot;1008940 wrote: Nobody has argued that the properties in the hotel room weren't things which had been stolen from OJ and which, if he had them in his possession again, could never be taken back from him by a court. He needed possession of them to enforce his ownership.
To refer to what happened as kidnap is just a twist of legal argument. He went into the room with enough muscle to retrieve his own goods. That entailed preventing the occupants from leaving. Call it kidnap if you want to.
Similarly, to describe taking back his own property into his own hands as robbery is the sort of thing that gives courts a bad name. Robbery is taking something that doesn't belong to you.
This entire case was set up to do justice in the same way that a lynch party does justice. What was on trial wasn't the hotel room incident, it was an expression of America's righteous indignation at the not guilty verdict 13 years before. The drivel in this thread about "he was obviously guilty of those murders" is what he's being sent to jail for.
Who on earth would want to live in a country run on those lines?
I the property was rightfully his and he could have subsequently proven that in a court of law then he should not be doing armed robbery to recover them, he should have used due legal process.
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
Bryn Mawr;1008958 wrote: I the property was rightfully his and he could have subsequently proven that in a court of law then he should not be doing armed robbery to recover them, he should have used due legal process.
There are times when due legal process doesn't result in the return of goods. X owns it, Y steals it, Z buys it in good faith, courts are then very reluctant to order Z to return it to X especially if Z's then sold the item on. Obviously X can get the financial value of the goods from Y through court action but he can't get the goods themselves. If, on the other hand, the goods come into X's hands once more, no court will order him to part with them. It's where "possession is nine tenths of the law" originated.
There are times when due legal process doesn't result in the return of goods. X owns it, Y steals it, Z buys it in good faith, courts are then very reluctant to order Z to return it to X especially if Z's then sold the item on. Obviously X can get the financial value of the goods from Y through court action but he can't get the goods themselves. If, on the other hand, the goods come into X's hands once more, no court will order him to part with them. It's where "possession is nine tenths of the law" originated.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
Sorry to just diverse from O.J. Spot and Byrn, If Paul Gadd were to commit a similar related crime in this country, do you think he'd get a fair trial based on his former trial overseas?
I think there is a similar vein to them both in that instance.
I think there is a similar vein to them both in that instance.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
oscar;1008977 wrote: Sorry to just diverse from O.J. Spot and Byrn, If Paul Gadd were to commit a similar related crime in this country, do you think he'd get a fair trial based on his former trial overseas?
I think there is a similar vein to them both in that instance.
Oddly enough yes, I'm sure a jury in this country would bend over backward to be fair and accurate in dealing with him if he were up before them. I'm quite sure no prosecution would be railroaded through an English jury trial either, it would be on solid evidence or not at all. The people who do the railroading in England are those trashy papers from the newsagents.
There have been times in England where blacks were less likely to get a fair shout, more recently Muslims. I could document that from statistics if asked. Those are short-term aberrations and even at the height of public outrage the police and prosecution are going to get a very hard time if they appear to be relying on a jury's sympathy, they'll never get that and a good thing too. An English jury takes a lot of convincing, and I'd say that's even more the case if the defendant's been pilloried rather than less so.
I can think of two cases where juries were, I think, too keen to find anyone guilty rather than say no. The chap convicted of killing Jill Dando, a pretty loathsome fellow all round but then, that's why the police put him forward for the killing. The other is Michael Stone, put away for axing that family of three and leaving the elder girl, Josie Russell, brain-damaged. The evidence against either of them was dreadfully weak.
I think there is a similar vein to them both in that instance.
Oddly enough yes, I'm sure a jury in this country would bend over backward to be fair and accurate in dealing with him if he were up before them. I'm quite sure no prosecution would be railroaded through an English jury trial either, it would be on solid evidence or not at all. The people who do the railroading in England are those trashy papers from the newsagents.
There have been times in England where blacks were less likely to get a fair shout, more recently Muslims. I could document that from statistics if asked. Those are short-term aberrations and even at the height of public outrage the police and prosecution are going to get a very hard time if they appear to be relying on a jury's sympathy, they'll never get that and a good thing too. An English jury takes a lot of convincing, and I'd say that's even more the case if the defendant's been pilloried rather than less so.
I can think of two cases where juries were, I think, too keen to find anyone guilty rather than say no. The chap convicted of killing Jill Dando, a pretty loathsome fellow all round but then, that's why the police put him forward for the killing. The other is Michael Stone, put away for axing that family of three and leaving the elder girl, Josie Russell, brain-damaged. The evidence against either of them was dreadfully weak.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
spot;1008986 wrote: Oddly enough yes, I'm sure a jury in this country would bend over backward to be fair and accurate in dealing with him if he were up before them. I'm quite sure no prosecution would be railroaded through and English jury trial either, it would be on solid evidence or not at all. The people who do the railroading in England are those trashy papers from the newsagents.
There have been times in England where blacks were less likely to get a fair shout, more recently Muslims. I could document that from statistics if asked. Those are short-term aberrations and even at the height of public outrage the police and prosecution are going to get a very hard time if they appear to be relying on a jury's sympathy, they'll never get that and a good thing too. An English jury takes a lot of convincing, and I'd say that's even more the case if the defendant's been pilloried rather than less so.
I can think of two cases where juries were, I think, too keen to find anyone guilty rather than say no. The chap convicted of killing Jill Dando, a pretty loathsome chap all round but then, that's why the police put him forward for the killing. The other is the chap put away for axing that family of three on a common and leaving the elder girl brain-damaged. The evidence against either of them was dreadfully weak.
I'm sure your correct on Paul Gadd. Fleet Street would jump on him and possibly sway public opinion as in O.J.'s case here. If Gadd commited another offence in this country, to our public, he'd just HAVE to be guilty wouldn't he? As you say, our jury's would not ride the coat-tails of Police and Prosecution. I'd be very interested if you started a thread on his former trial, if you have anything solid on it. He's world known now, he'd be interesting not just to us in Britain.
I never believed the prosecution had anything solid on Barry George other than he was a prolific stalker. That's not a murderer. An abhorant man all the same.
I can not comment on the three on a common as i'm not familiar with that case.
What are your thoughts Bryn?
There have been times in England where blacks were less likely to get a fair shout, more recently Muslims. I could document that from statistics if asked. Those are short-term aberrations and even at the height of public outrage the police and prosecution are going to get a very hard time if they appear to be relying on a jury's sympathy, they'll never get that and a good thing too. An English jury takes a lot of convincing, and I'd say that's even more the case if the defendant's been pilloried rather than less so.
I can think of two cases where juries were, I think, too keen to find anyone guilty rather than say no. The chap convicted of killing Jill Dando, a pretty loathsome chap all round but then, that's why the police put him forward for the killing. The other is the chap put away for axing that family of three on a common and leaving the elder girl brain-damaged. The evidence against either of them was dreadfully weak.
I'm sure your correct on Paul Gadd. Fleet Street would jump on him and possibly sway public opinion as in O.J.'s case here. If Gadd commited another offence in this country, to our public, he'd just HAVE to be guilty wouldn't he? As you say, our jury's would not ride the coat-tails of Police and Prosecution. I'd be very interested if you started a thread on his former trial, if you have anything solid on it. He's world known now, he'd be interesting not just to us in Britain.
I never believed the prosecution had anything solid on Barry George other than he was a prolific stalker. That's not a murderer. An abhorant man all the same.
I can not comment on the three on a common as i'm not familiar with that case.
What are your thoughts Bryn?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
oscar;1008997 wrote: I'm sure your correct on Paul Gadd. Fleet Street would jump on him and possibly sway public opinion as in O.J.'s case here. If Gadd commited another offence in this country, to our public, he'd just HAVE to be guilty wouldn't he? As you say, our jury's would not ride the coat-tails of Police and Prosecution. I'd be very interested if you started a thread on his former trial, if you have anything solid on it. He's world known now, he'd be interesting not just to us in Britain.
It's the simplest of tales. Nobody but a total fruitcake could take his own laptop into PC World at Cribbs Causeway and ask for it to be mended, knowing that the hard drive had directories full of very illegal imagery he'd trawled off the Internet. That's precisely what he did, he served two months in Horfield for it and ever since he's been witlessly trying to arrange come-back tours (he being a 70s icon of glam rock) and emigrate to where he thought he'd be left to his own carnal desires.
Fleet Street chased him through Spain, Cuba, Cambodia, and Vietnam where he was jailed again - Vietnam's wonderfully prudish - for something indecent that involved underage girls but didn't qualify as sex. He's reached the stage where the Sun will reprint his photo every year whether he twitches a muscle or not, just as they did with Myra Hindley. He's what we call round these parts a bit of a Wally.
It's the simplest of tales. Nobody but a total fruitcake could take his own laptop into PC World at Cribbs Causeway and ask for it to be mended, knowing that the hard drive had directories full of very illegal imagery he'd trawled off the Internet. That's precisely what he did, he served two months in Horfield for it and ever since he's been witlessly trying to arrange come-back tours (he being a 70s icon of glam rock) and emigrate to where he thought he'd be left to his own carnal desires.
Fleet Street chased him through Spain, Cuba, Cambodia, and Vietnam where he was jailed again - Vietnam's wonderfully prudish - for something indecent that involved underage girls but didn't qualify as sex. He's reached the stage where the Sun will reprint his photo every year whether he twitches a muscle or not, just as they did with Myra Hindley. He's what we call round these parts a bit of a Wally.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
spot;1009019 wrote: It's the simplest of tales. Nobody but a total fruitcake could take his own laptop into PC World at Cribbs Causeway and ask for it to be mended, knowing that the hard drive had directories full of very illegal imagery he'd trawled off the Internet. That's precisely what he did, he served two months in Horfield for it and ever since he's been witlessly trying to arrange come-back tours (he being a 70s icon of glam rock) and emigrate to where he thought he'd be left to his own carnal desires.
Fleet Street chased him through Spain, Cuba, Cambodia, and Vietnam where he was jailed again - Vietnam's wonderfully prudish - for something indecent that involved underage girls but didn't qualify as sex. He's reached the stage where the Sun will reprint his photo every year whether he twitches a muscle or not, just as they did with Myra Hindley. He's what we call round these parts a bit of a Wally.
I remember the "Cribbs Causeway" PC World, or maybe that was his own arrogance or delusion that he was not actually breaking the law?
He was in the news again very recently. I believe he was trying to get to his yacht to get out via Spain to Cuba. France and Spain have forbidden his entry and foiled him.
I never went for the Glam rock bit. I have to say that i did love "Rock n Roll Part Two" by him in the 70's but by then i was very heavilly into "The Stranglers".
Fleet Street chased him through Spain, Cuba, Cambodia, and Vietnam where he was jailed again - Vietnam's wonderfully prudish - for something indecent that involved underage girls but didn't qualify as sex. He's reached the stage where the Sun will reprint his photo every year whether he twitches a muscle or not, just as they did with Myra Hindley. He's what we call round these parts a bit of a Wally.
I remember the "Cribbs Causeway" PC World, or maybe that was his own arrogance or delusion that he was not actually breaking the law?
He was in the news again very recently. I believe he was trying to get to his yacht to get out via Spain to Cuba. France and Spain have forbidden his entry and foiled him.
I never went for the Glam rock bit. I have to say that i did love "Rock n Roll Part Two" by him in the 70's but by then i was very heavilly into "The Stranglers".
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
spot;1008968 wrote: There are times when due legal process doesn't result in the return of goods. X owns it, Y steals it, Z buys it in good faith, courts are then very reluctant to order Z to return it to X especially if Z's then sold the item on. Obviously X can get the financial value of the goods from Y through court action but he can't get the goods themselves. If, on the other hand, the goods come into X's hands once more, no court will order him to part with them. It's where "possession is nine tenths of the law" originated.
If Z bought it in good faith and the law would uphold his right to keep it then X is doubly in the wrong to break into Z's property to threaten him and take it from him - he should have sought restitution from Y through the courts.
If Z bought it in good faith and the law would uphold his right to keep it then X is doubly in the wrong to break into Z's property to threaten him and take it from him - he should have sought restitution from Y through the courts.
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
spot;1008154 wrote: That general opinion - and I'm sure it's general - is why it was never remotely possible for him to get a fair trial in the USA. I'm continually amazed that opinions are regarded by the people who hold them with anything but the deepest doubt and suspicion, and yet they carry rock-solid conviction. It baffles me why that should be so.
Why ?
His trial was clouded by the aftermath of the LA riots and that jury made a statement by exonerating him.
Justice was not served in two brutal murders.
Truth is I doubt many care whether he got a fair trial.
Why ?
His trial was clouded by the aftermath of the LA riots and that jury made a statement by exonerating him.
Justice was not served in two brutal murders.
Truth is I doubt many care whether he got a fair trial.
I AM AWESOME MAN
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
You rather make my point for me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
Bryn Mawr;1009064 wrote: If Z bought it in good faith and the law would uphold his right to keep it then X is doubly in the wrong to break into Z's property to threaten him and take it from him - he should have sought restitution from Y through the courts.
You're ignoring that Y is incapable of making restitution, all he can do - at best - is make recompense.
You're also assuming that the identity of Y is known.
You're ignoring that Y is incapable of making restitution, all he can do - at best - is make recompense.
You're also assuming that the identity of Y is known.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
spot;1009089 wrote: You're ignoring that Y is incapable of making restitution, all he can do - at best - is make recompense.
You're also assuming that the identity of Y is known.
So a person or persons unknown have stolen his balls and sold them to an innocent third party.
Because the courts won't order that third party to give / sell them back it's OK for him to stage an armed break in to steal them?
No way!
You're also assuming that the identity of Y is known.
So a person or persons unknown have stolen his balls and sold them to an innocent third party.
Because the courts won't order that third party to give / sell them back it's OK for him to stage an armed break in to steal them?
No way!
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
I disapprove of the armed. Had the rooms been empty I don't think I take exception to the removal of the goods. I still think the case was egged out of recognition by throwing the largest charges at it that could be considered. Like, as we said, kidnap.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
spot;1009128 wrote: I disapprove of the armed. Had the rooms been empty I don't think I take exception to the removal of the goods. I still think the case was egged out of recognition by throwing the largest charges at it that could be considered. Like, as we said, kidnap.
I think here in Britain, with a jury, he would have been aquitted.
I think here in Britain, with a jury, he would have been aquitted.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
Waiting for sentencing or not, isolated from other prisoners.....
He should have been fed to the prisoners!
Monday, October 6, 2008
TorontoA few clouds5°Tomorrow »Sunny14°/ 3°Change city
News World
O.J. isolated in jail until sentencing
'Very special precautions' to make sure convicted robber safe
By LINDA DEUTSCH, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 6th October 2008, 3:41am
LAS VEGAS -- O.J. Simpson is being isolated from other prisoners for his own safety, and is focusing on a motion for a new trial and a strong bid for appellate reversal of his conviction for kidnapping and robbery, his lawyer said yesterday.
Yale Galanter said he will continue to pursue a request for Simpson to be released on bond pending appeal.
Meanwhile, Galanter said Simpson will be living a lonely life, told by his lawyers to do no media interviews and allowed to see only family members and a few friends placed on a special list at the jail.
Simpson will be held in Clark County Detention Center until his Dec. 5 sentencing. He is then expected to be transferred to state prison. Because of the seriousness of the charges, it is likely that Simpson would remain in jail during his appeal.
"He is in isolated custody and being protected from other inmates," Galanter said aboard a plane as he prepared to return to his Miami office. "The jail is taking very special precautions to make sure he is safe."
Galanter said that this will make for a difficult incarceration for the gregarious Simpson, because "it limits his contacts with other humans."
The lawyer said Simpson was okay during a jail visit Saturday at which they discussed plans for the case. "He's disappointed and a bit melancholy."
Galanter said the appeal cannot be filed until after Simpson is sentenced.
"We are planning to fast track that as much as possible," he said.
The 61-year-old Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering five men a year ago and storming a room at a hotel-casino to seize Simpson sports mementoes -- including game balls, plaques and photos -- from two collectors. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one testified Simpson had asked him to bring a gun.
Galanter said he believes Simpson has a strong argument for reversal of his conviction because of legal errors made during the trial, beginning with the jury selection process.
JURY SELECTION RIPPED
He said issues to be raised on appeal will include the elimination of all African-Americans from the jury and the inclusion of jurors who believed that Simpson should have been convicted of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in a 1995 Los Angeles trial.
Juror Fred Jones acknowledged to the Los Angeles Times that he thought Simpson killed his ex-wife and her friend, but said he put that aside when considering the Las Vegas case. "We went out of our way not to mention that. That was never, never in our thoughts."
Jury Foreman Paul Connelly said the murders "really didn't come up" as the jury deliberated.
"I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that it did not affect the verdict," he said.
He should have been fed to the prisoners!
Monday, October 6, 2008
TorontoA few clouds5°Tomorrow »Sunny14°/ 3°Change city
News World
O.J. isolated in jail until sentencing
'Very special precautions' to make sure convicted robber safe
By LINDA DEUTSCH, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 6th October 2008, 3:41am
LAS VEGAS -- O.J. Simpson is being isolated from other prisoners for his own safety, and is focusing on a motion for a new trial and a strong bid for appellate reversal of his conviction for kidnapping and robbery, his lawyer said yesterday.
Yale Galanter said he will continue to pursue a request for Simpson to be released on bond pending appeal.
Meanwhile, Galanter said Simpson will be living a lonely life, told by his lawyers to do no media interviews and allowed to see only family members and a few friends placed on a special list at the jail.
Simpson will be held in Clark County Detention Center until his Dec. 5 sentencing. He is then expected to be transferred to state prison. Because of the seriousness of the charges, it is likely that Simpson would remain in jail during his appeal.
"He is in isolated custody and being protected from other inmates," Galanter said aboard a plane as he prepared to return to his Miami office. "The jail is taking very special precautions to make sure he is safe."
Galanter said that this will make for a difficult incarceration for the gregarious Simpson, because "it limits his contacts with other humans."
The lawyer said Simpson was okay during a jail visit Saturday at which they discussed plans for the case. "He's disappointed and a bit melancholy."
Galanter said the appeal cannot be filed until after Simpson is sentenced.
"We are planning to fast track that as much as possible," he said.
The 61-year-old Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for gathering five men a year ago and storming a room at a hotel-casino to seize Simpson sports mementoes -- including game balls, plaques and photos -- from two collectors. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one testified Simpson had asked him to bring a gun.
Galanter said he believes Simpson has a strong argument for reversal of his conviction because of legal errors made during the trial, beginning with the jury selection process.
JURY SELECTION RIPPED
He said issues to be raised on appeal will include the elimination of all African-Americans from the jury and the inclusion of jurors who believed that Simpson should have been convicted of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in a 1995 Los Angeles trial.
Juror Fred Jones acknowledged to the Los Angeles Times that he thought Simpson killed his ex-wife and her friend, but said he put that aside when considering the Las Vegas case. "We went out of our way not to mention that. That was never, never in our thoughts."
Jury Foreman Paul Connelly said the murders "really didn't come up" as the jury deliberated.
"I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that it did not affect the verdict," he said.
Life is just to short for drama.
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
spot;1009128 wrote: I disapprove of the armed. Had the rooms been empty I don't think I take exception to the removal of the goods. I still think the case was egged out of recognition by throwing the largest charges at it that could be considered. Like, as we said, kidnap.
JAB;1009517 wrote: I read somewhere that OJ took matters in his own hands to try and retrieve his items because he didn't trust the American judicial system to force the matter. Kinda ironic since it was that same system that helped get him off the first time around.
The problem with this whole thing is that these things he went to retrieve weren't actually his. He was taken to civil court by the Goldman and Brown families and was found guilty (you don't need to prove beyond a resonable doubt in civil cases). Since his home couldn't be touched by law, he was ordered to turn over all his trophies, rings etc from his football years to the families so they could sell them to get some compensation. Before authorities came to collect the possesions he gave a lot of them to a friend to safe keep for him. The friend in turn tried to sell them. These things all belong to the Goldman and Brown families...neither Simpson or the guy trying to sell them have no claim to the things. The Goldmans even went into court and got an order for all royalties from his book be given to them.
JAB;1009517 wrote: I read somewhere that OJ took matters in his own hands to try and retrieve his items because he didn't trust the American judicial system to force the matter. Kinda ironic since it was that same system that helped get him off the first time around.
The problem with this whole thing is that these things he went to retrieve weren't actually his. He was taken to civil court by the Goldman and Brown families and was found guilty (you don't need to prove beyond a resonable doubt in civil cases). Since his home couldn't be touched by law, he was ordered to turn over all his trophies, rings etc from his football years to the families so they could sell them to get some compensation. Before authorities came to collect the possesions he gave a lot of them to a friend to safe keep for him. The friend in turn tried to sell them. These things all belong to the Goldman and Brown families...neither Simpson or the guy trying to sell them have no claim to the things. The Goldmans even went into court and got an order for all royalties from his book be given to them.
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
Odie;1010082 wrote: Waiting for sentencing or not, isolated from other prisoners.....
He should have been fed to the prisoners
I couldn't agree more Odie!!
He should have been fed to the prisoners
I couldn't agree more Odie!!
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
I wonder if he thinks those items were worth going to jail for?
Forming characters! Whose? Our own or others? Both. And in that momentous fact lies the peril and responsibility of our existence.
Elihu Burritt
Elihu Burritt
-
Patsy Warnick
- Posts: 4567
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:53 am
OJ Simpson - Guilty!
Who cares what OJ thinks..? He's always thought HE was Above All..
OJ took advantage of his liberty's - should've been in prison in 1995.
What a fool
Patsy
OJ took advantage of his liberty's - should've been in prison in 1995.
What a fool
Patsy