OJ didnt do this either (riiiiiiight!)
 

he didnt do it I tell ya! :lol:

BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services

LAS VEGAS - Las Vegas police arrested O.J. Simpson on Sunday in connection with an alleged armed robbery of sports memorabilia, NBC News reported.

The arrest of the former football star followed questioning Sunday morning. Simpson has said the items, reportedly stolen from a hotel room earlier in the week, belonged to him, and police questioned him earlier in their investigation.

Another suspect was also arrested before Simpson. The man, detained Saturday night, was arrested on two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary with a deadly weapon, police Lt. Clint Nichols said. Two firearms were seized.

He was not identified. Nichols said police were seeking other suspects.

“There may be as many as five outstanding (suspects),” he said, confirming that Simpson was among those five.

Police executed two search warrants early Sunday morning on private residences, Nichols said. The weapons and other evidence were seized at the first location.

“It was evidence of a crime that was committed,” Nichols said. “And I believe we recovered some clothing that the individual was wearing in the commission of the robbery.”

The man is accused of being among a group of people that went to the room of memorabilia dealers at the Palace Station casino-hotel on Thursday and seized items. Simpson has said the items belonged to him, and police have questioned him once in their investigation.

'It just becomes a story about O.J.'
Simpson told The Associated Press on Saturday that he did he did not even consider calling the police to help reclaim personal items he believed were stolen from him, because he has found the police unresponsive when he needed help ever since his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, were killed in 1994.

Another suspect was also arrested before Simpson. The man, detained Saturday night, was arrested on two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary with a deadly weapon, police Lt. Clint Nichols said. Two firearms were seized.

“The police, since my trouble, have not worked out for me,” he said, noting that whenever he has called the police “It just becomes a story about O.J.”

“I’m at the point where I don’t rely on the police and this is not a police issue anyway,” he said, expressing hope that it will soon be resolved.

Simpson, 60, said he was just trying to retrieve memorabilia, particularly photos of his wife and children. There were no guns and no break-in, he said.

As police try to determine what happened in the hotel room, they must unravel the contorted relationships between the erstwhile athlete and a cadre of collectors that has profited from his infamy since the slayings of his ex-wife and Goldman. He was acquitted of murder in 1995, but was found liable for their deaths in a civil case.

that man is so pathetic. I'll just leave it at that.

Perhaps we'll get a "Leave OJ ALONE" video. He'll be out on bail in a New York minute.

Maybe he will come out with "There were different tracks on the bottom of my shoes" - line again?! LOLOLOL:shrug:

OJ is being charged with multiple (!!) felonies!!

laff out loud funny :nod:

borowitzreport

seeing him cuffed on the news gave me such pleasure~ i was reading mark furhman's (*sp) book on the oj murders & i had to stop, i was so angry at his obvious guilt & the investigation that let him off, talk about travesty:distress:~

I read Marcia Clark's book on the trial, as far as Im concerned, the L.A. DA's office was unfairly criticized as botching the prosecution, when in reality, the outcome of the case was pretty much decided when the defense was able to get that change of venue granted. OJ should have been tried by his ACTUAL peers (ie, the Beverly Hills crowd) not his hand-picked "race card" jurors IMO. That whole trial was a travesty.

for another editorial on that topic, go here
or just read it here!

The jury didn't have OJ try on those gloves.
The jury didn't bring Mark Furman as it's witness and have him lie under oath.

That "glove" demonstration was the most blatant bit of theatre in the whole mistrial.

What did Fuhrman "lie" about?

Regardless, the prosecution could have proved its case 10 times over and that jury would STILL have found him innocent. FACT.

This is true. It was payback for Rodney King verdict.

Furman lied about having used negative racial lanquage.

and yet the prosecution wasn't smart enough to realize that asking him to try them on would be a mistake. Anyone can make gloves look like they don't fit especially with an extra latex glove on. I am just refuting your original point that the prosecution was unjustly criticized. This combined with furman's lies was enough to trigger some folks "reasonable doubt" threshold and both were presented by the prosecution not the defense. I don't agree with these juror's conclusions but i can see their line of thinking that led them there.

Using racial slurs to begin with.
Many of these jurors don't trust the police to begin with, so why would you put up a cop that is so easily made to look shady? a bad decision.

you can not call that a fact. I am sorry. The fact is the prosecution made many mistakes that contributed to the innocent verdict.

A sound prosecution certainly had a chance at getting a guilty verdict. The jurors could have been presented with a cohesive prosecution instead of the one they were presented.

Though i do think that the Judge allowed some things to happen that made the prosecutor's job very difficult, I believe it was their case to lose.
I have read Marcia's book as well as furman's, Darden's, shapiro's etc etc . . .just so you know that i am not just winging this.
It is their job to REACH the jury no matter who comprises that jury, not just the beverly hill type juries.

Well I certainly believe the city was bubbling with racial tension, but i still believe the jury could have been reached if the truth were presented in a better fashion. Though once again I feel the need to state that Judge Ito bears much of the responsibility for the verdict as well.

Oh, ok. I wasnt sure if buckymcnix meant something a bit more substantial, but apparently not :shrug:

Fuhrman's use of racial slurs had no factual bearing on the case and was brought up solely to prejudice the jury and further solidify their intent to exonerate OJ. (as if there was ever any doubt). That doesnt excuse Ron's poor judgement, and Im not suggesting as much either.

edited to add:

I say again, that verdict was pre-destined the minute OJ managed to get a change of venue. The jury dynamics drastically changed once the case was moved to a different part of L.A. The majority of that jury was black. NO WAY were they going to convict OJ, even if evidence was stacked to the ceiling. OJ lived in Beverly Hills, associated with high society, and was generally seen as a status seeker all around. So, all of a sudden, he remembers he's BLACK when he's charged with a double homicide? I think he knew he would have been convicted and manipulated the system to avoid justice.

of course it did.
he was presented as someone who found a key piece of evidence.
he was also proven to be lying under oath.
why do you think that that shouldn't taint the other things he said or a juror's overall impression of his testimony?

Both prosecution and defense try to shake the credibility of the opposing side's witnesses. It is nothing new.

his use of racial slurs does not negate his finding of key evidence :shrug:
nor does it explain away the blood in OJ's car, the blood in OJ's house, the missing clothes, the fact that he had a disguise, and was planning to leave via airplane for other destinations, his threat of suicide, the knife, or any other HARD evidence. Does it account for what one of the kids saw/heard? NO. Does it explain away the fact that Nicole's breasts were slashed and her implants removed? NO.

Mark Fuhrman's use of racial slur had no bearing on anything other than to prejudice the jury as I said. If a jury could ignore all the other HARD evidence, and focus instead on the fact that a detective used racial slurs, then they werent concentrating on justice for two murdered people, but rather allowing themselves to be manipulated. No wonder attorneys think juries are stupid.

found this on a blog

It has to do with him LYING about his using racial slurs.
Under oath.
The rationale being that if he would lie about one thing, then he could be lying about another.

and it also came out that he also was telling an author how you can set people up in law enforcement. I am not saying that he actually did those things, but he certainly seemed to know alot about how to do it, and it was enough to push an already suspicious jury to the other side.

I didn't say it explained away anything other than that it triggered "reasonable doubt" for some of the jury who were already inherently suspicious of the police. The prosecution did a terrible job of explaining the point you are now making to the jury. which was my original point right? that the prosecution was justifiably criticized for it's case presentation.

none of the things you highlighted deal with him lying under oath.

I never said that I believed that he set up OJ or planted evidence, just that the prosecution did a piss poor job of rehabilitating him (i think marcia called him evil) once it was proven that he lied under oath, so i am not sure what point you are arguing with this post.

this bears repeating:

the blog highlights referred to just a fraction of the hard evidence, as well as the fact that Fuhrman was not the guilty party, OJ was. Pretty clever of the defense to put Fuhrman on trial eh? To cast doubt on HIS character or his actions as if he was somehow responsible??

AGAIN: that Jury was more than willing to be sit there and focus on something entirely OFF TOPIC so as not to have to face the sorry fact that one of "their own" had actually murdered two innocent people.

Thanks for all the details. It doesn't matter. OJ confessed confidentailly to Al Cowlings that he killed Nicole and Goldman. This has been broadcast on ESPN radio years ago. ESPN couldn't put this on national TV but could discuss on local radio talk shows....talk radio vs, hard news. Note: ESPN radio is not in all markets, mostly the big cities like NY, LA Atlanta, etc.

The book "If I did it" is a confession of just how Simpson did it. Who is worse..Simpson or this dog killer Michael Vick.:mad: Well Simpson of course, but he was already out of football. It seems like many NFL players are just plain thugs and criminals. I'll give the new NFL commissioner Roger Goodell a lot of credit..he is cracking down on thug behavior and suspending these guys from the league.

I'm hoping OJ goes to prison for this latest bizzare behavior.:(

I dont know that I'd say it doesnt matter, but I do believe (tho I didnt hear it on ESPN) that OJ confessed to Al, and that his book is another confession. I dont think he'll get any peace from it tho, because while he "confesses" with one side of his mouth, he denies with the other.

If he had a conscience, I'd expect it to be torturing him every waking moment of his life.

Who knows? perhaps he's just on a self destructive kick because he subconsciously believes he deserves it? :shrug:

Ok then - well this bears repeating:
He lied. He lied under oath in front of the jury. Hard Evidence. It wasn't clever of the defense to point this out because, as i stated, both defense and prosecution try to get at the opposing witnesses's credibility. Standard operating procedure. The prosecution should have expected it.

fuhrman was guilty of lying under oath.
the defense pointed it out.
the prosecution couldn't rehabilitate their own witness.
AGAIN- that was what we disagreed on, whether the prosecution did a good job or not. You said they were unjustifiably criticized. I didn't agree with you and feel that they are in many ways responsible for the innocent verdict.


Now you seem to want to shift the argument to the jury being clueless, easily manipulated and worried about the fate of "one of their own" over justice. I think the prosecution didn't reach them and when it did, it wasn't in a good way (the glove demo).

Maybe when the prosecution took a lying racist and put him under oath and then were surprised when it blew up in their faces proves as a good example of my original point - they blew it.

It is not "OFF TOPIC" to consider the consequences of a lying witness.
Can you really not see that?

again: it doesnt negate the REST of the prosecution's case. the knife, the blood, the trip down the freeway, the DV 911 calls, the threats, the disguise, etc.

Mark Fuhrman's credibility is only a SMALL piece of the whole pie. *edited out comment*

FYI: The prosecution didnt lose that case because of one compromised witness--there was no way in HELL the prosecution was going to reach THAT PARTICULAR JURY. The verdict was a done deal once the change of venue was granted. *edited out the "FACT" comment, because actually its my OPINION.*

I didn't claim to be better than anyone at all, but for the record, agreeing or not with you will NEVER be a rating scale in my life.

on topic:
i do not agree with the jury's conclusions, i am only saying that i can see how they got there. and my contention was the prosecution did a poor job presenting it's case and that played a hand in it. i believe that the change of venue changed the dynamics of the case but i do not hold the cynical view that the jury was only out to save "one of their own" and couldn't be reached.

You remove all blame from the prosecution and want to pin it solely on the jury as some form of racism. I disagree whole-heartedly. I believe there are plenty of reasons why the verdict came down as it did and not solely because of the change of venue.

I have really tried to have a reasoned discussion with you, but I really don't think you read or understand what i write, because i find myself repeating basic things.
That's all for me on this.

Im not asking you to agree with me, Im merely pointing out that that case was more than just Mark Fuhrman's gaffe. The jury couldnt get past it? I submit that it never mattered anyway, that with that jury, OJ was never in jeopardy. A ROOM full of evidence wouldnt have swayed that jury. IMO.

In the end, whether I stated it as such originally or not, I am only stating an OPINION. I edited my previous post to reflect that.

I found some interesting facts on OJ's jury From the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW: here


here is a nicely laid out page on the timeline/trial/etc:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../Evidence.html
an acquittal in spite of all this evidence proves my point that the prosecution would NEVER have "reached" that particular jury.
Back to the ORIGINAL topic, I wonder if OJ isnt operating under some sort of psychological impetus to atone for past wrongs???

Funny, but the last time I checked, O.J still owes the Goldman's/Brown's 33 million dollars. And if I'm correct whatever money or **** he owns save his home and NFL pension goes to those 2 families until that money is paid in full. So the way I see it, none of that memorabilia actually belongs to him!

Ron Goldman actually petitioned the court for possession, I believe....

You have the patience of Job!!!!!!!!!!

and poor eyesight too i guess - lol

oh well, I always liked Magoo :shrug:

yes - i am sure you meant it as a compliment and not an insult right?


and as to the question in your sig that points to the picture and asks "what is this?"

Any chance it is the not-quite-banned thread you are hanging on by around here?

why Job! you wouldnt be BAITING me by any chance would you????

tsk tsk. :distress:

perhaps if you'd supported your position with something a bit more substantial than "Fuhrman lied" I might have seen just why you felt like the prosecution deserved to be criticized.

I (as I usually do) went looking for material which supported my position. I found that many others, including Bugliosi (whom I quoted) agreed with me that the change of venue was the single most deciding factor in the outcome of that case. I actually came across some valid points that you failed to mention that would have perhaps given me reason to take another look at what you had to say. Unfortunately you did not go there. You committed the same sort of short-sighted(!!) error that that jury did. It was apparently easier for some folks to make Fuhrman the scapegoat.

I am willing to admit, after reading some of the material I found, that perhaps the DA's office could have done things differently, but then hindsight is usually 20/20. Ultimately, however, I still maintain, that no matter HOW the case was handled, regardless of the mountain of evidence, there was NO WAY OJ would have been convicted with THAT JURY.

cute sig by the way.

and: thats a wrap.