Official OJ is Innocent Thread!

[Galileo]

Official OJ is Innocent Thread!

OJ witness says he took plea after 'revelation'

"He said Simpson also joked, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, unless you're O.J. Simpson," and advised him to get out of town.

After Alexander was arrested at the airport, he said prosecutors offered him a deal to testify for reduced charges.

After accepting, he said he tried to back out because he heard that another witness had been given immunity from prosecution and he wanted that, too.

Asked why he finally accepted the plea deal, he said, "I prayed on the matter and I had a revelation that I did something wrong, and the Bible told me I should go tell the truth." Galanter asked whether God had spoken to him, and he said yes. "So you needed divine intervention to take the deal?" asked the lawyer."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...2CkRAD93DFGM00

Witness: Someone shouted ‘put the gun down’ in O.J. Simpson hotel incident

When Fromong returned to the stand Tuesday morning, Glasso picked up where he left off the day before, zeroing in on some of the contradictions in Fromong’s accounts.

Fromong previously said both of the alleged gunmen, Michael McClinton and Walter Alexander, drew their weapons. As he testified this week, however, he said only one of the two guns was ever used.

The witness also told police that the men who entered the hotel room were black. However, two of the men in the entourage, Charles Ehrlich and Charles Cashmore, are white.

Other contradictions included whether or not he felt afraid during the confrontation –- he has said previously, while under oath, that he was scared during the altercation but on Tuesday told Stewart’s lawyer, Robert Lucherini, that he was not scared at the time –- and the description of the suspects, who he previously said physically resembled “thugs,” but also stated they “looked like businessmen” both in a statement to police and while on the stand Tuesday.

A visibly-annoyed Fromong defended his contradictions, saying he was on edge after the run-in with Simpson and his crew. “I was very nervous and upset,” Fromong said. “Some of my statements that evening were inconsistent.”

The defense alleged Fromong, along with Beardsley and the man who arranged their meeting with Simpson, Thomas Riccio, was money-hungry and looking for ways to cash in on the ordeal.

Glasso questioned Fromong’s ethics and asked him why he called a producer at the entertainment news program, “Inside Edition,” almost immediately after the alleged crime took place, before police or hotel security were even on the scene.

“You were doing that to profit off of this,” Galasso said. “You wanted big money.”

A day earlier, Fromong said it was Beardsley who gleefully mentioned that they would be able to sell their story for a considerable about of money.

At the time, Fromong said he disregarded the comment.

“My reply was I don’t give a ,” he said on Monday.

But the court heard a Fromong sing a different tune on Tuesday as the defense played an excerpt from an audio recording of the moments following the alleged robbery. On the tape, Fromong assures Beardsley and Riccio, “I’ll have Inside Edition down here before it’s tomorrow, I told them I want big money.”

The defense also asked Fromong why, if he wasn’t looking to profit off of the incident, he listed items on eBay and said in the product description that they were the same items as the ones Simpson allegedly stole from him.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008...returns-stand/

OJ IS INNOCENT!!!

[Galileo]

Simpson Case Witness Seeks Sponsorship
Riccio Selling Clothing Opportunities, Interview Pitches

POSTED: 8:05 am PDT September 2, 2008
UPDATED: 10:40 pm PDT September 2, 2008

EFFIN CRAZY!!!

LAS VEGAS -- A witness in the O.J. Simpson case is looking to profit from his role in the trial.

Thomas Riccio is offering himself up for sponsorships during the trial, which starts Monday.

For $5,000, Riccio will mention a product during television interviews his publicist is trying to schedule, according to a press release from his attorney. Another $5,000 will see him eating dinner at the sponsoring restaurant the evening he testifies, and he will appear in a 30-second ad for $1,000, the release said.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/17368315/detail.html

[Findog]

Old news:

http://www.plastic.com/article.html;...09/21/14155454

[Galileo]

Old news:

http://www.plastic.com/article.html;...09/21/14155454

INNOCENT!!!!!

[Findog]

INNOCENT!!!!!

From that article:

Simpson was ostensibly in Sin City to attend a wedding when he supposedly took part in an incident that now imperils his freedom. In this version of events offered up law enforcement authorities, OJ and his posse went to the hotel room on the pretext of brokering a deal with two longtime collectors, Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong. According to police reports, the collectors were compelled at gunpoint to hand over several valuable items, including the suit Simpson was wearing in the courtroom when a jury found him innocent of murdering his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman. An audiotape surfaced on TMZ.com in which an individual the prosecutors claim is Simpson can be heard screaming at the alleged victims, "You think you can steal my , mother ers?" Then after ordering that nobody be allowed to leave the room, "Simpson" began quoting from Ezekial 25:17:

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

After the recitation of the Bible verse, "Simpson" claimed he was hungry and demanded that Beardsley and Froming share with him their dinner, which consisted of takeout from a local In-N-Out fast-food restaurant. "OJ" can at this point be heard expressing satisfaction with the food, claiming "MMM, that IS a tasty burger!"

[Galileo]

From that article:

THERE IS NO CRIMINAL INTENT = NO CRIME!!!

[Galileo]

DRAMA AT SIMPSON TRIAL





O.J. SIMPSON's robbery and kidnapping trial descended into chaos on Thursday (25Sep08) when an alleged victim dismissed a main piece of evidence, and stated he did not want to press charges against the former American footballer.
Alfred Beardsley is one of two memorabilia collectors Simpson and a group of other men are accused of robbing in a Las Vegas hotel room in 2007.
But when called to give evidence against the 61-year-old on Thursday, Beardsley told the Las Vegas court, "I do not want to be here, I've made that clear for the past year. I have been going round and round the past year trying to get my name off of that complaint."
And when asked to authenticate a tape recording of the alleged heist, Beardsley accused Simpson's former friend Thomas Riccio - who handed the tape to the police - of editing it to remove chunks of dialogue.
Beardsley - currently serving a prison sentence for domestic violence - told the court, "I'm not authenticating it, considering the source. I can't authenticate it."
He did testify that Simpson and five men burst into his room at the Palace Station Hotel, when he was expecting to meet a wealthy buyer. He also confirmed two of the men were armed.
In his defence, Simpson claims he was retrieving stolen memorabilia and did not know the two men had guns.
He is facing twelve robbery and kidnapping charges and faces a life sentence if convicted. The trial continues.




09/26/2008 07:07:16 PM

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf...0trial_1081825

[Yonivore]

He did testify that Simpson and five men burst into his room at the Palace Station Hotel, when he was expecting to meet a wealthy buyer. He also confirmed two of the men were armed.

All that to only confirm the basis of the complaint?

In his defence, Simpson claims he was retrieving stolen memorabilia and did not know the two men had guns.

Pursuant to a civil court finding, all of O.J.'s assets belong to Mr. Goldman. They're not his to retrieve.

[Galileo]

All that to only confirm the basis of the complaint?


Pursuant to a civil court finding, all of O.J.'s assets belong to Mr. Goldman. They're not his to retrieve.

not all assets are subject to the civil order. No judge has ruled that OJ's stuff was Goldman's.

Also, the civil case is bull . OJ was found not guilty by the jury. The civil case put him in jeapardy a second time.

Also, OJ may have been planning to sell the stuff so he could pay Goldman.

[Yonivore]

not all assets are subject to the civil order. No judge has ruled that OJ's stuff was Goldman's.

Also, the civil case is bull . OJ was found not guilty by the jury. The civil case put him in jeapardy a second time.

The civil court judgement stands. It hasn't been reversed. It included all of O.J.'s memorabilia that was in his possession.

Double-jeopardy only applied to criminal prosecution.

Also, OJ may have been planning to sell the stuff so he could pay Goldman.

Oh, you're serious.

[DarkReign]

This is political forum material?

Really?

WGAF about The Juice. Dude murdered his of wife and her lover and got a way it.

The End.

[FromWayDowntown]

Also, the civil case is bull . OJ was found not guilty by the jury. The civil case put him in jeapardy a second time.

You might want to, oh I don't know, take a course in cons utional law or read discussions of jeopardy by those who have. It's absolutely false to say that any jeopardy attaches to a case seeking to establish civil liability. Simpson was placed in jeopardy by the State of California's attempt to prosecute him for capital murder -- and nothing else.

If you were right, a civil case by the Goldmans against Simpson -- one filed immediately before Simpson was indicted -- would have precluded a criminal prosecution.

That's beyond ridiculous.

[Galileo]

The civil court judgement stands. It hasn't been reversed. It included all of O.J.'s memorabilia that was in his possession.

Double-jeopardy only applied to criminal prosecution.


Oh, you're serious.

The Cons ution never says that double jeapardy doesn't apply to civil cases. It says you can't twice be out in jeapardy for the came offence, which is what happened to Simpson.

Simpson was found not guilty by the jury, so he couldn't have killed anyone.

Simpson a model citizen with a clean record and has never been convicted of a crime.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Cons ution never says that double jeapardy doesn't apply to civil cases. It says you can't twice be out in jeapardy for the came offence, which is what happened to Simpson.

Simpson was found not guilty by the jury, so he couldn't have killed anyone.

Simpson a model citizen with a clean record and has never been convicted of a crime.

So if the Goldmans had established civil liability against Simpson before the State failed to establish criminal liability, you'd argue that Simpson should be rotting in jail?

You champion some hopeless causes -- and offer some feeble justifications for your positions -- but this one has to take the cake.

[Galileo]

So if the Goldmans had established civil liability against Simpson before the State failed to establish criminal liability, you'd argue that Simpson should be rotting in jail?

You champion some hopeless causes -- and offer some feeble justifications for your positions -- but this one has to take the cake.

The civil case had bogus rules of evidence, it made an end run around the U.S. Cons ution. Evidence the jury found was planted against OJ, was re-used against OJ in the civil trial. Totally bogus!!

I'd like to see more respect for juries here. Juries decide. Convictions in the media are bogus!!!

[Yonivore]

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

Civil judgements do not put a person in jeopardy of life or limb. Only a criminal trial can result in such a verdict.

[FromWayDowntown]

The civil case had bogus rules of evidence, it made an end run around the U.S. Cons ution. Evidence the jury found was planted against OJ, was re-used against OJ in the civil trial. Totally bogus!!

I'd like to see more respect for juries here. Juries decide. Convictions in the media are bogus!!!

The jury in the civil trial did decide. It decided, from a preponderance of the evidence (as is true in just about every civil trial) that Mr. Simpson was liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

By the way, you've explained quite well precisely why civil trials create no jeopardy -- the burden of proof is substantially different and, in many instances, the rules of evidence are different as well. It has always been true that the consequences of criminal punishment have been deemed more harsh (deprivation of liberty or life) than the consequences of civil liability (generally, loss of money for causing injury to another). If jeopardy attached to a civil trial, the procedural safeguards involved in civil trials would be much, much greater. As you've noted, though, that's not the way things work.

[Galileo]

Civil judgements do not put a person in jeopardy of life or limb. Only a criminal trial can result in such a verdict.

That's BS, when we're talking about $30 million dollars. Your life savings is your life. Go back and read some James Madison, Joseph Story or James Kent.

[2centsworth]

Galileo,

OJ gets about $25k per month from protected assets. Dude is not hurting for money.

[Galileo]

The jury in the civil trial did decide. It decided, from a preponderance of the evidence (as is true in just about every civil trial) that Mr. Simpson was liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

By the way, you've explained quite well precisely why civil trials create no jeopardy -- the burden of proof is substantially different and, in many instances, the rules of evidence are different as well. It has always been true that the consequences of criminal punishment have been deemed more harsh (deprivation of liberty or life) than the consequences of civil liability (generally, loss of money for causing injury to another). If jeopardy attached to a civil trial, the procedural safeguards involved in civil trials would be much, much greater. As you've noted, though, that's not the way things work.

The criminal trial bankrupted OJ, so he could not defend himself properly in the civil trial. That alone makes the case illegitimate.

And again, the criminal jury found that most of the "evidence" against OJ was planted, yet the same "evidence" was used against him a second time in the civil trial.

No "evidence" from the criminal trial should have been admissible in the civil trial.

Finally, the current OJ trial is a TOTAL JOKE. I noticed you've tried to change the subject.

[ChumpDumper]

Has Galileo started his "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent!" thread yet?

[Galileo]

Galileo,

OJ gets about $25k per month from protected assets. Dude is not hurting for money.

You think $25K is enough to pay for a 6-week criminal trial that has dragged out a whole year already?

[ChumpDumper]

You think $25K is enough to pay for a 6-week criminal trial that has dragged out a whole year already?

Yes.

[Yonivore]

You think $25K is enough to pay for a 6-week criminal trial that has dragged out a whole year already?

If the man hadn't killed those people, he wouldn't be in this fix.

[Galileo]

Has Galileo started his "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent!" thread yet?

Has Chumpdumpster started a "Socrates and Joan of Arc are innocent!" thread yet!