|
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
|
| |
| |
Although I'm not a lawyer,one would think that he could be charged
with one or more crimes...other than what one(s) he was placed on
trial for,assuming that the statute of limitations on that/those
crime(s) hasn't expired.
My hunch is that manslaughter is a crime that's closely enough
related to murder that he couldn't be tried for that...although
I certainly could be wrong.
Steve Kraus wrote:
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
|
| |
| |
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen?
Absolutely, Positively, _NOTHING_...
The People only get One Bite at The Apple... "The People"... a [Criminal]
Jury of the Piece O' Shit's Peers concluded that he was Not Guilty of the
Crime as charged... The People may not again Complain against the POS based
on the Same Set of Facts...
It's Done... Over... Period, End Of Story, NO Whining... The POS could
Dance Naked, Smoking Pot on top of The Empire State Building, Screaming in
English, French, Spanish, Italian, and Nyorsk "I DONE IT!!!! I KILT THE
BITCH!!! HA HA HA HAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaaa", to be called to account only for his
Pot Smoking, Naked Tresspassing...
If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
*Same Facts Giving Rise to The People's Case*... The People chose to
Prosecute the Actus Reus as "Murder", rather than Rape... Manslaughter...
Robbery... Sodomy... Larceny... Arson... Mayhem... or Burglary... ad
nauseam...
It's *Over*...
Naughtius "Double Jeopardy" Maximus
|
| |
| |
Steve Kraus wrote:
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
He did not do it.
My money is on little brother.
The day of the murder, little brother was known to have been in the area.
I recall seeing one picture of him on a news show and it was like he was
really pissed off at the camera man.
He suddenly disappears and the cops aren't even interested?
The reason I suspect little brother is, here's a guy who's been in the
family of a super star with a creamy white wife.
He goes over to the house, knowing big brother is leaving town.
He waits for big brother to leave.
At the time of the incident, at least Kato Kaelin, friend of Nicole's, and
OJ's daughter, Arnelle, were on the estate and had been awakened by the
police.
Neither of them were aware of the family owned dog barking before 11:00PM?
At @ 10:45 PM Kaelin, in his bungalow on the phone to his girl friend, hears
3 loud bangs that shake the bungalow.
He thinks it's an earthquake. He notices a car parked at the gate. He thinks
it's the limo OJ had ordered for the airport, but apparently, OJ had already
left. Was this car perhaps the one driven by little brother?
OJ returned to the house the next morning. Why would a guilty man do that?
Knowing that he would be arrested and charged on the spot?
A man who commits double murders, does not return to the scene of the crime
willingly.
During what appears to have been a rather heated struggle and confrontation,
OJ walks away with only a minor cut on his finger?
OJ is not a muscle man. The acts involved in this scenario requires someone
with a skill that OJ just does not have.
Nor does he have the temperment required, as little brother appears to have.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html?se
ct=7
Read the story yourself and you'll understand why I say OJ did not do it.
One other thing, who made the accusation that OJ was guilty?
Nicole's sister.
I still want to know why little brother was never interviewed.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:42 -0600, Steve Kraus
<screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
Probably nothing.
Double jeopardy would bar any prosecution for the murders or anything
related to the murders.
In theory, he could be prosecuted for perjury in the civil suit by the
Goldman family, but the statute of limitations might have expired on
that also. (I don't know the SOL for perjury in California.)
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
Steve Kraus <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message news:<4032685E.3820@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com>...
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
What you are suggesting is double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the
U.S. and most if not all state constitutions.
Theoretically, the feds could charge him with violating Nicole and
Goldman's civil rights, IMO doing so is double jeopardy, but the
courts have held otherwise. It is done often for white on black crime
where the white defendant was acquitted in state court, why not the
other way around?-Jitney
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:41:06 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
At the time of the incident, at least Kato Kaelin, friend of Nicole's, and
OJ's daughter, Arnelle, were on the estate and had been awakened by the
police.
Neither of them were aware of the family owned dog barking before 11:00PM?
Goodness, how quickly one forgets the facts of this case.
FWIW, the "barking family dog" (also named Kato) was found near
Brown-Simpson's house in _Bundy_, not at the _Rockingham_ estate.
There's a separation of at least 2 miles between the two houses.
This is discussed in the URL you give below.
At @ 10:45 PM Kaelin, in his bungalow on the phone to his girl friend, hears
3 loud bangs that shake the bungalow.
He thinks it's an earthquake. He notices a car parked at the gate. He thinks
it's the limo OJ had ordered for the airport, but apparently, OJ had already
left. Was this car perhaps the one driven by little brother?
The limo driver Alan Parks never denied his was the car Kaelin saw
outside his window at 10:45 p.m. Simpson, by his own testimony to
police, indicates he did not leave Rockingham with Parks to LAX until
after 11:00 p.m. See timeline at
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html
OJ returned to the house the next morning.
Assuming you mean the _night_ of the murders, Simpson claimed he was in
the house all along.
If you mean the time when he returned from Chicago, he returned to
Rockingham between 11:00 a.m. and 12:15 p.m., when he went with Lange to
the police station, as noted in your URL at
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/serve_4.html?sect=7
Why would a guilty man do that?
Look up the term "alibi."
Knowing that he would be arrested and charged on the spot?
A man who commits double murders, does not return to the scene of the crime
willingly.
Get real: what evidence did Simpson think at the time the police had on
him? Assuming the devil's advocate position of the DA's theory, here's
their scenario:
a) He's washed away all traces of blood from his person when he returned
to the Rockingham estate between 10:45 and 11:00 when he meets and
leaves with Parks;
b) he had disposed of the clothing and weapons between the Rockingham
estate and his eventual return from Chicago where he flew the night of
the murders, at 11:45 p.m.
c) He goes to Chicago, where he has ample opportunity to dispose of
weapon and/or clothing for approximately 10-12 hours (between 11:30 p.m
when Parks lets him off at LAX and his return from Chicago by 11:00 a.m.
the next day)
During what appears to have been a rather heated struggle and confrontation,
OJ walks away with only a minor cut on his finger?
OJ is not a muscle man. The acts involved in this scenario requires someone
with a skill that OJ just does not have.
Simpson was a trained athlete, and more importantly, at the time of the
murders, had trained with the Navy SEALS for a role in a movie about the
same. I assure you that the combined training and prowess was within
his capabilities.
Nor does he have the temperment required, as little brother appears to have.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html?se
ct=7
I see no evidence anywhere in this report about any reference to
Simpson "little brother." FWIW, Simpson has an older brother, Melvin
Truman Simpson and two sisters - one elder and one younger. He has no
"little brother."
http://edition.cnn.com/US/OJ/suspect/bio/
As to temperament to kill and/or harm, the evidence of the long-term
abuse of Brown-Simpson given at OJ's criminal and civil trials should be
taken as indicators of his ability to do violence as well.
Read the story yourself and you'll understand why I say OJ did not do it.
Your opinion, but not from this report you've given, IMO.
One other thing, who made the accusation that OJ was guilty?
Nicole's sister.
Meaning what, for instance?
I still want to know why little brother was never interviewed.
Possibly because he doesn't have one?
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Feb 2004 17:41:41 -0800, jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote:
Theoretically, the feds could charge him with violating Nicole and
Goldman's civil rights, IMO doing so is double jeopardy, but the
courts have held otherwise.
And who is "they"?
Obstruction of civil rights requires "color of law," which is usually
a policeman. In what way was OJ Simpson operating under "color of
law"?
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com>
wrote in message news:27f53017dbt5psfn36fp9u0adunikl401g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:41:06 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
Goodness, how quickly one forgets the facts of this case.
FWIW, the "barking family dog" (also named Kato) was found near
Brown-Simpson's house in _Bundy_, not at the _Rockingham_ estate.
There's a separation of at least 2 miles between the two houses.
This is discussed in the URL you give below.
The limo driver Alan Parks never denied his was the car Kaelin saw
outside his window at 10:45 p.m. Simpson, by his own testimony to
police, indicates he did not leave Rockingham with Parks to LAX until
after 11:00 p.m. See timeline at
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html
Assuming you mean the _night_ of the murders, Simpson claimed he was in
the house all along.
That's a new angle. How could he have been when his daughter called him in
Chicago?
If you mean the time when he returned from Chicago, he returned to
Rockingham between 11:00 a.m. and 12:15 p.m., when he went with Lange to
the police station, as noted in your URL at
And by this time the police had already been inside the house with search
warrant.
Shooting down your theory OJ was in the house.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/serve_4.html?se
ct=7
Look up the term "alibi."
If he had this planned, which would be prededitated murder, he would make
sure he had witnesses who would back up his claims. Of course, there is his
plane ticket which was used. So his departure time would have been verified
and checked thoroughly. Along with hia arrival in Chicago and the check in
at the hotel.
Get real: what evidence did Simpson think at the time the police had on
him? Assuming the devil's advocate position of the DA's theory, here's
their scenario:
a) He's washed away all traces of blood from his person when he returned
to the Rockingham estate between 10:45 and 11:00 when he meets and
leaves with Parks;
Totally impossible to do. Traces would have been discovered which would have
revealed an attempted "cleansing".
b) he had disposed of the clothing and weapons between the Rockingham
estate and his eventual return from Chicago where he flew the night of
the murders, at 11:45 p.m.
Possible, but extremely doubtful.
c) He goes to Chicago, where he has ample opportunity to dispose of
weapon and/or clothing for approximately 10-12 hours (between 11:30 p.m
when Parks lets him off at LAX and his return from Chicago by 11:00 a.m.
the next day)
3 hours flight time to Chicago, 8 hours of sleep, if he got it, and another
3 back.
Not to mention 2 hours minimum for driving between the airports.
So if he left the house at 11:00PM, and returned 12 hours later, that means
he maybe got 4 hours of sleep in.
A man who has not committed murder before just doesn't doze off to sleep
like it was part of the job.
Simpson was a trained athlete, and more importantly, at the time of the
murders, had trained with the Navy SEALS for a role in a movie about the
same. I assure you that the combined training and prowess was within
his capabilities.
OJ may have been trained but don't forget he also had knee problems which is
common among football players.
He was basically a tight end receiver which means he was running, which is
not what the big guys do.
Litlle brother, OTOH, appears to have the agility, youth, cockiness, and
bravado to pull off this scene on a moment's notice.
If this were preplanned, OJ would have been more convincing with a better
disposal of the bodies rather than just leave them lay as they were.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html?s
ect=7
I see no evidence anywhere in this report about any reference to
Simpson "little brother." FWIW, Simpson has an older brother, Melvin
Truman Simpson and two sisters - one elder and one younger. He has no
"little brother."
Ok. My "little brother" as I have been calling him is actually "Jason
Lamar".
I couldn't recall the name until I saw that.
So here's a guy in the prime of his youth at 24 who is watching out to see
what he can get out of all this mess.
He's related to this super fox and he has the hots for her.
Hell, they aren't that different age wise. 12 years or so. No big deal.
Besides being brother to Arnelle, who lives on the estate, he has even more
reason to be there.
Perhaps he enters the estate to see Arnelle.
Perhaps he wanted to talk to daddy but had just missed him so he makes his
way in to see Arnelle.
On the way in, he's confronted by Ron Goldman on his way out.
They have a heated discussion maybe about why Jason was there at such a late
hour.
One of them takes a swing at the other, Jason pulls a knife, and stabs
Goldman.
Nicole hearing the ruckus, comes out only to be caught up in it and winds up
dead as a result.
Kato hears the ruckus but by the time he gets outside, it's all over.
Jason sees Kato and hides until he goes back inside.
Why is the dog barking? Does a dog bark at familiar faces? No he does not.
With OJ being a regular guest in the house, the dog would not be barking at
him.
The dog would bark if an unfamiliar face was fighting with it's owner.
I know. I've raised a few dogs.
The odd question is, if Kaelin heard the banging noises, why didn't he hear
the dog barking?
The neighbors did.
OJ was booked and charged purely on the fact that he had been previously
arrested for ba
|
| |
| |
Steve Kraus <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:<4032685E.3820@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com>...
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
What you are suggesting is double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the
U.S. and most if not all state constitutions.
Theoretically, the feds could charge him with violating Nicole and
Goldman's civil rights, IMO doing so is double jeopardy, but the
courts have held otherwise. It is done often for white on black crime
where the white defendant was acquitted in state court, why not the
other way around?-Jitney
No it is no double jeopardy. In the light of new evidence, a case can be
reopened and the suspect recharged with the same offense.
Since the claim would be an admission of guilt, the courts could in fact
bring Simpson before the court without a trial.
Double jeopardy means, being charged AND tried twice for the same crime.
This means that a prosecutor could not refile charges later simply because
the jury found a person innocent the first time.
Scenario:
A person is a suspect in a murder case and is tried by the county and found
to be innocent.
After the case is over, it is discovered by some quirk, that the county had
no jurisdiction to try the case because the body was found on state or
federal property.
Or perhaps the body was actually in another county.
The state, or federal government can try the case a second time based upon
the discovery of the new evidence.
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote in message news:<c0v0jo02gk7@enews1.newsguy.com>...
[snip]
No it is no double jeopardy. In the light of new evidence, a case can be
reopened and the suspect recharged with the same offense.
Since the claim would be an admission of guilt, the courts could in fact
bring Simpson before the court without a trial.
Double jeopardy means, being charged AND tried twice for the same crime.
This means that a prosecutor could not refile charges later simply because
the jury found a person innocent the first time.
Scenario:
A person is a suspect in a murder case and is tried by the county and found
to be innocent.
After the case is over, it is discovered by some quirk, that the county had
no jurisdiction to try the case because the body was found on state or
federal property.
Or perhaps the body was actually in another county.
The state, or federal government can try the case a second time based upon
the discovery of the new evidence.
That is simply not so. New evidence does not allow the reopening of a
charge after jeopardy has attached once. The long-standing
constitutional standard, which the states are held to as well, is that
jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled, and a dismissal after
that usually prevents a retrial. The most common exception is when
there is a mistrial for procedural, rather than substantive, reasons.
With only a few unusual exceptions, an acquittal means that the person
cannot be retried for the same crime, not even if there is new
evidence: it is possible, but exceedingly rare, for a defendant to be
tried in different jurisdictions for the same crime; it is also
possible for the prosecution to appeal when the judge overrules the
jury and enters an acquittal after the jury had convicted.
Double jeopardy law is a tar pit of contrary decisions, but the
principle that a defendant cannot be retried for the same crime once
acquitted has stood about as firm as anything can.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
"Richard ""I'm Not A REAL Lawyer, BUT I Play One On TV"" <anonymous@127.000>
wrote in message news:c0v0jo02gk7@enews1.newsguy.com...
news:<4032685E.3820@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com>...
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
No it is no double jeopardy.
Yes, it *is* Double Jeopardy...
< In the light of new evidence, a case can be
reopened and the suspect recharged with the same offense.
Since the claim would be an admission of guilt, the courts could in fact
bring Simpson before the court without a trial.
This is The Most Hysterical Wishful Thinking Corruption of LONG SETTLED
Constitutional Principles and Case Law I have yet seen...
You have GOT to be a [FICTION] Writer for One Or Another flavor of "Law
And Order"...
Double jeopardy means, being charged AND tried twice for the same crime.
This means that a prosecutor could not refile charges later simply because
the jury found a person innocent the first time.
Scenario:
A person is a suspect in a murder case and is tried by the county and
found
to be innocent.
After the case is over, it is discovered by some quirk, that the county
had
no jurisdiction to try the case because the body was found on state or
federal property.
Or perhaps the body was actually in another county.
No... Wait... THIS is The Most Hysterical Wishful Thinking Corruption of
LONG SETTLED Constitutional Principles and Case Law I have yet seen...
First, The Issue of Jurisdiction is - THE FIRST - Matter Of Law to be
settled in Pre-Trial Matters... your Scenario Supra is An ABSOLUTE
Impossibilty...
Second, Counties are Political Subdivisions of The State... County Courts
are Inferior to District or Superior or whatever Flavor of State Court is
known as in The Several States... I'd be willing to bet that no County
Courts anywhere have Original Jurisdiction in Felony Murder Cases... thus,
whether "the body was found"/Crime Committed on [Private], Municipal,
County, or State "Property", the State has Jurisdiction over Both the
Subject Matter AND The Person, and again, I'm betting States, Without
Exception, set the Venue for Trial for All Felony Murder Cases *Exclusively*
as "District/Superior" Courts...
Third, Bodies found on Federal Property [indeed, ALL Crimes Committed on
Federal Property, such as Protesters Trespassing on Military Bases and
Vandalizing with Splashed Blood] are matters of Federal Jurisdiction with
Venue in the Federal Courts...
The state, or federal government can try the case a second time based upon
the discovery of the new evidence.
I reiterate: 1. The Issue of Jurisidiction MUST BE Settled before the
commencement of Trial 2. If The Court and The People *were* So Inept as to
try a case in a Court w/o Jurisdiction over Subject Matter/Person; The
Jury/Trier Of Fact Rendering An Acquittal; The People Would Be Barred from
again Complaining Against D in the Court w/ Proper Jurisdiction,
irrespective of Discovery of "New Evidence"...
There can be NO "OOPS!! My Bad... Let's Start Over In The REAL Court"
Moment...
NO... NO... _NO_ they CAN _NOT_...
Whether there's an AHA! Moment of Newly Discovered Evidence or ANY OTHER
Conceivable Circumstance... Once Jeopardy Attaches and the Trier of Fact
Renders a Verdict of Acquittal, It's _OVER_... Period... End Of Story... NO
WHINING...
Naughtius "State County Municipal Offender Data System" Maximus
|
| |
| |
Naughtius \"The Twinkies Made Me Do It\" Maximus wrote:
"Richard ""I'm Not A REAL Lawyer, BUT I Play One On TV"" <anonymous@127.000>
wrote in message news:c0v0jo02gk7@enews1.newsguy.com...
Yes, it *is* Double Jeopardy...
< In the light of new evidence, a case can be
This is The Most Hysterical Wishful Thinking Corruption of LONG SETTLED
Constitutional Principles and Case Law I have yet seen...
You have GOT to be a [FICTION] Writer for One Or Another flavor of "Law
And Order"...
found
had
No... Wait... THIS is The Most Hysterical Wishful Thinking Corruption of
LONG SETTLED Constitutional Principles and Case Law I have yet seen...
....
Second, Counties are Political Subdivisions of The State...
In California, except for "small claims", traffic "courts" and POSSIBLY
"Justice of the Peace" courts, there ARE only Superior Courts (formerly
also Municipal Courts).
Third, Bodies found on Federal Property [indeed, ALL Crimes Committed on
Federal Property, such as Protesters Trespassing on Military Bases and
Vandalizing with Splashed Blood] are matters of Federal Jurisdiction with
Venue in the Federal Courts...
I reiterate: 1. The Issue of Jurisidiction MUST BE Settled before the
commencement of Trial 2. If The Court and The People *were* So Inept as to
try a case in a Court w/o Jurisdiction over Subject Matter/Person; The
Jury/Trier Of Fact Rendering An Acquittal; The People Would Be Barred from
again Complaining Against D in the Court w/ Proper Jurisdiction,
irrespective of Discovery of "New Evidence"...
THERE I disagree with you. If the court turns out not to have had
jurisdiction over the crime charged, the proceedings are void, even
if there is an acquittal. If there is an acquittal on one charge,
then a sufficiently different charge covering the same (alleged) acts
can still be prosecuted. Finally, if an acquittal is obtained, a
different Sovereign (state or country) with jurisdiction could
obtain a conviction. (The apocryphal example of a person in state
A shooting a person in state B who falls over the line into
state C and then dies who then can be prosecuted for murder in
EACH of states A, B and C comes to mind.)
"New Evidence" is irrelevant.
|
| |
| |
n Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:19:37 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com>
wrote in message news:27f53017dbt5psfn36fp9u0adunikl401g@4ax.com...
That's a new angle. How could he have been when his daughter called him in
Chicago?
It's not a new angle: it's apparent you don't know the timeline which
the civil and criminal trials established from the testimony of the
witnesses.
Simpson himself states he was in the home at Rockingham from 9:30-9:45
p.m.when he returned from getting burgers with Kaelin, and had "fallen
asleep" until he waved down Parks in the limo at the front gate at
approximately 10:55 p.m.. He leaves with Parks for LAX at 11:10 - 11:15
p.m., and leaves on the 11:45 p.m. flight on June 12, 1994. (all times
PST).
He checks into the O'Hare Plaza Hotel in Chicago at 4:15 am PST.
If you mean the time when he returned from Chicago, he returned to
Rockingham between 11:00 a.m. and 12:15 p.m., when he went with Lange to
the police station, as noted in your URL at
And by this time the police had already been inside the house with search
warrant.
Shooting down your theory OJ was in the house.
No, shooting down YOUR theory, as you are talking about two different
occurrences as if they were one.
For one, I never said Simpson was in the house at the time: _Simpson
stated_ he was in the house at Rockingham between 9:30 p.m. - 10:55
p.m., on June 12, 1994, by direct statement he gave to Parks at the gate
on the night of the murders, and in his interview testimony to LAPD on
June 13, 1994.
In the second event, some 12+ hours after the murders, he _returned to
the house from Chicago_ between 11:00 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. on June _13_,
1994. (The murders occurred between 10:00 - 11:15 p.m. on 12th of June,
1994).
Simpson is not contacted on June 13, until approximately 3 hours after
he arrives in Chicago informing him of the murders, and that is via
telephone by Lange (not Arnelle Simpson. She, in fact, told LAPD she
wasn't exactly sure where her father OJ Simpson was when the LAPD awoke
her at 5:35 a.m. PST at the Rockingham estate).
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/serve_4.html?se
ct=7
If he had this planned, which would be prededitated murder, he would make
sure he had witnesses who would back up his claims. Of course, there is his
plane ticket which was used. So his departure time would have been verified
and checked thoroughly. Along with hia arrival in Chicago and the check in
at the hotel.
So what? Simpson still has ample time to commit the murders BEFORE he
goes to Chicago, making any need for all this fol-de-rol about Chicago
absolutely meaningless. The only thing the Chicago trip gives him is a)
time to dispose of weapons and clothing, and/or b) to act as all of
"normal" since he had pre-arranged the trip to Chicago in advance
(hence, "premeditated" the need for being "away" when his wife's body
was found).
Knowing that he would be arrested and charged on the spot?
A man who commits double murders, does not return to the scene of the
crime
willingly.
Totally impossible to do. Traces would have been discovered which would have
revealed an attempted "cleansing".
Let's state it this way, then: most people can wash blood from their
person fairly quickly and completely. Little or no evidence of blood
upon one's body is traceable after such a cleaning. If you think
otherwise, then please give some examples where blood could NOT be
washed off one's body.
However, if you mean the shower in which cleansing took place would show
evidence of blood, you are right. Guess what: blood _was_ found within
that structure in O.J. Simpson's bedroom at the Rockingham estate:
preliminary tests on Simpson's shower and bathroom sink gave a positive
reaction, indicating the presence of blood. (Source:
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9611/05/simpson.wrap/) However, no further
tests were done to confirm whether it was human blood.
b) he had disposed of the clothing and weapons between the Rockingham
estate and his eventual return from Chicago where he flew the night of
the murders, at 11:45 p.m.
Possible, but extremely doubtful.
Actually, quite likely. When Simpson leaves the house at Rockingham,
Parks testified there was a bag which Simpson will not let him pack into
the truck with the rest of his luggage, or even touch. This bag and its
implications figured prominently in the criminal and civil trial
testimony.
c) He goes to Chicago, where he has ample opportunity to dispose of
weapon and/or clothing for approximately 10-12 hours (between 11:30 p.m
when Parks lets him off at LAX and his return from Chicago by 11:00 a.m.
the next day)
3 hours flight time to Chicago, 8 hours of sleep, if he got it, and another
3 back.
3 hours to Chicago, called within 3 hours of arrival, and back within 6
hours of that = approximately 10-12 hours, as I stated. No indication
by Simpson or anyone else that 8 hours of sleep was taken or needed.
Not to mention 2 hours minimum for driving between the airports.
In the civil and criminal trial testimony, Simpson leaves his home at
11:15 p.m. from Rockingham, and makes the 11:45 p.m. flight from LAX to
Chicago, according to Parks (and the airline's) testimony. It did not
take two hours to arrive at LAX from Rockingham as Simpson lived within
a few miles of LAX, after all.
So if he left the house at 11:00PM, and returned 12 hours later, that means
he maybe got 4 hours of sleep in.
A man who has not committed murder before just doesn't doze off to sleep
like it was part of the job.
Who says (or cares) if he slept?? What does this have to do with
anything??
During what appears to have been a rather heated struggle and
confrontation,
OJ walks away with only a minor cut on his finger?
OJ is not a muscle man. The acts involved in this scenario requires
someone
with a skill that OJ just does not have.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:10:47 +0000, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
<egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com> wrote:
c) OJ Simpson's son, Jason Simpson, by his work records, was at work at
his job at Jackson's Restaurant during the time of the murders. This
information was verified by Jason Simpson during the above stated
deposition at the civil trial. To date, this information have never
Nope, he left early. I don't remember the other details but somebody
has even published a book accusing Jason of being the murderer. The
basic reason for dismissing that theory as well as all others, except
that OJ did it, is pretty easy to explain:
A large amount of physical evidence relating to the crime, like shoe
prints, blood, fiber, hair, gloves was collected at the crime scene
and OJ's house and vehicle. Many tests and much investigation showed
that all of these items had a high probability of belonging to the two
victims and Simpson. No reasonable theory has yet been proposed that
can explain both the absence of evidence belonging to the "real
killer(s)" and the production of so much evidence that implicates
Simpson.
(That was the main reason, but there are plenty of others like a
serious cut on Simpson's finger, leading to a scar, that was not in a
photo of him, taken 3 to 4 hours before the murders.)
RHR
|
| |
| |
Steve Kraus <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in news:4032685E.3820
@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com:
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
It's possible that he could be tried in federal court if any federal laws
were allegedly broken in the commision of the crime, but I don't think he
could be tried again for the deaths by the state.
|
| |
| |
Steve Kraus <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message news:<4032685E.3820@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com>...
What would happen if OJ said, yeah, I did it?
He's already been acquitted criminally and held responsible civilly.
What could happen? If he's been acquitted of murder does that also
block prosecution of manslaughter? Then how about assault or even
something trivial like improper disposal of a corpse etc.?
Manslaughter is a lesser included offense, at least in California (the
difference is, murder has the element of malice, voluntary
manslaughter doesn't). So a new trial on a charge of manslaughter
would be barred. And a new trial on a misdemeanor or infraction such
as improper disposal would be pointless.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg <egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com> wrote in message news:<3md730hu9lq16aaifs9uu57u695h64k8kj@4ax.com>...
The verdict was, IMO, an excellent example of willful jury nullification
because forensically it was clear from the evidence that the Defendant
OJ Simpson was present at the murder scene, based upon hair, carpet, and
DNA analysis (not even counting the famous glove).
Hogwash. First, your view of the evidence is based on information and
analysis that was never presented to the jury. Secondly, the
prosecution screwed up their case from start to finish, never
communicated it to the jury, couldn't present the DNA evidence to save
their life, and Marcia Clark was more interested in her hairdo than in
litigating. Calling the OJ case jury nullification is simply
exonerating the incompetent prosecution which did more to create
reasonable doubt than the defense ever could.
Based on the evidence the jury saw, there is no reason the jury should
have convicted. The DNA evidence presented to the jury was
inconclusive, the cops were impeached, the prosecution was insincere
and sloppy. It's always easy to blame the jury for a verdict you
disagree with - but more honest to blame the losing lawyer.
Clay S. Conrad
|
| |
| |
On 19 Feb 2004 21:40:57 -0800, weaselaw@aol.com (Clay S. Conrad)
wrote:
Based on the evidence the jury saw, there is no reason the jury should
have convicted. The DNA evidence presented to the jury was
inconclusive, the cops were impeached, the prosecution was insincere
and sloppy. It's always easy to blame the jury for a verdict you
disagree with - but more honest to blame the losing lawyer.
You are both wrong. The main culprit is the American trial system. A
lawyer show, with passive judge and jury, is a perfect recipe for
miscarriages of justice. As noted American judge and law professor,
Richard Posner, has remarked, "It has become commonplace that an
innocent person has a better chance of acquittal in a European than in
an American court, and a guilty person, a better chance of acquittal
in an American than in a European court".
RHR
|
| |
| |
|
