Goldmans Sue

[sassylassy]

I just find this crazy!:confused:

Bruce Formong, a sports memorabilia dealer tells TMZ that he's in possession of Simpson's suit and is trying to sell it for $25,000. Formong will sell the suit, shirt and tie. He tells TMZ,

http://www.hollywoodrag.com
(story near end of page 1)

[sassylassy]

Well, it looks like it's a step in the right direction....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4814673.html

Thanks for the link Tazzy :read:

I really dont understand why Oj is fighting to hold the "rights" book :shrug:
it seems pointless to me, I cant see ojs ever profiting from this book now or in the future

thats just moo of course!

[sassylassy]

Thanks for the link Tazzy :read:

I really dont understand why Oj is fighting to hold the "rights" book :shrug:
it seems pointless to me, I cant see ojs ever profiting from this book now or in the future

thats just moo of course!

I found my answer.:read:

Goldman's family claims the company was simply a front for Simpson, who owes them around £16.5 million under a wrongful death civil lawsuit, so he could hide an advance and potential book royalties.

http://www.midsussextoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2888257&sectionid=4070

[fbgweezer]

Thanks fbgweezer!
Interesting......
Seems that Arnelle is always left cleaning up after daddy.
Parent of the year that OJ.
Other that the youngest son, all the other kids have had run-ins with the police. NO?

you're welcome but thanks for the link goes to tazzybaby -- she's responsible for finding and bringing it to the board. Way to go tazzy!

[sassylassy]

Another update regarding the Legal Saga:

A federal judge in Florida ruled on Thursday that Simpson's four children will not be able to regain control of the bankrupt company that owns the rights to the unpublished book "If I Did It."

http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_138100109.html

[limakey]

Suz,

The alarm company has all records of when the alarm was set and reset. In orther words, the police had access to in these records, in other words, if Arnelle is guilty what she has been accused of by G's and Petrocelli, this could be very easily proved. Since Petrocelli did not prove this, then I think the matter should be dropped.

Remember, the more questions you ask about the alarm, the more questions you need to ask about why a representative just happened to be a Rockingham that morning. Why he was never asked to disarm the alarm. Why he was never asked if the company knew when Mr. Simpson left town. Was never asked how he knew the maid lived in the main house and not in one of the guest houses. How the police never searched the whole house for the maid they claimed may have been in grave danager.

[fbgweezer]

Suz,

The alarm company has all records of when the alarm was set and reset. In orther words, the police had access to in these records, in other words, if Arnelle is guilty what she has been accused of by G's and Petrocelli, this could be very easily proved. Since Petrocelli did not prove this, then I think the matter should be dropped.

Remember, the more questions you ask about the alarm, the more questions you need to ask about why a representative just happened to be a Rockingham that morning. Why he was never asked to disarm the alarm. Why he was never asked if the company knew when Mr. Simpson left town. Was never asked how he knew the maid lived in the main house and not in one of the guest houses. How the police never searched the whole house for the maid they claimed may have been in grave danager.

obviously you do not have a home alarm system -- the alarm company does not have records of when the alarm is set or reset. The alarm company is notified when a set alarm is triggered AND that is only if the alarm is being monitored.

The 'representative' was doing a drive-by -- that's one of the perks you pay for when you have your alarm system monitored.

The 'representative' was asked about the home and he did not know the answers so he called his company. The company records reflected that the maid lived in the main house -- duh

[Red Sox Fan]

Another update regarding the Legal Saga:

A federal judge in Florida ruled on Thursday that Simpson's four children will not be able to regain control of the bankrupt company that owns the rights to the unpublished book "If I Did It."

http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_138100109.html

Is the If I did it book ever coming out? This whole thing would be funny if 2 people weren't dead. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction.

[fbgweezer]

Is the If I did it book ever coming out? This whole thing would be funny if 2 people weren't dead. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction.

IIRC, Fred Goldman's attorney has stated that there is talk that the book might be marketed with a new title: "I Did It"

I'm loving it.

karma, karma, karma

[socaldiva]

IIRC, Fred Goldman's attorney has stated that there is talk that the book might be marketed with a new title: "I Did It"

I'm loving it.

karma, karma, karma

I love it too. I bet that would really aggravate the killer :tongue:

[Kate Sachel]

Suz,

The alarm company has all records of when the alarm was set and reset. In orther words, the police had access to in these records, in other words, if Arnelle is guilty what she has been accused of by G's and Petrocelli, this could be very easily proved. Since Petrocelli did not prove this, then I think the matter should be dropped.

Remember, the more questions you ask about the alarm, the more questions you need to ask about why a representative just happened to be a Rockingham that morning. Why he was never asked to disarm the alarm. Why he was never asked if the company knew when Mr. Simpson left town. Was never asked how he knew the maid lived in the main house and not in one of the guest houses. How the police never searched the whole house for the maid they claimed may have been in grave danager.

I am not certain which alarm company you use, but I have to tell you that mine does no such thing. The company that I use keeps records only of when my alarm is set off.

Do you have evidence that OJ's particular company kept records of all times when the alarm was set? If so, please provide those here so that I can take a look.

Thanks,

Kate

[tazzybaby]

you're welcome but thanks for the link goes to tazzybaby -- she's responsible for finding and bringing it to the board. Way to go tazzy!


:cool:

Thanks!

[limakey]

Kate,

No, I do not have those records. However, I do remember during the trial that there was a question regarding if Kato had actually set the house alarm. I remember a female reporter saying that Westec had records and that it proved Kato had set the alarm. I don't remember her name but I can describe her---she was from a local LA station. This was very early on when there was still rumors that Kato was involved in the murders and that he and Simpson bought some drugs that night. The guy who said he sold the drugs to them, was said to have passed a lie detector test.

This was also an issue during the trial because the media stated Simpson would not challenge Kato setting the alarm because of the records.

I'm sure that many companies have different forms of keeping records. However, I would assume that not all break ins are done by people who do not have the security code. Example. If a person goes away for the weekend or for a night, whatever, sets the alarms. Comes home and the alarm is still set but there are items stolen from the home--what does this tell you??? That the items were stolen by someone who knew the code. The only option is to determine who had the code---and when was the alarm armed and disarmed.

Here is another interesting thought---the Browns lived in a gated community with security gates. Ever wonder if there were records were kept? I know I would be very upset if I lived in a gated community and paid the price for security only to find out that it was nothing but a sham. Again, just my opinon.

[fbgweezer]

Kate,

No, I do not have those records. However, I do remember during the trial that there was a question regarding if Kato had actually set the house alarm. I remember a female reporter saying that Westec had records and that it proved Kato had set the alarm. I don't remember her name but I can describe her---she was from a local LA station. This was very early on when there was still rumors that Kato was involved in the murders and that he and Simpson bought some drugs that night. The guy who said he sold the drugs to them, was said to have passed a lie detector test.

This was also an issue during the trial because the media stated Simpson would not challenge Kato setting the alarm because of the records.

I'm sure that many companies have different forms of keeping records. However, I would assume that not all break ins are done by people who do not have the security code. Example. If a person goes away for the weekend or for a night, whatever, sets the alarms. Comes home and the alarm is still set but there are items stolen from the home--what does this tell you??? That the items were stolen by someone who knew the code. The only option is to determine who had the code---and when was the alarm armed and disarmed.

Here is another interesting thought---the Browns lived in a gated community with security gates. Ever wonder if there were records were kept? I know I would be very upset if I lived in a gated community and paid the price for security only to find out that it was nothing but a sham. Again, just my opinon.

I have lived in a gated community and there are no records kept. A very close friend is a retired DPS who is security at an exclusive enclave not far from here -- they monitor the gates, home alarms, etc., but do not record anything. Most people would not want someone monitoring and recording their every move. IMOO

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

No, I do not have those records. However, I do remember during the trial that there was a question regarding if Kato had actually set the house alarm. I remember a female reporter saying that Westec had records and that it proved Kato had set the alarm. I don't remember her name but I can describe her---she was from a local LA station. This was very early on when there was still rumors that Kato was involved in the murders and that he and Simpson bought some drugs that night. The guy who said he sold the drugs to them, was said to have passed a lie detector test.

This was also an issue during the trial because the media stated Simpson would not challenge Kato setting the alarm because of the records.

I'm sure that many companies have different forms of keeping records. However, I would assume that not all break ins are done by people who do not have the security code. Example. If a person goes away for the weekend or for a night, whatever, sets the alarms. Comes home and the alarm is still set but there are items stolen from the home--what does this tell you??? That the items were stolen by someone who knew the code. The only option is to determine who had the code---and when was the alarm armed and disarmed.

Here is another interesting thought---the Browns lived in a gated community with security gates. Ever wonder if there were records were kept? I know I would be very upset if I lived in a gated community and paid the price for security only to find out that it was nothing but a sham. Again, just my opinon.

Well, you made the firm statement that "the alarm company has all records of when the alarm was set and reset" and that the "police had access to these records".

You make it sound as if you know this for a fact and therefore Arnelle should be exonerated, but now all you recall is a reporter and that there was question on whether or not Kato set the alarm.

You're making misleading statements here, and I don't think it's quite fair.

Kate

[limakey]

Kate,

IMO, I think my statements are fair. However, I can understand your take on them and I you have made a excellent point.

However, was it fair of Petrocelli to accuse Arnelle of being an accomplice by suggesting what he did? What did he base his accusation on---4 detectives who said they didn't remember seeing Arnelle disarm the alarm?

And don't forget, someone allegedly broke into Simpson's home the morning before the murders. Someone came home and the door was left wide open. Which is why I have always wondered if the Westec truck was there because of this, did an alarm go off? I think there are many questions surrounding this issue that should have been answered and I believe have been answered but everyone is just so dug in.......

BTW, I do believe my statements surrounding an "inside" job are perfectly valid and I can't understand how any security company could not have records of all arming and disarming of alarms. It makes no sense to me that any security company would base their sole reputation and system on reaction to the alarm going off. And like you said, the only response you have ever gotten from a security company is when you set off the alarm--did you ever ask your company if they have records when the system is armed and disarmed? And if you suffered a burglary and the alarm was never set off, wouldn't you ask the question--well when was the alarm last turned on?

[fbgweezer]

However, was it fair of Petrocelli to accuse Arnelle of being an accomplice by suggesting what he did? What did he base his accusation on---4 detectives who said they didn't remember seeing Arnelle disarm the alarm?

The suspicion that arnelle was an accomplice was based on the contents of the washing machine (arnelle's lingerie), arnelle's laundry basket sitting on the counter/waser/dryer, the maid's testimony that there was no clothes in the washer or the dryer when she left work on that Friday, the testimony of Kato, as well as orenthal's statement that Kato set the alarm, the testimony of four detectives that the alarm was not set and that they entered through a back door --

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

IMO, I think my statements are fair. However, I can understand your take on them and I you have made a excellent point.

However, was it fair of Petrocelli to accuse Arnelle of being an accomplice by suggesting what he did? What did he base his accusation on---4 detectives who said they didn't remember seeing Arnelle disarm the alarm?

And don't forget, someone allegedly broke into Simpson's home the morning before the murders. Someone came home and the door was left wide open. Which is why I have always wondered if the Westec truck was there because of this, did an alarm go off? I think there are many questions surrounding this issue that should have been answered and I believe have been answered but everyone is just so dug in.......

BTW, I do believe my statements surrounding an "inside" job are perfectly valid and I can't understand how any security company could not have records of all arming and disarming of alarms. It makes no sense to me that any security company would base their sole reputation and system on reaction to the alarm going off. And like you said, the only response you have ever gotten from a security company is when you set off the alarm--did you ever ask your company if they have records when the system is armed and disarmed? And if you suffered a burglary and the alarm was never set off, wouldn't you ask the question--well when was the alarm last turned on?

Making statements as though they are fact as you did is not fair. You did not say that you thought that Westec had all records, or that you wondered if they did, or anything else that would preclude us from assuming that it is a factual statement.

You may not be aware since you have been absent for awhile that Freshwater is coming down hard on all members regarding this very thing. It is resulting in infractions and temporary bannings.

I interviewed multiple security providers prior to making a decision on whom I wished to employ. Not one of those companies maintains records of when an alarm is set, disarmed, or reset. Each company only maintained records of when an alarm actually triggers. Perhaps Westec is different, but I doubt that. Especially from an era of so long ago.

Kate

[fbgweezer]

And if you suffered a burglary and the alarm was never set off, wouldn't you ask the question--well when was the alarm last turned on?

actually, you say, "Man, I should have my butt kicked for not setting the alarm before I left." IMOO

[limakey]

Kate,

Hopefully, I will be able to answer your question soon, as soon as I get some replies back from some security companies. For reasons that have nothing to do with this case, I'm forced to deal with this issue.

While I agree that security systems are always being made better, that does not mean that security companies do not consider the possibility of "inside" jobs. That this issue has never come up, well before the year 1994.

When you hired your security, did you ask the question about "inside" jobs? Did you have to submitt a list of people who were going to have the code? Did you have to submit a list people and buidings on your estate and who was living in them and where they were living? Really, just asking.

[limakey]

Kate,

Your post about FH20 is interesting, I wonder what lake her or she was swimming in when Petrocelli was accusing Arnelle or being an accomplice! :)

(No insult meant to anybody---but a point well taken---if it applies to us, then it should apply all!!!!!):patriot:

[fbgweezer]

When you hired your security, did you ask the question about "inside" jobs? Did you have to submitt a list of people who were going to have the code? Did you have to submit a list people and buidings on your estate and who was living in them and where they were living? Really, just asking.

LOL -- what question would you ask regarding 'inside' jobs?

I don't know about any place else, but I've never submitted a list of who has my security code. Obviously orenthal had informed the security company that he had a live in maid but he did not tell them that there were people living in outbuildings.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

Hopefully, I will be able to answer your question soon, as soon as I get some replies back from some security companies. For reasons that have nothing to do with this case, I'm forced to deal with this issue.

While I agree that security systems are always being made better, that does not mean that security companies do not consider the possibility of "inside" jobs. That this issue has never come up, well before the year 1994.

When you hired your security, did you ask the question about "inside" jobs? Did you have to submitt a list of people who were going to have the code? Did you have to submit a list people and buidings on your estate and who was living in them and where they were living? Really, just asking.

I will reply to this via PM, as my inquiries with my security company are not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Kate

[fbgweezer]

woot-woot !!! found the testimony (3/30/95) of Silva (Westec) on the alarm system at orenthal's Rockingham home. Here's the part about records on the alarm being set/reset:

"MR. DARDEN: I have one moment, your Honor.
(Pause.)
Q. Is Westec advised or signalled somehow every time the alarm is activated?
VOICE: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
A. If you could please define indicated or, I am sorry, activated.
Q. Let's say that Mr. Simpson was to turn on the alarm. Okay. Are you with me so far? If he turned the alarm on, would Westec somehow be notified, would there be some signal or something sent to Westec indicating that the alarm in Mr. Simpson house is on?
A. No. This particular alarm system is not supervised, which means we do not supervise or have specific times that he would set the alarm or turn the system on or off. It is basically at his own discretion.
Q. Under what circumstances, if any, could Westec be notified that the system has been activated or deactivated?
A. It would be an intrusion, which means he physically set the system, not necessarily him, or a burglar breaks one of these doors, the door contacts or goes in the area and gets, is not able to deactivate the alarm system in the
appropriate time period.
At that time we would receive a signal. It is more of a reactive than proactive system.
Q. Have you searched the records at Westec?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Westec signalled that the system had been broken or the security for Mr. Simpson's home had been broken on June 12, 1994?
A. There were no signals."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/mar/index.html

[fbgweezer]

this is redirect by Darden of the same witness:

"Q. Are there any other keypads in the house that you--
A. There are keypads upstairs. There are specific keypads, one inside of his bedroom, one outside of the bedroom, and he has a separate system for his bedroom alone, which is apart from the system that was shown on the diagram.
Q. The security, the separate security system for the bedroom?
A. Yes."

wonder why he thought his bedroom needed its own security system?

[Heyes]

:cool:

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for the link! :seeya:

[limakey]

Kate,

I have not yet received any replies. Perhaps tomorrow.

[socaldiva]

Kate,

I have not yet received any replies. Perhaps tomorrow.

FBG posted testimony relative to Westec, which was the security company that covered Rockingham at the time of the murders....so I'm not quite sure what a inquiry in 2007 with an unrelated company has to do with this case. :shrug:

[2L8 4A D8]

FBG posted testimony relative to Westec, which was the security company that covered Rockingham at the time of the murders....so I'm not quite sure what a inquiry in 2007 with an unrelated company has to do with this case. :shrug:

:beer: :beer: ~ JMO!

[tazzybaby]

woot-woot !!! found the testimony (3/30/95) of Silva (Westec) on the alarm system at orenthal's Rockingham home. Here's the part about records on the alarm being set/reset:

"MR. DARDEN: I have one moment, your Honor.
(Pause.)
Q. Is Westec advised or signalled somehow every time the alarm is activated?
VOICE: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
A. If you could please define indicated or, I am sorry, activated.
Q. Let's say that Mr. Simpson was to turn on the alarm. Okay. Are you with me so far? If he turned the alarm on, would Westec somehow be notified, would there be some signal or something sent to Westec indicating that the alarm in Mr. Simpson house is on?
A. No. This particular alarm system is not supervised, which means we do not supervise or have specific times that he would set the alarm or turn the system on or off. It is basically at his own discretion.
Q. Under what circumstances, if any, could Westec be notified that the system has been activated or deactivated?
A. It would be an intrusion, which means he physically set the system, not necessarily him, or a burglar breaks one of these doors, the door contacts or goes in the area and gets, is not able to deactivate the alarm system in the
appropriate time period.
At that time we would receive a signal. It is more of a reactive than proactive system.
Q. Have you searched the records at Westec?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Westec signalled that the system had been broken or the security for Mr. Simpson's home had been broken on June 12, 1994?
A. There were no signals."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/mar/index.html


Woo Hoo! You found it Weezer!

Thanks!!

:beer:

[sassylassy]

I just find this crazy!:confused:

Bruce Formong, a sports memorabilia dealer tells TMZ that he's in possession of Simpson's suit and is trying to sell it for $25,000. Formong will sell the suit, shirt and tie. He tells TMZ,

http://www.hollywoodrag.com
(story near end of page 1)

A judge has denied the Goldman's motion to collect on the sale of the "Suit"
c/ video interview w/ Kim Goldman below.......:read:

Video:http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=909894348

read:http://www.tmz.com/

[socaldiva]

The TMZ article says that the judge denied the motion because it hasn't been proven that it is the actual not guilty suit. Doesn't sound to me like it was denied because the Goldman's aren't entitled to it.

[sassylassy]

The TMZ article says that the judge denied the motion because it hasn't been proven that it is the actual not guilty suit. to . snip


correct.

I wonder if they are really going to test for DNA or if thats a joke?

[socaldiva]

snip


correct.

I wonder if they are really going to test for DNA or if thats a joke?


I'm guessing it's a joke, I don't think OJ would ever consent to that. LOL

[limakey]

Taz-FBG,

Thanks for the link on the Westec Guy. I have a few comments, one, I am stunned to realize that the rich and famous appear to be as dumb as box of rocks when it comes to security---I mean really, to have a multi-million dollar home and only have a "reactive" system rather then a "proactive system"??!!! I wonder how "proactive" an insurance company would be in covering a claim when they discovered the homeowner only had "reactive" security system.

Howevever, I did not realize that there were two maid's rooms---which makes me wonder why both rooms were not checked by the police.

Also, if there is no record that is produced when an alarm is set, then isn't it possible that a person could believe he or she set the alarm, when in fact it wasn't set? In other words, where is the proof that Kato actually set the alarm--and I'm not saying he is lying about it but how do you prove that he actually set it? And if he actually never set the alarm, then what about Arnelle?

I'm still a tad confused about the guy's lingo but it does still strikes me odd that there are no records for when an alarm is activated and deactivated. No wonder why several people have made excellent livings breaking into the "rich, apparently security challenged famous people. IMO, of course!

Good Job FBG. (Still have you on ignore but I read the link you have to Taz)

[bobaugust]

Taz-FBG,

Thanks for the link on the Westec Guy. I have a few comments, one, I am stunned to realize that the rich and famous appear to be as dumb as box of rocks when it comes to security---I mean really, to have a multi-million dollar home and only have a "reactive" system rather then a "proactive system"??!!! I wonder how "proactive" an insurance company would be in covering a claim when they discovered the homeowner only had "reactive" security system.

Howevever, I did not realize that there were two maid's rooms---which makes me wonder why both rooms were not checked by the police.

Also, if there is no record that is produced when an alarm is set, then isn't it possible that a person could believe he or she set the alarm, when in fact it wasn't set? In other words, where is the proof that Kato actually set the alarm--and I'm not saying he is lying about it but how do you prove that he actually set it? And if he actually never set the alarm, then what about Arnelle?

I'm still a tad confused about the guy's lingo but it does still strikes me odd that there are no records for when an alarm is activated and deactivated. No wonder why several people have made excellent livings breaking into the "rich, apparently security challenged famous people. IMO, of course!

Good Job FBG. (Still have you on ignore but I read the link you have to Taz)

limakey, I would say that the vast majority of house alarms in this country work the same way as Simpson's house alarm, sending a signal when a contact is disrupted after the alarm is set. No one that I know of or ever heard of has a supervised alarm that would send a signal when it is turned on or off. Maybe some high security business might have something like that, but not a house.

There was only one maid's room in Simpson's house. Arnelle led the detectives to that room and they saw that the bed was made and the room was in good order. Clearly there had not been a struggle there or anywhere else that they saw in the house.

Kaelin testified that when Simpson called him he gave him the alarm code and the instructions how to turn the alarm on. He told him that when it was turned on the green light would turn red. Kaelin testified he followed the instructions and waited until the red light came on before he went back to his room.

bobaugust

[fbgweezer]

Kaelin testified that when Simpson called him he gave him the alarm code and the instructions how to turn the alarm on. He told him that when it was turned on the green light would turn red. Kaelin testified he followed the instructions and waited until the red light came on before he went back to his room.

the second part of this is if, as the NGs believe, arnelle led LE through the front door so that she could deactivate the alarm, then Kato must have set the alarm.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I have not yet received any replies. Perhaps tomorrow.

And this comment was necessary how?

"Perhaps" some individuals have days that get somewhat busy, and the exchange of information via PM falls to the bottom of the priority list.

Apparently the exchange of information is no longer necessay however, since fbg discredited your very firm statement that Westec has those records and that the police had access to such records and therefore Arnelle must be exonerated of any potential wrong doing.

Kate

[limakey]

Kate,

My comment "perhaps tomorrow" was just a follow up to the e-mails I sent early in the day. I wanted to let you know that I asked this question and had not yet gotten a reply. I meant nothing by it and I totally agree with you, companies are very, very busy. I have no issue with the lack of a quick response.

If you read the testimony link that was provided--unless I read it wrong, the Westec guy said that there were two maid rooms. One he described inside the house and another one closer to the garage. I may have read this wrong.

However, I have to disagree with your comments about why the reason the police did not search the rest of the house once they determined there was no struggle in the maid's room for a couple of reasons. Most maids are responsible for cleaning the whole house, not just their rooms. According to Fuhrman, there was blood in the laundry room, they had no idea who's blood this could have been.

IMO, the police felt the maid was in danager? Why? Perhaps she seen the prep enter the house--even if it was Simpson and was killed because she was witness. Well, she didn't have just be in her room when she became a witness.

See, another timeline issue, when did they know she was not in the house? In other words, if she was genuine concern of theirs, they would have ensured that the whole house was searched for her whereabouts.

Also, did the police after ask Arnelle or Kato about the maid before going into the house? I don't know if they were.

[fbgweezer]

If you read the testimony link that was provided--unless I read it wrong, the Westec guy said that there were two maid rooms. One he described inside the house and another one closer to the garage. I may have read this wrong.

I don't know what difference it makes that there had been a second maid's room. arnelle showed them to the maid's room that was where the current maid resided when on site.

[fbgweezer]

However, I have to disagree with your comments about why the reason the police did not search the rest of the house once they determined there was no struggle in the maid's room for a couple of reasons. Most maids are responsible for cleaning the whole house, not just their rooms. According to Fuhrman, there was blood in the laundry room, they had no idea who's blood this could have been.

LE testified that there was no obvious signs of struggle in the house and none whatsoever in the maid's room. Are you sure they did not look through the rest of the house?

[fbgweezer]

Also, did the police after ask Arnelle or Kato about the maid before going into the house? I don't know if they were.

arnelle told LE that the maid was a live in which brings up another thing: I've always thought it odd that arnelle was not afraid to walk straight into the house and to the maid's room -- kind of like she already knew no one was in the house. Go figure.

[Kate Sachel]

arnelle told LE that the maid was a live in which brings up another thing: I've always thought it odd that arnelle was not afraid to walk straight into the house and to the maid's room -- kind of like she already knew no one was in the house. Go figure.

Excellent point.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,



However, I have to disagree with your comments about why the reason the police did not search the rest of the house once they determined there was no struggle in the maid's room for a couple of reasons. Most maids are responsible for cleaning the whole house, not just their rooms. According to Fuhrman, there was blood in the laundry room, they had no idea who's blood this could have been.




I did not comment about the reason the police did not search the rest of the house, so I am confused as to whom this post was intended.

Kate

[sassylassy]

I'm guessing it's a joke, I don't think OJ would ever consent to that. LOL


ummm after re- reading it, it sounds more like a joke!

[tazzybaby]

A Superior Court judge said Tuesday that "any and all monies, accounts receivable and all other rights to payment" held by attorney Leonardo D. Starke for Simpson must be assigned to Goldman's father, Fred.

Starke is believed to be holding about $3,500 for Simpson in a client trust account in Florida, where the former football star now lives, Goldman attorney David Cook said Wednesday.

The amount is small but the court ruling could have broader implications for the Goldman family, which has tried for a decade to collect on a $33.5-million judgment against Simpson. Virtually none of the money has been collected, and the family has accused Simpson of trying to conceal his income.


http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_144075917.html


This is a Florida Judge. It is looking better and better for the Goldman's. Their hard work has made an impact. Even if it is only $3500, that is more than what had been received.

Keep up the pressure Fred Goldman!!

[tazzybaby]

Taz-FBG,

Also, if there is no record that is produced when an alarm is set, then isn't it possible that a person could believe he or she set the alarm, when in fact it wasn't set? In other words, where is the proof that Kato actually set the alarm--and I'm not saying he is lying about it but how do you prove that he actually set it? And if he actually never set the alarm, then what about Arnelle?

I'm still a tad confused about the guy's lingo but it does still strikes me odd that there are no records for when an alarm is activated and deactivated. No wonder why several people have made excellent livings breaking into the "rich, apparently security challenged famous people. IMO, of course!

Good Job FBG. (Still have you on ignore but I read the link you have to Taz)

Hi Limakey,

Kato said he saw the light change colors to indicate that the alarm was set. There is no reason to believe that he would lie about that. The proof that Kato set the alarm is when Arnelle lied. There should have been no reason for Arnelle to lie. And, there were several witnesses to confirm that she did indeed lie. Even if Kato didn't set the alarm right, Arnelle still said that she turned the alarm off. She even lied about which door she went in.

[tazzybaby]

Just wanted to thank you for the link! :seeya:

Oooops! I just saw this! And, you are very welcome!!

:cool:

[sassylassy]

Here is another update re: legal saga....

http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_144075917.html

[martin II]

Another update regarding the Legal Saga:

A federal judge in Florida ruled on Thursday that Simpson's four children will not be able to regain control of the bankrupt company that owns the rights to the unpublished book "If I Did It."

http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_138100109.html

sassy
hi
it seems that the trustee can/will sell the LBA assets to pay off the legitimate creditors of LBA.(according to above links)

I am wondering who will bid on the assets of LBA.(book title)Will it be some large publishing house, some internet publisher or MR Goldman.

Another issue is, can the creditors ban togeather and accept the rights as a group for debt owed?

martin II

[limakey]

Martin,

Welcome back.

[martin II]

A Superior Court judge said Tuesday that "any and all monies, accounts receivable and all other rights to payment" held by attorney Leonardo D. Starke for Simpson must be assigned to Goldman's father, Fred.

Starke is believed to be holding about $3,500 for Simpson in a client trust account in Florida, where the former football star now lives, Goldman attorney David Cook said Wednesday.

The amount is small but the court ruling could have broader implications for the Goldman family, which has tried for a decade to collect on a $33.5-million judgment against Simpson. Virtually none of the money has been collected, and the family has accused Simpson of trying to conceal his income.


http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_144075917.html


This is a Florida Judge. It is looking better and better for the Goldman's. Their hard work has made an impact. Even if it is only $3500, that is more than what had been received.

Keep up the pressure Fred Goldman!!

tazzy hi
It will be interesting to see IF Florida law allows this CA decision to be
effective in Florida.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Martin,

Welcome back.

limakey
thanks very much.

martin II

[martin II]

arnelle told LE that the maid was a live in which brings up another thing: I've always thought it odd that arnelle was not afraid to walk straight into the house and to the maid's room -- kind of like she already knew no one was in the house. Go figure.

weezer
Do you agree that the cops were with Arnell when she entered the house.

martin II

[martin II]

ummm after re- reading it, it sounds more like a joke!

sassy
hi
IF oj previously sold or gave the suit to the current owner, how is it that Mr Goldman has decided that the current owner should give him(fred) his property?
martin ii

[PeterPaul]

tazzy hi
It will be interesting to see IF Florida law allows this CA decision to be
effective in Florida.
MARTIN ii

Hey martin,

It's a Florida judge that made the ruling so I guess the answer is that yes the decision is effective in Florida.

I think that most things like that transfer from state to state because if they didn;t it would be too easy for people to just pick up and move to avoid unpleasant situations.

[martin II]

Hey martin,

It's a Florida judge that made the ruling so I guess the answer is that yes the decision is effective in Florida.

I think that most things like that transfer from state to state because if they didn;t it would be too easy for people to just pick up and move to avoid unpleasant situations.

peter paul
hi

When the link said a "superior court judge", i assumed it was Judge Goldberg
of CA as he had already ruled like this in favor of Fred Goldman.

I was looking for a link that said it was a Florida judge that made this ruling about the lawyer and the trust account. Did not find it as yet.

As far as state to state, some do transfer and some don't i guess, as that is
one of the reasons so many people move to Florida to evade some debt. All my opinion

martin ii

[PeterPaul]

peter paul
hi

When the link said a "superior court judge", i assumed it was Judge Goldberg
of CA as he had already ruled like this in favor of Fred Goldman.

I was looking for a link that said it was a Florida judge that made this ruling about the lawyer and the trust account. Did not find it as yet.

As far as state to state, some do transfer and some don't i guess, as that is
one of the reasons so many people move to Florida to evade some debt. All my opinion

martin ii

Oh yeah, you're totally right and I wasn't paying enough attention to the wording. Thanks for correcting me!

I think the reason people move to Florida is because of the homestead thing ... you know, a person's house can't be touched to pay bills and whatnot.

PS; glad to see you back.

[martin II]

The only current action that i know about in Florida is the bankruptcy filing and judge Cristol has given that case to the trustee according to a previous posted link. I am waiting to see what the Florida Lawyers response to the CA judge's "order" will be.

I am also a little surprised that Mr Goldman would want to have anything to do with clothes worn by OJ SIMPSON.Gees. If this is enforcable then Fred Goldman could back a truck up to oj Florida house and demand that oj empty his closet into freds truck. That would be funny.jmoo
martin II

[martin II]

A Superior Court judge said Tuesday that "any and all monies, accounts receivable and all other rights to payment" held by attorney Leonardo D. Starke for Simpson must be assigned to Goldman's father, Fred.

Starke is believed to be holding about $3,500 for Simpson in a client trust account in Florida, where the former football star now lives, Goldman attorney David Cook said Wednesday.

The amount is small but the court ruling could have broader implications for the Goldman family, which has tried for a decade to collect on a $33.5-million judgment against Simpson. Virtually none of the money has been collected, and the family has accused Simpson of trying to conceal his income.


http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_144075917.html


This is a Florida Judge. It is looking better and better for the Goldman's. Their hard work has made an impact. Even if it is only $3500, that is more than what had been received.

Keep up the pressure Fred Goldman!!

tazzy hi

"THIS IS A FLORIDA JUDGE"

i have tried to find the link to FLORIDA judge ruling that oj's lawyer must give Fred Goldman the $3,500.00

Do you have this link?
martinii

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

"THIS IS A FLORIDA JUDGE"

i have tried to find the link to FLORIDA judge ruling that oj's lawyer must give Fred Goldman the $3,500.00

Do you have this link?
martinii

Hi Martin,

Nope. I read that wrong. I thought it was saying a Florida Judge ruled it but it was a Florida attorney holding it.

Here is a better link that says exactly that.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=fe033ef5-8d10-4fba-b8b8-f7be8a19ef2c&entry=index

I am sure that Simpson's attorney's will try and stop this action. But, I don't believe it will be stopped. And, the Goldman Attorney is saying that this is a big deal because it is forward progress.

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

Nope. I read that wrong. I thought it was saying a Florida Judge ruled it but it was a Florida attorney holding it.

Here is a better link that says exactly that.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=fe033ef5-8d10-4fba-b8b8-f7be8a19ef2c&entry=index

I am sure that Simpson's attorney's will try and stop this action. But, I don't believe it will be stopped. And, the Goldman Attorney is saying that this is a big deal because it is forward progress.


Tazzy

So it was NOT a FLORIDA judge that made this ruling as you stated.

Initially Fred filed a case in the Federal court in la asking for money from Oj earnings. This federal judge tossed the claim and told Fred he had filed in the wrong court and should take his case to Florida.

Then Fred found Judge Goldberg and filed the claim and judge goldberg ruled in Freds favor and against the Federal judge. i Don't understand that.

The Judge's order to have the rights auctioned off was never put to the test because of the LBA banrkuptcy filing.

Now i assume that the same judge in CA, Goldberg issued this new ruling that oj's lawyer in Florida must break the trust he has holding this $3,500 for oj and give it to Mr Goldman.

My question is does the CA judge's ruling allow the Florida lawyer to break the turst he has in Florida with his client under Florida trust laws. That we will have to see. Do you know the legal answer to this?

The other strange issue is that in the beginning Fred was to receive the money free and clear from the auction. Now his lawyer says Fred is willing to try to PURCHASE the rights in the bankruptcy action from the trustee so that he can publish and sell the book. If this does happen then Fred will be paying off all the debts of LBA.
What a strange turnaround.
martin II

[sassylassy]

sassy
hi
it seems that the trustee can/will sell the LBA assets to pay off the legitimate creditors of LBA.(according to above links)

I am wondering who will bid on the assets of LBA.(book title)Will it be some large publishing house, some internet publisher or MR Goldman.

Another issue is, can the creditors ban togeather and accept the rights as a group for debt owed?

martin II

Hi Martin :)

welcome back!

I am not not sure what the deal is, with all these law suits I`m starting to get confused (lol).....

c-ya

[martin II]

Hi Martin :)

welcome back!

I am not not sure what the deal is, with all these law suits I`m starting to get confused (lol).....

c-ya

sassy hi
thanks

i do agree.
The latest effort to get a 12 year old suit worn by oj, takes the cake for me.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
i do agree.
The latest effort to get a 12 year old suit worn by oj, takes the cake for me.



I think it "takes the cake" that the suit is up for SALE. I wonder how the person would have gotten a hold of the suit? OJ?

[sassylassy]

sassy hi
thanks

i do agree.
The latest effort to get a 12 year old suit worn by oj, takes the cake for me.

martin II

LOL, ITA its crazy stuff!
(imo)

if someone actually pays 25,000 dollars for that suit....
I think I will be sick!:tongue:

[sassylassy]

sassy
hi
IF oj previously sold or gave the suit to the current owner, how is it that Mr Goldman has decided that the current owner should give him(fred) his property?
martin ii

interesting point!

I can see this being of concern for the Goldman family only if OJS is profiting from the sale of the suit.

here is another link re:suit

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273814,00.html

all jmo!

[sassylassy]

snip

So it was NOT a FLORIDA judge that made this ruling as you stated.




I never knew OJS had another lawyer, it sounds like to me this ruling was made in CA? :read:

A call left for Simpson's California-based attorney, Ronald P. Slates

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_144075917.html

[martin II]

interesting point!

I can see this being of concern for the Goldman family only if OJS is profiting from the sale of the suit.

here is another link re:suit

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273814,00.html

all jmo!

sassy
if oj sold some of his old clothing some time ago for cash i guess he spent the cash on new suits like a $2,000.00 ARMANI.IMO

If the suite does sell for $25,000 and then $100,000 it may prove that someone likes oj. I GUESS:shrug:
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

Nope. I read that wrong. I thought it was saying a Florida Judge ruled it but it was a Florida attorney holding it.

Here is a better link that says exactly that.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=fe033ef5-8d10-4fba-b8b8-f7be8a19ef2c&entry=index

I am sure that Simpson's attorney's will try and stop this action. But, I don't believe it will be stopped. And, the Goldman Attorney is saying that this is a big deal because it is forward progress.

tazzy hi

'Cook says if the suit has been sold, he'll ask the judge to force the seller to turn over the loot.'

http://www.tmz.com/2007/05/21/oj-simpsons-suit-suit/

Tazzy hi.

Doers this mean that Freds Lawyer believe that all of OJ's old clothes belonges to fred?

martin II

[sassylassy]

snip

If the suit does sell for $25,000 and then $100,000 it may prove that someone likes oj. I GUESS
MARTIN ii

ha ha ...or it may prove someone is crazy & they have lots of money to waste on foolish things lol.:tongue:

I can think of 100 better ways to blow 25,000 ;)

always Moo :)

[sassylassy]

tazzy hi

'Cook says if the suit has been sold, he'll ask the judge to force the seller to turn over the loot.'

http://www.tmz.com/2007/05/21/oj-simpsons-suit-suit/

Tazzy hi.

Doers this mean that Freds Lawyer believe that all of OJ's old clothes belonges to fred?

martin II

do we know if ojs is making any money from the sale of the suit?:shrug:

[martin II]

do we know if ojs is making any money from the sale of the suit?:shrug:

it is only a guess but oj may have sold old clothes when he left CA. or he could have given some to someone or he could have left clothes in the jail when he was headed home. hahaha

IF oj did sell the item.believe me the cash is gone or in a jelly jar in the pantry. haha

It seem like a odd situation for Mr Goldman to be in court asking for a 12 year old suite of oj's.No shame i guess.:shrug:

martin II

[martin II]

ha ha ...or it may prove someone is crazy & they have lots of money to waste on foolish things lol.:tongue:

I can think of 100 better ways to blow 25,000 ;)

always Moo :)

sassy
the second broker waiting to receive the suite say he can sell it for $100,000
so why did he contact Fred

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
It seem like a odd situation for Mr Goldman to be in court asking for a 12 year old suite of oj's.No shame i guess.:shrug:


Nothing odd or shameful about it imo. IIRC it just went up for sale recently.

Shameful is murdering the mother of your children. It doesn't get much worse than that. imo

[jotun]

Tazzy

So it was NOT a FLORIDA judge that made this ruling as you stated.

Initially Fred filed a case in the Federal court in la asking for money from Oj earnings. This federal judge tossed the claim and told Fred he had filed in the wrong court and should take his case to Florida.

Then Fred found Judge Goldberg and filed the claim and judge goldberg ruled in Freds favor and against the Federal judge. i Don't understand that.

The Judge's order to have the rights auctioned off was never put to the test because of the LBA banrkuptcy filing.

Now i assume that the same judge in CA, Goldberg issued this new ruling that oj's lawyer in Florida must break the trust he has holding this $3,500 for oj and give it to Mr Goldman.

My question is does the CA judge's ruling allow the Florida lawyer to break the turst he has in Florida with his client under Florida trust laws. That we will have to see. Do you know the legal answer to this?

The other strange issue is that in the beginning Fred was to receive the money free and clear from the auction. Now his lawyer says Fred is willing to try to PURCHASE the rights in the bankruptcy action from the trustee so that he can publish and sell the book. If this does happen then Fred will be paying off all the debts of LBA.
What a strange turnaround.
martin II

Martin: IMO
No it was NOT a Fla judge.Would assume it's freds judge Rosenburg that ruled that ANY money be turned over to fred because the goldmans BELIEVE that Starke has O.J. MONEY in trust.Why would he??
IMO

jotun

[jotun]

I never knew OJS had another lawyer, it sounds like to me this ruling was made in CA? :read:

A call left for Simpson's California-based attorney, Ronald P. Slates

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_144075917.html

sassy
Ron Slates has been O.J.'s lawyer since 97 just after the money trial.He appeared with O.J.at the first debtors hearing and everything thereafter including for O.J. in all these goldman Ca.lawsuits. Think Slates is the ONLY orginal lawyer in the money case.

IMO

jotun

[martin II]

Martin: IMO
No it was NOT a Fla judge.Would assume it's freds judge Rosenburg that ruled that ANY money be turned over to fred because the goldmans BELIEVE that Starke has O.J. MONEY in trust.Why would he??
IMO

jotun

why would oj leave $3.500 there ??
martin iI

[jotun]

sassy
the second broker waiting to receive the suite say he can sell it for $100,000
so why did he contact Fred

martin II

sassy-martin
IMO
The second broker Beardsley[a O.J. collector] was brought to court before by the goldmans.He was ordered to turn over 2 passes.He later refused, said he learned they were stolen & was giving them back to O.J.and that fred could try to get them from O.J.
Wonder IF the 'NOT GUILTY' suit was also stolen since the first broker was a cohort of the agent who had the passes and have heard years ago had the suit??

IMO

jotun

[jotun]

why would oj leave $3.500 there ??
martin iI

Martin- All-IMO

http://www.daileycoment.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?AID=20070526/APN/705260525

O.J.'s 4 kids have been ordered to turn over all copies etc of O.J.'s book.
To prevent any unauthorized distribution or dismenation.
Goldman's lawyer said his clients were concerned that portions of the book might be released or sold, which would cause the value of Simpson's assets to decrease.

IMO-Have they forgotten the Newsweek article about the chapter or the review of the whole book at VF.com.
Why would the kids have anything but the rights?

IFFFF--- the goldmans 'win' the rights to
that book.
IMO
O.J.,Yale, Arnelle, Jason, Sydney and Justin will make sure those book rights will NOT be worth a nickel.

IMO

jotun

[martin II]

Martin- All-IMO

http://www.daileycoment.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?AID=20070526/APN/705260525

O.J.'s 4 kids have been ordered to turn over all copies etc of O.J.'s book.
To prevent any unauthorized distribution or dismenation.
Goldman's lawyer said his clients were concerned that portions of the book might be released or sold, which would cause the value of Simpson's assets to decrease.

IMO-Have they forgotten the Newsweek article about the chapter or the review of the whole book at VF.com.
Why would the kids have anything but the rights?

IFFFF--- the goldmans 'win' the rights to
that book.
IMO
O.J.,Yale, Arnelle, Jason, Sydney and Justin will make sure those book rights will NOT be worth a nickel.

IMO

jotun


jotun
i believe there are book out there that were not returned and books taken from the printing house that are owned by people in tne publishing underworld. HC has the original book transcript and i guess oj has a copy also.
Judith Regan and Pablo Funjvis kept their copy i guess.So there is the posibility that there are copies floating around.

It is my understand that the florida bankruptcy judge has appointed a trustee to liquidate the assets of LBA. He has several options to do this.
1. The creditors can ban togeather and take the assets (title)for the debt owed and they can publish the book.If they believe there is value.
2. Trustee can sell to highest bidder that has standing. Remember the Canadian publisheer was on cnn saying he would bid when the auction was in play.
3. other.

I agree that parts of the book will be leaked by various people for profit.
SO if Mr Goldman does make the highest bid for the title and then attempt to print and sell it, the retail value may be low in the end.

imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
O.J.,Yale, Arnelle, Jason, Sydney and Justin will make sure those book rights will NOT be worth a nickel.


I doubt they have that kind of power.

[fbgweezer]

it is only a guess but oj may have sold old clothes when he left CA. or he could have given some to someone or he could have left clothes in the jail when he was headed home. hahaha

IF oj did sell the item.believe me the cash is gone or in a jelly jar in the pantry. haha

It seem like a odd situation for Mr Goldman to be in court asking for a 12 year old suite of oj's.No shame i guess.:shrug:

martin II

since the freebies stopped, he was probably trying to get the money together to replace his BM's ;)

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, I don't think the public was the one who blocked the release of the book. I think this book has been read and it was only stopped when it was discovered that there was no information that would point to Simpson's guilt. In all these years, he has never said anything that even came close to that.

Also, I think the fact that an accomplice was in the book, this opened a whole lot of questions that the DA's and the LAPD don't want asked. IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

IMO, I don't think the public was the one who blocked the release of the book.

Also, I think the fact that an accomplice was in the book, this opened a whole lot of questions that the DA's and the LAPD don't want asked. IMO.

So...you think the DA's and the LAPD blocked the book? :confused:

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I don't think the public was the one who blocked the release of the book. I think this book has been read and it was only stopped when it was discovered that there was no information that would point to Simpson's guilt. In all these years, he has never said anything that even came close to that.

Also, I think the fact that an accomplice was in the book, this opened a whole lot of questions that the DA's and the LAPD don't want asked. IMO.

limakey

I have always wondered why anyone would buy this book unless they wanted to read oj's version of this 17 year experience with Nicole Simpson.
The one chapter on the 'murders" was obviously a zero written by OJ, Pablo Fenjves and orchestrated by Judith Regan.IMO
It is also possible that 'CHARLIE' was someone.:shrug:
MARTIN ii

[limakey]

Martin,

Do you remember what really hurt the cops in the federal Rodney King trial? Didn't two of them write a book that bit them in the "badge"?

From what I got from interviews and books, there has always been a strong belief that OJ did not act alone, at least in regards to the clean up. Petrocelli made a huge mistake by giving this up in his book.

IMO, it is fantasy on his part that it was Arnelle, he still opened the door that the DA's firmly bolted shut where not even Superman's x-ray vision could melt the locks.

Also, in all respect to our G's friends and fellow NG's, there is something that Simpson said that was very interesting. He said something like the book had so many inaccuracies that anyone who followed his case would know and I believe that to be true.

As much as are G friends stand strong on his guilt, they would have tore into that book because of the inaccuracies of the facts. Maybe there were just too many of them?

I think the book would have done very well but the fall out was going to be horrific for the LAPD and the DA's. While the Goldmans' have never opening made remarks against the LAPD and the DA's, the Browns did, at least against Marcia Clark. I think it was only Denise who spoke out.

BTW, I think it is only fair to read both sides of a case. I would have bought it just like I did Mark Fuhrman's.

[Heyes]

Martin,

Do you remember what really hurt the cops in the federal Rodney King trial? Didn't two of them write a book that bit them in the "badge"?

From what I got from interviews and books, there has always been a strong belief that OJ did not act alone, at least in regards to the clean up. Petrocelli made a huge mistake by giving this up in his book.

IMO, it is fantasy on his part that it was Arnelle, he still opened the door that the DA's firmly bolted shut where not even Superman's x-ray vision could melt the locks.

Also, in all respect to our G's friends and fellow NG's, there is something that Simpson said that was very interesting. He said something like the book had so many inaccuracies that anyone who followed his case would know and I believe that to be true.

As much as are G friends stand strong on his guilt, they would have tore into that book because of the inaccuracies of the facts. Maybe there were just too many of them?

I think the book would have done very well but the fall out was going to be horrific for the LAPD and the DA's. While the Goldmans' have never opening made remarks against the LAPD and the DA's, the Browns did, at least against Marcia Clark. I think it was only Denise who spoke out.

BTW, I think it is only fair to read both sides of a case. I would have bought it just like I did Mark Fuhrman's.
Oh boy, looks like I've missed alot...
The LAPD and the DA's office will experience "fall out" from some stupid book? huh? Oranthal hasn't told the truth about anything how would this book cause problems with the authorities?
What did the Goldmans say about Clark?

[socaldiva]

Oh boy, looks like I've missed alot...
The LAPD and the DA's office will experience "fall out" from some stupid book? huh? Oranthal hasn't told the truth about anything how would this book cause problems with the authorities?
What did the Goldmans say about Clark?

and IIRC, the only thing Denise Brown said relative to the DA's office & LE, was that she couldn't stand Marcia Clark. Doesn't sound very incriminating to me.

[limakey]

Heyes,

I don't remember the Goldmans saying anything negative about Clark. Denise Brown was upset because of some of the things that Clark said about her family in her book and that there was a time when she went into Clark's office and she had autopsy photos or crime scene photos of Nicole and she felt it was insensitive of Clark to have those photos out when went into her office.

There are so many questions that have never been answered in the trial. There are people who believe that one person could not have done this. Both Clark and Darden have said that they believe others were involved--at least in helping get rid of evidence.

Any person who has followed this case or even has come into later is making a huge mistake in believing that we know all the evidence, from both sides. I think the most damning comments on the issue of an accomplice comes from Marcia Clark's book. She have a press conference saying that Simpson was the sole murderer and regretted the words as soon as they were out of her mouth. She basically said after that they were married to the sole murderer theory.

Which, is rather upsetting, IMO.

Also, if you think about it, OJ Simpson could be telling the truth on a lot of issues, which doesn't mean he did not kill them.

[tazzybaby]

Tazzy

So it was NOT a FLORIDA judge that made this ruling as you stated.

Initially Fred filed a case in the Federal court in la asking for money from Oj earnings. This federal judge tossed the claim and told Fred he had filed in the wrong court and should take his case to Florida.

Then Fred found Judge Goldberg and filed the claim and judge goldberg ruled in Freds favor and against the Federal judge. i Don't understand that.

The Judge's order to have the rights auctioned off was never put to the test because of the LBA banrkuptcy filing.

Now i assume that the same judge in CA, Goldberg issued this new ruling that oj's lawyer in Florida must break the trust he has holding this $3,500 for oj and give it to Mr Goldman.

My question is does the CA judge's ruling allow the Florida lawyer to break the turst he has in Florida with his client under Florida trust laws. That we will have to see. Do you know the legal answer to this?

The other strange issue is that in the beginning Fred was to receive the money free and clear from the auction. Now his lawyer says Fred is willing to try to PURCHASE the rights in the bankruptcy action from the trustee so that he can publish and sell the book. If this does happen then Fred will be paying off all the debts of LBA.
What a strange turnaround.
martin II

No, it was NOT the Florida judge as I stated. That's why I said in my previous post that I mis read that. I concede and always will if I make a mistake. So, for all posters....I apologize for any misleading statements I made. I simply read the headline wrong. That's what happens when I try to work and post at the same time...lol Nothing sinister intended.

However, if the California judge didn't have any authority to do this in Florida then I don't think he would. I would think that he would tell them he has no authority dealing with Florida. However, he hasn't. I do believe that OJ and his team will do anything and everything to try and block anything that the Goldman's do. Just like I believe that the Goldman's will do anything and everything they can to get whatever they can from OJ. I am glad for that. Hopefully OJ will never profit from these murders again. And, hopefully OJ gets the hint that they won't just allow him to profit from the murders like that.

:cool:

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

'Cook says if the suit has been sold, he'll ask the judge to force the seller to turn over the loot.'

http://www.tmz.com/2007/05/21/oj-simpsons-suit-suit/

Tazzy hi.

Doers this mean that Freds Lawyer believe that all of OJ's old clothes belonges to fred?

martin II


Hi Martin,

No silly! It doesn't mean that Fred's Lawyers believe that all of OJ's old clothes belong to Fred. It means that Fred and his Lawyers want everyone to know that they plan on pursuing all avenues. OJ is going to sell his suit for money? Okay. Then whoever tries to turn around and sell it then the Goldman's are going to go after them. That lets everyone know that they are helping a murderer profit from his crime and they won't stand for it. Good for them!! And, I believe that the person who had plans on selling it understood that also. That's why they agreed to split the proceeds. Most people support the Goldman's and what they're trying to accomplish.

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

No silly! It doesn't mean that Fred's Lawyers believe that all of OJ's old clothes belong to Fred. It means that Fred and his Lawyers want everyone to know that they plan on pursuing all avenues. OJ is going to sell his suit for money? Okay. Then whoever tries to turn around and sell it then the Goldman's are going to go after them. That lets everyone know that they are helping a murderer profit from his crime and they won't stand for it. Good for them!! And, I believe that the person who had plans on selling it understood that also. That's why they agreed to split the proceeds. Most people support the Goldman's and what they're trying to accomplish.

tazzy hi

ok
lets say oj legally sold the suite to a person for $100.00 (any amount) last month or sometime past. Nothing illegal about that.

This new suite owner then sells it, his legal property, for $25,000 to another person.

you belive a court or Fred can then force the second owner to give him,Fred, the $25,000.00 sale price.

Under what law. What law has been broken?
martin II

[martin II]

tazzy hi

ps
oj selling his old clothes is profiting from what crime?
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

There are so many questions that have never been answered in the trial. There are people who believe that one person could not have done this. Both Clark and Darden have said that they believe others were involved--at least in helping get rid of evidence.



Oh I certainly believe that he had help destroying evidence after he acted alone in murdering two people.

I am in the process of re-reading Paula Barbieri's book and it seems that OJ used Arnelle quite a bit to cover up his lies throughout the years priors to the murders, though apparently with the whole LBA issue that habit has followed afterward as well.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

ok
lets say oj legally sold the suite to a person for $100.00 (any amount) last month or sometime past. Nothing illegal about that.

This new suite owner then sells it, his legal property, for $25,000 to another person.

you belive a court or Fred can then force the second owner to give him,Fred, the $25,000.00 sale price.

Under what law. What law has been broken?
martin II


Hi Martin,

Why would OJ sell his "court" suit? To make money, right? Right. Okay, and what "court" suit was that? It was the court suit regarding the case of his murdered ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman. The same people he was found responsible for their deaths. That is profitting from a crime. That is wrong. That is why Fred went after the suit. His son is Ron Goldman. He has every right to do what he's doing.

The law that has been broken is that he is illegally making money.

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi

ok
lets say oj legally sold the suite to a person for $100.00 (any amount) last month or sometime past. Nothing illegal about that.

This new suite owner then sells it, his legal property, for $25,000 to another person.

you belive a court or Fred can then force the second owner to give him,Fred, the $25,000.00 sale price.

Under what law. What law has been broken?
martin II

the judgment didn't stipulate where the money would come from -- it just says any income. Soooooo, I guess if orenthal wants to make his money doing garage sales, then so be it. He still owes the judgment.

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

Why would OJ sell his "court" suit? To make money, right? Right. Okay, and what "court" suit was that? It was the court suit regarding the case of his murdered ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman. The same people he was found responsible for their deaths. That is profitting from a crime. That is wrong. That is why Fred went after the suit. His son is Ron Goldman. He has every right to do what he's doing.

The law that has been broken is that he is illegally making money.

tazzy hi


nope. wrong again.

It is totally legal for OJ to make money.

oj was on trial for 9 months. he wore many different suites to court daily. these clothes belonged to him. He can sell his old clothes just as you and i can. No law against that at all.

Selling one's clothes is NOT BREAKING ANY LAW and any person that baught the clother and resold them has absolutely no obligaiton to FRED.

Tazzy
The judgement that Fred has ONLY means that as far as that civil court is concerned, OJ owes Fred money. It does not mesn that Fred has legal control
of what oj can and cannot do. That is important to know.imo


martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
It is totally legal for OJ to make money.


Who said it was illegal? All that is being said is that the Goldman's are entitled to income that isn't retirement based.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi


nope. wrong again.

It is totally legal for OJ to make money.

oj was on trial for 9 months. he wore many different suites to court daily. these clothes belonged to him. He can sell his old clothes just as you and i can. No law against that at all.

Selling one's clothes is NOT BREAKING ANY LAW and any person that baught the clother and resold them has absolutely no obligaiton to FRED.

Tazzy
The judgement that Fred has ONLY means that as far as that civil court is concerned, OJ owes Fred money. It does not mesn that Fred has legal control
of what oj can and cannot do. That is important to know.imo


martin II

If it's so legal then why does he hide his money? Why does he sneak in to venues to sign autographs and have someone slip out with the money?

He is hiding his money. That is breaking the law.

[socaldiva]

If it's so legal then why does he hide his money? Why does he sneak in to venues to sign autographs and have someone slip out with the money?

He is hiding his money. That is breaking the law.

I think the key word Martin is using is "making" money. It's not illegal to "make" it, but I believe it's illegal to spend it without it being subject to the judgement. JMO

[martin II]

the judgment didn't stipulate where the money would come from -- it just says any income. Soooooo, I guess if orenthal wants to make his money doing garage sales, then so be it. He still owes the judgment.

weezer
so far I have not read anything about ok making money doing garage sales.
I did read that he made about $850,00 or more on that book and it was 100%legal.
I think the judgement only says there is a judgement against oj simpson in favor of Fred and the estate of Nicole simpson.

IMO
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

If it's so legal then why does he hide his money? Why does he sneak in to venues to sign autographs and have someone slip out with the money?

He is hiding his money. That is breaking the law.

TAZZY HI
Are you sure. I don't think it is illegal to hide ones money. OJ is under no court order that required him to make public to anyone when and what money he makes.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Are you sure. I don't think it is illegal to hide ones money.

Why on earth would someone need to hide their money, if not for avoidance??? I'd say Orenthal knows the Goldman's are entitled to the money legally.

[martin II]

tazzy hi

It is my understand that the judgement ONLY said that this judgement is against OJ simpson and in favor of Fred and Nicole simpson estate. I don't think it even says oj MUST pay it. It is just a judgement. It is up to OJ to pay it or for Fred to find money owned by oj and use the judgement at a bank
or some other transaction to take the money. If fred is not able to find the money, then he only has the judgement paper.imo

It is no different than a court judgement that master card or visa might get in court against someone for credit debt. imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I don't think it even says oj MUST pay it.

:confused:

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi

It is my understand that the judgement ONLY said that this judgement is against OJ simpson and in favor of Fred and Nicole simpson estate. I don't think it even says oj MUST pay it. It is just a judgement. It is up to OJ to pay it or for Fred to find money owned by oj and use the judgement at a bank
or some other transaction to take the money. If fred is not able to find the money, then he only has the judgement paper.imo

It is no different than a court judgement that master card or visa might get in court against someone for credit debt. imo
martin II

hmmm -- I think it's AMEX and Direct TV that he cheated also

[martin II]

hmmm -- I think it's AMEX and Direct TV that he cheated also

weezer
it seems silly that oj would do what so many americans do now days and that is buy those illegal tv code boxes sold by popular machinics magazine, mail order houses to get free cable. These boxes are also sold by cable co. technicians that come out to service the cable networks. Figure that.
seems like a great number of people do like to beat the system.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer
it seems silly that oj would do what so many americans do now days and that is buy those illegal tv code boxes sold by popular machinics magazine, mail order houses to get free cable. These boxes are also sold by cable co. technicians that come out to service the cable networks. Figure that.
seems like a great number of people do like to beat the system.

martin II

face it martin -- besides being a double murderer, orenthal james simpson is a deadbeat.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi


nope. wrong again.

It is totally legal for OJ to make money.

oj was on trial for 9 months. he wore many different suites to court daily. these clothes belonged to him. He can sell his old clothes just as you and i can. No law against that at all.

Selling one's clothes is NOT BREAKING ANY LAW and any person that baught the clother and resold them has absolutely no obligaiton to FRED.

Tazzy
The judgement that Fred has ONLY means that as far as that civil court is concerned, OJ owes Fred money. It does not mesn that Fred has legal control
of what oj can and cannot do. That is important to know.imo


martin II

I never said it was illegal to sell the suit. The way he hides the money he does make is ILLEGAL. That's why Fred has to chase him. I'm so glad Fred hasn't given up his fight!

Martin,

The judgement means he HAS to pay. It does not mean that OJ is suppose to hide his money. Surely, you don't condone someone breaking the law or using it to escape justice!

[martin II]

I never said it was illegal to sell the suit. The way he hides the money he does make is ILLEGAL. That's why Fred has to chase him. I'm so glad Fred hasn't given up his fight!

Martin,

The judgement means he HAS to pay. It does not mean that OJ is suppose to hide his money. Surely, you don't condone someone breaking the law or using it to escape justice!

tazzy hi

You may not like it that oj hides his money like many others do but my point to you is you are wrong when you call it illegal.

Pleople hide money in banks and bank safety deposits boxes and under the bed all the time.imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

You may not like it that oj hides his money like many others do but my point to you is you are wrong when you call it illegal.

Pleople hide money in banks and bank safety deposits boxes and under the bed all the time.imo
martin II

I am not wrong.

He hides it to keep from paying his judgement. Do you think that's legal? I don't care who does it and if they do it all the time. It's still wrong. And, it's illegal.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Pleople hide money in banks

How do you "hide money in banks"? :confused:

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi

You may not like it that oj hides his money like many others do but my point to you is you are wrong when you call it illegal.

Pleople hide money in banks and bank safety deposits boxes and under the bed all the time.imo
martin II

you do realize that if orenthal were not legally required to pay the judgment, he would not have had to run to Florida? So logic is, if you are legally required to pay a judgment and you do not, to hide your money is illegal. But, when you consider that we are talking about an abuser and double murderer. . . . .:eek:

[martin II]

you do realize that if orenthal were not legally required to pay the judgment, he would not have had to run to Florida? So logic is, if you are legally required to pay a judgment and you do not, to hide your money is illegal. But, when you consider that we are talking about an abuser and double murderer. . . . .:eek:

weezer
maby you should ask your lawyer friend to clarify that point.
martin II

[martin II]

you do realize that if orenthal were not legally required to pay the judgment, he would not have had to run to Florida? So logic is, if you are legally required to pay a judgment and you do not, to hide your money is illegal. But, when you consider that we are talking about an abuser and double murderer. . . . .:eek:

weeaer
wonder why judge Goldberg told Fred he was not concerned about the money OJ received from the book.
maby you should ask your legal friend to clearify that point for you.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer
maby you should ask your lawyer friend to clarify that point.
martin II

:confused:

[limakey]

Taz,

IMO, Simpson only has used laws that have been put in place long before either of his trials. The Goldmans have always said this was not about the money and I believe them. However, I also believe Simpson when he says it isn't about the money either, he has always said that he would not pay the Goldmans for something that he didn't do. I seriously doubt that there has been a man who has been watched so closely in recent history. Every thing Simpson said he used the money for could have been easily verified by the media. Can you honestly say that you would pay for something you didn't do before you would pay for your kid's education?

And if what Simpson was doing was illegal, he would have been charged and another trial would have been generated. Simpson is only taking advantages of the law that many, many, many others have used in the past, who continue to use them today and will do so in the future.

Why is such anger focused on the man and not on the laws that enable him to do this? Why the anger at his lawyers who are defending the very laws that other lawyers wrote and the governments who enacted them into laws?

If you conside these laws illegal, then they must be considered illegal for all people who use them, not just Simpson. IMO, of course!

And Taz, lets be real, had Simpson paid the judgement, how long would it take G's to post that was another sign of his guilt? That they would never pay a judgement for something they didn't do? How long would he be slammed for paying a judgement while ignoring the well being of his children? How long before a G's would post, "he killed their mom, at least he could have made sure they had a good education!". This case is truly insane, if you think about. Again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Can you honestly say that you would pay for something you didn't do before you would pay for your kid's education?


It's not an either or proposition. Simpson had approximately $30,000 a month from his retirement. That is plenty to live on & send 2 kids to college. If he were a decent law abiding citizen, he could pay against the judgement with his other earnings. Then again, if he were a moral man he wouldn't have committed the murder in the first place. The court doesn't say "only pay if you did it". It was determined in court that he did it. He embraces the law when it serves him & when it doesn't, he disregards it. No respect for women & no respect for the law. imo

[2L8 4A D8]

How do you "hide money in banks"? :confused:

I don't know about you, but I have noticed "plenty" that everytime you post to Martin that he flat doesn't answer you! Have you noticed that? He only answers to Bob August, FG Weezer, Limakey, Tazzbaby, William Anthony and any new poster that comes on the board as an NG.

I'm pretty sick of what he is doing now about Bob August by which he refuses to answer him now because he says that "Bob now wants to get into a fight with him" when Martin's the one that started it!" Martin got banned once, he can get banned again!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Taz,

IMO, Simpson only has used laws that have been put in place long before either of his trials. The Goldmans have always said this was not about the money and I believe them. However, I also believe Simpson when he says it isn't about the money either, he has always said that he would not pay the Goldmans for something that he didn't do. I seriously doubt that there has been a man who has been watched so closely in recent history. Every thing Simpson said he used the money for could have been easily verified by the media. Can you honestly say that you would pay for something you didn't do before you would pay for your kid's education?

And if what Simpson was doing was illegal, he would have been charged and another trial would have been generated. Simpson is only taking advantages of the law that many, many, many others have used in the past, who continue to use them today and will do so in the future.

Why is such anger focused on the man and not on the laws that enable him to do this? Why the anger at his lawyers who are defending the very laws that other lawyers wrote and the governments who enacted them into laws?

If you conside these laws illegal, then they must be considered illegal for all people who use them, not just Simpson. IMO, of course!

And Taz, lets be real, had Simpson paid the judgement, how long would it take G's to post that was another sign of his guilt? That they would never pay a judgement for something they didn't do? How long would he be slammed for paying a judgement while ignoring the well being of his children? How long before a G's would post, "he killed their mom, at least he could have made sure they had a good education!". This case is truly insane, if you think about. Again, IMO.


limakey
thanks for telling the real truth again. Some people have developed a high degree iof hate towards Simnpson only because they THINK THEY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

imo
martinII

[fbgweezer]

limakey
thanks for telling the real truth again. Some people have developed a high degree iof hate towards Simnpson only because they THINK THEY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

imo
martinII

Originally Posted by limakey
However, I also believe Simpson when he says it isn't about the money either, he has always said that he would not pay the Goldmans for something that he didn't do.

So is he also 'saying' that 'someone else' charged on his AMEX and used the cable in his home since he didn't pay them either? ;)

[martin II]

Originally Posted by limakey
However, I also believe Simpson when he says it isn't about the money either, he has always said that he would not pay the Goldmans for something that he didn't do.

So is he also 'saying' that 'someone else' charged on his AMEX and used the cable in his home since he didn't pay them either? ;)

weezer

i don't know what happened with oj and that amex issue and i am not sure you do either but i see noting that this amex issue has to do with oj saying he would not pay a judgement for killing people when he says he did not do it.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer

i don't know what happened with oj and that amex issue and i am not sure you do either but i see noting that this amex issue has to do with oj saying he would not pay a judgement for killing people when he says he did not do it.

martin II

obviously orenthal has not paid his AMEX bill and they have sued him for payment. My question was simply if he isn't paying the Goldman/Brown judgment because he says he didn't do it, then do you believe that's his reason for not paying his bills?

[martin II]

:confused:

weezer
i may be wrong but i thought it was you that gave us the benefit your friend or brother on another issue we discussed. if it was not you then ignor my post.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

IMO, Simpson only has used laws that have been put in place long before either of his trials. The Goldmans have always said this was not about the money and I believe them. However, I also believe Simpson when he says it isn't about the money either, he has always said that he would not pay the Goldmans for something that he didn't do. I seriously doubt that there has been a man who has been watched so closely in recent history. Every thing Simpson said he used the money for could have been easily verified by the media. Can you honestly say that you would pay for something you didn't do before you would pay for your kid's education?

And if what Simpson was doing was illegal, he would have been charged and another trial would have been generated. Simpson is only taking advantages of the law that many, many, many others have used in the past, who continue to use them today and will do so in the future.

Why is such anger focused on the man and not on the laws that enable him to do this? Why the anger at his lawyers who are defending the very laws that other lawyers wrote and the governments who enacted them into laws?

If you conside these laws illegal, then they must be considered illegal for all people who use them, not just Simpson. IMO, of course!

And Taz, lets be real, had Simpson paid the judgement, how long would it take G's to post that was another sign of his guilt? That they would never pay a judgement for something they didn't do? How long would he be slammed for paying a judgement while ignoring the well being of his children? How long before a G's would post, "he killed their mom, at least he could have made sure they had a good education!". This case is truly insane, if you think about. Again, IMO.

Limakey,

Please, please let's do be real. For Simpson to "hide" his money/assets is called Fraud. It is common for people to go to jail due to Fraud. Because Fraud is ILLEGAL. The problem with putting him in jail is the people who are helping him to commit this Fraud. It is a civil judgement. That is why he hasn't went to jail for committing Fraud.

You said that Simpson said it wasn't about the money. Please, please back that up. He is not using all his money on his kids. The money that he got for the book did NOT go to his kids education. I am tired of hearing that he uses it on his kids because that is an excuse as is evident with the fact that he used the money on his own personal things and not the education of his children. Many, many people in this world do not have to commit Fraud to pay for their children's education. I don't believe that he doesn't pay it because he didn't commit the crimes. His actions prove that my beliefs are right.

The "anger" that is felt regarding Simpson breaking the law by committing Fraud and hiding his money is because of the heinous act of his crime. He constantly tries to capitalize on this crime. Whether you believe he committed this crime or not, he is a horrible person for doing this. That is what keeps the Goldman's going. His mouth and the way he tries to profit off the murders. I do believe that anyone who committs this type of Fraud is wrong. It is more heinous because this is regarding murder. This is not a simple owing of creditors. No one here is upset that he isn't paying Direct TV. It's about the crime of murder. And, for you to compare it to a creditor is tremendously sad.

He committed this crime Limakey. A civil jury found that he was responsible for this crime. So, whether you believe he did or didn't doesn't matter. Whether I believe he did or didn't doesn't matter. What matters is what happened in court. I don't know of too many people who would actually admit to a crime. So, I don't care what he says about whether he did it or not. He would say he didn't if he did. It doesn't matter what he thinks he should do. Most people who are found guilty don't think they should have to go to jail or pay for their crimes.

[tazzybaby]

limakey
thanks for telling the real truth again. Some people have developed a high degree iof hate towards Simnpson only because they THINK THEY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

imo
martinII

Martin,

That's not the truth. That's an opinion. The hate is directed at Simpson's actions not his self. And guess what, people know what he's done because he does it in the publics eye.

:rolleyes:

[martin II]

Limakey,

Please, please let's do be real. For Simpson to "hide" his money/assets is called Fraud. It is common for people to go to jail due to Fraud. Because Fraud is ILLEGAL. The problem with putting him in jail is the people who are helping him to commit this Fraud. It is a civil judgement. That is why he hasn't went to jail for committing Fraud.

You said that Simpson said it wasn't about the money. Please, please back that up. He is not using all his money on his kids. The money that he got for the book did NOT go to his kids education. I am tired of hearing that he uses it on his kids because that is an excuse as is evident with the fact that he used the money on his own personal things and not the education of his children. Many, many people in this world do not have to commit Fraud to pay for their children's education. I don't believe that he doesn't pay it because he didn't commit the crimes. His actions prove that my beliefs are right.

The "anger" that is felt regarding Simpson breaking the law by committing Fraud and hiding his money is because of the heinous act of his crime. He constantly tries to capitalize on this crime. Whether you believe he committed this crime or not, he is a horrible person for doing this. That is what keeps the Goldman's going. His mouth and the way he tries to profit off the murders. I do believe that anyone who committs this type of Fraud is wrong. It is more heinous because this is regarding murder. This is not a simple owing of creditors. No one here is upset that he isn't paying Direct TV. It's about the crime of murder. And, for you to compare it to a creditor is tremendously sad.

He committed this crime Limakey. A civil jury found that he was responsible for this crime. So, whether you believe he did or didn't doesn't matter. Whether I believe he did or didn't doesn't matter. What matters is what happened in court. I don't know of too many people who would actually admit to a crime. So, I don't care what he says about whether he did it or not. He would say he didn't if he did. It doesn't matter what he thinks he should do. Most people who are found guilty don't think they should have to go to jail or pay for their crimes.


tazzy hi

I will ask you the same question.

Then what do we do with the criminal trial verdict of NOT GUILTY. Ignore it
because we don't like it?
martin II

[martin II]

Limakey,

Please, please let's do be real. For Simpson to "hide" his money/assets is called Fraud. It is common for people to go to jail due to Fraud. Because Fraud is ILLEGAL. The problem with putting him in jail is the people who are helping him to commit this Fraud. It is a civil judgement. That is why he hasn't went to jail for committing Fraud.

You said that Simpson said it wasn't about the money. Please, please back that up. He is not using all his money on his kids. The money that he got for the book did NOT go to his kids education. I am tired of hearing that he uses it on his kids because that is an excuse as is evident with the fact that he used the money on his own personal things and not the education of his children. Many, many people in this world do not have to commit Fraud to pay for their children's education. I don't believe that he doesn't pay it because he didn't commit the crimes. His actions prove that my beliefs are right.

The "anger" that is felt regarding Simpson breaking the law by committing Fraud and hiding his money is because of the heinous act of his crime. He constantly tries to capitalize on this crime. Whether you believe he committed this crime or not, he is a horrible person for doing this. That is what keeps the Goldman's going. His mouth and the way he tries to profit off the murders. I do believe that anyone who committs this type of Fraud is wrong. It is more heinous because this is regarding murder. This is not a simple owing of creditors. No one here is upset that he isn't paying Direct TV. It's about the crime of murder. And, for you to compare it to a creditor is tremendously sad.

He committed this crime Limakey. A civil jury found that he was responsible for this crime. So, whether you believe he did or didn't doesn't matter. Whether I believe he did or didn't doesn't matter. What matters is what happened in court. I don't know of too many people who would actually admit to a crime. So, I don't care what he says about whether he did it or not. He would say he didn't if he did. It doesn't matter what he thinks he should do. Most people who are found guilty don't think they should have to go to jail or pay for their crimes.

tazzy hi
If by some chance Oj were to pay Mr Goldman 33 Million to satisfy that judgement in full, I do not believe this would cause Mr Goldman to cease his
verbal and public attack on oj.imo

martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

I will ask you the same question.

Then what do we do with the criminal trial verdict of NOT GUILTY. Ignore it
because we don't like it?
martin II

But, the criminal trial verdict did not preclude him for being found liable in a court of law by a civil jury. So, the criminal trial verdict had nothing to do with the civil monetary damages. The criminal trial verdict does not mean he is innocent, it means he doesn't go to jail for murdering them. So, it doesn't mean we are ignoring it. It means he doesn't go to jail. The civil verdict means he pays for the crime financially. So, if you want to uphold the criminal trial verdict then you should also uphold the civil verdict.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
If by some chance Oj were to pay Mr Goldman 33 Million to satisfy that judgement in full, I do not believe this would cause Mr Goldman to cease his
verbal and public attack on oj.imo

martin II


I believe that it would cease unless he tried to profit from the crime or made horrible comments regarding the murder/victims families.

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi
If by some chance Oj were to pay Mr Goldman 33 Million to satisfy that judgement in full, I do not believe this would cause Mr Goldman to cease his
verbal and public attack on oj.imo

martin II

I've only seen/heard from the Goldmans when orenthal has pulled another stunt and they are forced to react. IMO

[martin II]

I've only seen/heard from the Goldmans when orenthal has pulled another stunt and they are forced to react. IMO

weezer

The stunts you speak about have been oj's attempts to make money for himself and his family. I think it is unrealistic to expect that oj would not use what is available to him to make money because of the judgement and the opinions of some people. imo

Although i believe few would admit it, if a person had a 33 million judgement against them and the decision was to pay the judgement and put your family in poverty or to ignore the judgement and protect your family,It is my opinion that all would ignore the judgement. imo

In a way it is hyprocritical to be critical of OJ and know in ones heart that faced with the same situation they would ignore the judgement also. imo

Martin II

[koolchick]

weezer

The stunts you speak about have been oj's attempts to make money for himself and his family. I think it is unrealistic to expect that oj would not use what is available to him to make money because of the judgement and the opinions of some people. imo

Although i believe few would admit it, if a person had a 33 million judgement against them and the decision was to pay the judgement and put your family in poverty or to ignore the judgement and protect your family,It is my opinion that all would ignore the judgement. imo

In a way it is hyprocritical to be critical of OJ and know in ones heart that faced with the same situati