T1B

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:13 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Simpson aims to keep any book money instead of paying it out in a civil suit judgment against him by spending it all quickly.
Good luck with that, idiot.

Wonder if he'll spend the cash on good food, good drugs and good strippers. If we're all so lucky he'll off-himself after the book is published.

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:24 pm**

If these are O.J.'s words, I'd have PLENTY of doubt as to what truly happened.

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:39 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Simpson aims to keep any book money instead of paying it out in a civil suit judgment against him by spending it all quickly.
Good luck with that, idiot.

exactly, they may not be able to touch his NFL pension, but I'm thinking any book deal scrilla will be attached long before he can get his bloddy hands on it!

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:47 pm**

silvurna wrote:If these are O.J.'s words, I'd have PLENTY of doubt as to what truly happened.

What's there to figure out? He jacked his ex-wife and a waiter with a knife and got away with it because a) he's rich and b) he's black.

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:54 pm**

Uncle Fester wrote:
silvurna wrote:If these are O.J.'s words, I'd have PLENTY of doubt as to what truly happened.
What's there to figure out? He jacked his ex-wife and a waiter with a knife and got away with it because a) he's rich and b) he's black.

AYK, theories are like ..etc
my theory is he didn't do the actual killing himself, but he knows who did..was aware of it.

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:49 pm**

I have a better idea for a title...

(...tell me you knew this was coming...)

..."Sincerely, Orenthal".

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:29 pm**

silvurna wrote:my theory is he didn't do the actual killing himself, but he knows who did..was aware of it.

my theory is the coat hanger didn't actually kill you in utero, just scrambled your cerebral cortex. your mom knows who did...was aware of it.

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:46 pm**

Read the transcript from the civil trial, particularly where Petrocelli questions O.J. You won't need any "theories" after that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5190480/

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:09 pm**

Fuck me, it was 11 years ago - if we all ignored it, he wouldn't make ANY money from it.

can we all move on?

Posted: **Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:27 pm**

mvscal wrote:
The phantorino wrote:- if we all ignored it, he wouldn't make ANY money from it.

That'll happen right around the same time you lay out an intelligent or remotely humorous take.

...or., apparently, when any of your investments make any money. Enjoy your retirement as the one jizzmopper in the joint that couldn't get a hitman gig.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:24 am**

One of the benefits that criminal defense lawyers take from the OJ trial is the buzzword "timeline." When jurors hear mention of the word "timeline," they tend to think that there's a problem with prosecuting the case and it gives the defense a nugget to punt with .......

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:44 pm**

When jurors hear mention of the word "timeline," they tend to think that there's a problem with prosecuting the case and it gives the defense a nugget to punt with.

I don't get what you're saying.

In the civil trial, Petrocelli reconstructed a narrative of the events of that night, complete with timeline and tie-ins to physical evidence for each event. He phrased the narrative as a series of questions to O.J. so that it would be allowed by the judge.

The effect was devastating, like having Adrian Monk explain "this is what happened that night."

It's a shame that Petrocelli was not part of the prosecution team during the criminal trial.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:50 pm**

Uncle Fester wrote:
When jurors hear mention of the word "timeline," they tend to think that there's a problem with prosecuting the case and it gives the defense a nugget to punt with.
I don't get what you're saying.

In the civil trial, Petrocelli reconstructed a narrative of the events of that night, complete with timeline and tie-ins to physical evidence for each event. He phrased the narrative as a series of questions to O.J. so that it would be allowed by the judge.

The effect was devastating, like having Adrian Monk explain "this is what happened that night."

It's a shame that Petrocelli was not part of the prosecution team during the criminal trial.

The difference being that in a criminal trial, Petrocelli would not have been given the chance to question Orenthal. But even TVO would have been an improvement over Dryden and Clark.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:14 pm**

BSmack wrote:But even TVO would have been an improvement over Dryden and Clark.

Let's not get carried away here.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:25 pm**

BSmack wrote:The difference being that in a criminal trial, Petrocelli would not have been given the chance to question Orenthal.

Another crucial difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial is that the infamous picture of Orenthal in the "ugly-ass" Bruno Maglis surfaced after the criminal trial, but before the civil trial concluded.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:50 pm**

The phantorino wrote:Fuck me, it was 11 years ago - if we all ignored it, he wouldn't make ANY money from it.

can we all move on?

Reading comprehension much?

He was paid a $3.5 million advance. Do you know what that means?

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:51 pm**

ChargerMike wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Simpson aims to keep any book money instead of paying it out in a civil suit judgment against him by spending it all quickly.
Good luck with that, idiot.

exactly, they may not be able to touch his NFL pension, but I'm thinking any book deal scrilla will be attached long before he can get his bloddy hands on it!

Apparently, because he's in Florida and the judgement was in California, they can't touch the book money.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:59 pm**

Mikey wrote:
The phantorino wrote:Fuck me, it was 11 years ago - if we all ignored it, he wouldn't make ANY money from it.

can we all move on?

Reading comprehension much?

He was paid a $3.5 million advance. Do you know what that means?

I may need a shower after saying this, but I get what The phantorino was saying -- sort of. That is, I think he was speaking more in a hypothetical, wishful thinking type mode, rather than evaluating what is actually going on.

Mikey wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:
mvscal wrote: Good luck with that, idiot.

exactly, they may not be able to touch his NFL pension, but I'm thinking any book deal scrilla will be attached long before he can get his bloddy hands on it!
Apparently, because he's in Florida and the judgement was in California, they can't touch the book money.

Just thinking out loud here, but it would be interesting to test whether, assuming Florida has a Son of Sam law, it would apply in this case, in light of the fact that he was acquitted in the criminal trial. I think you could definitely make a fair argument that it might.

But in any event, let's not forget that the original source of all of this is the National Enquirer. Not exactly the most credible news source around.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:42 pm**

Uncle Fester wrote:It's a shame that Petrocelli was not part of the prosecution team during the criminal trial.

I think he's living in a trailer in the Arizona desert, while building his dream house.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:47 pm**

The phantorino wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:It's a shame that Petrocelli was not part of the prosecution team during the criminal trial.
I think he's living in a trailer in the Arizona desert, while building his dream house.

Meaning what?

Do you ever type in coherent sentences? Maybe at least once?

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:50 pm**

The phantorino wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:It's a shame that Petrocelli was not part of the prosecution team during the criminal trial.
I think he's living in a trailer in the Arizona desert, while building his dream house.

Last I heard, he was representing Skilling in the Enron trial.

Btw, if you're right, then he has one hellacious commute to work. And I thought I had it bad in that regard. http://www.omm.com/webcode/navigate.asp ... ntent=2393

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:54 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
The phantorino wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:It's a shame that Petrocelli was not part of the prosecution team during the criminal trial.
I think he's living in a trailer in the Arizona desert, while building his dream house.
Meaning what?

Do you ever type in coherent sentences? Maybe at least once?

You mean you don't get the late 70's TV re-set? *sigh*

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:58 pm**

The phantorino wrote:You mean you don't get the late 70's TV re-set? *sigh*

Late 70s there = mid-80s here, as far as "TV" goes, dipshit.

But by all means, enlighten us. I'm sure it's hilarious.

Just be sure to take your time, type slowly and carefully, and don't let anything distract you.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:59 pm**

Another crucial difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial is that the infamous picture of Orenthal in the "ugly-ass" Bruno Maglis surfaced after the criminal trial, but before the civil trial concluded.

I always wondered about that. The criminal investigation produced photos of the bloody footprints. Why didn't Dumden and Dork follow up on it? Once the type of shoe was identified they could have searched for photos of O.J. wearing them, which would not have been difficult.

Just another fukk up I guess.

Posted: **Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:57 pm**

Uncle Fester wrote:
Another crucial difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial is that the infamous picture of Orenthal in the "ugly-ass" Bruno Maglis surfaced after the criminal trial, but before the civil trial concluded.
I always wondered about that. The criminal investigation produced photos of the bloody footprints. Why didn't Dumden and Dork follow up on it? Once the type of shoe was identified they could have searched for photos of O.J. wearing them, which would not have been difficult.

Just another fukk up I guess.

Not a fan of Clark and Darden by any stretch of the imagination, but the photo that surfaced actually had nothing to do with the killings per se, except for the fact that they were the same shoes that produced the bloody footprints. The photo Petrocelli found was from when Orenthal worked for NBC doing their NFL games.

The "internets" grew by leaps and bounds between the time of the criminal trial and the civil trial. And of course, any close-up of Orenthal would have cropped the shoes off. That picture may very well have been a proverbial needle in the haystack.

Not to mention that, following up on BSmack's point, the prosecution didn't have the "ugly-ass" shoes comment on record, since they couldn't question him.

Posted: **Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:00 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
silvurna wrote:my theory is he didn't do the actual killing himself, but he knows who did..was aware of it.
my theory is the coat hanger didn't actually kill you in utero, just scrambled your cerebral cortex. your mom knows who did...was aware of it.

Don't get all puked out shooting from the hip, Smackie. I didn't say he wasn't a liar..he is. He hired the person(s) to do the dirty work. Cuts on his hands? ....sure..he was at the scene of the crime beating what was left of his life out of Ron G. Guilty as hell.

Posted: **Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:56 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:

O.J. Simpson is confessing. Hypothetically, that is.

The former football great, who was acquitted in criminal court 11 years ago of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, reportedly has been paid a whopping $3.5 million to write about the double murder that shocked and riveted the nation in 1994, according to a detailed report in the new National Enquirer.

But Simpson is not actually confessing to the murder — rather, he’s writing a “hypothetical” book — which the Enquirer reports is tentatively being called “If I Did It.”

The early part of the book tells how Simpson fell in love with Nicole and how the marriage collapsed, reports the tab. He goes on, according to the article, to describe in gruesome detail the killing of his ex-wife and Goldman; he stipulates that the murder scenes are “hypothetical.” But, notes the tab, the descriptions are “so detailed and so chillingly realistic” that readers are left with little doubt as to what really happened.

Simpson can never be retried for the murders because of double jeopardy laws, according to the Enquirer, which also claims that Simpson aims to keep any book money instead of paying it out in a civil suit judgment against him by spending it all quickly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066202/from/RS.2/
I wonder if Mr. Goldman will have something to say.

Not if he wants to keep his dome attached to his neck....

Posted: **Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:43 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
The phantorino wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:It's a shame that Petrocelli was not part of the prosecution team during the criminal trial.
I think he's living in a trailer in the Arizona desert, while building his dream house.
Last I heard, he was representing Skilling in the Enron trial.

You're correct, sir.

T1B

If I Did It

Re: If I Did It