O.J. Simpson Suspected in Armed Robbery

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Now, the latest news ...


Simpson Getting No Celebrity Breaks
By RYAN NAKASHIMA, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago


LAS VEGAS - News conferences, a slew of felony charges, a perp walk in handcuffs and detention in a holding cell without bail _ it's clear authorities aren't giving O.J. Simpson any celebrity breaks.

Police insist such treatment is prudent for a man whose name is synonmous with a slow-speed chase from officers in a white Ford Bronco. But legal experts are questioning whether Simpson is being singled out for extra-tough prosecution in his casino-hotel robbery case as payback for his murder acquittal more than a decade ago.

"It is regrettable that America has not gotten over the O.J. Simpson criminal case," said Carl Douglas, who was co-counsel with Johnnie L. Cochran in Simpson's 1995 criminal trial.

"The fact that he is being held without bail seems unfair and over the top," Douglas said. "O.J. has always been able to satisfy his obligations to the court. He cooperated with the authorities in this case. He is not a flight risk. And he certainly can't hide anywhere."

At least six plainclothes policemen, accompanied by a handful of hotel security guards, arrested Simpson on Sunday at The Palms hotel. He was accused of leading an armed heist of sports memorabilia. Simpson said he was only reclaiming possessions that had been stolen.

"By our standard, there was no major show of force," Sgt. John Loretto said.

Simpson was handcuffed and taken in a police vehicle to the Clark County Detention Center to be booked on six felonies, including two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon. If convicted of the charges, he could get up to 30 years in state prison on each robbery count alone.

Simpson became inmate number 2648927.

Justice of the Peace Douglas Smith, who made the decision to hold Simpson without bail, was "concerned about the flight factor" and because Simpson had no ties to the Las Vegas area, said Judge Nancy Oesterle, who addressed reporters on Monday.

Arraignment was set for Wednesday.

Police said they were giving Simpson no special treatment _ other than keeping him separated from the rest of the general prison population for his own protection.

In June 1994, Los Angeles police gave Simpson a day and a time to turn himself in to face allegations he had killed ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. It was a courtesy, said then-prosecutor Marcia Clark, often extended to celebrities or those with no criminal record.

Instead, Simpson jumped in an SUV, apparently with a loaded gun and ready to commit suicide, and led police and media helicopters on a dramatic, televised chase before surrendering.

"The Bronco chase was a nightmare," said Clark, now a special correspondent for "Entertainment Tonight." "Certainly he has abused that courtesy, so I would not expect anyone to extend it to him again."

In a clear misstatement, Lt. James Dillon said Friday at a news conference that, because Simpson was involved, police were being extra careful to conduct "a thorough, biased and competent investigation."

But some think it might have been more than a slip of the tongue

Jerry Reisman, a New York lawyer who represented O.J. Simpson in the early 1990s in business and real estate matters, said the public and law enforcement "are looking for some sort of conviction for those who want justice for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Everyone wants to be the one that gets him."

Experts also raised questions about the decision to release a man who police said carried a gun in the alleged holdup of two collectors at a Palace Station casino hotel room.

Walter Alexander, 46, of Mesa, Ariz., was released without bail, despite facing charges almost identical to Simpson's. Legal experts said that may indicate his testimony could be key to convicting Simpson.

An apparent audiotape of O.J. Simpson's standoff with men he accused of stealing his memorabilia begins with the former NFL star demanding, "Don't let nobody out of here."

"Think you can steal my s--- and sell it?" the voice identified as Simpson's said, in a recording released by celebrity news Web site TMZ.com.

A big hurdle for prosecutors will also be determining who owned the memorabilia _ everything from cleats worn by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Joe Montana, to autographed baseballs, and Simpson's Hall of Fame certificate.

Bruce Fromong, one of the sports memorabilia dealers who said he was robbed, told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that the items did not belong to Simpson.

"If you're asking did they once belong to him, yes, they did," Fromong said. "But these were things that belonged to him a long time ago."

In 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica returned $33.5 million in judgments against Simpson in a wrongful-death lawsuit by the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

David Cook, an attorney for Goldman's father, Fred Goldman, said he intended to file requests in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday to obtain ownership of the seized sports memorabilia for sale to satisfy the judgment.

"We're going to presume that the bulk of the stuff is probably in police custody," Cook said Monday by telephone from San Francisco. He said other key items were a gold Rolex watch and the suit that he Simpson wore on the day he was acquitted.

"Assuming that this case is resolved one way or another, at the end of the case, the stuff will never go back to Mr. Simpson," Cook vowed. "He's going to walk out of Clark County empty-handed."

Thomas Mesereau Jr., the defense attorney who represented Michael Jackson in a high-profile trial two years ago, said of the Simpson arrest: "This is the kind of case that will test how fair and professional our legal system is. When you have such a groundswell of dislike for someone, you have to make sure they are treated like anyone else."
 
MsMofoGone said:
But legal experts are questioning whether Simpson is being singled out for extra-tough prosecution in his casino-hotel robbery case as payback for his murder acquittal more than a decade ago.
you know, i was thinking this too. him and some buddies went in with some guns to get back what was supposedly his and he's facing decades in prison? of course, the maximum charge doesn't mean that's what he'll get, but still.

He is not a flight risk.
lol, i love lawyers. i don't know if i'd say that. we all know about the infamous car chase with him, so who knows. then again, that was years ago.

this whole thing is just so odd. i can't believe that there was no one with him that told him maybe what he was doing wasn't such a wise thing, and just a tad excessive.
 
Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes
you know, i was thinking this too. him and some buddies went in with some guns to get back what was supposedly his and he's facing decades in prison? of course, the maximum charge doesn't mean that's what he'll get, but still.

I know what you mean. It seems that he is being treated like he's guilty before he's actually proven as convicted for this robbery.
Although, most probably don't feel it's necessary to 'predict' what they think ... as alot of people still CAN'T and WON'T forget about those murders. The fact that he was acquitted for those murders, still apalls alot of people ... most thought he was guilty and the court still didn't see things that way.

So, are they now making up for a past mistake ?? :hmm:
 
OJ's guilt in the murders was never EVER proven. I think it WAS proven that the glove was planted where it was found, hence it being the wrong size(the cops were stupid). There was a lot of circumstantial evidence and there was OJ's own behavior(insensitive and apparently unphased at the fact that the mother of his children had been murdered). This certainly proves that OJ is probably an asshole, but I still don't view it as definitive proof that he did it.
 
namkcuR said:
OJ's guilt in the murders was never EVER proven. I think it WAS proven that the glove was planted where it was found, hence it being the wrong size(the cops were stupid). There was a lot of circumstantial evidence and there was OJ's own behavior(insensitive and apparently unphased at the fact that the mother of his children had been murdered). This certainly proves that OJ is probably an asshole, but I still don't view it as definitive proof that he did it.

Did you watch how he was "trying" to put that glove on? That is certainly not the way you do it if you want to make sure a glove goes on -- it's the way you do it if you want to make sure it doesn't go on. Anyone who has worn leather gloves for any length of time should know he certainly could have put that glove on if he wanted to.
 
What about the Bruno Magli shoes? The DNA? That was all just circumstantial? Or just planted by racist cops and/or mishandled/contaminated? Oh yeah, OJ wouldn't wear those ugly ass shoes-case closed.
 
namkcuR said:
OJ's guilt in the murders was never EVER proven. I think it WAS proven that the glove was planted where it was found, hence it being the wrong size(the cops were stupid). There was a lot of circumstantial evidence and there was OJ's own behavior(insensitive and apparently unphased at the fact that the mother of his children had been murdered). This certainly proves that OJ is probably an asshole, but I still don't view it as definitive proof that he did it.

But of course, for that ending to work, you would have to ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence. [laughs]
And that would be downright nutty. - Troy McClure, The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular
 
indra said:


Did you watch how he was "trying" to put that glove on? That is certainly not the way you do it if you want to make sure a glove goes on -- it's the way you do it if you want to make sure it doesn't go on. Anyone who has worn leather gloves for any length of time should know he certainly could have put that glove on if he wanted to.

Plus it was a bloody, wet leather glove left in storage for months and months. Of course it wouldn't fit like it did before.

That was the dumbest move the prosecutors made in that case, having O.J. try the glove on in court. Of course he's going to act like he's struggling to put it on.

And I've never read where it was proven the glove was planted.
 
namkcuR said:
OJ's guilt in the murders was never EVER proven. I think it WAS proven that the glove was planted where it was found, hence it being the wrong size(the cops were stupid). There was a lot of circumstantial evidence and there was OJ's own behavior(insensitive and apparently unphased at the fact that the mother of his children had been murdered). This certainly proves that OJ is probably an asshole, but I still don't view it as definitive proof that he did it.

You've got to be kidding. Besides all of the DNA, and the Bruno Magli shoes that were proven belonged to him. The gloves that were found (planted or not) were proven to be a gift that Nicole had given to O.J. He wore the same fucking gloves that she gave him to butcher her! How do you explain that? And the noises outside Kato's room right after the murder? The cops hadn't even discovered the crime scene yet. Why would O.J. park his Bronco on the side of his house, when he had that huge driveway with several garages? And the fact that the limo driver waited and waited for somebody to answer at O.J.'s house. What about the cut on his hand? Must have just been a coincidence, eh? There is so much evidence that he did it. That's why to this day people still feel so strongly about this case. Now if you wanna talk about a case where there was no evidence... How about Scott Peterson. The only thing he really did was act weird and unaffected by all of it, and now he's on death row. I definitely think he did it, but it's pretty crazy that he can be convicted with ZERO physical evidence and O.J. can't with loads and loads of physical evidence! And why? Because O.J. is a celebrity. It's plain and simple. That jury was starstruck by him. He was guilty as sin!

As for this new case, I don't care if he's guilty or not. I will get great satisfaction out of knowing he is rotting in jail somewhere. It's exactly what his murdering ass deserves!
 
namkcuR said:
OJ's guilt in the murders was never EVER proven. I think it WAS proven that the glove was planted where it was found, hence it being the wrong size(the cops were stupid). There was a lot of circumstantial evidence and there was OJ's own behavior(insensitive and apparently unphased at the fact that the mother of his children had been murdered). This certainly proves that OJ is probably an asshole, but I still don't view it as definitive proof that he did it.

You were like 10 when this happened, so I'll give some leeway, but come on circumstantial evidence? The glove was proven it was planted?! I think maybe an OJ fan was retelling you their version of how this went down.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

you know, i was thinking this too. him and some buddies went in with some guns to get back what was supposedly his and he's facing decades in prison? of course, the maximum charge doesn't mean that's what he'll get, but still.

But it wasn't his. It can't be his. Even if it was one time his, it belongs to the Goldman's and Brown's now.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

His Heisman, memoribilia, book deal, his appearance in video games, etc all of this has been or is under seizement in order to pay the judgement. So technically he can't own any of this.
 
Here's some new developments ...


Prosecutors File Charges Against O.J.
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago


LAS VEGAS - O.J. Simpson was charged Tuesday with seven felonies, including kidnapping, in the alleged armed robbery of sports memorabilia collectors in a casino-hotel room.

The fallen football star was arrested Sunday after a collector reported a group of armed men charged into his hotel room at a casino and took several items Simpson claimed belonged to him.

Simpson was booked on suspicion of assault and robbery with a deadly weapon. Clark County District Attorney David Roger filed those charges and added kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, according to court documents.

Simpson, who was accused along with three other men, was also charged with one misdemeanor. He faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted.

He was being held without bail and was scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in the robbery reported at the Palace Station casino.

According to the charges, Simpson and the others went to the room under the pretext of brokering a deal with the men. Once in the room, Simpson prevented one of the collectors from calling 911 on his cell phone "by ripping it out of Bruce Fromong's hand" while one or more accomplices pointed or displayed a handgun, the document says.

The complaint does not specify which of the men involved was carrying the weapon.

Two others named in the complaint, Walter Alexander and Clarence Stewart, have been arrested and released. Authorities were seeking an arrest warrant for a fourth man, Michael McClinton, 49, of Las Vegas, a man police describe as "a key player" in the alleged theft.

"We hope to have him in custody today," said Officer Ramon Denby, a police spokesman. "Hopefully, he'll be cooperative and surrender with his attorney."

Earlier Tuesday in California, a judge gave Fred Goldman a week to come up with a list of sports memorabilia O.J. Simpson is accused of stealing from the Vegas hotel room, but he refused to order Simpson to hand over his earnings from everything from autograph signings to video games.

Simpson was acquitted more than a decade ago of the 1994 murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Goldman's son, Ron. He was later found liable for the slayings in a wrongful death trial.

The civil jury returned a $33.5 million judgment against Simpson, but it remains largely unpaid. The Goldman family has waged a campaign to claim Simpson's assets since then.

Alexander, one of the men arrested with Simpson, said Tuesday that Simpson may have been tricked because another memorabilia dealer who tipped him off also recorded everything on tape.

"It sounds like a setup to me," Alexander told ABC's "Good Morning America." He said Simpson had thought the memorabilia belonged to him after getting a call from the dealer.

One of the collectors in the room at the time, Bruce Fromong, spoke publicly about the incident on Monday and described Simpson and a group of men coming into the hotel room "commando style."

Later Monday, Fromong had a heart attack and was in critical condition, a spokeswoman at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles said Tuesday.
 

One of the collectors in the room at the time, Bruce Fromong, spoke publicly about the incident on Monday and described Simpson and a group of men coming into the hotel room "commando style."

Later Monday, Fromong had a heart attack and was in critical condition, a spokeswoman at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles said Tuesday.

:ohmy:

Now, will O.J. be blamed for this man having a heart attack too ?? :hmm:
 
What we have here is a bunch of people(a judge, a prosecuter, cops, who knows exactly?) who are giving the guy the shaft by stacking a bunch of bogus charges on top of one or two legit charges so that his time in prison will add up to the rest of his life, so that they can be THE people that finally made OJ pay. It's sort of a backdoor way trying him again for the same crime he was already acquitted of. It's backdoor double jeopardy and it's prohibited by the constitution. It's in the bill of rights.

If OJ is guilty of this robbery, than he should pay. Fine. But the adding of these other charges, this obvious attempt to add length to his possible sentence, is, I feel, an unethical manipulation of the justice system. It doesn't matter if OJ is guilty of the murders or not. He probably is. But we can't make exceptions to things that are prohibited by the constitution - even if they're veiled as something else - just because of who it is and what it might represent. It sets an unhealthy legal precedent. If you don't get the verdict you like, the next time the defendent fucks up, stack bogus charges on top of the legit ones.

If OJ is guilty of this robbery, he'll probably pay this time. But I hope the other bogus charges are thrown out without too much thought, for the reasons stated above.
 
He told the men that they were not allowed to leave their own hotel room and had men with guns with him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20829890/?GT1=10357

Once in the room, Simpson prevented one of the collectors from calling 911 on his cell phone “by ripping it out of Fromong’s hand” while one or more accomplices pointed or displayed a handgun.

and

The kidnapping charge accuses the men of detaining each of the men “against his will, and without his consent, for the purpose of committing a robbery.”

If he did those things, how are the charges bogus? Bottom line, if a gun was involved at all, he's in deep trouble.
 
The robbery charges are perfectly legit. The charges for assault and/or having the gun are perfectly legit.

But kidnapping? There was no kidnapping here. The collectors were still in their own hotel room and were never taken anywhere else. They had guns pointed at them and threats made. That's assault, that's trespassing, that's possession of firearms. But that's not kidnapping, imo.
 
namkcuR said:
The robbery charges are perfectly legit. The charges for assault and/or having the gun are perfectly legit.

But kidnapping? There was no kidnapping here. The collectors were still in their own hotel room and were never taken anywhere else. They had guns pointed at them and threats made. That's assault, that's trespassing, that's possession of firearms. But that's not kidnapping, imo.

They were told that they were not allowed to leave. They were held against their will. I don't think it matters if it was only for a short time.

cnn.com explains it a little better:

Prosecutors say Simpson and his co-defendants -- Walter Alexander, Clarence Stewart and Michael McClinton -- committed kidnapping because they intended to hold or detain the two alleged victims using a weapon.

I thought that was "false imprisonment" but apparently you don't have to take someone to another place to kidnap them, you just have to hold them against their will :shrug:. I guess it comes down to the letter of the law.
 
Last edited:
namkcuR said:
What we have here is a bunch of people(a judge, a prosecuter, cops, who knows exactly?) who are giving the guy the shaft by stacking a bunch of bogus charges on top of one or two legit charges so that his time in prison will add up to the rest of his life, so that they can be THE people that finally made OJ pay. It's sort of a backdoor way trying him again for the same crime he was already acquitted of. It's backdoor double jeopardy and it's prohibited by the constitution. It's in the bill of rights.

If OJ is guilty of this robbery, than he should pay. Fine. But the adding of these other charges, this obvious attempt to add length to his possible sentence, is, I feel, an unethical manipulation of the justice system. It doesn't matter if OJ is guilty of the murders or not. He probably is. But we can't make exceptions to things that are prohibited by the constitution - even if they're veiled as something else - just because of who it is and what it might represent. It sets an unhealthy legal precedent. If you don't get the verdict you like, the next time the defendent fucks up, stack bogus charges on top of the legit ones.

If OJ is guilty of this robbery, he'll probably pay this time. But I hope the other bogus charges are thrown out without too much thought, for the reasons stated above.

While you have a point and I fully believe that the judge is gonna throw the book at him for who he is, I still fully support it. The man butchered two people. Everybody knows it. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life. He cheated justice once. This time justice will cheat him. Sounds like karma to me and I couldn't be happier about this whole thing.
 
The charges seem legitimate. There's plenty of checks in the court system to avoid a revenge trial.

The bottom line is that he's nuts, and he takes the law into his own hands. If they have enough evidence to prove each of the charges, he deserves to serve the sentence.
 
namkcuR said:
The robbery charges are perfectly legit. The charges for assault and/or having the gun are perfectly legit.

But kidnapping? There was no kidnapping here. The collectors were still in their own hotel room and were never taken anywhere else. They had guns pointed at them and threats made. That's assault, that's trespassing, that's possession of firearms. But that's not kidnapping, imo.

You don't have to physically take someone away by force to be charged with kidnapping.

According to the Nevada criminal code, kidnapping applies in this case. People were confined for the purpose of robbery and threatened with bodily harm. It meets the federal definition of kidnapping as well.

NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.
 
namkcuR said:
The robbery charges are perfectly legit. The charges for assault and/or having the gun are perfectly legit.

But kidnapping? There was no kidnapping here. The collectors were still in their own hotel room and were never taken anywhere else. They had guns pointed at them and threats made. That's assault, that's trespassing, that's possession of firearms. But that's not kidnapping, imo.

You really want him to be innocent don't you?

The kidnapping charges are legit, just read the definition of kidnapping laid out by the law.
 
kellyahern said:


Plus it was a bloody, wet leather glove left in storage for months and months. Of course it wouldn't fit like it did before.

That was the dumbest move the prosecutors made in that case, having O.J. try the glove on in court. Of course he's going to act like he's struggling to put it on.

Exactly! I used to ride horses and wore leather gloves which would often get wet clear through. They would shrink up terribly -- especially the show gloves which because I didn't show that much would have have weeks and even months between uses -- but I could always get them back on and stretched out.

And yes, the prosecution was incredibly stupid to have him "try" to put those gloves on. Of course he wasn't going to get them to fit! (I doubt it would have made a bit of difference in the outcome even if they have fit perfectly though. :shrug: )
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You really want him to be innocent don't you?

The kidnapping charges are legit, just read the definition of kidnapping laid out by the law.

Who said anything about innocent? I said the robbery and assault charges were legit and that he should pay the price for them.

I don't care if he's guilty or not, I really don't. I just don't want to see public officials, be it judges or prosecuters or cops, manipulate an already flawed justice system to either A)set up a 'revenge' trial or B)give themselves 15 minutes of fame for being the guy(s) that made OJ pay.

If the law defines what happened as kidnapping, fine. I don't personally agree with that definition of kidnapping, but if that's the law, that's the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom