The Darwin Exception

because it's not always survival of the fittest – sometimes the idiots get through

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 973,480 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

    Yesh, Right! I don't HAVE any "Awards & Honors" - so nominate me for something - I want one of those badge things to put here. I don't care what it is - make up your own award and give it to me. I'm not picky.
  • Advertisements

NV. vs. Simpson – CJ isn’t here, can I take a message?

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 25, 2008


We are back in the courtroom, and today was a full day, which encompassed many different witnesses. Court begins with Charles Cashmore still on the stand under cross examination with Gil Grasso. 

Yesterday we talked a little about the two different types of cross examination – the “I have points which the jury needs to hear” type, which is focused on salient issues that the attorney can bring out – either credibility issues, impeachment issues or motivational issues – and then the other type of cross examination, which is, I have nothing solid, let me just go through your testimony line by line by line and hope I can find that one little thing that you might say differently this time. 

Grasso is, unfortunately, conducting the latter. 

He goes through Cashmore’s story, hoping to find those little nit picky things that Cashmore might say differently – and although Grasso does find a couple “Didn’t you say Riccio was “directing things” in your preliminary hearing testimony? Now you say he wasn’t in charge.” “I said he was “directing thing” because he was leading us to the room.”) 

The other thing Grasso tries to bring out is to impeach *other* witnesses through this witness – he gets Cashmore to say that there were not a lot of noises in the hallway, and OJ has a deep, distinctive voice, but Cashmore didn’t hear OJ say to McClinton or anyone else “Put the gun in your hand.” 

They also have a 5 minutes debate about whether or not “boxing things up” also includes merely putting the tops on boxes. 

Grasso also scores a few points for the other side when he asks Cashmore about the conversations OJ was having on the telephone in the car after leaving the Palace Station. Grasso asks about Cashmore’s prior statements that OJ was “furious” that the 2 men had the guns in the room, and Cashmore says No, OJ wasn’t furious about the guns – he was furious when telling people on the phone that there were no guns. 

Grasso asks why no one in the car contradicted OJ, or told him “Hold up, OJ, I saw guns!” Cashmore says that he didn’t say anything because he got the impression that OJ was trying to convince the person on the  other end of the phone that there were no guns and that they saw no guns. 

Grasso tries to rectify this by pointing out that Cashmore told the police that he had no idea if OJ saw guns or not, and that he had no knowledge of OJ knowing there were going to be guns in that room at all. Grasso also says that while on the phone OJ said to the other party “Dude, you know me, you know I don’t use guns”. Which, personally, I thought was another mistake because you *KNOW* the automatic thought that had to pop into everyone’s head after THAT little tidbit was “Of course not, OJ, you use KNIVES!”

Then Grasso argues over who walked out with a lithograph – whether it was Alexander of Cashmore. And you know, who gives a rat’s ass WHO carried it out? Alexander says he did, Cashmore says he did, and I don’t see how it makes a rat’s ass bit of difference. But they argue over it. 

Grasso then gets into the whole “you didn’t turn yourself in”, thing, which is true, I guess, but Grasso is trying to make it sound like nefarious, when it’s really not that nefarious. The witness points out that he wanted to talk to his lawyer before turning himself in, which was probably a good thing to do. And then Grasso points out that Cashmore didn’t actually pay for his attorney, and Cashmore says No, his lawyer is a friend of his. 

Grasso then asks about Amber Lee, who is an associate of Mr. Miley’s, Cashmore’s attorney. Amber Lee is a publicist and she set up a lot of interviews for Cashmore, including one on Great Van Susteren’s show while the preliminary hearing was in full swing. Grasso asks about how Cashmore was flown to New York for free, and stayed at a nice Hotel there for free, and went on the Today show and how now Cashmore is a celebrity and got tons of publicity. 

Cashmore counters with “Well, not the GOOD kind of publicity – my life was ruined because of this!”

Grasso then throws th witness a bone and says “You know, Mr. Roger, the DA in this case, has called you the ‘odd man out’ – you were at the Rio a n hour before this incident, not knowing any of these people, having never met OJ Simpson, no idea of anything that was going to occur up until the time you actually got to the Palace Station, and a few hours later you are facing 12 felony charges that could send you to prison for the rest of your life – even though you were the ‘odd man out'”. Grasso is trying to convince the jury that this case was overcharged, in over to turn these witnesses against OJ Simpson and ensure their testimony and co-operation. 

When David Roger gets up to re-direct the witness, it seems like he is agreeing with Grasso’s last point and assessment – since he asks the witness “You weren’t at any of the planning meetings for this crime, were you? You didn’t manipulate witnesses?” The witness agrees that he wasn’t and he didn’t.

And then Roger tries to deflate the “Yeah, you’re going to prison – but you’re a CELEBRITY! Line of questioning by Grasso as he asks the witness about some of the other “benefits” he got from this encounter. He gets from the witness that Cashmore is 42 years old, that he’s basically homeless, he can’t get a job – he’s even applied at McDonald’s. He can’t work in any casino in Vegas, and his father will no longer speak to him. The witness says he doesn’t feel like a celebrity. 

Grasso follows up with “Doesn’t your dad know that you didn’t do anything and didn’t have any prior knowledge in this case?” And the witness says his father, an attorney, is disgusted about the company his son was keeping. Grasso says “Well, but the fact you didn’t know anything or do anything in this case didn’t keep Mr. Roger from charging you with all these charges, did it?” 

The we get the jury questions. 

1. At any point while you were in the room at the Palace Station did you see OJ move his hands in an up and down motion as if telling someone to put something down? ANSWER: No. 

2. When you were at Stewart’s house on the 14th attending the party did anyone tell you what to so with the property that was in your possession? ANSWER: No, it was still assumed that I was going to return the property as soon as someone got the information to me what room number or name the people were registered under – CJ told me at the party that he would call me with the information as soon as he got it. 

3. How upset was Stewart with OJ as a result of the events at the Palace Station? ANSWER: He was very apologetic to me – with regards to OJ he was using a lot of cuss words, and he said that OJ wasn’t getting the property back. 

4. Did you ever see anyone yelling at Riccio in the room at the Palace Station – and what was McClinton doing with the gun at that time? ANSWER: Yes, OJ was yelling at Riccio, and I think McClinton’s gun was still down at his side at that time. 

5. You were the one closest to t he door – why didn’t you leave when you saw the gun? ANSWER: Because someone had said “Nobody leaves this room!” And since McClinton had a gun, I didn’t want to chance getting shot in the back as I was leaving. 

6. If you were waiting for the information to return the items to the Palace Station, why didn’t you call Stewart or someone else yourself and get it? ANSWER: I did talk to Stewart several times in the next few days – he didn’t know the information, either, and I couldn’t call any of the other guys because I didn’t even know who any of them were.

7. Who actually asked you to go to the Palace Station to get this stuff? ANSWER: Stewart was the one who actually asked me if I wanted to go along for the ride. 

8. At any point were you concerned for your own welfare? ANSWER: Afterwards I was. 

Bryson doesn’t like the answer that Stewart was the one who asked Cashmore to go along for the ride and he tries to impeach the witness by pointing out that in earlier testimony Cashmore said “they” not “he” or “Stewart”. Cashmore points out that No, that’s not what he said. He said “They were going to get memorabilia and that HE asked me to go. Since CJ was the only HE that he knew in the vehicle, Cashmore meant CJ. 

The next witness is to be Mike Gilbert – which bring us, AGAIN, to “offers of proof”. And for the fucking love of God, WHY they didn’t take care of all of this BEFORE the trial started is just beyond me. Galanter knew this witness was coming – he’s been on the witness list since before the trial. If he needed offers of proof, then he should have gotten those in pre trial motions. 

But, Galanter is “concerned”. Mike Gilbert has written a book (called “How I Helped OJ Simpson get away with murder – which postulates that Nicole came to t he door with a knife, which is goofy, but that OJ confessed to Mike Gilbert that if she just hadn’t come to the door with a knife, she wouldn’t have died.) and Galanter is concerned about the animosity between Gilbert and OJ and that Gilbert might just blurt out things on the stand and then you know, that will just fuck up everything. 

The judge asks Roger if Roger plans on going into the animosity between the two, or the book, and of course Roger isn’t offering the witness for that purpose. 

Bryson, of COURSE, again makes a motion to sever because of the spillover effect of Gilbert hating OJ. 

The argument in itself is not the interesting point of this whole thing – the one thing that IS interesting in all this is that the judge admits something that is rather puzzling – Galanter makes the salient point to he court that if the states position on the case is that ownership is not relevant to the specific intent crime of Robbery, then why does Roger want to put this witness on the stand to attest to ownership of the property (which is a really, really good argument, and why he gets paid the big bucks, when you get right down to it.) But the interesting and puzzling part is that the judge then says *from the bench* “Which is why I wanted case law presented to me on this whole issue of whether or not ownership is pertinent.” Oh holy hell. 

Now, if you take NOTHING away from today’s proceedings, you MUST take this away. The judge, apparently, has NOT EVEN YET DECIDED if ownership is essential to the crime. Which actually answers why Caldwell was not allowed to testify as to the “ownership of the property is not an element of the crime” thing. THEORETICALLY, if the defense can prove that it’s not a crime to steal your own property, and can get jury instructions stating that “if you own the property, you can’t steal it” and can then prove to the jury that OJ had reasonable grounds to believe this property belonged to him, then there can be no conviction on the robbery charges. 

This is *so* interesting, and really a major revelation in this case. 

Of course, I’m sure the prosecution isn’t so lame that they won’t be able to argue that Yes, you can steal your own property IF IT’S DONE BY FORCE, but that the judge has yet to rule on this issue just blows my mind. 

But, in the end, the judge decides that Yes, Mike Gilbert can testify – but with limitations. He can testify that he had a relationship with OJ, that OJ gave him some property, but no mention can be made of the California case, turnover orders or “gutting the Rockingham estate to hide assets” 

So Mike Gilbert takes the stand and Rogers guides him through a very, very limited direct. Gilbert testifies that yeah, he knows OJ, he was his manager, he met OJ through another client Gilbert was representing, Marcus Allen. OJ was more than a client, he was a friend, Gilbert’s kids called him “Uncle OJ”. Gilbert says that he idolized OJ for years before managing him. He calls OJ “the Michael Jordan of my generation”. 

Gilbert looks at photos of the property in this case and says that he recognizes the items, that these are items OJ gave to him years ago, along with other items. 

And that’s it. He’s done with direct. 

The arguing about whether or not he would testify took longer than his direct. 

Galanter gets up to cross, and asks Gilbert if he ever had a formal contract with OJ. Gilbert says “No”, which I find odd. Don’t most managers have SOME kind of written contract with their clients? 

Galanter establishes how Gilbert was paid – which was mostly as a percentage of the events he booked OJ for. He says that sometimes he got paid in autographs, probably explaining why they had no “formal” contract – this doesn’t really sound like a standard manager/client relationship. 

Gilbert then says that No, these items he was shown photos of that OJ gave him years ago are not “one of a kind” items. He does agree that they are very *limited edition* items, as in limited to the team players – for instance, the All American balls were given only to the players on the team that year, so that the one that OJ gave him wasn’t “one of a kind”. 

He then is asked if he’s ever seen duplicates of these items – and he looks through the pictures for a long time and says “Yes I have”. Galanter says “You have? Which items have you seen duplicates of?” And Gilbert says “The ties.” 

Oh shut the fuck up, you fool. 

Galanter then elicits that he has no receipts that OJ gave him these items, he has no property transfer papers. But really, why would he? He doesn’t even write down the terms of the agreements of his management contracts. 

Galanter then asks, very cryptically, if Gilbert knows a Kimberly Meadows. Gilbert says yes, and then affirms that he did have a relationship with her in 1994 or 95, and this woman he had a relationship with he then describes as “an OJ groupie”. Guess that relationship didn’t end well. 

Bryson, very wisely, asks no questions. 

The jury has questions, but the judge doesn’t allow them to be asked. I’m sure the jury wanted to know “Did Bruce Fromong steal this stuff from you?” “Did OJ ever ask for this stuff back” – oh and probably “Why the fuck did the state call you as a witness and not ask all the shit we REALLY want to know?” 

After lunch we are treated to Alfred Beardsley – who Riccio described from the stand as being a “raving lunatic” . 

Beardsley says that he lives in California, and he is currently incarcerated there on a parole violation stemming from a domestic abuse charge that turned into a stalking conviction

Beardsley says he met OJ back in  he 80’;s when Beardsley was a projectionist. He knows Bruce Fromong though Mike Gilbert, who was OJ’s manager. 

In late 2007 Beardsley says he became aware that Bruce Fromong had some of OJ’s personal memorabilia. Although he didn’t know a buyer at the time, he was working with Fromong to sell the items. They issued a press release that the items were for sale, and Riccio contacted him. (This is contrary to Riccio’s testimony that Beardsley contacted him.). 

Riccio asked for pictures of the items and Beardsley faxed him one. He also mentioned to Riccio that he was aware of another seller who had some other personal items of OJ”s that had been seized from a storage unit OJ’s mother had. Beardsley told Riccio he would see about arranging for Riccio to get more information about those items, as well. 

Beardsley says that his financial interest in the Fromong items was “Substantial”. He says that Fromong had told him what he needed to get as far as prices for the items, and then Beardsley added his mark up and Riccio added his. 

Beardsley came to Las Vegas on the 12th of September. At that point Beardsley was in touch with both Riccio and Fromong, and was acting at the middle man between them. He had no idea that OJ was involved. Beardsley thought at this point that the buyer was “a wealthy software businessman from Vegas.” Beardsley says that Riccio called and gave Beardsley and Fromong three options of places they could meet – since the Palace Station was closest to where Fromong lived – he said “let’s do it there.” (This is also contrary to the testimony of Fromong and Riccio.)

Beardsley went to the Palace Station around 5:30. He had trouble finding Riccio’s room, so Riccio met him at the bar.  Fromong arrived around a half hour later and he and Riccio met him in front of the hotel, and then proceeded to Fromong’s vehicle so Riccio could see the merchandise. They called for a bellman and brought the stuff to Riccio’s room, where Beardsley unpacked the items and arranged them on the bed. 

Riccio was in phone contact with the buyer, asking the buyer where he was, they were running late. At one point Beardsley got on the phone with the buyer who said he was coming and that he “had the scratch”. Beardsley said he was getting bad vibes from the whole thing – the room was small and Riccio was acting antsy, and the buyer was late and it was all adding up to “something’s not right.” 

Riccio got a call saying that the buyer was here and having problems finding the room. Riccio said he would go to the lobby and get them. At this point Fromong was on the phone out in the hallway. Riccio told him to get back in the room, that the buyer had arrived. 

When Riccio re-entered the room there were a bunch of guys with him. They just burst through the door. Beardsley says he was sitting in a hair by the window, Fromong was at the end of the bed by the desk. Fromong was moved to the corner and Beardsley was pushed up against a wall and frisked. OJ Simpson was the only man with Riccio that Beardsley recognized. Beardsley says OJ was looking at the stuff on the bed and started screaming and yelling

The state then plays the FBI enhanced version of the incident on tape #6

Beardsley then starts acting like the lovable loon we expected when he tells Roger that No, he can’t authenticate the tape, that Riccio had it too long before turning it over to the police and that since he set Beardsley up – who knows what he did with that tape? He says that “We consider that tape to be a work of art in my civil lawsuit against Riccio”. And since Beardsley wasn’t the one in creative control or the editing process – he can not and will not authenticate the tape. 

Which is quite a speech, considering that no one asked him to authenticate the tape – just to identify his own voice – and surely he can do that no matter how well the tape was edited – by Riccio or anyone else. 

Beardsley says that while he was in Room 1203 that he saw 2 guns – the one that the black bald guy had out and was waving around – and another one in the waistband of another man who never removed the gun from his waistband. 

Roger asks if Beardsley was present when there were discussions between Mike Gilbert and OJ about these items, Beardsley says that he was not. 

Beardsley then offers that McClinton, the black guy with the gun, directed everyone to “Bag this shit up”. Beardsley says that he refused (despite the fact that the guy had a gun in his face), and that they packed the stuff up themselves. Beardsley says that he got the impression that some of the men might have been law enforcement when they first came in. He doesn’t know why he had that impression, he just did. He says he was shocked and stunned, but that he certainly thinks that Riccio set him up. He says Fromong and himself were not even going to call the police about the incident, if not for Riccio. He knew that Riccio was working with the men who came in with OJ when they mistakenly took one of Riccio’s boxes and Riccio, without hesitation, ran down the hallway to go after the box and retrieve it. In Beardlsey’s mind this confirmed that Riccio was working with them. 

This concludes David Roger’s direct, and Yale Galanter gets up to cross. 

And this is where it gets a little bizarre, because Galanter kind of treats the witness like a defense witness, and Beardsley is all too willing to act like one. 

Galanter gets the witness to explain why he really does not want to be here testifying against OJ and Clarence Stewart – why he doesn’t want to be involved in this case at all. 

Beardsley says he’s friends with OJ, that he’s known OJ for a bunch of years. Beardsley says that he believes, like him, OJ is a victim of Tom Riccio, that OJ was misinformed, misled, and targeted by this con man to make money and that Riccio has done nothing BUT make money from this case since it happened. 

Beardsley says that even though he is named as a victim in half of the charges, he does not want to be named as a victim, that he’s gone round and round with DA’s office trying to get his name taken off the indictments, but that they won’t. 

Beardsley then expands on his vitriol towards Riccio – saying that he knows Riccio was behind all the news leaks and news organizations that contacted Beardsley right after the incident happened. Beardsley also says that he can’t authenticate the tape because it was in Riccio’s possession for so long – and that he won’t consider it authenticated until a lab can hand him a report that says it wasn’t altered (Galanter then adds that Yeah, the labs couldn’t authenticate it either.) Eliciting an objection from the State. Beardsley says that he considers the tape a work of art because of Riccio’s conduct – from the incident onward he acted suspiciously, He took this recording and held it form the police and brought it to LA, where audio studios abound. They could alter and enhance this tape to his directions. Beardsley says that he also finds it suspicious that Riccio sold the tape before turning it over tot he police. If his motivations were anything but setting these people up – why would he sell the tape first? Beardsley says he has grave concerns about the chain of custody of the tape. 

Beardsley says he will be incarcerated for a few more weeks, and that his incarceration is as a result of an altercation between himself and Riccio. He’s filed a civil suit against Riccio and Riccio has filed a counter suit against Beardsley. Beardsley hasn’t actually seen the counter suit as of yet, but his attorneys have. 

Beardsley says that he had had one pother prior dealing with Riccio in the past, and that didn’t work out, either – and that was also Riccio’s fault. He says that Riccio’s claims that Beardsley called him about these items is false – that Riccio called him after Riccio saw a listing of his press release. He says that Riccio called about the items and asked if Beardsley had *personal* items of OJ’s. Beardsley said he would check his sources and call Riccio back. Beardsley then called Fromong and told him of his history with Riccio and Fromong was willing to deal with Riccio, anyway, saying “:I don’t have to like you to do business with you.” And since there weren’t exactly hundreds of people in the market for OJ Simpson items at that point, they decided that any interested party was worth investigating. 

Galanter asks Beardsley why Beardsley is heard to say on the tape “Mike took it”, and Beardsley says that’s just what he knew after talking with Gilbert and Fromong about the history of the items.  

Galanter asks Beardsley if he led Riccio to believe that the personal photos were going to be there – Beardsley says no, that Riccio knew they weren’t going to be there. Originally the deal was to happen on the 19th, and Beardsley was going to go to San Jose and pick those items up before then, but he couldn’t do that to have them there on the 12th.  He says he told Riccio this. 

Beardsley says that Riccio never asked for the Montana and Pete Rose stuff, that Beardsley told Fromong to bring it because this was a new business contact and Beardsley thought hat it would be a good idea to show the buyer what other kinds of things Fromong had, in case they were to do business again in the future. Beardsley would get a commission from any future deals, and wanted them to have a good relationship. Beardsley says he never told Riccio that these other items were going to be there. 

Beardsley says that OJ told them that anything that wasn’t his that got taken would be left at the front desk for them. Beardsley then ends by saying OJ didn’t have a gun, didn’t say anything about guns, and never made any movements in the room that would indicate that he knew there were guns there. 

Mr. Jones for Stewart simply asks Beardsley if Beardsley knew his client, and Beardsley says no. He says that Stewart frisked him but didn’t hurt him or push him around or assault him. 

Mr. Roger then re-directs. 

Roger asks Beardsley about the tapes again – he asks Beardsley at what point in his talks with the DA’s office in the last few days, while going over his testimony, did he ever tell anyone that the tapes were in error. 

Which was a really ill-advised question. 

Beardsley goes off – telling Mr. Roger “Mr. Roger you *know* my feelings on these tapes I’ve told you, I’ve told Faulkner [we have no idea who Faulkner is] I’ve told the media *many* times, that there are whole chunks and sections of conversations missing from these tapes. When I told Faulkner about this, he said to me – and I quote – it is what it is.” 

Roger then figures – what the fuck – I’ve already lost this witness – let’s go for broke – and he asks Beardsley Tell me specifically what portions are missing.” Now, what kind of dangerous ass question is that? He already knows this witness is sympathetic to Simpson, and he certainly knows this guy has it in for Riccio – at this point the witness could say just about anything. 

Roger is lucky that the witness *only* says “There are entire conversations missing – the whole part where Riccio runs down the hallway after the box that they took from him – that’s not there – the part where OJ was asking me if I had a turnover order and why I had this stuff if I had a turnover order – that’s not there – Riccio saying if you call the Enquirer and say anything about this I’ll sue you – that’s not there – and before leaving the room Simpson went up to Riccio and confronts him saying ‘So you’re involved in all of this? We did that deal in LA. That’s not there. All of the things that are missing make Riccio look like a con man – that’s why I believe Riccio set me up and altered that tape.”

For some reason, Roger then plays the 911 tape and asks Beardsley what’s wrong with *that* tape. Which is really fucking stupid – because Riccio didn’t have that tape in his possession – that’s not what Beardsley is even bitching about. 

Beardsley says “there’s not a thing wrong with that tape – I’m sure that tape has been authenticated. Has Riccio’s?” Which, of course, it hasn’t. And why it was so stupid for Roger to play the 911 tape and ask the witness about it. 

Roger then asks how many times Beardsley has been in contact with OJ or his legal team since the incident. Beardsley says with OJ – three times – once the night of the incident and twice before OJ was arrested. Roger also asks if Beardsley is in custody, which Beardsley says yes to, and Roger asks Beardsley if he knows what a “snitch” is? And Beardsley says Yes, Thomas Riccio. 

There is a break and during the break Galanter objects to the whole “snitch” thing and asks why in the hell this is a line of questions. Roger then tries to get the court to believe that the only reason Beardsley is testifying this way and is sympathetic to OJ is because he is in custody and other inmates don’t like :”Snitches” who testify against criminal defendants. Which is really stupid. It’s not like Beardsley is testifying to some jailhouse confession – he’s the fucking VICTIM in the case. I don’t think inmates equate “victim in case” to “snitch”. 

The judge says they can’t get into the whole “snitch” thing. 

Galanter has a short re-cross that encompasses how and when Beardsley spoke with OJ – that Galanter and Beardsley had crossed paths in the court hallway but just said HI, that OJ never discussed his testimony with him and that Beardsley has told the truth. 

The we have jury questions:

1. On the 911 recording you said that the gun was a 9 millimeter, but you’ve testified you didn’t know what type of gun it was. Do you know? ANSWER: I don’t know what kind of gun it was

2. At what point did you let Riccio know that the photos weren’t going to be at the Palace Station? ANSWER: About a week before

3. Are you currently taking any medications that could inhibit your memory? ANSWER: No

4. Did you ever tell Riccio not to tell OJ about these items? ANSWER: No

5. Why could the photos be here on the 19th but not on the 13th? ANSWER: Because I had to go to San Jose to get them and I couldn’t get them before the 13th. 

The next witness is Rod Hunt, a detective with the robbery division of the LVPD. He executed the search warrants at McClinton’s and Stewart’s homes and impounded the evidence found in both locations. He is also the officer who called OJ and OJ returned that call, leaving a message on his cell phone. The state plays the message for the jury, which basically says “Hi this is OJ, call me back and we’ll clear all this up.” 

The officer authenticates the sealed box that contains the items from Stewart’s home and opens the box. Inside is a shirt – the one that was worn the night of the incident, a notebook which contains some phone numbers, some paperwork and a picture of Stewart. Stewart was not home when the search warrant was executed. While they were at the home, there was a phone call that they answered. It was Stewart. They asked if he could come back to the house and he said he was out of town. They asked for the names of the other participants, and Stewart said he didn’t know those guys. 

Galanter asks the detective exactly how he got OJ’s cell phone number and the Detective says it was given to him by a patrol officer. Galanter asks if the witness is aware that a Detective Tucker filed a report saying that OJ called and left his information, including his cell phone number. The Detective says he didn’t get the number from that report – and that he didn’t even know there was report with that information. Galanter reserves the right to call the witness in his case in chief. 

Bryson then questions the witness, asking if any of the items recovered at the house were illegal. The Detective says no. Bryson asks if any of the property taken from Palace Station was found at Stewart’s home – the detective says no. The detective asks the Detective if Stewart knew the police were coming to execute the warrant and the Detective says no. Bryson asks if he has any personal knowledge that Stewart was fleeing the jurisdiction and the detective says no. 

Bryson asks if Stewart turned himself in – and if he voluntarily turned over property that was taken from Palace Station – the detective sys he did. And he also agrees that Stewart had a right to speak to an attorney before turning himself in. 

The jury has questions:

1. Did you say that you received a call from Stewart while you were at the residence? ANSWER: Yes

2. Did Mr. Stewart turn himself in before or after Alexander was arrested? ANSWER: After

The next witness is William Speas, a crime scene analyst with the LVPD. He authenticates and identifies the two guns that were found during the search of McClinton’s home 

And with that, court is finished for the day. 

To Sum Up: If you know OJ, you know he doesn’t use guns; OJ was the Michael Jordan of some generation, if Michael Jordan had ever killed anybody and stole cable TV; There’s lots of places in LA that will alter audio recordings for you – if you don’t have WinPlayer to do it yourself; If you’re ever away from home at 3 in the morning and want to know if the police are searching your house – call – they’ll answer the phone and let you know.


3 Responses to “NV. vs. Simpson – CJ isn’t here, can I take a message?”

  1. JayDee said

    Rodgers must have worked through the rationale for Gilbert’s appearance, then forgotten it. If he’d been allowed to testify to the fact that Simpson had given him the property, and if the jury had believed him, it would be evidence that Simpson had made up the story of the property being stolen in order to elicit the cooperation of his co-conspirators. In other words, he’d have lied to them because he knew that telling them he was going to conduct a robbery to keep the Goldmans from getting the ‘stuff’, would have resulted in them refusing to help him. It goes to the issue of intent. It’s the old ‘mens rea’ bit.

  2. JayDee said

    Oh by the way, in Hollywood most personal managers work on handshake deals. For a number of reasons, including some of the legalities surrounding finding work for clients and for the same reasons that lots of people get married without pre-nups, both parties tend to avoid contracts.
    Agents and business managers, on the other hand. frequently use contracts.

  3. Amy said


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: