O.J. Charged With Ten Felonies

Bump and Update: O.J. is charged with ten felonies and a misdemeanor, including kidnapping with a deadly weapon. Here's the Criminal Complaint (pdf.) The kidnapping charge is directed at Bruce Fromong, who is now in critical condition in a hospital in LA, having suffered a heart attack. I hope he recovers, but I wonder whether if he dies, they'll charge O.J. with that too.


Original Post:
Judge Denies Goldman Attempt to Seize All O.J.'s Property

A Los Angeles judge today denied a request by the family of Ron Goldman to seize all O.J.'s property. [More...]

A Superior Court judge tentatively denied a request today by the father of murder victim Ron Goldman to take O.J. Simpson's earnings from everything from autograph signings to video games to satisfy a multimillion-dollar legal judgment awarded 11 years ago.

O.J. Simpson has four pensions that by law are exempt from the Goldman and Brown family judgments against him.

The Goldmans also, unsuccessfully for now, sought to take the Rolex watch they saw O.J. wearing in a photo the day of his arrest.

The judge told [Goldman lawyer David] Cook it was his responsibility to obtain the watch and have it appraised and he set an Oct. 16 hearing to determine whether the watch would be exempt from the judgment.

Question: What if O.J. can show he bought the watch with his pension funds? Would it be exempt from the judgment?

O.J.'s lawyer said he has tried to settle the judgment with the Goldman's lawyer.

Cook replied it would be "a cold day in hell" when that would happen. "It is inconceivable that the father of a murder victim would sit and haggle," Cook said.

He won't haggle? What does he think he's doing by arguing with the Judge to get a picayune used Rolex?

< Phil Spector Jury Says Its Deadlocked | On Bob Herbert: The Problem Is Us >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Feel free (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    to scroll on by the posts you don't care about.

    Put 2 and 2 together (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by manys on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    Have you ever seen BTD and OJ in the same place at the same time?

    Neither have I...neither have I.

    Is OJ being overcharged? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    I have no idea of what exactly happened, if he committed a crime or what, but it strikes me that eleven felonies seems to be overcharging Simpson. Also, the fact that this was all recorded on audio strikes me as a setup.


    I have tried to engage people in a discussion of the original murders over at the TalkLeft Crimes R Us site. After a couple of initial tries, everyone has avoided it. I suspect that the reason is that everyone is convinced of OJ's guilt and don't want to disturb their belief system.

    What is your belief in Simpson's guilt based on? Geraldo Rivera's competence as a reporter? Dave Letterman's endless top tens on the subject? Maybe it's Charles Groden's endless rants on cable tv.

    Most people had their opinions fixed long before the defense got to present its evidence. There were numerous examples of tampered evidence. Most of America refused to listen. Honestly, how many people here listened to Barry Scheck's summary of the evidence in the case? No one read about it, because the papers headlined about Fred Goldman's endless outrage against Johnnie Cochran that day.

    The autopsy evidence makes it impossible that the murders even remotely occurred in the manner that was the prosecution's case. The victims' autopsies are inconsistent with evidence at the murder scene. The fact that the wounds which were proclaimed to have been the murder wounds were in fact ornamental wounds done after the victims were dead means that Simpson would have had a protracted struggle against two people and that he remained at the crime scene for precious minutes after delivering potentially fatal wounds, waiting for them to bleed out and die before he made additional wounds and rearranging the bodies to appear, at least in Nicole Simpson's case, to be an act of rage.

    That is, while under an extreme time constraint to catch a limo to the airport Simpson stood around the crime scene with two dying people, waiting for them to bleed to death before delivering ornamental wounds that would make him look more guilty.


    Was it his stuff or not? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Pancho on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    But both Cook and Simpson lawyer Ronald Slates said they had no idea what the items were, and Slates argued it was unclear whether Simpson really owned any of them.

    I hope he goes to prison for this. It's karma.

    If he does go to prison.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:18:10 AM EST
    it will be for the double murder regardless of the facts of this case.  There is no impartial jury to be found.

    Why would you say that? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    He got away with murder, but most jurors will look at the evidence in this case. I do think the murders will lessen the likelihood that people will find it hard to believe that he is capable of this crime.

    C'mon bro..... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    right or wrong, once the jury files in, fills the box and hears "State of Nevada vs. James Orenthal Simpson", he's guilty as charged.  Case closed.

    Interesting thought, kdog (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    You know, I could see a lot of people thinking exactly that were they on that jury - especialy if it were a predominantly right wing jury.

    black + charged = guilty (especially with the name OJ)


    I wasn't thinking race..... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    In this instance, his race is irrelevant I think.  Right or wrong, he is cooked regardless of the facts of the case.  Not because he is black, but because he is OJ.  His name in Mudd...as the saying goes.

    Yes, I know what you meant (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    I just used it as a takeoff to bait wingers... sometimes they are so predictable

    You know better than that, Edger, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    Trolling is not tolerated here. Any comment may be deleted by a site admin, and all trolls will be deleted. This is fair warning. If you don't know what trolling is, then you're probably not about to do it, so don't worry. :-)
    not tolerated even when you're doing it to noobies. ;-)

    Haha.... But, Sarc (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:15:24 PM EST
    Occasionally they need to get what they give, yes? ;-)

    No dessert for you (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    young man.

    Awwwww, jeeze.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:23:18 PM EST

    No soup for you, either (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    That is such a pile (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    of CRAP! He is a black man that killed two people and was still set loose for 12 years. What the hell does his skin color have to do with anything?

    slaughter two people + black + named OJ = not guilty

    The guy is a piece of crap murderer who was acquitted because of his race and you somehow think that the EXACT OPPOSITE happened. Do you really think that he did not kill the mother of his children and Ron Goldman?


    Interesting reaction (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    I thought I might see that reaction....

    I don't think he was acquited.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    because of his race.  He was acquited because he had awesome lawyers, inept prosecutors, and was arrested by a police department with a bad reputation.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    jurors like the one who when asked after the verdict about the DNA evidence said something along the lines of "DNA evidence? That's just stuff they try to trick us with."

    But, since the jury selection includes approval by the prosecution, I agree that the prosecutors were inept and the defense was...I don't know...ept?


    If Cochran, Baily, Scheck, Dershowitz, (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    a thuggish N word spewing lead detective and vividly recalled images of Rodney King's field flogging weren't enough to produce, at the very least, resonable doubt, it's probobly impossible to produce it in any trial.

    That was all smoke and mirrors, (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:06:41 PM EST
    peddled to an ignorant and racist jury.

    The bottom line is that a double murderer walked free. I know that somehow you are all immensely pleased by that, but I don't understand it.

    Does ANYONE here believe that he did not kill Nicole and Ron?


    Don't generalize: (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    [Y]ou are all immensely pleased . . . .

    Fine, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:26:54 PM EST
    but to say that he will be convicted because he is black is absurd.

    Racist jury? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jayr on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    I know there was at least one racist cop involved but what evidence is there to show that the jury, which was comprised of people from various races, was racist?

    Explain why you think (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    "you all are immensely pleased by that" Pancho.

    Is it for the same reason Rush said liberals root for Donavan McNabb, or some reason more profound than that?


    Exempt (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 03:17:06 PM EST
    It is probably exempt because it probably isn't his.  His accountant probably loaned it too him.

    I think OJ has all of his assets pretty well protected

    haggle with who? (none / 0) (#3)
    by selise on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    goldman is probably willing to haggle with the judge but not OJ. think i might feel the same in his position.

    To answer your last question, (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    he's trying to make life difficult for the man who murder-, um, committed the intentional tort of killing his son.

    If the victim of the alleged (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:40:33 PM EST
    kidnap dies, yes, add felony murder charge.

    Oh no. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:43:04 PM EST
    1995 all over again?

    Heh. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    Well, that explains why so many of today's threads have been interesting to me.

    W/o verbal fireworks? (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:22:01 PM EST
    Well, that, yes, but (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:26:55 PM EST
    content is what I was mostly referring to.

    Today TL has been much like the TL of old, and I find that I miss it.

    Ah well...


    Interesting. The new input isn't (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    centered on criminal defense, for sure.  

    Precisely. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    [TalkLeft] The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

    You don't get tired of reading about Paris Hilton (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:12:36 PM EST
    et al.?


    Heh! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    Time to broaden your horizons/interests a little maybe, sarc?

    </tongue planted firmly in cheek>



    I assume. If I wanted to spend my time on them I would.

    That said, I usually just skip Armondo's threads unless I see someone who interests me post on them.

    imo, with BTD's almost unreal volume of daily threads, J, TChris and LNILR all post threads a lot less, which I view as a detriment to TL.

    But, I'm sure, TL's numbers are way up with him here - due in no little part to his own voluminous commenting on his own threads, unlike J, TChris and LNILR - and those big numbers are probably viewed as a good thing by TL/J.


    I doubt there is a limit on the number of posts/ (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    day here.  What with O.J., Spector, and Craig, seems like there is plenty to discuss in the criminal defense arena along with the political issues BTD addresses.

    is in reference to, but as for the rest, one person's "plenty" is another person's "not as much as there used to be, and not as much as I would prefer."

    But, I guess that's what makes the world go 'round.


    Good thing ;-) (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    "political and injustice news" = anti-war threads

    Puhlease. This is a single issue blog. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:06:04 PM EST
    please take this discussion (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:28:24 PM EST
    to an open thread. I'm going to clean it up. This thread is about OJ.

    sorry. (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:30:59 PM EST
    Setup (none / 0) (#12)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:21:54 PM EST
    Someone here mentioned this once.

    Simpson Friend: It Seemed Like a Setup

    If the Goldman family has its way, it may soon own the sports memorabilia O.J. Simpson is accused of committing armed robbery to recover for himself. One man charged along with the former football star said Tuesday that the Las Vegas hotel room dispute seemed like a setup.

    Walter Alexander, 46, said Simpson may have been tricked because the 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" on Tuesday. He said Simpson had thought the memorabilia belonged to him after getting a call from the dealer.

    "He did believe that he was going to retrieve his own property," Alexander said.

    Appetite (none / 0) (#34)
    by manys on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:39:00 PM EST
    Does being bloodthirsty ever get old?

    projecting responsibility (none / 0) (#35)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:42:04 PM EST
    Wait a minute-O.J. acts beastly, at the least, is caught on audiotape, and the evil one is the person who brought the tape?

    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jayr on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:35:53 PM EST
    Why did he bring the tape recorder after telling OJ that his stolen items were there? Why is getting your stolen property back beastly? He didn't hurt anyone did he?

    The news report I saw last night said (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:31:55 AM EST
    the recording was done on the guy's cell phone.

    stress related heart attack? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ivyfree on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    I would say Mr Goldman is trying to force O.J. to cough up the monetary penalty which was all our legal system was able to get for the brutal murder of his son, and which O.J. has so far managed to avoid paying. IOW, trying to achieve justice.

    From the article, apparently, the victim who had the heart attack had it several days after being held at gunpoint.  Hopefully a good prosecuting attorney could find evidence that the trauma and stress were a factor in his heart attack.  If he were to die, then I would say yes, charge the criminal conspiritors were homicide.  

    Beastly is as beastly does (none / 0) (#59)
    by diogenes on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:21:29 PM EST
    Was O.J. behaving in an angelic and polite manner?  Then I'm sure it's on tape.