O.J. Simpson Sentenced for Las Vegas Robbery

Update: Bail pending appeal denied. The sentence:

Count 1: 1 year county jail; Count 2: 12 - 48 mos, concurrent with count1; Count 3: 12 - 48 mos concurrent with counts 1 and 2; Count 4: 26 mos to 120 mos; Count 5: 15 years, parole eligibility after 5 yrs, consecutive 12 - 72 mos; Count 6: 15 years, parole eligibility after 5 yrs, consecutive 12 - 72 mos, concurrent with count 5; Count 7: 60 - 180 mos, consecutive 12-72 months; Count 8: 60 - 180 mos, consecutive 12-72 months, concurrent with count 7; Count 9: 18 - 72 mos, consecutive to ct 8; Count 10: 18 - 72 mos, consecutive to ct 9.

How much time did he get? At first glance, it looks to me like he has to do at least 6 years on counts 1 through through 8, and then two additional sentences of 1.5 to 6 years each on counts 9 and 10, meaning a minimum of 6 + 3 (1.5 + 1.5) for a total minimum of 9 years. [Update: The LA Times and Las Vegas Sun come up with the same 9 year calculation I did.] [More...]

Update: Live streaming of sentencing here. O.J. addressed the court and said he was stupid but didn't mean to commit a crime. My live blog of judge's portion of sentencing below:

Live-Blogged: Judge says everything was on tape and the evidence was overwhelming. Says it was a very violent event. Guns were brought, at least one was drawn. Potential for harm in that room was tremendous. She says OJ's calls afterwards telling people there was no gun shows Simpson knew there was a gun. She criticizes O.J. for laughing after the party.

She says she was surprised O.J. Simpson addressed the court at sentencing. She tells him it was much more than stupidity. It doesn't matter what he thinks his intent was. It doesn't matter whether he was taking his own property or someone else's.

She is not sentencing him for the 1994 murders. The jury acquitted him and she respects that verdict. What matters to her is this case. She has to respect this verdict.

She can't ignore the behavior was reckless, a gun was used, the potential for harm was great, property was stolen.

Stewart and Simpson rise for imposition of sentence. See top of post for numbers.


OJ Simpson Sentencing

O.J. Simpson will be sentenced today in Las Vegas. He is facing 6 years to life, according to his lawyers.

In my view, he should get the minimum. Anything else is punishment for the 1994 murders of his wife and Ron Goldman, crimes for which he was acquitted.

I hope the Goldmans did not receive preferential treatment for the limited 15 courtroom seats available to the public. They have nothing to do with this case. They should be treated just like any other member of the public who waited in line for a seat.

Fred Goldman and his daughter, Kim Goldman, the father and sister of Ronald Goldman, were among 15 members of the public allowed in to the courtroom. Most of the 63 seats were taken by media, lawyers and family members of the defendants.

If they were among the first 15 who showed up, that's one thing. If they were allotted public seats ahead of others in line, that's not right.

Our prior coverage of this case is available here.

< 533,000 Jobs Lost, Unemployment Rate at 6.7% | Will Sunstein Stun? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As soon as I heard (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:34:01 PM EST
    that O. J. Simpson had been sentenced, I came right here. I knew this was one of the only places, online or anywhere, I might find people willing to consider the possibility that Simpson is innocent, under the law, of the 1994 murders. Guess that's why this site is described as being dedicated to "the politics of crime." Thank you, Jeralyn.

    You are correct; at least two (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    headliners here have stated that viewpoint.  Hard for me to fathom, but, there you have it.

    If you're saying that the jury made a (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    reasonable call, I agree.
    With a better prosecution, he would have been convicted of something, though.

    Innocent (none / 0) (#21)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Innocent is not the same as acquitted.  There was no finding of innocence.  The L.A. jury only found that the State had failed to prove that OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman.  A different L.A. jury did find that it is more likely than not that OJ murdered his wife and Ron Goldman.

    To paraphrase Tom Waits, we're only innocent when we dream.  

    Of course, the jury finding that OJ was civilly liable for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman should have had no effect on the sentence he received for the crimes he was convicted of in Las Vegas.

    The whole OJ saga is just one sick facet of our society's pathological fixation on celebrity.  In some ways OJ was a victim of his celebrity; in other ways he greatly benefited from having the money to hire F. Lee Bailey and others to represent him.  Not to cast any aspersions on some of the great lawyers who work as public defenders, but OJ probably would've been convicted of murder -- or would've copped a plea meaning long years in prison -- if he'd been a no name poor black man represented by an overworked, under-resourced, and under-paid public defender, especially in L.A.

    And now the next layer of OJ's celebrity will work itself out.  Will OJ have to spend his time in prison in protective custody because his celebrity might motivate someone to to seek reflected glory by assaulting or murdering him?

    What level of facility will he likely be sent to?  Will he be in PC there?  There's a chance that OJ's LA antics -- especially the finding of civil liability -- could affect how he's evaluated and what kind of inmates OJ will spend his time with.  

    If anyone has experience in how Nevada evaluates inductees for assignment to the level of security and the kind of yard OJ will likely face, it would be interesting to hear their thoughts.


    the point is there was no finding of guilt (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Would that matter to you (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:06:34 PM EST
    If he had murdered your son for no good reason?  

    As a parent, it's a distinction without a difference to me.  OJ has been alive the last 15 years that the Goldman's son did not get to live.  If it were my son who was dead, at OJ's hands, you can bet your bippy I'd be happy to see spend time in jail for any reason.  Call it vengeance, or whatever.  We all know that OJ killed the Goldmans' son and brother.  


    no, we all don't know that (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:45:53 PM EST
    that's your belief. It is not a fact.

    Or to Quote Jeffery Lebowski (none / 0) (#107)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    "That's just like your opinion, man."

    Um, convictions are opinions too---not (none / 0) (#108)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:56:55 AM EST
    fact. As a defense attorney, you are quite aware of that distinction. In fact, conviction or acquittal is only loosely related to facts. Since OJ was found liable in civil court for the murders, I think it's fair to say  it is a fact that he did them.

    I don't think this really was karma. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    More like utter stupidity on Simpson's part.

    The guy is just not that bright.  He's no sense of the consequences of his actions and he lacks any impulse control.

    To me, that car chase all those years ago pretty much said it all about how disabled he is where it comes to decision-making skills.

    He was bound to blow it at some point.  He just clearly has no ability to anticipate the consequences of his own actions.  He may also be malevolent or even a killer, but even if he isn't he still is working with such limited decision-making skills that I think it would have been a miracle if he managed not to get into trouble again.

    Further thoughts on karma (none / 0) (#55)
    by Natal on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    There two sets of law: 1) national law and 2)natural law.

    National law is man-made and consequently not infallible and subject to error. It can be just and it can also be unjust.

    Natural law is uncreated (as far as it is known). But it is said to be precise and just because all actions eventually evoke an reaction back to the source. So in this sense everything is karma.


    To the extent that I believe in (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:50:09 PM EST
    anything mystical, I do believe in karma.

    But I would also say that sometimes what happens to someone is simply created by them.  I don't really think that putting your finger in a light socket and getting electrocuted is "karma".  I think that is a dumb decision that has a specific and a fairly predictable consequence to that decision.

    Karma in my mind kicks in when say you cheat some person, get away with it and years later you're cheated yourself by someone that had nothing to do with your previous bad behavior.

    I think Simpson did something more akin to putting his finger in the light socket.


    Certainly most of us here (none / 0) (#100)
    by Fabian on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 04:52:09 AM EST
    could see that Simpson's actions could have a variety of adverse outcomes, including shots being fired and people being injured or killed.

    I think my dog was smarter than Simpson.  Since livestock guardian dogs are said to attain the maturity and intellect of a six year old (minus literacy skills), that's pretty sad.


    This sort of comment (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    is exactly what I came here hoping to avoid.

    If I understand our system of justice, O. J. Simpson is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. There was no finding of guilt in the 1994 murder trial (a verdict to which the later civil trial is wholly irrelevant). Therefore, under our system of justice, it's inappropriate to refer to Simpson as "a murder[er]," even if you think he is one. Like it or not. Would you prefer to live under the Napoleonic code?

    courts get it wrong (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Nasarius on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    I really don't care about OJ Simpson, and I know little about the details of either case here. But if we can accept that people are falsely convicted (which is clearly the case), why is it so difficult to accept that some people are also falsely acquitted for similar reasons?

    Our justice system is imperfect, and yes, I'd much prefer that it err on the side of presumption of innocence. But people are entitled to their own opinions.


    Under our system of justice, (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    calling O. J. Simpson a murderer is by definition a false charge. But I agree that the First Amendment gives people the right to make false charges, just as it gives me the right to call a false charge exactly what it is.

    Curious (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    Is it also a false charge to accuse the Goldmans of being motivated by vengeance? (Not that you would.) I'm curious because that always seems to be the automatic assumption here in cases such as this, when it seems to me that none of us knows what motivates them and I could certainly dream up other potential motivating factors.

    I've said nothing (none / 0) (#59)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    about the Goldmans, nor do I have anything to say about them. They are not my concern.

    I understand. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:34:59 PM EST
    That's why I said that you didn't or wouldn't say that. I thought, however, that it was possible that you might have an opinion about the commonly heard but unsupported charges about their vengeful motivations, only because that is a very common theme here and you seemed concerned about unsupported charges.

    I thought it would be interesting to hear an opinion about that, sorry, no problem.


    I'm concerned about (none / 0) (#61)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:40:43 PM EST
    unsupported charges when their effect is to undermine our system of justice by dismissing the presumption of innocence on which the whole system is based. The Goldmans' motivations are not something I presume to know, and I don't understand why they would be relevant to the point I was making.

    Again, never mind, massive apology, and nuff said. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:03:47 PM EST
    one is fact, one is opinion (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    It's a fact he has not been found guilty of the crime of murder. It's opinion as to what one thinks of the Goldmans' actions and public statements.

    Yes, true. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:22:31 PM EST
    I am just curious about the prevalent thinking around here (you see it throughout this thread and throughout the Polanski thread, for example) that the primary motive for those who favor jail time for certain crimes is vengeance (although I realize OJ was not convicted of murder, I'm generalizing as this is a common theme in many of the legal threads here, and you see here that many assume that the primary thing on the Goldmans' minds is vengeance). That seems to me to be a highly unwarranted assumption, and it seems to be used as a weapon sometimes also - i.e., "you just want to burn him at the stake", "you're just driven by vengeance and hatefulness", etc. I thought some of the more legal-oriented people might have an opinion as to why this is so prevalent. To me, there is a rather large distinction between desires for vengeance and, say, accountability, deterrence, etc etc.

    I've tried to understand (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    what you're getting at, but I just don't. You say:

    To me, there is a rather large distinction between desires for vengeance and, say, accountability, deterrence, etc etc.

    Where I get lost is in trying to see why even a desire for "accountability, deterrence, etc." would be relevant when someone has not been found guilty of the crime in question. What am I missing?


    Sorry, (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    I guess the confusion is because I am generalizing, not talking specifically about the OJ case. What I'm saying is that, in many of the legal threads here, there is a prevalent opinion that the primary motivating factor for those who favor incarceration for criminal behavior is vengeance. And I don't think that is necessarily true.

    If you read the Polanski thread and many other threads here, you see that assumption being made many, many times in the comments.

    So, perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up here in the context of this particular case, but it seems to be an assumption about the Goldmans' behavior here as well (not by you).

    Again, please ignore if you wish. I was just trying to understand why this is such a prevalent pattern of thinking.


    OK, got it (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST

    What I'm saying is that, in many of the legal threads here, there is a prevalent opinion that the primary motivating factor for those who favor incarceration for criminal behavior is vengeance. And I don't think that is necessarily true.

    I haven't read all the threads to which you refer, but it's my experience also that people in other contexts make that general assumption.

    As for the Goldmans, I personally can't see what motive they could possibly have, in the particular case of the 1994 verdict, other than vengeance. I think it's possible to identify a behavior without judging it. If I were in their place, I would want vengeance, and I'd stop at nothing within the law to get it, no matter how unsatisfying it might ultimately prove to be. But my loss and suffering would not entitle me to any kind of role in determining how the law should deal with the perpetrator of the crime. In fact, it's precisely my loss and suffering that should disqualify me from any such role.


    Thanks for your reply. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    It's interesting. Of course I agree that those close to the victims who are suffering the most should not play a role in the legal process.

    I've been thinking about this a lot lately, in various contexts, including what I read on this blog. But, also in the context of a case that I am familiar with (an awful case involving a distant friend of the family) having to do with sexual abuse of a 9 year old girl. Those who favor minimal punishment for the abuser accuse those who favor harsher punishment of being motivated solely by vengeance, but that is not what I see. They truly seem to be motivated by wanting to stop such behavior in society and to send a strong message that society will protect children against such behavior.

    There's a fine line between wanting vengeance (which I interpret as wanting to see someone suffer harshly as some kind of payback for your personal hurt or loss) and wanting some kind of accountability for a behavior that you want to see minimized or eradicated in society. But there is a distinction, in any case, and there are many who are unwilling to make it.

    Have a good evening.


    lol (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:12:02 PM EST
    I certainly have no idea as to why some cry for the harshest punishments possible. Are you saying that your interest in arguing for a long and harsh punishment is not because you seek vengeance for a crime done, which you portray as a ignoble desire, but that you have higher motives which relate to concepts of accountability and deterrence?

    Sounds like semantics to me. But don't worry your views seem to be rather mainstream, and representative. The US has the largest prison population in the world.

    The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

    Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes -- from writing bad checks to using drugs -- that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.


    Tough on crime sells. Voters like you eat it up.


    What ever the jury said (none / 0) (#38)
    by nyjets on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    All the jury verdict meant was that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Legally, he may not be a murder.But if he did kill those two people, and I think he did, there is nothing wrong with refering to him as a murder.

    Now, if the prosector or judge called him a murder during his current criminal trial, then that is wrong.


    you will not refer to OJ as a murderer here (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    He has been acquitted of those charges, it's false this is a defense site and it's name-calling.

    I have a question (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nyjets on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    I am asking this in all seriousness and with respect.
    WHy is it wrong to call OJ a murder. You are right, he was found not guilty under the law. I understand that point. ANd I will freely admit that the murder charge that he was found not guilty of is irelevant to the current case of OJ.
    But if someone can be found guilty of a crime but in fact be innocent, which I agree does happen way to often, the reverse can also happen.
    A person can be found not guilty of murder but still be guilty of the crime, hence making him a murder.
    I want to emphasis, I am not trying to be disrespectful or rude and if this post comes across as that, I apologize.

    murderER, not murder (none / 0) (#113)
    by sallywally on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:35:22 PM EST
    strictly a grammatical comment, this incorrect usage irritates me, especially when it's already been corrected once in this thread.

    Fred and Kim Goldman (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    stated clearly in the video that they had been pursuing OJ for years and actively trying to get him to commit a crime. They stated that they actively tried and wanted him to commit this crime.

    Does that have any legal relevance? If a third is actively trying to make you commit a crime, and actively taunting and frustrating you, and giving you false information intended to anger you and provoke you ("drive him over the edge" is what I believe Kim Goldman said she was trying to do), it would seem to me that it should matter.

    Oh please, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:08:32 PM EST
    How on earth could they make OJ, or anyone else, commit a crime?  How does one ''actively" make someone else commit a crime?  What did the Goldman's have to do with OJ storming that hotel room with a loaded gun?  

    It is a quite common (none / 0) (#95)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST
    practice that goes on all the time. It is done by vigilante groups, neighborhood watch groups, and such. It is also done by "forensic posses" (gangs that hunt people for money under the guise of assisting "law enforcement" or "security"). It basically amounts to well organized constant harassment and manipulation of a target person. That is, they work constantly to frustrate and enrage the person while simultaneously providing every possible opportunity for the person to commit a crime, while they are carefully standing by to document it. It can go on for months or even years before they accomplish their goals, but if the person paying for it can hold out, it usually works. They surround the target with actors who feed them false information to provoke them and manipulate them into situations where they are likely to lose their temper. They study them psychologically to learn what upsets them and causes them to lose their judgment. It is a big, big business in the current police state, and lots of people are involved in it. Exclamations like "Oh please" won't make it any less true.

    My understanding is that OJ didn't have a gun, and claimed he didn't know the gun was there. It looks like it was a really long stretch to say that OJ had anything to do with the gun.


    They DEA did it to Tommy Chong.... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    ever hear of entrapment?

    The loss of (none / 0) (#111)
    by JamesTX on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    the entrapment defense is what allowed the development of this industry.

    Iss there any evidence anyone (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    connected with the Goldmans had anything to do with Simpson's conduct in Las Vegas?  Sounds like the Goldmans have gone over the edge.  Tragic.

    It obviously (none / 0) (#53)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
    did matter because apparently the video has been edited and those first comments I heard removed!

    Ever Since The Original Trial (none / 0) (#69)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    I've always had a unsettled feeling about the Goldman's. They seemed somehat suspicious, not to mention ruthless. It seems that vengence has been a strong motivator for them. They sued the pants off OJ and won, and yet they've continued to be obsessed with him. I doubt this sentance will stop their activities. After at least nine years in prison, it will not surprise me to see this family resume their efforts against him.

    This all leads me to wonder about their motivation in the civil suit in the first place. If it was strictly to seek justice then the money should be secondary, so I'm sure they turned around and donated a sizable portion of their awarded settlement to some charity associated with helping the families of murder victims. However, I doubt that happened which leads me to conclude the worst about their motives.

    Whatever the case may be, if they can't let go of their rage now, then they deserve their self-imposed sentance of eternal hate.


    It's never "about the money." Don't (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:10:07 PM EST
    you listen to every single civil litigants' statements?

    I have always felt (none / 0) (#86)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    the same about them. I have always wondered how they are able to be so absolutely certain of his guilt when there simply isn't enough evidence to prove it. Yes, they seem to behave in an unusual way that smacks of insincerity. I can't put my finger on it, but they just don't carry much weight with me. They didn't like him, and I understand why they didn't, but I don't think they could possibly be any more certain of his guilt than anyone else.

    Most of the public knows very little about the evidence. The case was just a scapegoat for people to voice their personal dissatisfaction with the justice system. It provided a unique opportunity for the "all the criminals are going free" crowd to bond with the "money buys get-out-of-jail-free-cards for celebrities" crowd and the "men are violent monsters" crowd into a strong coalition that literally pronounced him guilty in the press and refused to consider any other possible explanation, in the face of powerful evidence to the contrary. It was impossible to say anything about the case that did not contain a strong presupposition of guilt. You would be laughed at and attacked.

    It was the time when Greta von Susteren was the perfect example of Americans' attitudes (which is why she was where she was). The only problem anyone saw with the justice system was that there were not enough people in jail for long enough. This was the precursor of what led to the support of the "unitary executive" and the devaluing of deliberative justice and disdain for careful weighing of evidence. America wanted John Wayne and Ronald Regan to dole out summary Biblical justice and they didn't see any need for courts. They yearned for the simplicity of Wyatt Earp in the wild west. They believed that elected and appointed enforcers should be free to attack anyone they wished, and any questioning of their motives was misguided and, quite frankly, evil and unpatriotic.

    Luckily, with the wave of DNA exonerations and all the other fractures in the facade of perfection surrounding law enforcement, American's may be finally considering another point of view -- a point of view where justice is not conceived of as blindly supporting authority, but considering the social contract.


    that's sure not (none / 0) (#112)
    by sallywally on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST
    where folks i knew who thought he was guilty were then or since coming from.

    Ruthless? (none / 0) (#87)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:02:17 PM EST
    Yes.  Murder my kid and see just how ruthless I might become.  

    lucky for mr. simpson (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cpinva on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    that there isn't a "stupid" sentence, his corpse could be rotting in a cell for all eternity.

    "I didn't know I was doing anything (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:22:26 AM EST

    Umm, how does going into someone's place with guns and demanding objects not fall into the category of "doing something wrong"?

    I can never get past the stupidity of actions/words to really look at the case objectively . . .

    Simpson = Clarett (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Fabian on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 04:28:12 AM EST
    The only difference is that Maurice Clarett skipped the "successful $port$ career" part and went straight to poor judgment, stupid moves and trouble with the law - minus the money and connections.

    Simpson spoke. (none / 0) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    He was on the verge of tears.

    It was weird because it has been years since I've actually heard him speak.

    He was a sympathetic character I thought.

    We'll see what the judge decides.

    The judge is speaking now. (none / 0) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    I don't think she was impressed by Simpson's show of regret at all.

    A psychiatric analysis on Simpson (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    would be interesting.  This 61 year old man displays the poor judgment and impulse control of a teen.

    It's amazing he has not gotten into more trouble.   I have no problem with him serving time.  


    Amazing? (none / 0) (#15)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    You can be sure has gotten into trouble, either he doesn't get caught, people look the other way or he gets acquitted.



    Check wiki. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    Mister Simpson has not been Mister Clean.  Governor Schwarzenegger would like a word with him...

    Re courtroom seating - it actually looked like (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST
    there were a few empty seats in the back.

    The Goldmans looked deeply unsatisfied, not that their living for vengeance (which is what they've been doing for way too long) could have ever brought them satisfaction.

    As to the sentence, I lost track of the calculation, but it sounded like something in the range of 10-15 years.  Anyone got a better handle?

    Re: the Goldmans (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    Very sad.  In a murder case here, the victim's father devoted his life to mourning and honoring his deceased daughter.  Very angry man.  He died at the scene of the murder.  He was tending a grove of oak saplings he planted there in her honor.  

    The Goldmans are going to give a (none / 0) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    press conference in a few minutes.

    Why do I feel it was a set up (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    to get Simpson to screw up in order to get him some jail time and it was done as a revenge factor for the past murders where he got away Scott free.  Since they could not nail him in the murders then set him up on this crime so he would get some jail time.  Just my 2 cents.

    Who are you suggesting set him up? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Angel on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:30:27 PM EST

    LAPD strikes again. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    Who knew they were so competent, espec. since Fuhrman lives in Idaho now.

    rrriiiiight (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    Extremely competent.  Right down to causing Simpson to say all the things he did via mind control or post hypnotic suggestion.  

    Well, L.A. IS the acknowledged (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:40:46 PM EST
    film capitol of the world (or was).  

    What cracks me up (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    is that Simpson got his guys and guns together to get his sentimentally valuable stuff back.

    ...and yet, he's been looking for his wife's murderer for how long?  Apparently, he lacked the same level of motivation.  Lost wife?  No results.  Lost stuff?  .....


    See LAT articloe. He says he (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    called the family of his former wife to say he was going to try to get some memorabilia back for them.  LAT

    Doesn't sound like his attorneys vetted his remarks to the court today.  Or he was too headstrong or stupid to listen to them to internalize their advice.  

    Also, according to LAT, minimum sentence he could have gotten was six years state prison.  


    Simpson has plenty of experience (none / 0) (#32)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    with the courts and lawyers.  He might have learned something over the decades!  

    Here is Laurie Levinson (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:59:23 PM EST
    on Simpson's statements to the court:

    Levenson said she did not think Simpson's apology during the trial helped. "I don't think his apology helped him. It seems like too little too late. Moreover, he's an actor, and always makes himself seem like the victim. It's not really what the court was looking for in terms of true remorse."
     [LAT on line.]

    Apology? Seriously? (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by sj on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    He may have used the word "sorry" but that was the whiniest apology I've ever heard.  He was making excuses, not apologizing.  

    "I was just trying to get my stuff back".  How is that different from the junior high standard "but I didn't mean to" excuse.

    Sounds to me like he was still trying to justify what he did, not apologize for it.  


    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:10:17 PM EST
    He started it, (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:19:29 PM EST
    Seemed to be his defense.  He's a thug, always has been.  

    I wouldn't have even apologized (none / 0) (#102)
    by Justin on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:40:22 AM EST
    at all. If someone tells me that a guy has my stuff I'm damn sure going to go get it.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:11:24 PM EST
    how's he going to look for the real killer from prison!!

    This would probably be an inappropriate time (none / 0) (#37)
    by LogopolisMike on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    but it's probably never going to approrpriate so I'm going to say it anyway.

    What if this whole armed robbery was set-up so OJ could get behind bars to continue his investigation for the real killers.  It may sounds implausible, but it also sounds like a could be a plot on Fox's Prison Break... except it's too realistic.


    In that case (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    give him all the time he needs!

    Hahahahhaha (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    Good one!  Let's make sure that he gets ALL the time he needs to ferret out the "real" killer.  LOL

    He had a ton of enemies. Who knows (none / 0) (#25)
    by Saul on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    I feel they put some bait out there and Simpson took the bait and got hooked.  Don't get me wrong I know he probably killed his wife and boyfriend and deserves to do the time for that crime.  I guess some time no matter how you get it is better than no time at all if you got away Scott free initially on the murders.

    Absolutely not. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    I guess some time no matter how you get it is better than no time at all if you got away Scott free initially on the murders.

    The day we start thinking that way is the day we give up any chance of justice.


    That is exactly what happen to OJ in this case (none / 0) (#106)
    by Saul on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 09:41:27 AM EST
    when he got the 15 years.  When we start thinking that a person can get away with murder because of a technicality (i.e the handling of blood)  and there is nothing you can do about being tried for double jeopardy and congress will not change that then that is why he was set up to commit this crime in order that he pay some time for the murders he got away with scott free.  So some justice was done in the first crime even though it was not the correct amount of time he should have gotten for the murders.  

    I disagree entirely. (none / 0) (#109)
    by JamesTX on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    I think this is precisely that -- double jeopardy. I don't know how to state this in terms of legal theory, but I just know what is justice to me. The criminal justice system is not in place to guarantee every crime is punished. There is not supposed to be an equal amount of error tolerance between the guilty going free and innocent being convicted. It is not a "balance" problem. The criminal justice system is not a guarantee of safety and vengeance for citizens. The world is a dangerous place, and it really isn't made less dangerous by reducing the protections afforded criminal defendants. Most crimes are never solved.

    Since most crimes are never solved, there really is no available means to be fair. The power given to prosecutors is broad and allows them to choose who they prosecute and why. The prosecution of OJ in Las Vegas is a nauseating example of that power. If that is the only way things can be done, then those charged with crimes have to have powerful protections.

    I am sorry, but I find it difficult to address your argument because it is not a fair argument. It is a biased debate strategy or tactic. Your argument doesn't allow for a direct response. It contains what is called a "presupposition", which has been the standard approach to arguments about the OJ cases and is the standard conservative political argument in all criminal cases. In order to even address your argument, I have to accept that OJ is guilty of the LA murders. The argument doesn't assert that he is guilty -- it demands it and assumes it a priori. Since I am not convinced that OJ is guilty of the LA murders, there no way to even address your argument in this case.

    I will say this, though. No, I emphatically disagree that it is just for the system to use trumped up charges on a new crime to bypass or circumvent an acquittal on an another crime. If it is possible to convict a guilty person on a alternative crime to "make up" for failing to convict them on the first crime, then it is possible to convict an innocent person on any crime simply because the prosecutor wants them convicted. The U.S. public got their shot at OJ. They failed. Sorry, but even if he was guilty, the world isn't perfect. Nobody gets this concerned about incorrect decisions when young men are sent to prison and exonerated in middle age. The attitude in those cases is that "the system isn't perfect, and we have to live with it". I say you have to live with the LA verdict, whether you like it or not. You can't bend the rules to get to OJ by setting him up for another crime.


    I am just telling you what acutally happend (none / 0) (#110)
    by Saul on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    This is not my argument.  They found a way to punish OJ whether you agree with it nor not.  IMO he got off light with 15 years.   The judge IMO was also punishing OJ not only for this crime but what he got away with.  You will never hear that from this judge but you could tell that what she was doing and she was agreeing with all those that wanted OJ punished for the past murders. No mercy for OJ and he was baited to commit this crime.

    sorry, i don't yet get (none / 0) (#114)
    by sallywally on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:40:53 PM EST
    who 'they' are.

    sorry, i don't yet get (none / 0) (#115)
    by sallywally on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:41:18 PM EST
    who 'they' are. can you specify?

    Pardon my butting in, (none / 0) (#116)
    by JamesTX on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:01:35 AM EST
    but I think I can help. I am not sure who "they" are, but it in no way casts doubt on the fact that there is a "they". As with most events of this sort, there is no question that it was a purposive act -- a planned setup. It is like when a body is found with a bullet in the head. There is no question "someone" killed the person, although we may not know who that "someone" is. As I said upthread, this method of getting to people is a relatively new method used both by law enforcement and criminal organizations. It is related to and draws on military psychological warfare ("psyops") techniques and technology. It is more sophisticated than "setups" used to be, primarily because there is so much new communications technology that can be used to encircle the individual and control their thought processes by controlling what happens in their immediate social environment (hidden cameras and bugs to keep the stalkers aware of what the victim is thinking and what he believes at all times, cell phones to coordinate creation of "virtual social reality" for the victim by placing people where they are needed at precise times, internet data availability to better research and understand the life and history of the victim, etc.). Think Mission Impossible, except that all those fancy gadgets they used to accomplish their tricks are now available at Walmart.

    They could be many (none / 0) (#117)
    by Saul on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    OJ had a ton of enemies since his first trial.  Why would a guy tell OJ that some guys have his stuff in a las vegas hotel room then say we need to get it for you and at the same time take a recorder into the room.  Oh yeah I just happen to have a recorder in my pocket so I can record the whole incident.  Maybe the police wanted the sting operation, maybe it was a private individual who hated OJ who got the set up going, maybe it was our own government look at the governor I think who is from Illinois who is now in jail or going to jail who was set up.

    You got to admit it looks very much like a set up.
    OJ took the bait and they knew OJ was a hot head and he had a gun.  Plus the other guy recorded the whole intrusion into the room.  Why? So if OJ got caught the recorded intrusion would be used as evidence against him.  

    It might not be right but that is what actually happen.  End of story.


    Clearly Was The Case (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    That he was set up, video and all. Of course he is a moron, a violent one at that. He was super easy to set up, like candy for a child.

    How could it be a setup ? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ding7777 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    OJ's the one who invited the other 4 guys (2 with guns) to go with him?  OJ's the one who decided to take the stuff instead of calling the cops.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    You obviously have not been following the case. Do you think that OJ also brought the camera, so that he could watch the faces of the thieves over and over while drinking a beer at home?

    Thomas Riccio, a sports collectibles dealer, the man behind O. J. Simpson's bust and was a key witness at the Simpson's Armed Robbery and Kidnapping Trial; has a rap sheet of his own which includes: stolen goods, prison escape and arsonist.

    Thomas Riccio arranged and secretly recorded the Las Vegas hotel room meeting between O. J. Simpson and two other memorabilia collectors, and sold the tape to TMZ.com. Riccio said he netted around $210.000 from the media for the tapes.



    Riccio may have had another reason for the (none / 0) (#47)
    by ding7777 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM EST
    audio tapes... maybe he wanted to entrap the 2 dealers, who knows?

    But why would Riccio set himself up for a felony?


    Felony? (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:05:34 PM EST
    Did not hear that Riccio was on trial, because he wasn't. Fancy that!

    From your scenario: (none / 0) (#51)
    by ding7777 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    Riccio set-ups OJ to commit a felony.  Riccio then takes part in that felony.

    Unless you're claiming it was the Vegas police who used Riccio to bait OJ, why would Riccio set himself up for felony charges?


    Obviously (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    He did not set himself up, because there are no felony charges against him, save for the ones he has on his record.

    Why do you think that there are no charges against Riccio?


    The important (none / 0) (#57)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    questions never get asked!

    Unless he was already in trouble (none / 0) (#105)
    by Justin on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:44:46 AM EST
    for a felony and said that he could get the cops or prosecutor a high profile bust if they let him off. Otherwise why record an event that you didn't know was going to happen?

    Wasn't he told by someone else (none / 0) (#103)
    by Justin on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    that the guys in the room had HIS stuff? Why was the event recorded? I don't normally sit around with recorder on in the room.

    Although (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    I am not sure it was for the murder. I think the goldman's are not his only enemies.

    Will he serve all his time (none / 0) (#39)
    by ding7777 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    in the county jail or a state prison?

    One of the commenters (none / 0) (#42)
    by Amiss on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    mentioned Ely (shrug) If I recall correctly, its in the boonies.

    State prison, with credit for time served (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 02:24:10 PM EST
    in county detention facilities.

    As Leadbelly said (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    Cocaine's for horses, not for men. And this country hasnt gotten any smarter since that temporary confidence booster for morons started flooding into the country back in the late seventies.

    Not that Im in favor of the War on (some) Drugs, possibly just a seperate country wherein the hyper-entitled and their bimbos can play out their cheezy Dirty Sexy Money fantasies while leaving the rest of us in peace.


    Did I miss the segue? (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    This keeps happening to you lately! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:23:34 PM EST
    Yes. CT? (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    Hmmmm. CT. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    Computerized tomography?
    Carpal tunnel?
    Clinton taskforce?

    "Conspiracy Theory" (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST
    You know, U.S. government responsible for 9/11 etc.

    Ah. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:00:06 PM EST
    Yes, methinks they are out to get you.

    Well, whaddya know! (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:04:38 PM EST
    Turns out stupidity IS a crime.

    I'm convinced the jury the first time (none / 0) (#84)
    by Baal on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:07:35 PM EST
    got it completely wrong.  Yes legally he was acquitted.  There is no accounting for stupidity and incompetence.  

    Oddly enough, I have the impression the most recent jury may have also done an injustice, since this really seemed to me to be some kind of setup.

    I've haven't (none / 0) (#94)
    by Natal on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    followed too closely. But how did the tape recording get setup?  Must have been planned to get evidence.

    Nothing could be more (none / 0) (#96)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:01:20 PM EST
    obvious. It was a planned setup and every juror and the judge knew it. They punished this man for the 1994 case. Nothing could be more clear. The only thing that came to mind when listening to the judge's statement was "methinks thou dost protest too much!".

    I still don't get how the guys (none / 0) (#101)
    by Justin on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:38:18 AM EST
    who took OJ to the room and held the gun on them after telling him that some guys had his stuff got off with no time. I also don't understand how the whole thing was recorded. I also don't understand how it's robbery if you're recovering your own goods, or believe that you are.