Monday, October 13, 2008

Maybe Next Time Go Greyhound?

Well, I did not see this coming. Brace yourself. That's right. According to the Associated Press, OJ Simpson "...feels hopeful he will win a new trial on appeal." Of course he does. And why would that be? Oh, right. "...because he believes jury interviews show "he was absolutely railroaded." Railroaded? Is that what they're calling it in prison these days? Railroading? (I don't know what your other options would be there, OJ. What's the alternative? Going Greyhound?)

Is anyone surprised, anyone, that OJ Simpson, OJ "I Vow To Find The Real Killers Because They Must Be Somewhere Over Here On This Golf Course" Simpson, feels that his egotistic, narcissistic, self-important ass got a raw deal? (Oh, he's in prison, huh? In that case, pun intended.) No. The single most surprised person that OJ was actually convicted of anything is, in fact, OJ! Of course he can't believe it and believes the system is screwed up. (He is SOOOO missing Johnnie Cochran right about now!) Let me tell you, if anyone on this planet should be hailing the basic principles that make up the justice system in this country, it is none other than OJ Simpson. He should be a huge fan of our justice system. HUGE. (Although, I'm guessing that, up until about a week ago, he probably was.)

OJ seems to feel "...very hopeful now, especially after the jury interviews. He knows that he was absolutely railroaded." This coming from his laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank attorney Yale Galanter. Both OJ and his lawyer believe that the jury foreman, a one Paul Connelly, should not have been on the jury because he "intimated that he thought Simpson should have been imprisoned 13 years ago" for that little to-do down in LA that he was miraculously acquitted of. OK, find me one person other than those that were on that jury 13 years ago that does NOT believe that he did it. ONE sane person. There aren't any. None. I checked. There are none. So that they think that the jury foreman "intimated" that he believed Simpson was guilty 13 years ago (and, technically, still is guilty) is not a shocker. They, of course, don't say how he "intimated" this, but just that he did. (I hope they're not counting the eyeball rolling and head shaking that everyone does whenever they hear OJs name. That's just a natural reaction, not an intimation. If everyone does it, it's not like you're so special if you do it too.)

Galanter goes as far as to say "He should not have been on that jury." Um, dude...little secret here I want to let you in on....YOU helped CHOOSE the jury! YOU agreed to having this guy on the jury! YOU! That was YOU! Actually, ALL of those jurors, YOU had to agree to have them serve! If he shouldn't have been on the jury, why'd you let him on?! It's not like they spin the Wheel of Jurors and whoever it lands on, you get. Doesn't work like that. Not usually.

The part that just kills me is how Galanter says that " was surprising that jurors said they were most influenced by surreptitious audio recordings made by collectibles dealer Tom Riccio during the six-minute hotel room confrontation." It was? Surprising, you say? Here's a guy who, made a tape recording of the whole ordeal. (So that he could sell it later, of course. Don't get me wrong. OJ was totally set up by these morons who wanted to profit off of him. I don't doubt that for a minute. It doesn't change the reasons why OJ went along with them. It doesn't change that he did what he did. He could have believed that they knew of people who had OJ's belongings and then done something that normal people would have done, like file a police report. But for the many, many shady and sneaky reasons that ARE OJ Simpson, he didn't and instead chose to go busting into a hotel room with a bunch of felons with guns. Makes for a good audio recording for sale, doesn't it?) This guy's recording has OJ clearly saying "Nobody leaves this room." That, under Nevada law, is enough to constitute kidnapping. Yes, how surprising that the jurors would focus on what OJ actually did and said. A shock to say the very least. Please.

Galanter had hoped that the jury was going to focus on other things. Things like "Anything that's not mine, give it back." Riiiiight. To show how honest he is, correct? He had also hoped they would have heard OJ say "You can't lie. You can't lie. You've got to tell the truth.'" OK, look, if I'm on that jury, that is the last thing I want to hear anyone, especially OJ, say in that situation. You can't lie?! Really?? So it's lying where you're drawing the line in this situation? Busting into the hotel room, people with guns, not letting people leave, taking things by force, all of that is OK with you, but lying is simply out of the question?! Yes, it is perplexing as to how on earth the jury overlooked that detail. Amazing.

They are also focusing in on the testimony that people had guns. OJ and his folks are trying to say that there wasn't a gun because no one mentioned a gun being shown. Other than in testimony. Testimony says "We had guns". But according to Galanter, "If I'm in a room and somebody pulled a gun, the first thing I would expect to hear is, 'Put that thing away,' or 'No need for that.' But in the six minutes, there is nothing said to indicate a gun was present." Nothing was said? See, that's not going to help you much. Because if there was a gun, the people who went in there with the guns knew it and they wouldn't say anything. And the people who are having a gun pointed at them? They're not going to say much either. They're just going to start rounding up all of their OJ Simpson trading cards and putting them in the pillowcases like it's Halloween and they're getting rid of all of their candy as quick as they can so that they can turn off the porch light.

I have no idea whether there were guns or not. I mean, seriously, just look at them up there. Can you trust any of them any farther than you can throw them? With or without their guns? The jury says that on the audio recording, there is mention of a "piece". And the guys who had all of their charges dropped in exchange for their testimony against OJ said that there were guns, for whatever that's worth. But I'm with the jury as far as how they went about their deliberations. They said that, basically, they couldn't trust ANY of those people that took the stand because they're all convicted felons and liars. So they went strictly by the evidence. If the evidence has someone talking about a "piece", I'm not guessing it's a piece of pie.

And in the desperation angle, Galanter is blaming the judge, a one Jackie Glass, for unreasonable time constraints during which to file an appeal, according for the sunny folks over there at the Las Vegas Sun. "
She didn't give us the time we need to do a full-fledged motion." Whining is soooo unbecoming when it's coming out of the mouths of lawyers. Didn't give you enough time? Were you the only two people who did not see this coming? You probably should have planned ahead a little bit better.

So in the meantime, OJ sits in his itty bitty cell over there in Nevada with moods that alternate between "melancholy and hopeful." Perhaps once, just once, his mood could alternate between "accepting responsibility for what he's done and shutting the hell up." While that would be a welcome mood change for everyone who is sick of hearing about this guy, the one who it could and would ultimately help the most in the end is OJ himself. And considering that at this point, there isn't a whole lot else out there that IS going to be able to help him any more, he might want to think about it. Then again, he might not want to. After all, who knows what else he has to think about?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

No comments: