WWTBAM Bored

Looks like OJ is going to be calling the Nevada Department of Corrections his home for at least the next 5 years with a maximum of 15 years.

Anyone want an autographed license plate? $50....

More even, SirG.

If my understanding was correct she tacked on two consecutive enhancements of 1-6 years. Even if he gets parole early Mr. Simpson gonna be spending at least a decade behind bars.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

clem21 wrote:More even, SirG.

If my understanding was correct she tacked on two consecutive enhancements of 1-6 years. Even if he gets parole early Mr. Simpson gonna be spending at least a decade behind bars.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Nope: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD94SLRV80

Bob Juch wrote:

clem21 wrote:More even, SirG.

If my understanding was correct she tacked on two consecutive enhancements of 1-6 years. Even if he gets parole early Mr. Simpson gonna be spending at least a decade behind bars.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Nope: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD94SLRV80

This story was written before the sentencing. If I understood the sentencing correctly, there were a total of nine years of consecutive sentences before he's eligible for parole -- five years with a 12-month enhancement, and then two consecutive 18-month sentences for the last two counts. --Bob

Guess the search for the real killer will be put on hold for a while.

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

clem21 wrote:More even, SirG.

If my understanding was correct she tacked on two consecutive enhancements of 1-6 years. Even if he gets parole early Mr. Simpson gonna be spending at least a decade behind bars.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Nope: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD94SLRV80

This story was written before the sentencing. If I understood the sentencing correctly, there were a total of nine years of consecutive sentences before he's eligible for parole -- five years with a 12-month enhancement, and then two consecutive 18-month sentences for the last two counts. --Bob

No one else has interpreted it that way:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462565,00.html

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Nope: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD94SLRV80

This story was written before the sentencing. If I understood the sentencing correctly, there were a total of nine years of consecutive sentences before he's eligible for parole -- five years with a 12-month enhancement, and then two consecutive 18-month sentences for the last two counts. --Bob

No one else has interpreted it that way:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462565,00.html

I don't know the answer but the track record for the news services getting a story such as this right is abysmal.

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:
No one else has interpreted it that way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462565,00.html

Your Fox story, which was written after the sentence was delivered, has nothing to do with the first link you provided, other than being about the same people. The dead give-away about the first one being a pre-sentencing story may include the fact that thousands of people, including me (and perhaps Bob####s and others on this board,) read it this morning hours before O.J. and the judge appeared in the same room. The speculation in the first story proved to be in the ballpark of what actually transpired, but it was just that -- speculation. Some details, including how the sentences would be served, differed.

Bob, seriously, none of us will ever require that you be an authority about everything. It's okay if you stake out just a little piece of the universe upon which to proclaim your superior knowledge. It's also okay if you are mistaken every now and then. It happens.

According to this, many people are interpreting the exact meaning of the judge's sentence differently. Notice the varying headlines on stories from different news organizations.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 ... tml?csp=34

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Nope: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD94SLRV80

This story was written before the sentencing. If I understood the sentencing correctly, there were a total of nine years of consecutive sentences before he's eligible for parole -- five years with a 12-month enhancement, and then two consecutive 18-month sentences for the last two counts. --Bob

No one else has interpreted it that way:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462565,00.html

According to the story linked by shinycar, it appears that the defense has. --Bob

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:
No one else has interpreted it that way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462565,00.html

Your Fox story, which was written after the sentence was delivered, has nothing to do with the first link you provided, other than being about the same people. The dead give-away about the first one being a pre-sentencing story may include the fact that thousands of people, including me (and perhaps Bob####s and others on this board,) read it this morning hours before O.J. and the judge appeared in the same room. The speculation in the first story proved to be in the ballpark of what actually transpired, but it was just that -- speculation. Some details, including how the sentences would be served, differed.

Bob, seriously, none of us will ever require that you be an authority about everything. It's okay if you stake out just a little piece of the universe upon which to proclaim your superior knowledge. It's also okay if you are mistaken every now and then. It happens.

I apparently copied the link to the wrong AP story. On this all I know is what I read in the newspapers (online).

My theory is that the whole robbery and trial and sentencing were a ruse to allow him to go undercover in the Big House for the next few years in his efforts to find Nicole's real killers.

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:
No one else has interpreted it that way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462565,00.html

Your Fox story, which was written after the sentence was delivered, has nothing to do with the first link you provided, other than being about the same people. The dead give-away about the first one being a pre-sentencing story may include the fact that thousands of people, including me (and perhaps Bob####s and others on this board,) read it this morning hours before O.J. and the judge appeared in the same room. The speculation in the first story proved to be in the ballpark of what actually transpired, but it was just that -- speculation. Some details, including how the sentences would be served, differed.

Bob, seriously, none of us will ever require that you be an authority about everything. It's okay if you stake out just a little piece of the universe upon which to proclaim your superior knowledge. It's also okay if you are mistaken every now and then. It happens.

SC, which Bob were you addressing?

I flew to Florida yesterday.

I got off the plane and turned on my phone.

There was a message.

It was from Sting.

It was all about the OJ sentencing.

He talked for 4 minutes about only that.

He giggles and whooped and celebrated.

A couple of my co-workers spend a lot of time in Las Vegas (a lot, to me, is a week or more a year) and agree with one of the reports I read about geographical discrimination -- that the severity of the sentence resulted from his pulling a gun at a casino. Apparently a whole different set of rules kicks in when you're on the Strip, lest green-bearing visitors be upset.

I loved the part when the lawyers said it was inappropriate for The Goldmans to be at his sentencing.

peacock2121 wrote:I loved the part when the lawyers said it was inappropriate for The Goldmans to be at his sentencing.

Goldman gave a great speech in front of the cameras afterward. It was so good, it sounded rehearsed, and if it wasn't rehearsed, he at least gave considerable thought to it beforehand.

That wasn't meant to be critical. I think he's dealt with the loss of his daughter and the mother of his grandchildren in the best way he can. He deserves a little time in front of the cameras, and it's appropriate for him to be prepared.

SportsFan68 wrote:That wasn't meant to be critical. I think he's dealt with the loss of his daughter and the mother of his grandchildren in the best way he can.

Goldman is Ron's father, not Nicole's. Her parents are the Browns. I believe Nicole's sister was at the sentencing, too.

Estonut wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Your Fox story, which was written after the sentence was delivered, has nothing to do with the first link you provided, other than being about the same people. The dead give-away about the first one being a pre-sentencing story may include the fact that thousands of people, including me (and perhaps Bob####s and others on this board,) read it this morning hours before O.J. and the judge appeared in the same room. The speculation in the first story proved to be in the ballpark of what actually transpired, but it was just that -- speculation. Some details, including how the sentences would be served, differed.

Bob, seriously, none of us will ever require that you be an authority about everything. It's okay if you stake out just a little piece of the universe upon which to proclaim your superior knowledge. It's also okay if you are mistaken every now and then. It happens.

SC, which Bob were you addressing?

Given that she referred to me in the third, rather than the second, person (among other contextual clues), I'm fairly sure she wasn't addressing me. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Given that she referred to me in the third, rather than the second, person (among other contextual clues), I'm fairly sure she wasn't addressing me. --Bob

Like the contextual clue that she misattributed the quote to you?

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Given that she referred to me in the third, rather than the second, person (among other contextual clues), I'm fairly sure she wasn't addressing me. --Bob

Like the contextual clue that she misattributed the quote to you?

She's not the first to screw up the quote tags, and I'm sure she won't be the last. I didn't list the other contextual clues because I'm pretty sure that if I'm mistaken and shinycar was, in fact, addressing me, she'll let me know. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Given that she referred to me in the third, rather than the second, person (among other contextual clues), I'm fairly sure she wasn't addressing me. --Bob

Like the contextual clue that she misattributed the quote to you?

She's not the first to screw up the quote tags, and I'm sure she won't be the last. I didn't list the other contextual clues because I'm pretty sure that if I'm mistaken and shinycar was, in fact, addressing me, she'll let me know. --Bob

I did indeed screw up the quote tags while in the process of trying to shorten the chain a bit. My apologies to all.

As Bob78164 assessed correctly, my comments were directed at the other Bob in a moment of exasperation. That is not to say that I've never been exasperated by Bob###s as well, or any of a great number of BBs, but my moments of annoyance frequently are fleeting, and they have nothing to do with the amount of affection and respect I have for the individuals who post here. Sometimes I simply feel the need to stand my ground, however solid or shaky it may be at any given moment. (I do live near the Madrid Fault, you know.)

Estonut wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:That wasn't meant to be critical. I think he's dealt with the loss of his daughter and the mother of his grandchildren in the best way he can.

Goldman is Ron's father, not Nicole's. Her parents are the Browns. I believe Nicole's sister was at the sentencing, too.

Ouch!

That was a dumb mistake.

Thanks, Estonut.

Well, I guess he'll start out as a tight end, and leave a wide receiver.....