O.J. Simpson granted October release from Nevada prison

[webfact]

O.J. Simpson granted October release from Nevada prison

By Steve Gorman

 

O.J. Simpson (center) reacts during his parole hearing at Lovelock Correctional Centre in Lovelock, Nevada, U.S. July 20, 2017. REUTERS/Jason Bean/POOL

 

CARSON CITY, Nev. (Reuters) - O.J. Simpson was granted parole on Thursday and will be released from a Nevada prison in October, following an emotional hearing that centred on the botched armed robbery of his own mementos at a Las Vegas hotel that landed him behind bars for nine years.

 

A four-member panel of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners voted unanimously to release the 70-year-old former National Football League star turned TV pitchman and actor, now best remembered as the defendant in a sensational double-murder trial that gripped America two decades ago.

 

Simpson participated by video feed from Lovelock Correctional Center, about 100 miles (160 km) from the parole board's offices in Carson City, sitting at a wooden table next to his attorney dressed in a prison-issue denim shirt and dark pants.

 

A smiling Simpson, with close-cropped grey hair and looking thinner than at his last parole hearing in 2013, testified along with his daughter and one of the two robbery victims. He offered a rambling account of his actions, sometimes striking a defensive tone and at others sounding apologetic.

 

A board spokesman said that Nevada law does not require an expression of remorse as a criteria for winning parole, though he said it could be noted as a mitigating factor.

 

Simpson bowed his head and appeared to be in tears as the board voted unanimously to grant him parole, then stood and thanked the commissioners repeatedly, hands clasped.

 

"I've done my time, I've done it as well and respectfully as anyone can," Simpson said during the hearing. "None of this would have happened if I'd had better judgement."

 

Among reasons the commissioners gave for their decision was that Simpson had complied with prison rules during his incarceration, had no prior criminal convictions and posed a minimal safety risk to the public.

 

"HE MADE A MISTAKE"

 

Despite previous murder charges against Simpson, commissioners did not challenge his assertion that he had spent a largely conflict-free life and had always been "pretty good to people."

 

Simpson, known during his football career as the "Juice", said he was ready to spend time with his children and friends and could handle the public attention he would get.

 

“I’m not a guy that has conflicts in the street, I don’t expect to have any when I leave here” he told the commissioners.

 

Simpson's adult daughter, Arnelle, told the hearing that Simpson's incarceration had been hard on her family.

 

"No one really knows how much we have been through, this ordeal the last nine years," she said. "He's like my best friend and like my rock."

 

Bruce Fromong, one of the dealers Simpson was convicted of robbing on Sept. 13, 2007, said he had long ago forgiven the man he called a close friend.

 

"This is a good man. He made mistake. But if he called me tomorrow and said, 'Bruce I'm getting out, will you pick me up?' Juice, I'll be here tomorrow for you."

 

Simpson hopes to move to Florida, where he has friends and family, when he is released, a plan that must first be approved by probation authorities there.

 

"I could easily stay in Nevada, but I don’t think you guys want me here,” Simpson said to laughter during the hearing. The board's chairwoman, Connie Bisbee, replied: "No comment." The commissioners said they did not take into consideration the notoriety still surrounding Simpson's acquittal of charges he murdered his wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman and a civil court decision that found him liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages.

 

Simpson will probably be transferred during the last two weeks of his incarceration to one of two other Nevada prisons usually used to house soon-to-be-released inmates because of their proximity to airports and other public transportation, Corrections Department Warden Isidro Baca said.

 

(Reporting by Steve Gorman; Additional reporting and writing by Joseph Ax in New York and Dan Whitcomb in Los Angeles; editing by Andrew Hay and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-21

[Somtamnication]

Proof positive that karma takes a long time to arrive, but one day it will. 

[Orton Rd]

Did he ever say sorry for murdering his wife?

[LannaGuy]

42 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

Proof positive that karma takes a long time to arrive, but one day it will. 

He has more to come I'm sure after abusing his wife for years 

[boomerangutang]

A murderer should be in prison for life.

[phantomfiddler]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

A murderer should be in prison for life.

 

A bit extreme, old chap ! I,m sure there have been many instances where the behaviour of a person absolutely begged for a solution that removed such person from society.

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

 

A bit extreme, old chap ! I,m sure there have been many instances where the behaviour of a person absolutely begged for a solution that removed such person from society.

I had to read your sentence three times.  You mean execution?  

[CutiePi]

He spent 9 years in jail and the Goldmans couldn't get to him...on any corner of LA they could have found a Norteño or Sureño to take him out.

[morrobay]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

A murderer should be in prison for life.

If the trial had been in West L.A./ Santa Monica (where the crime was) he would be.  But D.A. Garcetti was running for re election and wanted more exposure so he moved venue downtown where

a mostly raciest   black jury acquitted him

Edited July 21, 2017 by morrobay

[mdmayes]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

A murderer should be in prison for life.

Who's a murderer? If I recall he was found not guilty in a court of law. End of story.

Edited July 21, 2017 by mdmayes

[Mansell]

1 hour ago, mdmayes said:

Who's a murderer? If I recall he was found not guilty in a court of law. End of story.

Not end of story, end of first chapter. But then he was found guilty in a civil trial. Guilty is guilty. If the original jurors had looked impassionately at the mass of evidence against him they would hopefully had a different verdict.

[morrobay]

2 hours ago, mdmayes said:

Who's a murderer? If I recall he was found not guilty in a court of law. End of story.

If there was ever a case to be made for professional jurors.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Mansell said:

Not end of story, end of first chapter. But then he was found guilty in a civil trial. Guilty is guilty. If the original jurors had looked impassionately at the mass of evidence against him they would hopefully had a different verdict.

Guilt in a civil trial does not equate to guilt in a criminal trial, the burden of proof in the former being lower.

 

"In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins." source

 

If I was a juror on a criminal trial, I would expect that the evidence be completely watertight before I condemned a man.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, mdmayes said:

Who's a murderer? If I recall he was found not guilty in a court of law. End of story.

Doesn't mean that. It means they found him not guilty and since in the U.S. there is no double jeopardy he can't be retried for the same crime. But that doesn't mean they found him innocent. 

 

The parole board had no choice but to grant it.

 

So it's all legal, but the morality of that murdering scumbag is another matter. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Jingthing

[metisdead]

An off topic troll post has been removed. 

[LannaGuy]

How can he get a 33 year sentence and only serve 9?  what's the point?  it's as crazy as a cop shooting an innocent person then has the right not to talk about what happened    

[SheungWan]

On 7/21/2017 at 8:10 AM, RuamRudy said:

Guilt in a civil trial does not equate to guilt in a criminal trial, the burden of proof in the former being lower.

 

"In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins." source

 

If I was a juror on a criminal trial, I would expect that the evidence be completely watertight before I condemned a man.

Criteria of guilt in a criminal trial is not defined by the word 'watertight'. 

[over it]

Ahh Thailand....hello Thailand. Good guys in, bad guys out. Ya know what I'm saying here?