Talk:O. J. Simpson robbery case

message: I created this page because I see this becoming a huge story pretty soon. The police dont place 6 felony charges just to have them dropped by Wednesday. However, if the charges are dropped on September 19th 2007 in front of judge Zimmerman, then I would agree and delete this page.--Anais1983 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Since it's come up.. we don't need to invoke some "We can never do quotes" rule.  The quotes section bothered me too, because it's not encyclopedic writing.  I agree it should be removed.  If people can work the quotes into the article coherently, that's fine (but I doubt we need to- there's no shortage of proper news sources on this.  We should be careful to avoid anything resembling "investigative reporting"- it's ourside our scope here. Friday (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try and put the quotes into the article very soon.--Anais1983 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I noticed that the inmate number listed on this page is misreferenced by another individual on the main OJ Simpson page.  Do we have the mug shots posted somewhere to verify who has which inmate number?  14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree inmate numbers are same for 2 people? I will look into it.--Anais1983 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inmate Number? 

message: Are they? I see them cited here. While the layout is physically "blog style", they do have their own news television show now. Does being laid out blog-style for their formatting invalidate them as a source? • Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. TMZ.com was the source of two of the biggest stories of 2006, the Mel Gibson DUI incident and Michael Richards. Plus, they have been the source of other minor stories about celebrities. And yes, they have a TV show now. MrBlondNYC 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Does being laid out blog-style for their formatting invalidate them as a source?" Man your an idiot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.128.75 (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TMZ a valid source? 

message: This morning the networks had been struggling w/ what to  bleep; maybe this article should be tied-in w/ various  censorship  articles.
Could that be?
Does  Orenthal's story sometimes resemble  the Simpsons?  Had there been some years when Nicole's condominium had been very near to one of Fox' office-buildings?
< http://google.as/search?q=%22fox%22+%22%22+%221990+s+bundy+dr%22+%22%22 >?
 Bundy Dr.?   Married with Children?
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ cnn ]] zone [[ Time-Warner ]] zone [[ msnbc ]] zone [[ General Electric ]] zone 

message: I added this latest on his June 20 hearing: *Court officers and attorneys announced on May 22, 2008, that long questionnaires with at least 115 queries will be given to a jury pool of 400 or more. Prosecutors and defense counsels disagreed on at least 3 questions, and Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass scheduled arguments on the June 20 hearing on pretrial motions.Afp.google.com, 400 jurors could be screened for OJ Simpson trial --Florentino floro (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 400 jurors

message: There should be some section in this article detailing the plea agreements made with several of the co-defeendants. Does anyone have an idea how this could be done? JakeH07 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plea agreements 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "CNN_091707" :
** CNN.com.
** CNN.com, "Simpson could be charged 'in next few days'", September 17, 2007.
DumZiBoT (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Is it really necessary to say that none of the jury were african american right after saying the jury was all-white? This is also obviously very POV to integrate this into the timeline when it could be mentioned in a more relevant section, but i'm sure no one will agree to taking it out. Kellenwright (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we state, as we do, that the jury on the O.J. Simpson murder case was 'mostly African-American', then it seems equally acceptable to note the racial makeup of the jury in this case. Terraxos (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All-white jury" 

message: Who was the co-defendant who spoke to the media on the way to the courthouse, I think it was in January; spoke to the media wearing flashy gold eyeglasses and waving a bible as he walked...His lawyer told him about 5 times to keep his mouth shut (something like "What did I say? Don't talk to the press, he has no comment") but he kept talking anyway about how he was a good Christian... Who was that? Any one know where to find that video? 68.0.119.139 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-defendant and video? 

message: I am removing this fragment from the article ("parole eligibility in 6 years plus 18 months plus 18 months"), because without explanation the breakdown (9yrs = 6yrs + 18mo + 18mo) does not make much sense in the paragraph, and also because it is not specified in the NYT article cited.  Someone could re-insert the info if he can explain what that means. --76.201.140.164 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parole

message: Two points in the article say 12/12 counts guilty, one says 10/12 counts.
Article was changed from 12 to 10 in edit:
 09:01, 6 December 2008 88.112.192.43 (talk) (20,264 bytes) (→Trial and conviction) (undo) 
4 other edits by same anonymous source follow; are they all wrong, or is this a clever vandal hiding bad information with good, or what?
98.222.61.151 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many counts? 

message: This case sure makes it seem to be. 184.96.214.236 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stealing is usually illegal, the question is more 'is it stealing to take your property back from a thief'. Of course the question in this case is whether OJ legally transferred the memoribilia to the collector or not. Ranze (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's illegal to steal your own property? 

message: "I just can't believe that O.J. Simpson could commit armed robbery."
72.82.186.121 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Norm MacDonald:

message: In the section "Investigation and trial", in the first paragraph below the list, at the end of the first sentence, this article had "infamous murder trial." The word "infamous" means "having a reputation of the worst kind--notoriously evil" and is a judgement call. "Infamous" has no citation, the one given does not contain the word. It is an unattested, debatable, judgment about the murder trial that seem to be the personal opinion of the Wikipedia author who used it. It meets the Wikipedia definition of a "weasel word", and therefore I removed it. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "infamous" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on O. J. Simpson robbery case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015182509/http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/15/oj.simpson/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/15/oj.simpson/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on O. J. Simpson robbery case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/17/oj.codefendant.ap/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071224130826/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/local/la-na-simpson9nov09,0,2720367.story?coll=la-home-center to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-simpson9nov09,0,2720367.story?coll=la-home-center
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071130233150/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/US/law/11/28/simpson.hearing/ to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/28/simpson.hearing/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article could use more detail/background about the actual incident. It gets mentioned in the introduction, but there's nothing about it in the body of the article itself, which focuses more on the legal case, and even that's lacking. For example, why was the kidnapping charge valid? (Don't answer here, just add it into the article, please.) —howcheng  {chat} 08:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We need a section that goes over what exactly happened during the robbery. Thomson200 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is this reads like a defense brief. It minimizes what Simpson did, emphasizes that everyone else did more and got a lighter sentence, and implies his lawyer screwed him. Someone needs to rewrite this with a more objective tone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:4AEA:B6B5:0:4C:3D9B:9A01 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more detail 

message: There is a (very interesting) claim in this article:-
>>In an interview, Walter Alexander said he thought the whole incident was a setup to get Simpson.
This is followed by a quote:-
>>"understand what the big deal is", or why Riccio would set this whole operation up, tape it and then sell the tape to the media"
However the reference for this section - number 30, a Wayback machine stored article - has plenty of information but is not a source, neither for the Alexander claim nor the quote. Somewhere the reference has got lost, so perhaps this could be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.63.97 (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference? 

message: OJ Simpson may soon be out on parole in the Nevada robbery incident.  Nobody at the scheduled July 20, 2017 hearing is expected to oppose releasing him in October, 2017. Simpson, who will appear by videoconference from the Lovelock Correctional Center, will be questioned by four state parole commissioners located in Carson City.KEN RITTER | AP, OJ Simpson faces good chance at parole in Nevada robbery, https://apnews.com/e1d1c90bec6c49a2b2bf5c802abf3b56/OJ-Simpson-faces-good-chance-at-parole-in-Nevada-robbery?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP , July 17, 2017   Simpson has served 8-years of the original 9-year to 33-year sentence.Kaitlyn Schallhorn | Fox News, OJ Simpson could be out on parole this year: Here's what to know about his case, http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/07/17/oj-simpson-could-be-out-on-parole-this-year-heres-what-to-know-about-his-case.html , July 17, 2017  Let us eat lettuce (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parole hearing 

message: Content added by  has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 15:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright cleanup