In Session: Sidebar  « Back to Blog Main
April 4, 2008
Posted: 02:27 PM ET

NEW YORK – The recent arrest of Alfred Beardsley may make it harder to convict O.J. Simpson at his armed robbery trial in Las Vegas this fall, even though it has nothing to do with Simpson’s guilt or innocence.

ALT TEXT

Cat-boiling is among Alfred Beardsley’s alleged threats.

Beardsley is an alleged victim in the Las Vegas caper. Another witness in the case, Thomas Riccio, filed a complaint against Beardsley this week in Los Angeles. Read more

For those who need a scorecard: Riccio is the memorabilia dealer who arranged for Simpson to meet Beardsley and Bruce Fromong, another memorabilia dealer, at the Las Vegas hotel room,

Riccio is now accusing Beardsley of threatening to hurt his family and “boil the family cat.” Beardsley denies making any such threats.

He says Riccio is trying to draw attention to himself and the armed robbery case because Riccio’s book, Busted: The Inside Story of the World of Sports Memorabilia, O.J. Simpson, and the Vegas Arrests, is about to hit store shelves. The book starts and ends with Riccio’s explanation of Simpson’s Las Vegas deal gone bad.

In late February, Beardsley filed a civil suit against Riccio in Orange County, California claiming fraud, invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting assault and battery, and infliction of emotional distress. The action stems from the Las Vegas armed robbery. Riccio’s lawyer, Stanley Lieber, recently announced that Riccio plans to countersue for fraud in a 2004 encounter with Beardsley which, coincidentally, also involved O.J. Simpson and an autograph-signing event in Los Angeles.

The sparring between two of the state’s key witnesses in Simpson’s armed robbery case is likely to come out at trial. Jurors assess the credibility of witnesses in a number of ways including their demeanor, ability to recall, opportunity to observe, motive, bias, and criminal history, if any. In this case, both Beardsley and Riccio have a criminal past. Riccio has spent time in federal prison for dealing in stolen property, escape and arson. Beardsley was imprisoned in California for a stalking conviction and is currently on parole for that crime.

None of this has any direct relationship to what unfolded in the Palace Station Hotel room when two men allegedly brandished guns at Simpson’s request. But it’s no help to the state’s case that the defense has all this mud to sling around the courtroom about two critical witnesses for the state.

Beth Karas, In Session correspondent

Filed under: Beth Karas • O.J. Simpson


Share this on:
Bob   April 4th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

Credibility of accusing witnesses is at issue in every criminal prosecution. Therefore, the wayward behavior of Fromong, Beardsley, and Riccio is relevant to charges against Simpson. If key witnesses aren’t credible, there’s reasonable doubt.

Eric   April 4th, 2008 11:19 pm ET

This case was bull from the beginning. There’s no way they get a conviction. Nice try though?

Spider   April 5th, 2008 10:25 am ET

Of course there won’t be a conviction. This is OJ Simpson. It’s been proven he can get away with murder. If he were to beat a golf course Ranger to death with a 5 iron, there would be those who say the system was still trying to persecute him. We all need to accept the fact that we created this monster and leave him alone. He’ll just come back every few years and stomp on Tokyo.

Neal   April 5th, 2008 12:35 pm ET

Unbelievable, here we have another case where O.J. will walk yet again. Somewhere ,somehow, he will make money from these idiots and the Browns & Goldman’s will be left with nothing. When O.J. dies don’t be surprised if there is a cover charge at the funeral parlour for viewing to defray expenses.

Don   April 5th, 2008 1:29 pm ET

Over-zealous prosecutors are coming after OJ on this BS charge just to make a name for themselves. They want to be the “prosecutors who put OJ away”. They are more interested in publicity than justice.

Kay   April 5th, 2008 1:54 pm ET

They will get a conviction regardless, there are so many people who want to get revenge for Nicole’s death

DAVID W MOTZ   April 5th, 2008 2:14 pm ET

what a waste of money? glove dont fit aquit

opinion 8 Ted   April 5th, 2008 8:00 pm ET

If you threaten the cat, O.J. must scat.

RC   April 5th, 2008 8:34 pm ET

The FBI knew 2 weeks in advance this was going to happen. Is the FBI involved in setting this up? Sounds like a total setup to me much less buying off the witnesses with no prosecution . If this goes to trial I would suspect OJ’s defence will make the prosecution look foolish again.

Neo   April 5th, 2008 11:02 pm ET

Well once again OJ will have the opportunity to use the system to his advantage. Strike 2 !

Rogan TX   April 6th, 2008 1:03 am ET

It doesn’t matter whether or not OJ was guilty of the original crime (personally, I believe he was guilty) - he was not found criminally guilty after a lengthy trial. Trying to get him through the back door now means that the same could be done for anyone, including the actual innocents. The law has to be consistent. It has to have the same end product for everyone or it means nothing. Indeed, it devalues the findings of the courts for everyone, innocent and guilty alike.

What legal system can afford to deny its own findings? What people can second guess its judiciary?

helen   April 6th, 2008 3:53 am ET

If the accused was anyone but O. J. Simpson this would never have gone as far as it has and it definately wouldn’t be televised. Is everyone out for a pound of Simpson’s flesh? He was found not guilty by twelve of his peers many years ago. Let it rest already. We’re all guilty of something and we’ll all be judged by our Maker, but for now I think we all need to get over the murder trial and quit accusing Simpson of everything. So he wanted his personal belongings back. Nobody got hurt, except maybe their pride. This whole case is simply about getting O. J. convicted of something he can spend time in prison for.

chris   April 6th, 2008 11:00 am ET

Rogan, very well put. Last time i checked we were a nation of laws. If the court finds someone innocent or guilty, barring any appeals, that is the verdict. Did he do the original crime? maybe. ( regardless of our personal feelings) May i remind all that part of being a patriot is respecting the law of the land. An over zealous attempt to prosecute him now for his previously perceived crime is a an affront to the justice system.Everyone, friend, foe or the nonchalant should not stand for it. Lest we forget, this same judicial system however imperfect, is what seperates us from the many who want to be us.

Spider   April 6th, 2008 1:55 pm ET

The possibility of a life sentence for this crime has been mentioned. That does seem a little overboard to me. But, the idea that, if it wasn’t OJ, the defendant would walk, is absurd. Does every one really believe that if you or I barged into a hotel room with a group of toughs brandishing weapons and forced someone to relinquish property, that we would not be prosecuted?

Starbuck   April 6th, 2008 4:11 pm ET

Helen I am with you on this one..

Joan Kamen   April 6th, 2008 4:34 pm ET

I would think that the State of Nevada would spend its money on
more important matters then prosecuting O.J. If I were a citizen of
this great state, I would encourage the state to reach an agreement
without going to trial.

Albert Foss   April 7th, 2008 10:10 am ET

Apparently OJ is as good at rushing through the court system as he was on the field. Zig, then zag…

fbgweezer   April 7th, 2008 12:39 pm ET

I bet the IRS is interested in hearing about the autograph signing, etc by orenthal. LOL

dan   April 7th, 2008 1:03 pm ET

I’m curious how people can say that the prosecutors “have it in for” OJ, when he’s on tape threatening a man’s life and demanding property.

Witnesses or no, the tape doesn’t lie.

I’m sure the prosecutors would love to put OJ away. I’m sure they’d love to put any defendant in the dock in jail… that’s their job, after all. Plus, remember they finally got Capone on tax evasion even though we all know that was probably the least of his crimes. If a robbery rap is what they can finally pin on OJ, well, I’ll take it. I’m happy there’s a chance OJ might finally see the inside of a jail cell, regardless the charge.

Albert Jefferson   April 7th, 2008 1:58 pm ET

In reading the comments left by others, I have come to divide them into two groups; those of a vigilante mindset and those who are capable of seeing that their own rights to an impartial trial would be jeapordized if the wishes of the first group were to materialize. “Vengence is Mine, sayeth the Lord, and it is I Who will repay.” We, as a society, stand to lose much more than we are to gain by judging Mr. Simpson solely on public opinion expressed through a media given over to sensationalism. As one reader so eloquently stated, “either the verdict of the court system means something, or else it means nothing.” If it means nothing, then we have opened a door that will not be so easy to close, the door to anarchy, where respect for law and order will be none existent. It is clear to me that another verdict have come to supercede the verdict rendered by our judicial system. This is a very dangerous precedent that is being fostered, the judging of a citizen not by his peers in a court of law, but by the emotionalism of an enraged mob through the media. Who else is to be judged in this manner? Omly time will tell.

becky mays   April 7th, 2008 5:10 pm ET

I’M SICK OF O.J. THIS IS JUST WHAT HE WANTS TO BE IN THE LIMELIGHT AGAIN…HE’LL SAY OR DO ANYTHING TO BE IN THE NEWS.

becky mays   April 7th, 2008 5:13 pm ET

ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WATCH THE NEW LIVE TRIAL ON THE COMPUTER LIKE BEFORE OR NO? IF NOT, WHY NOT? WHY RUN ARREST AND TRIAL WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING LIVE MORE INTERESTING.

Sharon   April 8th, 2008 11:36 am ET

Come on guys maybe he needed his items back to pay his back taxes in the state of California to the tune of $1.5 million.
Forget Nv., thats chump change compaired to what the IRS is going to do to him…. LOL
Just my thoughts….

dave   April 8th, 2008 9:20 pm ET

tom riccio is being truthfull here his book shows he has faced his problems in his past has paid the price and is now having to face his past again and again at least he is admitting where he has gone wrong in some of the decisions he had made in his past
he was trying to help oj get his stuff back and yes he was getting paid for it he is a business man and with his book he has his day to tell his full story especially after everyone calling him a career criminal and making him out to look bad . how many times do people have to pay for mistakes made ? he seems to have brought up two good daughters and seems to be a family guy taking care of there needs
and living life now without making bad decisions in life which got him into trouble in the past lots of people have had problems when they were younger and ended up fine people

Leave Your Comment


 

Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Sidebar takes you behind the scenes of the day's legal headlines with breaking news and in-depth analysis from In Session's anchors and correspondents.

Contributors
Ashleigh Banfield
Co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield and Ford: Courtside
Ashleigh Banfield
Jack Ford
A former prosecutor and co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield & Ford: Courtside
Jack Ford
Lisa Bloom
Anchor of the daily trial program Lisa Bloom: Open Court
Lisa Bloom
Jami Floyd
Former defense attorney and anchor of her own daily program Jami Floyd: Best Defense
Jami Floyd
Fred Graham
Senior Editor Fred Graham covers legal news in Washington, D.C.
Fred Graham
Jean Casarez
Attorney Jean Casarez covers trials around the country
Jean Casarez
Beth Karas
Former prosecutor Beth Karas covers trials around the country
Beth Karas
Categories
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Business  |  Sports  |  Time.com
Podcasts  |  Blogs  |  CNN Mobile  |  Preferences  |  Email Alerts  |  CNN Radio  |  CNN Shop  |  Site Map
© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress.com