RE: Do we have any more scholarships for 2003? or just the 5 ...

[Dan Marshall]

How do you know OJ killed his wife... I've read recently they have phone
records she was on the phone at her home when OJ was seen by the Limo
driver...nobody knows the facts... again it was never proven.

What was your determining factor on the OJ if it wasn't whether he was
convicted or not? Was it what the press reported? Or your personal
interviews with OJ ;)  As we all know anything the press says has to be
questioned.. if not then should I believe what I read about Nicole on
the phone while OJ was getting into the limo? I Mean it IS being
reported in "the press"

Secondly, in my scenario(again I know it's a stretch) where Donald walks
in on hid friend torturing his roommate, that would look guilty enough
for the police to haul him in, yet it could have been completely
innocent.  I mean even if Donald "saved" his roommate at that moment and
untied him, his roommate could still think Don was behind it and turn
him in for it...  

It IS possible.  that's the only word to use "possible".

Disclaimer, I enjoy a debate and sometimes my comments come out
sarcastic, I am not "fighting" but just discussing cuz it's FUN.  IF my
stance sound "aggressive" it's just cuz it's a "debate" no harm no foul.
It's fun.

Dan





-----Original Message-----
From: MURPHY, T. JASON [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:38 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for 2003?
or just the 5 ...


Keep in mind that he may be acquitted of many of the charges because of
how difficult it is to prove charges like assault and kidnapping beyond
a reasonable doubt.  But it does not mean that he did not beat the guy
up in some manner or that all of the facts alleged are untrue. Take OJ.
Did he abuse and kill his wife? Yes. Was it proven beyond reasonable
doubt that he did? No. Does this fact change what I think about OJ? No.
To me the deciding factor is not whether he is ultimately convicted or
ot. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Holdheide [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:28 PM
To: 'address@hidden'
Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for 2003?
or just the 5 ...


If he is completely 100% innocent then I welcome him back.

If he did ANY of the accused crimes even in the slightest, he should not
be
allowed back.

And frankly, I find it hard to believe that he is 100% innocent.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	MURPHY, T. JASON [SMTP:address@hidden
> Sent:	Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:21 PM
> To:	address@hidden
> Subject:	RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
> 2003? or just the 5 ...
>
> I think we are all overcomplicating this issue. You guys sound like a
> bunch of lawyers. He may eventually be acquitted of criminal charges,
> assault, kidnapping, etc. But this was not a situation where the
entire
> story was fabricated. If the whole story had been made up there would
> have been no indictment, and the police would have gotten to the
bottom
> of it quickly. Something happened. It probably was not as bad as the
> "victim" has alleged. But the guy did not beat himself up. That being
> said, Donald should be gone for good no matter if he is ultimately
> convicted or not. At best he is guilty of exercising horrible
judgment.
> They gave him a second chance and told him to stay out of trouble. He
> did not do that. End of story. As sad as this is I would be very
> disappointed if they brought him back again. At some point they have
to
> say enough is enough. I am all for second chances. He has had his and
> blew it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Marshall [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:07 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
2003?
> or just the 5 ...
>
>
> Ok guys...
>
> First... 
> Bryan... addressing your accusation of a "weak argument" ;)
> My point is, his roommate was part of the equation when he made the
> agreement, he was his roommate and if at the time no one thought he
was
> "the wrong kind of people" how could Donald have known he was going to
> turn into one of "the wrong kind of people"... I would imagine, hugs
and
> goin knew he had a roommate etc.  I mean really, you'd think your
> roommate was your friend.  Basically, a friend turned on him.
>
> Secondly, and yes I am speculating as to the portion of the
"agreement"
> he broke.. but I imagine the reason he was dismissed was it looked
like
> he was guilty. So they dismissed him. They had to have that response.
>
> I imagine what reinforced the decision was a "hang around with the
right
> people, do the right thing, stay as away from trouble etc..." clause
was
> broken.  Again, this was probably just reinforcement on top of the
> original reason, he looked like he was going to jail for all those
> horrible things he had "allegedly done"
>
> What I'm saying is this...
> IF he is acquitted on all charges... in other words he really didn't
do
> anything to this guy and the guy knew it would kill Donald's career so
> he made it all  up that Donald did the stuff. That would eliminate the
> "Main" reason he was dismissed. And I believe rightfully so, I mean if
> he was framed by some punk, it would be a shame...
>
> Second, if the only "wrong kind of person" he hung out with was his
> roommate... and at the time of the agreement it was common knowledge
> that Donald associated with this guy... is it fair to punish him for
> hanging out with him now?  Right Bryan? 
>
> so BOTH reasons would be questioned, which would HAVE to cause Huggs
and
> going to question their decision.
>
> Now, Jon, as you mentioned, it has never been made "public" knowledge,
I
> don't know of anything else he did wrong.. except get accused of the
> crime, and "hung out with the wrong people" 
>
> although the argument is a stretch, which I will give both of you, and
I
> believe the odds are not in Donald's favor, I have a feeling that this
> discussion will come up.
>
> Again, this is a discussion, and a fun one, I'm not necessarily saying
> whether one decision is right or wrong, it's slow on here and I think
it
> might come up so I figured why not talk about it now...
> Dan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon breiner [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:42 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
2003?
> or just the 5 ...
>
>
> But he already lost the argument.  Under your scenario, Huggins and
Goin
> will re-open the argument and decide they were wrong.  Not likely to 
> happen IMHO.
>
> Also, with respect to:
>
> "The portion of his agreement that he "broke" was he would not hang
> around the wrong people.."
>
>
> Is that public knowledge or speculation?  I have not seen this
publicly 
> verified.  And wouldn't some of the wrong people also be the people he

> was with when he alledgedly "confronted" his roommate?
>
> jon b
>
>
> Dan Marshall wrote:
>
> > Ah,, however Dr Breiner...
> >
> > The portion of his agreement that he "broke" was he would not hang
> > around the wrong people...
> > His argument could be, How can I not hang around my current roommate?
> > and I didn't know that he could turn on me like he did.
> >
> > IF he's acquitted, that's really all he's "guilty" of, hanging around
> > his current roommate.
> >
> > I really don't think that that's that bad.  I know you guys all want
to
> > crucify him, BUT, I think we better prepare for this, for some reason
> ;)
> > I think it might be something we'll be discussing....
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jon breiner [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:33 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
2003?
> > or just the 5 ...
> >
> >
> > His career as a student is not over.  It is my understanding that he
is
> > attending classes this quarter and will finish his degree either this

> > spring or in the fall.
> >
> > As to re-instatement, it will never happen.  He was not dismissed for

> > the alleged incident as much as he was dismissed for breaking the 
> > agreement he had with Huggins and Goin for his previous
reinstatement.
> > So even if he is acquitted, he still broke his agreement.
> >
> > jon b
> >
> > address@hidden wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 5/21/2002 11:48:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> > > address@hidden writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I know this would probably make alot of people mad, BUT, I think
> > there's
> >
> > > > a chance he's in uniform next year.
> > > I do not see this happening. His career as a UC student / athlete is
> > over and 
> >
> > > he will not be invited back IMHO.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> > For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
>
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been scanned by MailMax.
> http://www.maximizeit.net
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This electronic message transmission contains information from the law
> firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The
> information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
> transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (1-800-934-3477)
or
> by electronic mail (address@hidden) immediately.
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden

--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden




*****************************************************************
This email has been scanned by MailMax.
http://www.maximizeit.net
*****************************************************************



*****************************************************************
This electronic message transmission contains information from the law
firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (1-800-934-3477) or
by electronic mail (address@hidden) immediately.
*****************************************************************


--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden



--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden