Jump to content

OJ: IF I did It


NJTank

Recommended Posts

Well like the return of a plague or an old backache OJ Simpson is back and now he has a book IF I did where he discusses how he would have done it if i he killed his wife.

WTF

This sounds like a 10 year admitting he broke a lamp to his parents if I broke a lamp it was not my fault good grief, anybody who buys this books is a fool.

Story

Discuss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I saw that commercial during the football games Sunday. I was shocked. WTF indeed. It's like "I didn't kill them...BUT IF I DID...I would have done it this way." What do you want to bet it won't be anything like how he really did it. Oh and all of this is to plug his book that is coming out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did it. We know he did it. He knows we know he did it. We know he knows that we know he did it.

Shame on Fox for putting this trash ass show on air and shame on whoever decided to publish this trash ass book.

What a slap in the face to the Goldman and Brown families. Even if he didn't do it (see above), he's profiting off of the brutal murder of their loved ones in one the most despicable in-your-face acts I've ever seen. What a miserable, pathetic son-of-a-bitch...but the gullible, sheepish public will eat this up.

:censored: you, OJ!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray to whoever will listen that he puts something stupid in there that they can convict him on. But I think Jim Rome put it best. "I'll see you in hell, OJ Simpson."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he could blatantly come out and say he did it now that the trial is over. You can't be tried twice for the same crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray to whoever will listen that he puts something stupid in there that they can convict him on. But I think Jim Rome put it best. "I'll see you in hell, OJ Simpson."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he could blatantly come out and say he did it now that the trial is over. You can't be tried twice for the same crime.

I was laughing my :censored: off when Rome said that. It's so true though. O.J. is a :censored: bag, always has been, always will be. :censored: you Mr. Simpson.

And you are correct squeaks. You CANNOT be tried twice for the same crime because that would be Double Jeopardy.

-E.A.R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray to whoever will listen that he puts something stupid in there that they can convict him on. But I think Jim Rome put it best. "I'll see you in hell, OJ Simpson."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he could blatantly come out and say he did it now that the trial is over. You can't be tried twice for the same crime.

I was laughing my :censored: off when Rome said that. It's so true though. O.J. is a :censored: bag, always has been, always will be. :censored: you Mr. Simpson.

And you are correct squeaks. You CANNOT be tried twice for the same crime because that would be Double Jeopardy.

-E.A.R.

Actually, double jeopardy is that someone can not be CONVICTED of the same crime twice. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No its cant be tried twice for the same crime, if he's found Not Guilty which he was by that dunce cap wearing jury, he can not be retired in CRIMINAL COURT. Though he can be tried in civil court and he was, and was found Guilty and owes S30 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No its cant be tried twice for the same crime, if he's found Not Guilty which he was by that dunce cap wearing jury, he can not be retired in CRIMINAL COURT. Though he can be tried in civil court and he was, and was found Guilty and owes S30 million.

Okay, I wasn't sure. Anyone remember the movie Ghosts Of Mississippi? In that movie (based on a true story) the guy killed a black man in the 60's. He was tried back then and found not guilty, but in the 90's they found more evidence against him and tried him again and he was found guilty.

That's why I thought it was convicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether OJ actually did the crimes or not, for ANYONE to say "If I did it" when it comes to a murder, on national TV no less, is not a smart thing to do and it's deplorable (honestly, I couldn't think a word to put in there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i love how OJ got a book deal like that by a company owned by newscorp and is now being promoted on a fox which is owned by newscorp. i'm surprised 20th Century fox hasn't given OJ a movie deal and he definately can promote it on the extreme far right ubber conservative FNC and on same set of adjectives Fox News Radio. He can most definately have a series/special made by a Newscorp studio and have it air on a local Fox affiliate. He'll definately will get rave reviews in a magazine and a newspaper article owned by said newscorp.

I love monoply. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think Jim Rome put it best. "I'll see you in hell, OJ Simpson."

...from heaven?

While I'm not trying to say this is anything but blatant exploitation and profiteering, I can understand why he did it. I mean, everybody already thinks he's scum, and he's deeply in debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is a scum bag and so is our justice system for (I'm not condoning Mark Furman at all) but basically changing the focus of a murder with plenty of evidence to is Mark Furman a racist.

I have a feeling OJs book might be way off with details so it looks like "I didn't do it cause I would have this way" but being since he's so dumb, it'll probably be just a diary of the night.

I mean, if he didn't do it, what was with the bloody glove, the bronco chase, etc.

My question is...if the jury says "NOT GUILTY" and you don't have to go to jail, how is there another instance where they say "GUILTY" no jail time, but you do owe them money. Isn't that a little contradictory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No its cant be tried twice for the same crime, if he's found Not Guilty which he was by that dunce cap wearing jury, he can not be retired in CRIMINAL COURT. Though he can be tried in civil court and he was, and was found Guilty and owes S30 million.

Okay, I wasn't sure. Anyone remember the movie Ghosts Of Mississippi? In that movie (based on a true story) the guy killed a black man in the 60's. He was tried back then and found not guilty, but in the 90's they found more evidence against him and tried him again and he was found guilty.

That's why I thought it was convicted.

I think if the judge rules there's sufficient enough evidence to re-open the case than a case can be retried. I could be wrong on the details but I definitely remember more than one case that has been re-opened based on DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time of the trial, so there has to be some sort of way to reopen a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if the judge rules there's sufficient enough evidence to re-open the case than a case can be retried. I could be wrong on the details but I definitely remember more than one case that has been re-opened based on DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time of the trial, so there has to be some sort of way to reopen a case.

You can be retried in a criminal court if the first trial ended in a mistrial (including a hung jury). However, once you are found not guilty, you cannot be tried again for the same crime, even if new evidence is discovered. In the "Ghosts of Mississippi" types of cases, one of two things usually happened (but I can't remember which it was in that movie) -- either the original trial ended in a mistrial and was not immediately retried or the defendants were tried years later for federal civil rights violations (which involve having to establish some sort of "state" action, such as the police or sheriff being involved).

On the other hand, even if you are convicted, you can move for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered before with reasonable diligence. DNA evidence usually falls into this category, with defendants seeking new trials because DNA evidence that was not available before proves their innocence (thus the name of the "The Innocence Project", which works to free wrongly convicted defendants with the use of DNA evidence).

My question is...if the jury says "NOT GUILTY" and you don't have to go to jail, how is there another instance where they say "GUILTY" no jail time, but you do owe them money. Isn't that a little contradictory?

As for being found not guilty in a criminal court, then subsequently found liable (not "guilty") in a civil trial, this is possible because the double jeopardy rule does not apply to civil trials (which result in money judgments instead of jail time). In addition, it should be noted that a different burden of proof applies in criminal and civil trials. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, a plaintiff in a civil trial only needs to prove his case by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e., 51% to 49%). Therefore, it is much easier to win as a plaintiff in a civil trial than as a prosecutor in a criminal trial.

This is why I believe the O.J. jury was not so far off base even though I think he did it. There was a mountain of evidence against him, however his attorneys did a phenomenal job of creating reasonable doubt. I suspect most jurors would say that think he probably did it, but in a criminal case, being 85% sure (for example) is not sufficient to convict. It is more than sufficient to convict in a civil trial though (which is exactly what happened with O.J.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright let's play devil's advocate here for a moment and pretend that OJ was in fact not guilty of said crime. By this rationale, what kind of person then decides to write a book detailing how he would commit a murder to someone he claims he did not kill nor had any intentions of doing so? This would mean at the very least he is a disgusting person guilty of trying to profit from the death of his ex-wife; the mother of two of his children. I'm sure they're proud of their Daddy now. Keep in mind that's just if he didn't do it- if he DID well it's just another par for the course. In either event, he's a despicable, abusive, rich wife beating celebrity who took advantage of the system and now is just too stupid to count his lucky stars and keep his trap shut.

I mean if I were accused of killing my spouse, or parents, or siblings, and I did not do it, and then went through the hell of a trial, and then after all that was found not guilty, I certainly would not then sit around and brainstorm about how I would have done such a horrible act if I had done so. Not for all the money in the world. If anything I'd try to be sure to stay out of the public eye- having just got more than my share of attention. I'd personally want to be left alone, and try to put my life back on track of normalcy. But then again this is OJ Simpson, a man who could give Narcissus lessons in vanity, callousness and insensitivity. He won't go away, and enough morons out there still give him outlets for attention.

It's a shame he was found not guilty in criminal court because had been convicted he could not write such a book. Under the law, it is illegal to profit from committing a crime; be it from stealing money, property, or selling movie and book rights afterwards. Unfortunately there is no law against writing a "What If" book; especially if it's in regard to a crime you were found "not guilty" of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.