O.J Simpson to write book that details murders, only hypothetically you understand.. Options

[Atticus Chaos]

By Jeannette Walls
MSNBC
Updated: 9:34 p.m. ET Oct. 19, 2006
O.J. Simpson is confessing. Hypothetically, that is.

The former football great, who was acquitted in criminal court 11 years ago of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, reportedly has been paid a whopping $3.5 million to write about the double murder that shocked and riveted the nation in 1994, according to a detailed report in the new National Enquirer.

But Simpson is not actually confessing to the murder — rather, he’s writing a “hypothetical” book — which the Enquirer reports is tentatively being called “If I Did It.”
The early part of the book tells how Simpson fell in love with Nicole and how the marriage collapsed, reports the tab. He goes on, according to the article, to describe in gruesome detail the killing of his ex-wife and Goldman; he stipulates that the murder scenes are “hypothetical.” But, notes the tab, the descriptions are “so detailed and so chillingly realistic” that readers are left with little doubt as to what really happened.

Simpson can never be retried for the murders because of double jeopardy laws, according to the Enquirer, which also claims that Simpson aims to keep any book money instead of paying it out in a civil suit judgment against him by spending it all quickly.

[2GOLD]

This is great. OJ won't admit to doing the murders everyone knows he did (I thought he should have been found not guilty though) but he'll still get money for a book about them by saying, "Now IF I had killed Nicole, and I'm not saying I did, but if I did then I would have..." for 300 pages.

[dubq]

No good can come of this.

[bob_barron]

A lot of good can come from this.

I love OJ

[Guest_Vitamin X_*]

That could make for quite a fascinating read, actually.

At least, hopefully, if he has any writing talent at all.

[CanadianGuitaris...]

A few weeks ago, he was at the same restaurant as a girl I work with. He hit on said girl's buddy.
When a few co-workers commented "Well, he'll probably kill your buddy", I bristled.

I was wrong. Jesus Christ, "If I did it?" Never in my life did I ever think he was innocent, but he no longer has any reason to be given the benefit of the doubt.

[milliondollarcha...]

I miss the OJ from The Naked Gun movies. I really do.

[Atticus Chaos]

He can't do this though. What if the double jeopardy law is repealed? The cops bascially have his confession. Granted he's saying "what if" but they should be able to gather enough evidence just from the book for another trial easily.


If OJ releases this book, I can see the public outcry being enough to convince those in power to do way with double jeopardy. And then OJ is fucked.

[2GOLD]

He can't do this though. What if the double jeopardy law is repealed? The cops bascially have his confession. Granted he's saying "what if" but they should be able to gather enough evidence just from the book for another trial easily.


If OJ releases this book, I can see the public outcry being enough to convince those in power to do way with double jeopardy. And then OJ is fucked.

Double Jeopardy will never be done away. It eliminates the whole "Right to a fair trial" thing if they can keep going after you again and again until they find a jury that says "Guilty".

[Guest_Agent of Oblivion_*]

I think OJ should just portray himself as a totally violent nutcase. Go for the Mike Tyson appeal. That guy is a tattooed flesh eating rapist mugger and people love him.

[Atticus Chaos]

He can't do this though. What if the double jeopardy law is repealed? The cops bascially have his confession. Granted he's saying "what if" but they should be able to gather enough evidence just from the book for another trial easily.


If OJ releases this book, I can see the public outcry being enough to convince those in power to do way with double jeopardy. And then OJ is fucked.

Double Jeopardy will never be done away. It eliminates the whole "Right to a fair trial" thing if they can keep going after you again and again until they find a jury that says "Guilty".

Obviously, if it was repealed, measures would have to be taken to assure you don't have someone being put on trial 3 or 4 times. And it could only be used in exceptional circumstances.

It was repealed in the UK to convict a man that murdered a young woman, so it's not unthinkable to say it could happen in the US. Especially if OJ is out bragging about how he's a murderer and can't be tried again.

[bob_barron]

That's bullshit.

If a jury finds you not guilty, that should be it.

[Atticus Chaos]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

More on the UK situation and why they repealed the law.

I don't like the idea of innocent people getting terrorised in multiple trials by courts determined to convict them either, but then I don't think murderers should be out free, especially if new evidence comes to light that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt they did it (like the British case).


Double jeopardy will be seriously be called into question if OJ comes out with this book.

[Guest_Smues_*]

Double Jeopardy is never going away, nor should it. OJ has to say "What If" so they can't nail him for perjury. (I think, I don't know what the statute of limitations is on perjury)

[bob_barron]

OJ never testified in his defence.

I read the article, and I still think that's bullshit. If the case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that's it. I don't like murderers to go free either, but I also don't like civil rights being infringed

[Big Ol' Smitty]

He can't do this though. What if the double jeopardy law is repealed? The cops bascially have his confession. Granted he's saying "what if" but they should be able to gather enough evidence just from the book for another trial easily.


If OJ releases this book, I can see the public outcry being enough to convince those in power to do way with double jeopardy. And then OJ is fucked.

Double Jeopardy will never be done away. It eliminates the whole "Right to a fair trial" thing if they can keep going after you again and again until they find a jury that says "Guilty".

Obviously, if it was repealed, measures would have to be taken to assure you don't have someone being put on trial 3 or 4 times. And it could only be used in exceptional circumstances.

It was repealed in the UK to convict a man that murdered a young woman, so it's not unthinkable to say it could happen in the US. Especially if OJ is out bragging about how he's a murderer and can't be tried again.

Um, I don't think the 5th Amendment is getting repealed anytime soon, guy.

[Guest_Felonies!_*]

WELL PRESIDENT BUllSHit IS ALREADY REPEALING MY FRIST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

[snuffbox]

Who cares, rite?

[CanadianChris]

OJ never testified in his defence.

I read the article, and I still think that's bullshit. If the case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that's it. I don't like murderers to go free either, but I also don't like civil rights being infringed

Seriously. If prosecutors don't like murderers going free, they should try making a stronger case before taking the accused to court.

[SuperJerk]

OJ never testified in his defence.

I read the article, and I still think that's bullshit. If the case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that's it. I don't like murderers to go free either, but I also don't like civil rights being infringed

Seriously. If prosecutors don't like murderers going free, they should try making a stronger case before taking the accused to court.

The prosecution had an airtight case. Unfortunately, the judge allowed the defense to drag too many irrelevant, red herring arguments into the procedings, and O.J. Simpson (a man with a long history of spousal abuse) was painted as the victim of an elaborate and unprovable conspiracy. The trial became a referendum by the mostly black jury on the racism of the LAPD, rather than a determination of whether or not the man murdered two people.

edit: Yeah, I know Mark Fuhrman didn't help the case any by having a history of racist remarks, but the leap from saying the word "nigger" to being guilty of orchestrating a multi-person conspiracy targetting an important pillar of the black community like O.J. Simpson (ha!) is AT BEST a spurious connection.

O.J. Simpson did committ perjury, though, by claiming not to own certain articles of clothing which was disproven using multiple photographs of him in public wearing the exact items he claimed to think he wouldn't own because he thought they were "ugly."

This post has been edited by SuperJerk: Oct 22 2006, 08:28 PM

[metr0man]

If this is book actually ends up being what's described there, I am so buying it. The balls on this guy. (IMG:http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

PS the prosecutors on the OJ case were horrible. Cochran ate em for lunch.

[Guest_NYankees_*]

If this is book actually ends up being what's described there, I am so buying it. The balls on this guy. (IMG:http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

PS the prosecutors on the OJ case were horrible. Cochran ate em for lunch.

Cochran made a deal with the devil and died of brain cancer.

[Dr. Zaius]

I blame the jury.

[bob_barron]

The prosuectors were incompetent, Darden let Cochran walk all over him.

[SuperJerk]

The prosuectors were incompetent, Darden let Cochran walk all over him.

You must be right, since you were 10 years old at the time and still able realized this was happening.

[bob_barron]

Yes, because I couldn't have possibly been able to read about the trial or seen any of the countless news specials.

Uh-oh, I think Jerk has a file on me that dates back years

[snuffbox]

Awesome.

[SuperJerk]

Yes, because I couldn't have possibly been able to read about the trial or seen any of the countless news specials.

Uh-oh, I think Jerk has a file on me that dates back years

So you admit you're really just reciting what other people told you about the trial years later instead of going by your own recollections of how it was presented on live TV at the the time? Well, that sure makes you an excellent source of unbiased commentary.

This entire site is an electronic record of you talking out of your ass about things there's no way you could know about from first-hand accounts. Actually, that goes for most of the people who post in this folder.

[Dr. Zaius]

Are you JUST NOW realizing that?

You just described the entire internet.

[bob_barron]

So you admit you're really just reciting what other people told you about the trial years later instead of going by your own recollections of how it was presented on live TV at the the time? Well, that sure makes you an excellent source of unbiased commentary.

It's so cute when Jerk gets in one of his moods. I wonder if the next morning he'll edit all his posts.

I think Jerk just refuted history with that quote.