O.J. Simpson is NUTS!!

[SheRa]

he's writing a book called, "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened". what is wrong with this guy!? here's the article in case anyone is interested:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/15/sports/oj.php

[lindrusso]

What an idiot.

I saw an ad for it while I was watching House last night and couldn't believe my eyes or ears!

Where to even begin with the whys and what is he thinking?

I've always thought he was guilty, but now we can ad stupid and insane to the list................

[Wendy w]

Yikes. This dude is a real piece of work.

What has always amazed me is that he still gets girlfriends. :rolleyes: Now they are nuts.

[trish_ks]

If he did it...he can't be tried again, hmm, does that go for civil suits as well?

If he didn't do it...what poor poor taste, what is this doing to his children?

I have to hand it to him for the good marketing though....I really want to read the book to see what an idiot he is, but at the same time I don't want to give him any money...Maybe we should buy one copy and pass it around between all of us?

[KristiB]

JUDITH REGAN’S EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH O.J. SIMPSON

“O.J. SIMPSON: IF I DID IT, HERE’S HOW IT HAPPENED”

TO AIR AS A TWO-PART SPECIAL ON FOX

Monday, November 27, and Wednesday, November 29

Over 10 years after he was tried for two murders in the "Trial of the Century" that captured the attention of the world, O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes.

FOX has sunk to an all time low giving this asshat airtime.

I can't imagine what the Brown and Goldman families are feeling. My heart goes out to them.

"Happy f***ing holdays from OJ"

[beacooker]

What might be even worse than OJ writing this book is 1 - a book publisher giving him this venue, 2 - media outlets giving him publicity for it, and 3 - people giving him money through buying his book.

[momqat]

people giving him money through buying his book.
It will be interesting to see how he gets around giving this money to the Goldmans and Browns, since any money he makes that is not pension was awarded to them by the civil suit.

[blazedog]

There really isn't anything further than can be done to him legally -- double jeopardy precludes a criminal trial and the families won the civil suit -- they have been unable to collect anything since his pension is not touchable and I would assume he funnels other income in "mysterious" ways.

What is interesting to me is how he will funnel proceeds from the book and interview to prevent the Nicole Simpson's and Ron Goldman's estates from collecting.

There is a whole interesting population of women who go for death row inmates -- beats me but there have been marriages. As I recall one of the Menendez brothers got married to a woman who corresponded with him and they supposedly received scads of explicit love letters.

I think the dynamic of women and prisoners is quite different than a woman who would date a murderer in real life

[lindrusso]

[color=red]FOX has sunk to an all time low giving this asshat airtime.

Ditto to that and what it could be doing to his kids. I will not watch and I will not buy or even read the book.

What in the world does he have to gain from doing this? Money? Surely he could find a way to make a little money in a manner that doesn't make him appear to be such an a$$.

The irony of it is, we already know how he did it! So what's this book really about? How he'd do it better so that he wouldn't have been arrested and made to stand trial? He's already gotten away with murder, but I guess living with a tarnished image is still too much for him. :rolleyes:

[SheRa]

it's basically a confession without him REALLY saying that he did it. what a wacko!

[JellyBean22]

This sickens me. The Brown and Goldman families have suffered enough, yet this sicko is still making headlines "what if I did, what if I didn't". He should be shunned by the media...they're idiots for continuing to make him a star. What the heck is this doing to his kids and what are they thinking?

It's ludicrous! :mad:

[Gracie]

It's not even on Amazon's Future Releases. Is it really being published or is it just the TV special for now?

I will admit to wanting to read it :rolleyes: but I would get it from the library and not buy it.

Loren

[ctd1103]

Not to offend anyone, but I'm sorry, I don't understand the "curiosity" factor with this - it's shameful and sickening - shame on the media, shame on society for carrying on the fascination with this sicko. I find it hard to believe that it's possible to NOT shun anything this guy does .....

[mbrogier]

Doesn't double jeopardy keep a person from being tried for the same crime unless new evidence come to light? Then that person could be tried on similar charges on the new evidence. I'm sure there are charges that weren't brought against OJ just in case he'd need to be retried, right?

Perhaps this moron will write his own death sentence in this book.

[armel]

I was in law school (my brief 1 year stint as a law student) when the criminal trial was going on. And i was simply fascinated, and dumbfounded when he was found not guilty.

I hate to admit it, but i would really be interested in reading this. Now, I feel guilty about wanting to buy it and read it.

[trish_ks]

I was in law school (my brief 1 year stint as a law student) when the criminal trial was going on. And i was simply fascinated, and dumbfounded when he was found not guilty.

I hate to admit it, but i would really be interested in reading this. Now, I feel guilty about wanting to buy it and read it.

I'm with you though...and I won't even say it's a morbid curiousity, I guess it's more for the psychological aspect, I can't understand how he could think it's OK to drag these families back through all this, including his own children. I'm interested to see his tone and his approach to the retelling, not looking for the gorey details. I can really understand the opposite perspective as well, that we're perpetuating his "fame" by even being interested in what the a**hole has to say. It's a really compelling dichotomy, if nothing else.

[beacooker]

I can understand the curiosity, but to me, the immorality (IMO) of rewarding him for his actions far outweighs the curiosity.

[trish_ks]

I can understand the curiosity, but to me, the immorality (IMO) of rewarding him for his actions far outweighs the curiosity.
Right, which is why I most likely won't read it, unless I check it out from the library down the line or something...but I'm not giving him a cent.

[aggie94]

Doesn't double jeopardy keep a person from being tried for the same crime unless new evidence come to light?

No, there's no such exception. Once jeopardy has attached, the person cannot be retried for the same or lesser offenses, period.

[AnneLórien]

I had heard that they originally wanted ABC/Barbara Walters to do the interview and she said absolutely not! At least she drew the line.

[jphilg]

Doesn't double jeopardy keep a person from being tried for the same crime unless new evidence come to light?

Convicted felons can use new evidence unavailable at the time of trial in asking for a new trial, but the state only gets one chance to convict. The new evidence thing only works in one direction.

[matt]

If you guys think that is bad. I have seen him several times thru the last couple of years. I saw him at a resturant last summer I was teaing the cashier that they needed to hide the knives. She was trying not to laugh since he was right behind be at another table. I live less than 10 minuets where he lives. Man that was such a nice area too to live in.
but that is just me
matt
:eek:

[kima]

God I hope no one buys the book.
Stand and look at it in a bookstore if you are curious but do not give that double murderer your money.

He is a psychopath and has this incredible need and compulsion to get attention and to talk. I remember during the trial even his lawyers said he talked non stop and compulsively.
He just can't keep what he did in- he has to get it out (not because he feels guilty) .

He is a vile, disgusting excuse of a human being.

Please don't buy the book.

And can you imgaine what his children must think? He writes a book about he would have killed their mother IF he had killed her? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad: :mad:

[engineer]

No, there's no such exception. Once jeopardy has attached, the person cannot be retried for the same or lesser offenses, period.

Law types correct me if I'm wrong but a different court (federal) could try him for 'violating the civil rights of the victim'. That's what happened in Denver with the Alan Berg case. Some snafu meant that the murderers couldn't stand trial by the state - so instead they were convicted of violating Mr. Berg's civil rights by the feds.

[beacooker]

Here's a Slate article about ways OJ could possibly be tried again.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153863/

[blazedog]

Law types correct me if I'm wrong but a different court (federal) could try him for 'violating the civil rights of the victim'. That's what happened in Denver with the Alan Berg case. Some snafu meant that the murderers couldn't stand trial by the state - so instead they were convicted of violating Mr. Berg's civil rights by the feds.

You're correct but in those cases there was a violation of a Federal Civil Rights Statute -- I don't think simply killing someone is a violation of the Federal statutory Civil Rights Act -- there has to be something more -- in that instance, it was a hate crime by an Aryan nations organization.

Also I am not sure that jeopardy had attached in terms of the state crime -- the whole issue of when jeopardy attaches is something I haven't thought about since my Bar exam. :eek:

[cminmd]

The expert on Slate.com thought OJ was free and clear. OJ can't be retried for the murders in CA because of double jepardy. He can't be tried by the feds for violating their civil rights because under the law domestic violence is not a considered a hate crime and they don't have any other jurisdiction because OJ was not a member of the government or on Federal land. He can't be tried for perjury because he never testified under oath.

The "new evidence" thing is not so much of a one way street. Once convicted you have to appeal based on legal error during your first trial (and usually in front of the same judge), not innocence. You can only get new evidence entered if you were denied the evidence in the original trial through error or malice. You have to prove that the DA didnt completely share "discovery" and that impacted the trial outcome. DNA is the somewhat of an exception. The way it is allowed in is because the DNA was part of the original trial, but new technology allows for a more complete interpretation of existing evidence.

[kima]

I know what double jeopardy is but what is the reasoning behind it?

It just seems bizarre that someone can confess to a murder and not be retried.

[Becky13347]

I did notice on the news today (at least in this area) that NO ONE was reporting anything about OJ after the flurry of news the other day. I wonder if they got complaints and dropped it? (And I haven't been watching TV all day long so, I guess it could have been reported at another time :o )

Is it still being talked about in other regions?

[blazedog]

I know what double jeopardy is but what is the reasoning behind it?

It just seems bizarre that someone can confess to a murder and not be retried.

It's a very critical protection against the power of the State -- imagine what it would be like if the King (or the government) could keep arresting someone for the same offense -- until the State got a conviction.

Jeopardy is also a concept in civil judgments -- for a variety of reasons.

[VALERIEA234]

He Is A Horses Back End, (to Bad For The Horse).
Val

[bobmark226]

I did notice on the news today (at least in this area) that NO ONE was reporting anything about OJ after the flurry of news the other day. I wonder if they got complaints and dropped it? (And I haven't been watching TV all day long so, I guess it could have been reported at another time :o )

Is it still being talked about in other regions?

It's certainly back in the news today with the publisher coming forth with her cheesey justification (read: publicity).

It might be noted that this is number 30 on Amazon's best seller list two weeks before publication.

Bob

[Becky13347]

Bobmark- that's pretty pathetic in MHO. No wonder this guy has an ego the size of this planet. The public buys into all of his bullsh** :mad:

[Hammster]

I barely scanned this thread as I find the whole idea absurd and offensive, but here are a couple of links that some may find of interest.
First one is Regan saying she wrote the book to embarass Simpson and get some kind of closure for women.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?
e=pub&dt=061117&cat=entertainment&st=entertainmentfrancescani_oj_simpson_061117&src=abc

Second one is a petition and phone numbers and email addresses to Fox executives and all the major booksellers to not allow Simpson to profit from the book or the show.

http://www.dontpayoj.com/

[Gail]

What might be even worse than OJ writing this book is 1 - a book publisher giving him this venue, 2 - media outlets giving him publicity for it, and 3 - people giving him money through buying his book.

My sentiments exactly.