O.J. to Discuss "How He WOULD Have Done It"

[sfgiantsflgators]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2662339

What would compel a person to do this? (obviously money...but still)

Nah, I didn't kill anyone. But if I was going to, peep this:

[Hory]

You've got to be kidding me, this is just nuts

[krawhitham]

His son did it

[philliesphan18]

Ok why in the world would you do this? Even if he is innocent it is just going to give the prosecution more ammo to fire back at him.

Maybe he couldn't stand not being in the limelight. Maybe he wanted to get his 10 more seconds of fame - like that John Mark Karr guy. Or maybe he was desperate for money and didn't want to work too hard for it.

Whatever it was I think this was a dumb move.

[UncleMo]

You know how people flood networks to get them to stop airing crappy shows? This should be one of those times.

[Klesko174]

I think it's called "If I did it, here's how it happened" or something like that. He is an absolute idiot. I saw this on Cold Pizza this morning, and Woody Paige was talking about how he drove from O.J.'s house to the apartment and it was like a 4 minute drive, so O.J. couldn't have said that it took too long to get there. O.J. is a piece of s**t if I may say so. This is ridiculous.

[Padres67]

He obviously had an out of body experience-his other entity must have done the murder. He should have been hung from the neck until dead. Or his balls-but he doesnt have any.

[AstroEric]

From Mark Evanier's (writer of comics, cartoons, and Hollywood historian) blog, NewsFromME:

The whole O.J. Simpson murder case was full of odd twists and outrageous developments but I'm not sure any were odder than what's happening now. On November 27 and 29, Fox will broadcast a two-part interview with the man entitled, O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened. This will presumably cover the same ground as a forthcoming book in which Simpson will "theorize" how he would have committed the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend. The book's publisher, Judith Regan, is conducting the TV interview.

A lot of people are expecting this to be a confession in which Simpson will explain how he did it but without explicitly admitted that he did it. I don't know why they assume this. He could well "tell all"...but he could also decide to make the explanation of how he killed those two people too complex and full of things that could not have happened. In other words, this could be an attempt to argue his innocence by saying, in effect, "Look...even if I tried to confess, the confession doesn't fit with the known facts."

Of course, this is being logical and very little about this case has ever been logical. Simpson could be so punchy and reckless by now, he might not be operating with an ounce of sense or even consistency in his guilty noggin. That recent "hidden camera" show he did suggests a man who doesn't know what he's doing...or maybe doesn't care. But he does have that huge judgment hanging over his head, and Fred Goldman has stated several times that he would waive it if Simpson would just confess. O.J. stands to make something like 3.5 million for the interview and book, and that's a pretty big invitation for the Goldmans to haul his murdering *** back into court to try and claim that money. To confess without confessing — assuming he doesn't go the route described above and turn the "confession" into an argument for innocence — doesn't make a lot of sense just from that standpoint. To confess for real might enable him to keep that 3.5 mil, or at least to put Fred Goldman on the defensive if he goes after the money. ("Hey, the guy promised to drop that if I confessed and I've confessed.")

Then again, it's got to have driven Simpson crazy (or crazier) that stardom and financial reward have been so elusive since his acquittal. He obviously thought that there was an exploitable market out there for him. 30-40% of the country told pollsters they thought he was innocent, and you'd think you'd be able to make billions selling product to 30% of the country. You could also, you'd imagine, sell books, TV specials, merchandise, etc. to the curious folks who thought he was a brutal double-murderer. After the first verdict, Simpson had a whole game plan to wring cash out of those audiences...dozens of deals that fell through. He never got the book deal he imagined. The pay-per-view interview that was supposed to net him five million bucks never happened. The cheapo videotape he did instead was a spectacular flop that proved that even people who thought he was as innocent and cute as a baby panda weren't willing to shell out money for his side of the story. His Internet TV station ("OJTV") did even worse.

It's dangerous to try and think, "What would I do if I was in his position?" You and I wouldn't have done anything he did. But at some point, it has to have dawned on the guy that the only thing he has to offer that anyone wants is that confession and whatever closure that brings to those of us who followed that ghastly trial. It's kind of fascinating that he still clings to the idea that he can sell the confession and sell his innocence at the same time.

And for what it's worth, I'd like everyone to know that for 3.5 million dollars, I would gladly confess to the murder of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. In fact, this week only, I'll do it for half that and I'll also take responsibility for the Iraq War, the killing of Robert Blake's wife, and the NBC Fall schedule. Act now.

[Edam]

Ok why in the world would you do this? Even if he is innocent it is just going to give the prosecution more ammo to fire back at him.

The "prosecution" can't do a thing. Simpson (I refuse to refer to him as "OJ", it sounds too friendly) was found innocent. The idiotic double jeopardy law means that he can't be tried for the same crime again, even if he now confessed.

[fred13]

The "prosecution" can't do a thing. Simpson (I refuse to refer to him as "OJ", it sounds too friendly) was found innocent. The idiotic double jeopardy law means that he can't be tried for the same crime again, even if he now confessed.

He could then be charged for Perjury.

[abc006]

obviously, he's not quite right in the head - already killed a person, anyway. just stupid. disgusting. no more comments.

[Edam]

He could then be charged for Perjury.

He didn't testify.

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

[abc006]

meh. guess there's no way anything will happen to him. crazy...

[fred13]

He didn't testify.

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

my mistake, I thought he did testify.

[Edam]

He testified in the civil trial. Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to see that guy behind bars for the rest of his life. But let's say that he eventually admitted killing Nicole and Ron and then there was an attempt to charge him with perjury.

While the rhetoric of "good versus evil" gets a lot of play these days, "truth-telling" has fallen off the virtues scorecard.

Lying, it seems, has acquired a moral status all its own. We accept it as a political necessity, a form of politeness, a social convenience, even an expression of sensitivity and kindness.

But while willful deception has become a part of our day-to-day life, we still cling to the belief that one place remains a bastion of truth. Just as God is to be found in churches and money in banks, we expect truth to be found in the halls of justice. After all, witnesses swear an oath to "tell the truth ... and nothing but the truth" and perjury is a crime. A couple of recent cases that sparked public notoriety were that of Jeffrey Archer, the former British MP and novelist currently appealing his four-year sentence for perjury and,

of course, former U.S. president Bill Clinton, who came perilously close to being charged during the Monica shemozzle.

But those are the celebrity cases. What about all the rest?

Too often, I hear of people lying to police, judges and juries and I wonder why it is that almost all of them get off scot-free. It's due, in part, to our tendency to use other words to obfuscate the deed. "It is not a lie," exclaimed Alexander Haig, president Ronald Reagan's

secretary of state, "it's a terminological inexactitude!"

Lies these days are usually disguised as false accusations, misperceptions or emotional misstatements and talked about in linguistically misleading terms for which the courts have developed an unhealthy tolerance.

Take, for example, the recent case in which a 17-year-old Hamilton woman claimed that, while walking through a park, she was attacked by a man who dragged her toward some trees and sexually assaulted her. Providing a description of her attacker, police searched the area for evidence and appealed for public assistance. Their hotline was swamped with tips before the teenager admitted she'd made up the story. The complainant's expression of remorse persuaded police to overlook her lying; so, she wasn't charged for giving a "false report."

A decade ago, a similar fabricated story, resulting in a police investigation costing $300,000 and the arrest of an innocent man, did prompt the Toronto police to lay charges of public mischief. But, when the case went to trial, the judge, fully aware of the blatant lies and their impact, acquitted the woman because he thought she might have been "suffering from some sort of stress disorder."

It seems that we've reached the point of viewing lying to be, if not a sickness, then, a natural trait. "Lying under oath," says Judge Roderic Duncan, of the Alameda County Superior Court, "is an accepted element of most trials." He describes an occasion when he reported "a slam-dunk case of perjury" to the local prosecutor, pointing out in a letter that "one of the parties admitted in my court that he had lied under oath." The district attorney shrugged his shoulders, never bothering to respond.

Lying under oath is just something everybody does -- even the police who whimsically call it "testilying." The celebrated trial of O. J. Simpson provided us with a couple of pristine examples of perjured police testimony by detectives Mark Fuhrman and Philip Vannatter who, in Judge Lance Ito's words, had demonstrated a "reckless disregard for the truth." We live in an era when even the most flagrant disregard brings little more than harsh words from judges.

http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/Perjury.htm

In addition...

If the person accused of perjury had any probable cause for his belief that the statement he made was true, then he is not guilty of perjury. In U.S. federal law, and in most states, a false statement must be material to a point of inquiry in order to constitute perjury. Perjury is a crime and may be punished by fine or imprisonment. One can retract false testimony in the course of a criminal procedure without committing perjury.

Can you imagine what the lawyers could do with that?

[sorcerer]

he's basically confessing rite there.

[sfgiantsflgators]

well it's moot now:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story...TC-RSSFeeds0312

[IronicMan]

well it's moot now:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story...TC-RSSFeeds0312

Totally NOT disappointed by this decision.

[AstroEric]

Here's an adequate post to go below a guy named IronicMan. Bill O'Reilly, of Fox News, called for a boycott of any companies that advertised during the OJ special, and attempted to say that Fox Broadcasting and Fox News have nothing to do with each other.

Guess he gets off lucky there.