OJ Simpson - "If I did it" leaked...

[Schadenfroh]

He did it, how he got away with it is beyond me.

 

[GTaudiophile]

He can admit he did it and sell a book about it. It's foolish but we already know that OJ doesn't have many oranges in his bag.

He's been given an innocent verdict in a court of law. No going back...sadly.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: pontifex
maybe i'm not understanding the the concept of the book.

the book is supposed to be about how he would have killed her, right?
what he wrote is pretty much how it went down, right?
i'm thinking he was supposed to write how he would have killed her, like put an explosive device in her car or poisoned her.

You think wrong and have a poor understanding of the nuances of the English language.

so explain it to me since i'm a big dumb noob...

The book was originally marketed as a "hypothetical" story that describes how O.J. would have done it had he killed her. However, the details of the book are pretty much a full blown confession to the murders and follow the actual events fairly closely.

Since O.J. was already acquitted on both murder charges, he can't be tried again. This may be his cowardly way of admitting his guilt. The book was written obviously in very poor taste.

i guess i'm dumb because that makes no sense to me.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: pontifex
i guess i'm dumb because that makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make sense?

He kills two people.
He is found not guilty on the murder charges.
He writes a book detailing the murders without any possible repercussions in order to generate controversy and earn a few bucks.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: pontifex
i guess i'm dumb because that makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make sense?

He kills two people.
He is found not guilty on the murder charges.
He writes a book detailing the murders without any possible repercussions in order to generate controversy and earn a few bucks.

nvm. i can't figure out a way to explain what i'm thinking

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: pontifex
i guess i'm dumb because that makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make sense?

He kills two people.
He is found not guilty on the murder charges.
He writes a book detailing the murders without any possible repercussions in order to generate controversy and earn a few bucks.

Welcome to the American legal system. He can't be tried again due to the double jeopardy laws (if you are found innocent, you can't be tried again for the same crime). So even though we all know he's guilty, he cannot get in trouble for the murder.

The book is written in a hypothetical sense because of perjury laws... if it's found out that he lied on the stand he can be busted for that. So he can't just say "first I stabbed her, then I drove away from the cops." He has to say "in theory, the killer stabbed her then drove away from the cops."

The book is a full blown confession using a legal loophole so he can't be busted for it. Even the cover of the book is laughing at the reader. It's called If I Did It, but the If is colored orange and is smaller than the rest of the title. And the background is like brown IIRC. The rest of the title is in all caps and giant letters, in white. So as you look at the book all you see is "I DID IT, by OJ Simpson"

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: pontifex
i guess i'm dumb because that makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make sense?

He kills two people.
He is found not guilty on the murder charges.
He writes a book detailing the murders without any possible repercussions in order to generate controversy and earn a few bucks.

Welcome to the American legal system. He can't be tried again due to the double jeopardy laws (if you are found innocent, you can't be tried again for the same crime). So even though we all know he's guilty, he cannot get in trouble for the murder.

The book is written in a hypothetical sense because of perjury laws... if it's found out that he lied on the stand he can be busted for that. So he can't just say "first I stabbed her, then I drove away from the cops." He has to say "in theory, the killer stabbed her then drove away from the cops."

The book is a full blown confession using a legal loophole so he can't be busted for it. Even the cover of the book is laughing at the reader. It's called If I Did It, but the If is colored orange and is smaller than the rest of the title. And the background is like brown IIRC. The rest of the title is in all caps and giant letters, in white. So as you look at the book all you see is "I DID IT, by OJ Simpson"

Except that he never took the stand IIRC.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: pontifex

nvm. i can't figure out a way to explain what i'm thinking

Originally posted by: pontifex
i'm confused. if this book is about how he would do it, why is pretty much exactly like it happened?

Coincidence. Pure coincidence. It just shows that whoever did it knows OJ's way of thinking inside and out. The true killer must have been with OJ his entire life, and figured out, "If he were to kill someone, how would he do it?"
And what do you know, now we find out that, if OJ were to kill someone, he'd do it just the same way it went down. Amazing.


I liked the Daily Show's take on it - their "Senior Black Correspondant" had his own book out, "If I Did It," a book of how he would have gone about the murders. I think everyone in America should write their own version.

 

[JEDIYoda]

much tadoo about nothing!!
The courts found OJ Simpson innocent of murder.
In our justice system he is innocent!!

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: pontifex
i guess i'm dumb because that makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make sense?

He kills two people.
He is found not guilty on the murder charges.
He writes a book detailing the murders without any possible repercussions in order to generate controversy and earn a few bucks.

Welcome to the American legal system. He can't be tried again due to the double jeopardy laws (if you are found innocent, you can't be tried again for the same crime). So even though we all know he's guilty, he cannot get in trouble for the murder.

The book is written in a hypothetical sense because of perjury laws... if it's found out that he lied on the stand he can be busted for that. So he can't just say "first I stabbed her, then I drove away from the cops." He has to say "in theory, the killer stabbed her then drove away from the cops."

The book is a full blown confession using a legal loophole so he can't be busted for it. Even the cover of the book is laughing at the reader. It's called If I Did It, but the If is colored orange and is smaller than the rest of the title. And the background is like brown IIRC. The rest of the title is in all caps and giant letters, in white. So as you look at the book all you see is "I DID IT, by OJ Simpson"

Not true. You can be tried twice for the same crimes in a lot of cases. Thats what happened tot eh LA Cops and rodney king. Not guilty in State but guilty in federal. All you do is change the name of the charge from assult to civil rights violation.

In fact it was brought up the Feds could have arrested OJ but did not.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
much tadoo about nothing!!
The courts found OJ Simpson innocent of murder.
In our justice system he is innocent!!

A civil suit found him guilty.
Technically not guilty of murder in a way that can be punished as such, but as I understand it, some part of our legal system said that he killed people.

 

[0]

Clarification:

OJ was found not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

 

[Captante]

IF I did it????? Ahhhhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

we all know the truth....

the fact remains he was found NOT guilty which in laymansd terms means he is NOT guilty of doing the crime......which equates to innocent...sorry...thats very plain!!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
much tadoo about nothing!!
The courts found OJ Simpson innocent of murder.
In our justice system he is innocent!!

OJ was not found innocent. He was found not guilty, and that was a travesty and a failure of our justice system. The guy had a motive, he had no alibi, there was physical evidence linking him to the crime and yet the idiots on that jury allowed a con man to persuade them that somehow there wasn't enough evidence to convict Simpson.

Fact is OJ Simpson killed two people with his own hands and yet he is a free man.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
He can admit he did it and sell a book about it. It's foolish but we already know that OJ doesn't have many oranges in his bag.

He's been given an innocent verdict in a court of law. No going back...sadly.

Actually, he can go back should new evidence implicate him. And AFAIK, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

 

[dennilfloss]

What if Mr. Goldman gunned him down in a moment of rage should the two of them come face to face? What jury would convict him if he pleaded temporary insanity?

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
we all know the truth....

the fact remains he was found NOT guilty which in laymansd terms means he is NOT guilty of doing the crime......which equates to innocent...sorry...thats very plain!!

A murder conviction in criminal court requires certainty of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt & all joking aside (even though my opinion is he did it) I would have had no choice but to vote not guilty based on the case presented because although the doubt was only slight, it was there... not guilty in a criminal case means theres not a strong enough case to convict with absolute certainty, not innocence.

 

[Shawn]

This just proves that our justice system is a joke.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
What if Mr. Goldman gunned him down in a moment of rage should the two of them come face to face? What jury would convict him if he pleaded temporary insanity?

No, it would be called premeditated murder. Temporary sanity if you ask me.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: Aimster
so kato saw the attack?

looks like they should have had the dog whisperer come in to testify.

what about the ghost who never lies? </family guy>

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
we all know the truth....

the fact remains he was found NOT guilty which in laymansd terms means he is NOT guilty of doing the crime......which equates to innocent...sorry...thats very plain!!

A murder conviction in criminal court requires certainty of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt & all joking aside (even though my opinion is he did it) I would have had no choice but to vote not guilty based on the case presented because although the doubt was only slight, it was there... not guilty in a criminal case means theres not a strong enough case to convict with absolute certainty, not innocence.

There was absolutely no REASONABLE doubt in the OJ case. You may have had doubts, but it was in no way reasonable.

There is no "absolute certainty" in a criminal trial. Only REASONABLE doubt. The only way you can be "absolutely certain" is if you witness the crime yourself.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
He can admit he did it and sell a book about it. It's foolish but we already know that OJ doesn't have many oranges in his bag.

He's been given an innocent verdict in a court of law. No going back...sadly.

Actually, he can go back should new evidence implicate him. And AFAIK, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Um, no. There is a little clause in our Bill of Rights called "Double Jeopardy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

He's been tried and acquitted. He cannot be tried again.

 

[0]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
we all know the truth....

the fact remains he was found NOT guilty which in laymansd terms means he is NOT guilty of doing the crime......which equates to innocent...sorry...thats very plain!!

wrong.