O.J. Simpson Confesses Hypothetically for $3.5 million

[Shifty]

Are you ready for it?

By Jeannette Walls
MSNBC
Updated: 11:05 a.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.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

that thing I was saying about being disgusted by this planet and it's inhabitants

[USMC]

That is so friggin' sick... what a waste of a human being. Someone please randomly shoot this guy in the face.

[blind_fury]

I care.

Hypothetically.

[Ben Urich]

Originally Posted by blind_fury

I care.

Hypothetically.

Well played.

[Drakon]

Originally Posted by blind_fury

I care.

Hypothetically.

Exactly.

[Tangled Web]

I hate OJ, that worthless piece of crap. :

[DOG LIPS]

You've been Juiced!

[Sentinel X]

Originally Posted by DOG LIPS

You've been Juiced!

HAHAHA!!!!!
I'd love to see that show actually air

[huskerwebhead]

BAD NORDBERG!!!!!!!!

[Kent]

I "hypothetically" want that murdering piece of scum dead.

[blind_fury]

Yeah, because you "know" he did it.

[Lurk]

Do you actually doubt it?

[blind_fury]

Um, hello? he was found innocent.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Originally Posted by blind_fury

Um, hello? he was found innocent.

You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.
You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled

[blind_fury]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm-Scream

You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.
You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled up.You're not really as stupid as you sound. It's a hoax to get people riled

If the glove doesn't fit...

[Tangled Web]

Originally Posted by blind_fury

Um, hello? he was found innocent.

Even so, does that make it ok for him to make money off of the death of Nicole and Goldman?

And yeah, OJ did do it.

[GoldenAgeHero]

Originally Posted by Tangled Web

Even so, does that make it ok for him to make money off of the death of Nicole and Goldman?

And yeah, OJ did do it.

any proof, besides your biased statement?

[Tangled Web]

Originally Posted by GoldenAgeHero

any proof, besides your biased statement?

What evidence was there that he didn't do it? Playing the race card is the last resort of a guilty man. OJ Simpson not only beat his wife, but eventually killed her ; and in the process he killed a man who had nothing to do with the domestic abuse.

[GoldenAgeHero]

Originally Posted by Tangled Web

What evidence was there that he didn't do it? Playing the race card is the last resort of a guilty man. OJ Simpson not only beat his wife, but eventually killed her ; and in the process he killed a man who had nothing to do with the domestic abuse.

that card was being played from the geico. when a black is accused of doing something to a white person that card is unintentionally introduced from the start.


and Elijya thanks for the article, seems like the jury and prosecution fumbled on it.


im still weary of of his guilt tho, even with all the evidence the article points out.

[unstoppable]

Originally Posted by GoldenAgeHero

any proof, besides your biased statement?

don't you think he's guilty?
It's just like Michael Jackson(who is guilty)

Originally Posted by unstoppable

don't you think he's guilty?
It's just like Michael Jackson(who is guilty)

Actually it's been proven more than once that Michael Jackson didn't molest those children. DNA results, conflicting stories, and ulterior motives proved that Michael didn't molest those kids.

OJ, on the other hand, made himself look guilty by running from the police and talking about "suicide".

In the end you have one who didn't do it(Michael) and you have one who I think knows who did it.

[Kevin Roegele]

Originally Posted by unstoppable

It's just like Michael Jackson(who is guilty)

All Michael Jackson is guilty of is being weird and naive. It's the media who want you to think he's some sick paedophile, when that simply isn't the case.

Michael Jackson is undoubtedly a very strange man, but in no way is he the sick predator the media have presented him as over the years. Given that he's never come any way near normality in his entire life, and has had so much adulation and wealth and yes-men since a young age, and is incredibly naive.....it makes sense he's so odd.

But as a placard at his trial was daubed, he's smooth, but he's not a criminal.

Let's not forget, Jackson was aquitted on ALL charges. He is guilty of absolutely nothing. And the trial lasted months. Everybody was against him. Everybody was looking at every minute detail, repeatedly. And there was nothing there.

[lazur]

Originally Posted by GoldenAgeHero

any proof, besides your biased statement?

You mean OTHER than the DNA blood evidence found all over him and the inside of his white Bronco?

No, no evidence at all .

[Elijya]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._S...ion_to_verdict

Other skeptics blamed the jurors, who acquitted despite being presented with what they were convinced was overwhelming evidence of Simpson's guilt (especially overwhelming DNA evidence). In post-trial interviews with the jurors, a few said that they believe Simpson probably committed the murder, but that the prosecution bungled the case. Those that did mention the DNA evidence showed what critics purport to be a lack of understanding of it. Critics of the verdict therefore suspect incompetence from both the prosecutors and the jury.

Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (who had handled the Manson trial) seemed to share this opinion, writing a book called Outrage: The Five Reasons O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. Bugliosi was very critical of Clark and Darden and pointed out many glaring mistakes that they had made during the trial. He faulted them, for example, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written before trying to flee. Bugliosi said that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also pointed out that there was a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit found in the Bronco of which the jury was never informed. Simpson had made a very incriminating statement to police about cutting his finger the night of the murders. Bugliosi once again took Clark and Darden to task for not allowing the jury to hear the tape of this statement. Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's abuse of his wife. He said it should have been made clear to the mostly African-American jury that Simpson had little impact in the black community and had done nothing to help those blacks less fortunate than he. Bugliosi pointed out that although the prosecutors obviously understood that Simpson's race had nothing to do with the murders, once the defense "opened the door" by trying to paint Simpson falsely as a leader in the black community, the evidence to the contrary should have been presented to prevent the jury from allowing it to bias their verdict.

Many legal experts think that the jury selection phase of the trial was crucial to the outcome. Polls and surveys at the time indicated that the public's opinion of whether Simpson was the murderer was split along racial lines. But rather than try the crime in mostly white Santa Monica, California, the prosecution decided to have the trial in Los Angeles; Bugliosi also criticized this decision in his book. During the jury selection process, the defense made it very difficult for the prosecution to challenge potential black jurors on the grounds that it is illegal to dismiss someone from the jury for racially motivated reasons. (California courts barred peremptory challenges to jurors based on race in People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258, 583 P. 2d 748 (1978) years before the U.S. Supreme Court would do so in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986).)

According to media reports, prosecutor Marcia Clark thought that women, regardless of race, would sympathize with the domestic violence aspect of the case and connect with her personally. On the other hand, the defense's research suggested that women generally were more likely to acquit, that jurors did not respond well to Clark's style, and that black women would not be as sympathetic to the victim: a white woman. As a result, both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original jury pool of 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian, the final jury for the trial had 10 women and 2 men, of which there were 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Native American, half-white, and 1 white female.

Discussion of the racial component of the case has continued long after the trial. Some polls and some commentators have concluded that many blacks, while having their doubts as to Simpson's innocence, were nonetheless much more inclined to be suspicious of the credibility and fairness of the police and the courts, and thus less likely to question the outcome. However, an NBC poll taken in 2004, reported that although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of the blacks polled did vs. 87% of the whites. Whatever the exact nature of the "racial divide", the Simpson case continues to be examined through the lens of race.

In the February 1998 issue of Esquire Magazine Simpson was quoted as saying, "Let's say I committed this crime… Even if I did this, it would have to have been because I loved her very much, right?" Simpson said that he would look for the real murderer, whom he believed was a hitman. When the news media filmed Simpson playing golf, comedians joked about his lack of effort to find the murderer.