Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Kerrigan · Nov 15, 2006, 02:24 AM

Oh lordy.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Fox said Tuesday it will air a two-part interview with O.J. Simpson at month's end in which he describes the 1994 murders of his ex-wife and her friend that he says he didn't commit.

The interview will be conducted by editor and book publisher Judith Regan. On November 30, her Regan Books is publishing a book Simpson wrote with the working title "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened."

Fox said Simpson's book "hypothetically describes" how he would have committed the murders. The special will air at 9 p.m. November 27 and 29 on Fox.

I can't tell if this is funny, or sick. If he were innocent, why would he be describing what he 'would have' done? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

He should just go into hip-hop or something, where killers are ostensibly admired.

Jawbone54 · Nov 15, 2006, 02:31 AM

He's begging for EVERYONE to realize that he did it. It's a "cry for help."

Doofy · Nov 15, 2006, 02:34 AM

He's broke and knows that some suckers somewhere will buy this book.

Jawbone54 · Nov 15, 2006, 02:36 AM

I'll now do my part to help him stay broke. I'm not touching the book.

marden · 05:17 AM

It's only fitting that it be on Fox because Fox's MAD TV did a skit some years back (when the show was REALLY good!) and that was the premise of the skit. Orlando Jones played OJ and was coming out with a new TV show or video or interview or something and incriminating statements or attitudes kept slipping out.

Ahh, here it is.

#117 April 6, 1996 Claudia Schiffer and Kim Coles Artie Lange introduces the cast in announcer fashion. Check out outrageous bloopers from an interview with O.J. Simpson (Orlando Jones). Parody of Levi's commercials. On That's My White Mama, Mrs. Curtis (Artie Lange) catches her daughter (Debra Wilson) smoking cigarette s. A news reporter (Mary Scheer) nearly repeats everything her associates say. A parody of Lethal Weapon where Murtaugh (Orlando Jones) works with a new partner, Montell Jordan (Phil LaMarr). Claudia Schiffer stars in a parody of James Bond films. Two homegirls (Kim Coles, Debra Wilson) work as surgeons. A gangsta (Artie Lange) poses as a businessman who sells stolen products, then harrasses his partner (Bryan Callen). The high school's valedictorian (Nicole Sullivan) makes reference to grim, historic events during graduation day.

MADtv: Season One: Information from Answers.com

talisker · Nov 15, 2006, 04:52 AM

What always seemed to confirm that he was guilty was that he never put pressure on the police to find the real killer. I would have thought that if someone close to you (even your ex-wife) was killed, you would do everything in your power to make sure the muderer was caught. He had a vast amount of power to do this, given his media exposure at the time.

Kerrigan · Nov 15, 2006, 04:58 AM

How is everything up in Edinburgh, talisker?

Powerbook · Nov 15, 2006, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by talisker

What always seemed to confirm that he was guilty was that he never put pressure on the police to find the real killer. ...

What about the positive DNA blood tests??? O.J. must be one of the few who have beaten that evidence, or let's say the Jury realized otherwise "them Negros" would have turned L.A. into a hellhole.

PB.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Powerbook

What about the positive DNA blood tests??? O.J. must be one of the few who have beaten that evidence, or let's say the Jury realized otherwise "them Negros" would have turned L.A. into a hellhole.

PB.

Not in the OJ case. the OJ case was completely different than the Rodney King beatings.

Millennium · Nov 15, 2006, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not in the OJ case. the OJ case was completely different than the Rodney King beatings.

There have been theories for years that the OJ verdict was connected to the Rodney King verdict. The idea is that as revenge for the obviously-guilty police getting off, the obviously-guilty OJ got off. I don't know if I buy it, but people have been claiming connections since literally the day the OJ verdict was announced.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 10:04 AM

This is about as close as it gets to the Tim Meadows MNF without a reenactment.

rickey939 · Nov 15, 2006, 10:09 AM

Wow, just wow.

Powerbook · 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not in the OJ case. the OJ case was completely different than the Rodney King beatings.

How so? I remember clearly the athmosphere with both incidents. The King case was 1992, the O.J. case was 1994/5, so the King case clearly gave a potential setup of behavior patterns. Some folks were already "in preparation".

Quote:
[...]
On October 3, 1995, Simpson was found not guilty of the two murders. The verdict was seen live on TV by more than half the U.S. population, making it one of the most watched events in American TV history.
[...]

PB.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

There have been theories for years that the OJ verdict was connected to the Rodney King verdict. The idea is that as revenge for the obviously-guilty police getting off, the obviously-guilty OJ got off. I don't know if I buy it, but people have been claiming connections since literally the day the OJ verdict was announced.

OJ simply had expensive lawyers and the LAPD were incompetent

Not to mention just as corrupt at the time as the New Orleans police department.

osiris · Nov 15, 2006, 10:28 AM

What a jerk, and it figures that Fox would air something like this.

Millennium · Nov 15, 2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

OJ simply had expensive lawyers and the LAPD were incompetent

There was more than that, though. It's awfully tough to deny that OJ's defense was brilliant, but for all they did, there was still proof beyond reasonable doubt, and yet OJ still got off. The blame for this can't be placed solely on the lawyers; however much they may have influenced the decision, they're not the ones who made it.

Not to mention just as corrupt at the time as the New Orleans police department.

My only disagreement here is your use of the past tense.

Atheist · Nov 15, 2006, 10:42 AM

OJ's ego was so inflated by the fact that he got away with murder he can't help but tell everyone how he did it! I hope they are correctly identifying his book as non-fiction.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 10:43 AM

I hope he gives some verifiable detail that can be used to enter new evidence.

Atheist · Nov 15, 2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I hope he gives some verifiable detail that can be used to enter new evidence.

The Fifth Amendment will protect him from getting tried again so it really doesn't matter.

Pierre Capretz II · Nov 15, 2006, 10:56 AM

oj guilty? No way...all he did was kill a woman and a jew.

wallinbl · Nov 15, 2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Atheist

The Fifth Amendment will protect him from getting tried again so it really doesn't matter.

We can just label him a terrorist. Different crime, plus you don't even need a trial for terrorists.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Atheist

The Fifth Amendment will protect him from getting tried again so it really doesn't matter.

So why does he even need the 'If I did it'?

I assume there are some legal hairs being split here, but I'm unfamiliar with them.

wallinbl · Nov 15, 2006, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

So why does he even need the 'If I did it'?

I assume there are some legal hairs being split here, but I'm unfamiliar with them.

I think you can try him for related things, but just not first degree murder. I'm sure they can find other crimes that occurred during the murder, even if it's as simple as breaking and entering, trespassing, perjury, or something else. If he actually testified that he didn't do it (rather than pleading the fifth or avoiding the question), then he'd be guilty of perjury if he really did do it.

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Pierre Capretz II

oj guilty? No way...all he did was kill a woman and a jew.

[/borat]

-t

davesimondotcom · Nov 15, 2006, 11:39 AM

"To reach that conclusion you would have to ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence." - Lisa Simpson Who Shot Monty Burns?

A little selective editing and the title of OJ's book is right on - "...I Did It, Here's How..."

The man is a sick attention whore and I hope they make sure every dime he makes off this go to the Brown and Goldman families.

- Blood evidence
- Those "ugly ass" shoes that he didn't have, except for the fact he was photographed wearing them
- The rage
- His "plan" to be on a plane

It all points to him. The jury was too scared of riots to give the correct verdict.

davesimondotcom · Nov 15, 2006, 11:42 AM

Anyone remember when Ron Goldman's father offered to write off the debt that OJ owes after the civil trial if he just admitted he was guilty of the crime?

There's lots of blame to go around - scared jurors, well-played defense, incompetent police, more incompetent prosecutors.

But one thing I never understood is that it is typical for DA's to charge someone in a crime like this with one murder and not the other to be able to go back for "another bite at the apple" around double jeopardy. Yet, they went for the whole shabang and lost.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

My only disagreement here is your use of the past tense.

The LAPD or the NOPD? I've heard the latter has had to clean up it's act since the 90s busts.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 11:51 AM

BTW OJ is the typical example of sociopath. Another one recently that "got away with it"

was Karla Homolka. Though she did get 12 years of "easy time" she should have gotten a lot more.

She knew what she was doing when she made the plea. I am sure prosecution was kicking itself when they actually saw the tapes.

Pierre Capretz II · Nov 15, 2006, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

[/borat]

-t

you have demonstrated your keen grasp of the obvious, my astute son.

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Pierre Capretz II

you have demonstrated your keen grasp of the obvious, my astute son.

Yeah, I'm waiting for some to come in and call you a racist

Like Borat is getting sued by multiple parties for racism. Duh !

-t

Pierre Capretz II · Nov 15, 2006, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Yeah, I'm waiting for some to come in and call you a racist

Like Borat is getting sued by multiple parties for racism. Duh !

-t

says the german...haha

anyway, tons of fun, women and jews aren't a race.

For the record, I think OJ is guilty as sin, and his book is disgusting. If it makes you feel more comfortable i'll be boringly literal next time, just so you can understand.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 01:40 PM

When it comes to words. It's not the words themselves that are bad. It's the intentions behind the words that matter.

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Pierre Capretz II

says the german...haha

Don't know what that's supposed to mean ?

Originally Posted by Pierre Capretz II

anyway, tons of fun, women and jews aren't a race.

LOL, so by default, you can't make racist comments because they are not a race ?

Easy fix, I guess

-t

Rumor · Nov 15, 2006, 01:48 PM

Pierre Capretz II · Nov 15, 2006, 02:07 PM

misinterpretation is your forte.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:07 PM

OJ probably still thinks Nicole deserved it. He is simply bragging.

Being the punk he always was.

OAW · Nov 15, 2006, 02:52 PM

My view on the entire OJ drama was that certain elements in the LAPD sought to frame a man who was most likely guilty anyway. Sprinkle sprinkle of blood here, sprinkle sprinkle of blood there ... just to tighten up the case. The problem is they got caught. And like it or not, by law that is "reasonable doubt" right there.

The OJ prosecution died by a "death of a thousand cuts". So many little things were off that the entire theory of the case simply didn't make a lot of sense. Timelines didn't add up. Two people with their heads nearly severed but they only find a drop of blood in his car when common sense tells you that he would have been covered in blood. EDTA found in the blood samples supposedly found at the scene. But the key thing that killed the prosecution's case was Det. Vanatter taking the sample of OJ's blood that he provided to police, and when it got to its destination there was blood missing. And then drops of blood showed up later that weren't collected initially. You want to know why OJ walked? Look no further than Det. Vanatter. I know I know .. the prosecution attempted to provide an "explanation" for the missing blood ... in unsworn, un-crossexamined testimony BTW ... but even if that were true by then the damage was done. The circumstances were sufficiently suspicious to derail the prosecution's case.

So no .... it wasn't about Rodney King. It certainly wasn't about the jury trying to prevent a riot if OJ was convicted because at no time in US history has the black community rioted over the conviction of black man (such riots are invariably sparked by egregious incidents of police brutality BTW). It was about the "perfect storm" of a largely circumstantial case, an inept prosecution, an overzealous police department, and a defendant with the financial means to hire a top-notch defense team who, even though many hate to admit it, clearly out-lawyered the prosecution.

So OJ is hawking a book huh? I certainly won't be buying it. And I doubt it will make the top of the best-sellers list. But I'm sure it will generate a decent amount of sales. The real kicker is the interview though. I predict it will be one of the highest rated Fox segments ever. And they are gonna milk it for all it's worth.

OAW

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 03:02 PM

I agree OAW.

medicineman · Nov 15, 2006, 03:36 PM

He hasn't the grace to keep his mouth shut. I hope whatever profits are realized will go the Goldman/Brown families.

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by medicineman

He hasn't the grace to keep his mouth shut. I hope whatever profits are realized will go the Goldman/Brown families.

Yes, once OJ gets nominated for the Nobel Peace Price

-t

epluth · Nov 15, 2006, 03:42 PM

I cant help but add... Why would someone innocent revisit such an experience? I call foul.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 03:43 PM

No sh�t. Ex wife or not, someone that close to you gets murdered you're gonna be upset for a long, long time.

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by epluth

I cant help but add... Why would someone innocent revisit such an experience? I call foul.

Uhm, yeah, as if there is any doubt about OJ's innocence

-t

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Uhm, yeah, as if there is any doubt about OJ's innocence

-t

Reasonable doubt, apparently.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

No sh�t. Ex wife or not, someone that close to you gets murdered you're gonna be upset for a long, long time.

Unless you are a sociopath.

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Reasonable doubt, apparently.

Right. Whatever. Dumbass is making sure that all doubt is going away or turning into unreasonable doubt...

-t

epluth · Nov 15, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Uhm, yeah, as if there is any doubt about OJ's innocence

-t

didnt see the humor huh

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by epluth

didnt see the humor huh

No, I missed the humor. Were was it ?

-t

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 03:48 PM

I call foul.

Edit: A touch weak, I missed it too.

turtle777 · Nov 15, 2006, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I call foul.

Edit: A touch weak, I missed it too.

Yep.

-t