truth on hold Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 LOS ANGELES - Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted, the network said. The two-part interview, titled "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29, the TV network said. that sure is some odd wording. I dont know if its more OJ mumbo jumbo combined w. fox spin to boost ratings or if the Juice will finally come clean. what do others think? here's the story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_...mpson_interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I believe he just wrote a book written "in the perspective if he were the killer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 "I reject your reality and substitute my own." lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 "I reject your reality and substitute my own." lol 837467[/snapback] this whole OJ thing is such a freak show if someone made a fiction movie like this no one lwould ike it because theyd say it's too unrealistic. i mean really, what the heck is wrong with this guy and the people who keep promoting his lunacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 I believe he just wrote a book written "in the perspective if he were the killer." 837464[/snapback] i guess he needs the money. but on the other hand isnt all his money except for NFL pension going to the goldman family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 I believe he just wrote a book written "in the perspective if he were the killer." 837464[/snapback] is that supposed to be an implied admittance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 i guess he needs the money. but on the other hand isnt all his money except for NFL pension going to the goldman family? 837476[/snapback] No, he lives in Florida......thats why he moved very fast........ great place to retire and hide the money you've stolen your whole life...Florida likes rich old people with to much money, and they protect it from other states court system's..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 is that supposed to be an implied admittance? 837484[/snapback] I think so, but due to Double Jeopardy, he could never be charged again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I think so, but due to Double Jeopardy, he could never be charged again. 837589[/snapback] What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 What? 837598[/snapback] If it is double jeopardy wont he have to phrase his book in the form of a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 He was tried and found not guilty. Under our current laws he can call a press conference and say "Yeah I killed them and I'm glad I did it" and we can't touch him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 He was tried and found not guilty. Under our current laws he can call a press conference and say "Yeah I killed them and I'm glad I did it" and we can't touch him. 837619[/snapback] It's not the law, it's the Constitution, the fifth amendment. And a good thing, too--otherwise the state could just retry anyone they didn't like over and over again until they got a conviction. Though in this case it leads to a murderer going free. But the world is full of murderers walking free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 what do others think? 837462[/snapback] I think I'm pretty sure I won't be watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 It's not the law, it's the Constitution, the fifth amendment. And a good thing, too--otherwise the state could just retry anyone they didn't like over and over again until they got a conviction. Though in this case it leads to a murderer going free. But the world is full of murderers walking free. 837636[/snapback] I understand but Ed called it double jeopardy. It is called double indemnity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I understand but Ed called it double jeopardy. It is called double indemnity. 837642[/snapback] Sorry, Ed's right. It's called double jeopardy. Double indemnity is an insurance term, where the payoff your beneficiaries get if you die is doubled if you die under particular (and rare) circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 It's not the law, it's the Constitution, the fifth amendment. And a good thing, too--otherwise the state could just retry anyone they didn't like over and over again until they got a conviction. Though in this case it leads to a murderer going free. But the world is full of murderers walking free. 837636[/snapback] It is a good thing. The problem isnt the law or the Constitution, they should have got decent prosecutors the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 It is a good thing. The problem isnt the law or the Constitution, they should have got decent prosecutors the first time. 837654[/snapback] Why, Marcia Clark is a hack TV host now and Darden makes the best french fries in all of LA County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Sorry, Ed's right. It's called double jeopardy. Double indemnity is an insurance term, where the payoff your beneficiaries get if you die is doubled if you die under particular (and rare) circumstances. 837649[/snapback] I have bolded the area of your post which should concern you. No offense to Ed, he takes a lot of grief, and Rutgers is on a roll, but jeopardy means "trouble" and implies something being frantic. I see the connection to trouble but a trial is a calm thing, not frantic. Indemnity is something that is owed, like a debt to society. OJ only owed society one trial not two, which would be double indemnity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I understand but Ed called it double jeopardy. It is called double indemnity. 837642[/snapback] No, its called double murder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRic Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Nope. Ed really is right. When in doubt, try google or wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy I have bolded the area of your post which should concern you. No offense to Ed, he takes a lot of grief, and Rutgers is on a roll, but jeopardy means "trouble" and implies something being frantic. I see the connection to trouble but a trial is a calm thing, not frantic. Indemnity is something that is owed, like a debt to society. OJ only owed society one trial not two, which would be double indemnity. 837668[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts