O.J Simpson has confessed to Oprah Winfrey that he murdered his former wife

[Beachguyj]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Oprah-TV-interview-planned.html#ixzz1Q2gXln6y

'He told the producer: "Tell Oprah that yes, I did it. I killed Nicole, but it was in self-defence. She pulled a knife on me and I had to defend myself",'

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

I don't believe it. Not because I don't want to believe it, I just don't care for the spectacle this will cause(like his insipid book tried to do).

 

[looseliam]

It's sad that some people still care.

 

[Asenath]

Are people believing stories covered in the Daily Fail?

 

[scrapple]

The really guilty party is that moronic jury that acquitted this double murderer.

 

[cityboy-stl]

It's a lie!

I've been in prisons several times -- never, EVER heard a convict admit he'd ever been guilty of anything. Never.

You're an ex-con?

 

[cityboy-stl]

^ I just thought I'd ask. You look and seem too nice to have been in prison several times.

 

[Telstra]

If he did confess, shouldn't he go to jail for 2 murders?

 

[FPNY]

He can't be retired on charges he has been aquited of, it's double jeopardy.


I think I have to call bs on this. I don't see oj confessing to the crime. I think he has convinced himself that he really didn't do this, Even though he clearly did. He nearly severed that woman's head, there was a lake of blood on the crime scene, his partial fingerprint on the fence gate. Don't forget the stupid car chase, and the infamous glove. I'd be shocked to hear him fess up, I don't think he has the balls to.

 

[gsdx]

Are people believing stories covered in the Daily Fail?

I think I have to call bs on this. I don't see oj confessing to the crime.

But... but... the National Enquirer says it's true, too!!

According to the National Enquirer, the interview is set to be filmed after Simpson confessed he killed the pair in self-defence to a producer from inside prison

 

[Ninja108]

The jury acquited OJ because the DA didn't do her job and the racist cop didn't help either.

 

[laikaNYC]

The jury acquited OJ because the DA didn't do her job and the racist cop didn't help either.

The racial make up of the jury was why. That jury wouldn't have convicted him even if they had video of him committing the act.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/jurypage.html

 

[laikaNYC]

^ Do you believe he was in fact innocent?

 

[Telstra]

He can't be retired on charges he has been aquited of, it's double jeopardy.


I think I have to call bs on this. I don't see oj confessing to the crime. I think he has convinced himself that he really didn't do this, Even though he clearly did. He nearly severed that woman's head, there was a lake of blood on the crime scene, his partial fingerprint on the fence gate. Don't forget the stupid car chase, and the infamous glove. I'd be shocked to hear him fess up, I don't think he has the balls to.

Its not about retried.
If he himself said he did it, that is the end of the story. He did it, guilty and go to jail.

 

[medic1]

From the viewpoint of a guy from the UK i can remember watching the car-chase
and then subsequently being glued to the news and watching the trial on tv.
As you can imagine it was a huge story outside the borders of the USA and
after the jury came back with their verdict it was front page news almost
everywhere. The main concensus that my friends and i agreed on was that if
you had the money and could afford if not the best then the most lawyers and
PR people and were a household name then American justice seemed to work
on a tiered or points system.
We were all amazed that the trial turned out the way it did and as another poster
has said people do seem to forget the two victims that were so brutaly murdered.
It does seem to an outsider looking in that if you have the money and the name
then yes it can make justice if you want to call it that a thing that you can if not
buy,then maybe hire for the duration.

 

[Telstra]

From the viewpoint of a guy from the UK i can remember watching the car-chase
and then subsequently being glued to the news and watching the trial on tv.
As you can imagine it was a huge story outside the borders of the USA and
after the jury came back with their verdict it was front page news almost
everywhere. The main concensus that my friends and i agreed on was that if
you had the money and could afford if not the best then the most lawyers and
PR people and were a household name then American justice seemed to work
on a tiered or points system.
We were all amazed that the trial turned out the way it did and as another poster
has said people do seem to forget the two victims that were so brutaly murdered.
It does seem to an outsider looking in that if you have the money and the name
then yes it can make justice if you want to call it that a thing that you can if not
buy,then maybe hire for the duration.

If it was in the UK or Australia, he would have been found guilty along time ago.
No media circus or hoopla allowed inside the court.

 

[chrisrobin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Oprah-TV-interview-planned.html#ixzz1Q2gXln6y

'He told the producer: "Tell Oprah that yes, I did it. I killed Nicole, but it was in self-defence. She pulled a knife on me and I had to defend myself",'

CONTRADICTION ALERT:
If the above is true, what is to be done with the "Colombian drug dealers" alibi?
The worst punishment that what's-his-name could get would be a life sentence of no press coverage - no exceptions! And that means YOU TOO Oprah.

 

[kallipolis]

He got off because 1) it was poorly prosecuted and 2) mistakes were made at the crime scene.

The LA prosecutors were so incompetent (and media attention hungry) that the humour at the time suggested that Hitler had been conveniently discovered living in Bolivia, and his defence team had arranged for him to be tried in LA.

The crime scene investigators were also incompetent in their investigations.
The current fad for television CSI related police shows suggests that such work is a fluid flow of scientifically driven efficiency. Reality suggests otherwise; although such investigations have improved considerably since the OJ crime scene disaster.

Factor in the defence dream team's patient, and efficient dismantling of the prosecution's case............ and the verdict was no surprise.

The OJ murder trial also enabled we foreigners to appreciate something of the racial divide in the United States.

 

[LittleDove]

^ Do you believe he was in fact innocent?

Johan's, or yours, or my opinions as to whether he was guilty or innocent probably don't matter much, except as a matter of conversation.

So it's perhaps instructive to look at an opinion which does matter:

...this court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is actually innocent.

In other words, 'actual innocence' -- and by inference it may be presumed 'actual guilt', for that matter -- have no bearing on the issue, so long as all the legal Ts have been crossed and the proper Is dotted, according to Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

 

[frankfrank]

^ Do you believe he was in fact innocent?

Somebody said, of the police, that "They framed a guilty man."

I always believed that he "did it" but unwarranted police meddling and misconduct compromised the crime scene enough that the proof, which probably was initially intact, was turned into something ambiguous because of the meddling.

He likely would have been convicted if not for evidence being destroyed or compromised.