O.J. Simpson to discuss killings 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. Simpson has agreed to an "unrestricted" interview with book publisher Judith Regan, Fox said. "O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade." The interview will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed." In a video clip on the network's Web site, an off-screen interviewer says to Simpson, "You wrote 'I have never seen so much blood in my life.'" "I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood," Simpson responds. Simpson, who now lives in Florida, was acquitted in a criminal trial of the 1994 killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was later found liable in 1997 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Goldman family. Messages left with Simpson and his attorney Yale Galanter were not immediately returned.

i was actually just going to post a thread about this. brilliant stuff.

Quote:
"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes,"

I find all of this quite hilarious

Lets see, if I was persecuted because I was wrongly judged by the system, then making a mockery ( writing a book on how he would do smth he was accused of ) wouldnt seem like such a bad idea, but the fact that he has kids makes this IMO innappropriate. I dont know if OJ actually killed anyone, but the evidence and his behaviour arent making him look innocent.

Everyone except the morons who let this asshole off the hook believe that O.J. did it. This is just further proof. If I ran things, Mr. Simpson would have be disposed of a long time ago.

What a douchebag...

... that's all I got to say on this one.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2006 at 00:30

Everyone except the morons who let this asshole off the hook believe that O.J. did it. This is just further proof. If I ran things, Mr. Simpson would have be disposed of a long time ago.

what, you mean the people of the jury who were in a position to make an informed opinion, unlike the general public?

if there was reasonable doubt about whether he did it, he should be found innocent. this was most likely the case.

There is no doubt. The topic of this thread proves it.

there may have been serious doubt raised in the court case.

yes, it does seem now as though he did it and is basically admitting it. However, the law states that a man cannot face trial for a crime more than once. This is to prevent a case being brought before the courts over and over again until the desired result of one party is found. A case can be brought back to court if evidence emerges that casts significant doubt on the juries conclusion and may have affected that conclusion had it brought up in court.

he's basically getting away with this because of a loophole in the law. there isn't any more evidence that he killed his wife. he's merely discussing how he would have done it, had he commited the crime. which he states that he didn't.

Is this cancelled now?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_en_tv/tv_simpson_interview

hooray. fox killed it. now if only they would kill OJ.

And he did kill them. He got off because he was a celeb with a good public image at the time (everyone loved him in those Hertz commercials and as Nordberg in the Naked Gun movies) and very expensive lawyers.

Wow...as if I had any respect for Fox to begin with, then they decide that this would be quality viewing...what has the world come to...

Written by -tom- on 20.11.2006 at 18:02

he's merely discussing how he would have done it, had he commited the crime. which he states that he didn't.

Wow. What innocent person would talk about hypothetical murder of someone he/she use to love? Does this seem normal? Appropriate? I can't wrap my mind around how anyone in the right mind would want to profit on something like this. Thank god it's cancelled.

Written by Guest on 21.11.2006 at 09:20

Wow. What innocent person would talk about hypothetical murder of someone he/she use to love? Does this seem normal? Appropriate? I can't wrap my mind around how anyone in the right mind would want to profit on something like this. Thank god it's cancelled.

it is an indirect admission of guilt, but it is not passable as evidence in a court of law. i stated that hes getting away with it because of a loophole in the law. you don't need to convince me of his guilt

anyway, im hoping that this show (or at least parts of it) end up leaked onto the internet. im sure im not the only one wanting to see this out of sheer curiosity.

The funny thing is (and I use the term loosely) he won the criminal trial, but lost a subsequent civil suit - another glorious victory for the US justice system.

But yes, this is not a legal admission of guilt... he's just rubbing this whole situation in the face of the public to make some quick cash - an amount that is, coincidentally, the exact same as the penalty from the civil suit was.

And, frankly, I really don't care about OJ Simpson's life and views enough to see "how he would have done it." It's just more trash TV in my eyes, and I refuse to give him my attention.