O.J. Simpson, "If I did it, here's how it happened!" on Fox!

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_en_mo/simpson_interview

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."

More at link.
 
Well, I've noticed that putting a "how I could have done it" program on TV is always the first step in finding the real killers!
 
Could the interview include a live re-enactment of the crime with Coulter posing as OJ's wife ? Pleeze.....
 
See... It's a clever plan. He'll take credit for it, then the real killer will get all mad and jealous from the attention he is getting and will call up and tell everybody it was him!

:tongout:
 
uscitizen said:
He was found innocent Rob.....
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly. He was found "not guilty" under the law -- but though this seems like splitting hairs, it isn't actually a finding of "innocent". Technically, it was the jury's finding that the prosecution didn't produce enough credible evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But they didn't find him "innocent". I know what most of us think of the OJ jury, but we're stuck with it.
 
He needs to replenish his cash flow, so he's gonna tantilize the public again. His way of going nahnah nahnah.

He's been searching every golf course he can find for the guy who did the murders.
 
Thorn said:
Well, not exactly. He was found "not guilty" under the law -- but though this seems like splitting hairs, it isn't actually a finding of "innocent". Technically, it was the jury's finding that the prosecution didn't produce enough credible evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But they didn't find him "innocent". I know what most of us think of the OJ jury, but we're stuck with it.
Click to expand...
But the presumption of innocence means that "not guilty" is the same thing as innocent.

I'll admit to being weird: I'm not convinced that he really did it. Must be because I live in Oakland (effectively).
 
I'll admit to being weird: I'm not convinced that he really did it.

You must not have followed the trial, or paid attention to the evidence. Simpson had a pair of very expensive Bruno Magli shoes, footprints at the scene match this shoe, and Simpson's Bronco had these footprints in a mixture of Ron and Nicole's blood. The shoes were never found. Ron and Nicole's blood was all inside of the Bronco! There is not a way this could have been planted or orchestrated by the police, it is impossible.

I didn't want to believe Simpson did it, and didn't think he did, until the victim's DNA turned up in his Bronco, there is no 'explaining' this. Johnny Cochran sensed an opportunity to appeal to the emotions of the jury, on a purely racial basis, in the wake of the Rodney King incident. To his credit, it worked, but it doesn't mean that O.J. Simpson didn't murder anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top