OJ 'confession'
 

Ridiculous news from across the pond.

Murdoch looks like he has done a bad bit of business for a change, but how OJ Simpson has not been put back in the dock is beyond belief.....

It would seem that if you are a superstar with a large deposit in your bank account, you can pay for good lawyers to get you off the hook...

After reading the press at the time of the murder, all reports seemed to point to Simpson as the guilty party, (it would appear that the majority of Americans think that too), so why has this book been allowed to be published along with a TV interview about his assumptions of what might have been if he had commited the murder so soon after the event.

American law seems more like a soap opera to me, especially in this case, and I am heartened that most Americans are of the same opinion.

Link

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

It has been cancelled now though

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

yep, fox wanted to air it, but murdoch stepped in after the media and public started turning against the idea :erm:

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

How bizarre... not about Murdoch or Fox, but that Simpson would do such a thing. Very strange :(

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

Not really. Protection against double jeopardy is in the US constitution.

---------- Post added at 02:06 ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 ----------

Also isn't beyond belief is the Guardian's usual stance of telling what to believe (we should hate Murdoch, in case noone noticed), in what's really a straight forward story, which is supposed to be about Simpson, instead of Murdoch.

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

He was as guilty as sin, I watched the case and how they could find him not guilty is beyond me, even one of his lawyers looked shocked when the verdict was announced!

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

If I remember correctly, the jury were instructed to ignore some of the evidence, as the people giving the evidence had lied under oath about something else.

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

Yeah and it didn't help that one of the policemen giving evidence was proved to have lied and was known to have used racist comments in the past :(

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

I personally think it was the fact the damned glove didn't even fit him.

Yeah you would have thought they would have discovered that BEFORE getting to court.

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

indeed

---------- Post added at 02:06 ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 ----------

not sure i follow you but it was a murdoch imprint whioch was to publish the book, murdoch's fox to broadcast the interviw and murdoch radio franchies to boot - though some refused which may have been the last straw for rupes. the story is then about both oj and murdoch, murdoch having provided a multi-media platform which began with the advance for the book.

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

Theory that has never been proven, iirc

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

Professor Herbert MacDonell, director of the Laboratory of Forensic Science in New York, testified about an experiment he performed on a pair of extra large Aris light gloves smeared in blood.

http://simpson.walraven.org/sep18.html

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

Well, how relevent is Murdoch to the article? Not at all. It doesn't matter who's publishing or not publishing it. Its interesting to know who publishing it, but it shouldn't constitute the major direction of the article. It should be about OJ, shouldn't it?

I just think its ridiculous and makes The Granuiad look stupid. Its not even subtle. I am not saying most other media outlets are better, as people read what they want to read. I don't think TG should be so holier-than-thou about it though.

Re: OJ 'confession'
 

Has anyone ever tried to slide on their leather gloves over surgical ones?
Ermm- for a laugh at the ridiculousness of the 'test' my friend did. 'tis difficult to say the least. That test convinced me that he was guilty. It was a farce.