OJ 'confession'

Ridiculous news from across the pond.

It must have seemed like a good idea to someone. The man most Americans believe is behind their country's most infamous murder agrees to a virtual confession in a book and TV interview. Surely it would be a ratings and publishing smash.

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

It has been cancelled now though

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Damien

It has been cancelled now though

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

[Gareth]

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by yesman

how OJ Simpson has not been put back in the dock is beyond belief.....

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.

[Jules]

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!

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Jules

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!

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.

[Jules]

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

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.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

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

indeed

---------- 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.

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.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

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

During the June 15, 1995 court session, Simpson put on the gloves and they appeared to be too small. The prosecution contends that the gloves, once drenched in blood, have shrunk.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/evidence/glove/

Originally Posted by TheNorm

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/evidence/glove/

Theory that has never been proven, iirc

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Theory that has never been proven, iirc

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.

...And I would say simply that it goes from a man's size to a lady's size. It's very much smaller. But either way, it's incredible shrinkage.

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

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.

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.

[Caff]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

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.

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.