![]() |
Good Taste Is Timeless (Mr. Simpson and Planned FOX Interview)
Hard to believe, but it's being reported many places -- ABC, NBC, etc. Here's an ABC story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ory?id=2654088 |
Gah, this is disgusting.
Apparently the interviewer is the publisher of the book so this is nothing more than an hour of advertising for it. What kind of balls do you have to have to say "I didn't do it, but here's how I would have done it. It's all based on the evidence that points to me doing it, even though I didn't do it" BLEH |
Quote:
1. Broke -> 2. Write obscenely sensational book explaining murder, but in hypothetical so as to not 'accidently' introduce new information and evacuate double jeopardy protection -> 3. Promote -> 4. Lose nothing from (completely awful) public perception -> 5. Buy yacht |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Especially if he can do it in a completely insulting and awful fashion, maybe? |
just the thought of it is disturbing...you would have to be a really disturbing person to "recreate" a muder scene and descibe all those little details.. (assuming that he "didn't" do it) :mad:
|
Quote:
I don't think the family has collected much if anything from him and I read somewhere that he pulls in 2-3 million a year. The guy charges $125 for an autograph... and people pay it! |
So is he looking back and telling people how he should have killed ron & nicole. maybe try to cover up some of the overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him? He shouldn't have worn his bruno mali shoes and he shouldn't have dropped his glove. what is he trying to prove? anybody with any kind of sense knows he killed those two. And what about his kids? I feel so bad for them, it's bad enough their father killed their mom, but know dad has to write a book about it...come on.
|
Quote:
His glove? It didn't even fit! And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best. I don't think the guy is totally innocent, but then again, I don't think the prosecutors should have gone to trial without good evidence. |
Quote:
TV and movies notwithstanding, plenty of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's also one of the key strategies they used to get him off - "So the DNA match is one in 1.5 million? So there are all of TEN other people in the LA area that might match? OMG ACQUIT" . . . never mind that the actual figure was 99.99998% match, not "1 in 1.5mil will match." Pretty impressive swap, actually - God bless cognitive dissonance. We've kind of bastardized the term "reasonable doubt" - thank God we've stopped using "beyond a shadow of a doubt" on any shows . . . ugh |
Quote:
The OJ Simpson trial was lost because Christopher Darden and Marcia Clark did a crappy job of prosecuting. They left out key evidence, left out taped statements made by Simpson which were extremely incriminating, and they did a bad job of studying juror statistics during the selection process. The evidence that they did have was pretty damn strong......but I don't think the utilized it at all. You should read Vincent Bugliosi's book on the case.......its a good one. |
He also tried to put the glove on over a latex glove. Try that sometime and tell me how it works.
The jurors who were interviewed after the fact said that the DNA evidence was too complicated so they just ignored that. There was more physical evidence for OJ killing those two than there was for Scott Peterson killing Lacy. |
I was on I-10 near Sepuldeva when OJ went buckwild on the freeway...
Traffic totally sucked that day... |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.