I mean, if the networks allowed it he was going to talk about, hypothetically, if he did commit the murders how he would of done them. What is your take on this?
2006-12-19 00:51:22 · 6 answers · asked by Kain 5 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
YES, it was too far! Why would ANYONE try and make money off such a horrific event? (He said to make money for his kids, not EVEN good enough!)
2006-12-19 00:57:16 · answer #1 · answered by Tweet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a person found "not guilty" OJ has freedom of speech rights and has done nothing to be censored. The chapter of "If I did it" is hypothetical and labeled fiction and a great part of the book is likely OJ defending himself against false allegations. The book should have been made available and people have a CHOICE whether to read it or not. One way to approach his acquittal is to consider some of what the jury saw. They heard the Fuhrman tapes where he made highly derogatory statements about blacks then lied underoath. The lead investigator in charge of the whole case freely admitted in court that he took a vial sample of OJ's blood from the lab and carried it back into the crime scene, which is against police policy. No murder weapon was ever found and there weren't any witnesses. The "found" glove didn't fit - wrong size (heat shrinks, moisture doesn't). The jury was intelligent enough to analysis the evidence. A slow speed drive at 30 mph to his own house is not indicative of guilt. Some may disagree with the jury verdict but it's unfair to state with absolute certainty that this person is guilty. Simpson has always maintained his innocence. Likely the "If i did it" title and chapter was decided by the publisher and network for the sensational value which they thought would translate into higher book sales and higher TV ratings for the interview.
2006-12-19 01:33:17 · answer #2 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The issue here is that he could even think of such a thing. This actually appears more like a killer celebrating his kill. If you watch any of the crime shows, the killers often relive their murders.
O.J. appears to be reliving his murders by suggesting that he would do things another way next time. I think he did commit those murders and I think he is reveling in getting away with it.
By the same token, I am happy that he got off at trial. Tampering with evidence is wrong and no one should be convicted based upon evidence tampering.
What he really needs to do is to keep his mouth shut on the entire issue and just live his life. It seems as though he got greedy on this one and so did Fox. Firing the lead publisher was just a way of finding a scapegoat. If so many people had not been outraged, Fox would have gone ahead with their plans.
Take care,
Troy
2006-12-19 01:05:45 · answer #3 · answered by tiuliucci 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i have believed he was guilty since the day i seen him in a police chase , no innocent person runs from the police for a crime they did not commit,
2006-12-19 00:58:31 · answer #4 · answered by Tara 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ went too far by killing those people.
2006-12-19 01:57:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think he did. He was gonna say how he did it and let the world know how easy it is to get away with murder if you have the money and you are able to play the race card
2006-12-19 00:59:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋