After his book about how he would commit a murder, do you think it was a confessional or fiction?
2006-12-20 12:29:18 · 29 answers · asked by damn straight shortie 2 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Is the pope catholic?
do fish need water?
Is the sky blue?
do you get fat if you eat at mcdonalds?
2006-12-20 12:41:42 · answer #1 · answered by dotcombust007 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The book "if i did it" deals with one chapter that is hypothetical and labeled fiction - a great part of the book likely is OJ defending himself against false allegations. Possibly 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.
The best way to approach his acquittal is to consider 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. The jury saw a video taken by paparazzi of OJ, Nicole, Denise and their parents talking in a nice peaceful manner right after attending OJ/Nicole's daughter's dance recital - and Denise even kissed and hugged OJ (all this was a few short hours before the crimes). There never was the amount of blood on OJ's body, clothes, car or house consistent with someone who had done this crime in person. The jury saw that the glove truly did not fit - it was the wrong size (heat shinks not moisture). The murder weapon was never connected to OJ or even found. There were no witnesses. The jury was taken to OJ's house and did not see a rumored large blood trail. OJ's 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. OJ has always maintained his innocence.
2006-12-21 11:16:56 · answer #2 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There has never in the history of murder been more evidence against an accused than that of OJ Simpson. Without video or witness I must add. DNA everywhere In OJs car Bloody finger prints on and on. The people that acquited OJ were either racists or very stupid.
2006-12-20 20:38:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the book would have answered any questions. Yes he did it, there are people serving life terms with 1/1000 the evidence against them that OJ had. I wonder what his kids are thinking now that they are young adults? That is the book I want to read.
2006-12-20 20:58:06 · answer #4 · answered by tenbadthings 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably - he had a history of domestic violence with her (in particular, seeing her with another man who he thought she was sexually involved with was a triggere for OJ) and nobody else had either motive or opportunity.
With that said, the LAPD messed up the case, and they had a racist detective, with a history of violent bias against Black men who were sexually involved with White women, be the primary on the case. Unlike most Black men, OJ was a millionare, so he had the resources to use the state's appearance of racial bias as a means to beat the case.
2006-12-20 20:36:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you ever get a chance, watch Juror Number Five. It's a documentary of one of the jurors on the civil case (not the criminal case). I will say this, if all of the evidence that was presented at the civil trial had made it into the criminal trial, he'd still be in jail for the crime he most certainly did commit.
2006-12-20 20:38:10 · answer #6 · answered by glitterkittyy 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That book was a $3 million paid confession.
With double jeopardy laws in America, OJ could go on TV and shout, "HELL YEAH, I KILLED THE WHITE WHORE, AND IT MAKES ME COME RIGHT NOW JUST THINKING ABOUT IT!!!!", and there's nothing the law could do about it. Sadly.
2006-12-20 20:37:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Does the Pope go to church? I think he was looking to make money because he has nothing anymore and he can try and buy friends if he can be at the right places.
2006-12-20 21:33:30 · answer #8 · answered by justme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, I believe he was probably guilty but I did not see all the evidence. I bet that if he was guilty, he would be smart enough to insert some fiction but I might be wrong.
2006-12-20 20:52:23 · answer #9 · answered by rostov 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He did it, as far as his wife being a whore, well she left him and he went after her, what about Ron Goldman, why did he have to murder him, why, because he was a witness.
2006-12-20 20:38:39 · answer #10 · answered by glasgow girl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋