• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow... I am speechless

zenith-nadir

Illuminator
Z
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
4,482
Sure this is about a celebrity... but it is a current event and social issue as well.

O.J. Simpson to discuss killings

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade.

The interview will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed."

Wh...wh....wh....wh....WHAT!?!?! A two-part "event" & book where OJ will discuss how he would have committed the murders? I am speechless.
 
Looks like a rather "alternative" idea to clear his name? Aquitted in a criminal trial, found liable in civil court.

Might backfire on Simpson—but after being the accused in "the trial of the century" I can see why team OJ would contemplate something like this. As for why Fox would, need you ask . . .?

I understand what appears to be your revulsion, but that would probably be part of the intent of this.
 
It's in incredibly bad taste, sure, but it's legal. The American public can freely choose not to watch him on tv, and not to buy the book when it comes out. If they choose to give OJ their attention and money, then he's not to blame -they are.
 
I guess I am [SIZE=-1]naïve[/SIZE]. If a loved one of mine was murdered horribly and I didn't do it, wink wink, I would never actively participate in a scheme to profit off how I would have murdered my loved one.

It boggles the mind that this would even be contemplated, let alone produced AND published.
 
Yeah, a bit disgusting considering he has yet to pay a dime to the Brown family that won the lawsuit against him.
 
Sabra said:
It boggles the mind that this would even be contemplated, let alone produced AND published.
Click to expand...

We should all have seen this coming. After all, the Movie of the Week deal about Simpson's acquittal didn't materialize (with Merideth Baxter Bierney playing the tortured Mrs. Simpson) and no one wanting to buy a used football trophy what was Simpson to do . . . play golf?
 
Sabra said:
I guess I am [SIZE=-1]naïve[/SIZE]. If a loved one of mine was murdered horribly and I didn't do it, wink wink, I would never actively participate in a scheme to profit off how I would have murdered my loved one.

It boggles the mind that this would even be contemplated, let alone produced AND published.
Click to expand...
Well . . . if I was innocent of a crime, but had been subjected to 133 days of television testimony with associated trial by media, culminating in a not guilty verdict which was watched by "one half of the US population" and many from other countries, and was wrongly found liable in a civil case and had had to contend with the mass public believing I was a murderer for a decade . . . if that's what happened, I might do a lot of things such as this. The fact that the murder victim had been a loved one would probably be so deep in history as to be scarcely relevant any more.
 
Actually, if my wife were murdered (not wink, wink) I would never do such a thing no matter how much they paid me.

Hence it's just more statistical evidence he did it. Someone needs to "take care of business" with him, like Dahmer in prision.
 
We should all have seen this coming. After all, the Movie of the Week deal about Simpson's acquittal didn't materialize with Merideth Baxter Bierney playing the tortured Mrs. Simpson.
Click to expand...
She was the ex-Mrs Simpson, which is a salient point underlining the entire, sordid affair. "The tortured Mrs Simpson?" She got out (which was probably a good idea) of a marriage that wasn't working well. (Which IMO is the central tradegy of her life: Nicole and Orenthal James could not find a way to make their marriage work. One, or both, of them didn't put in enough effort. )
I guess I am naïve. If a loved one of mine was murdered horribly and I didn't do it, wink wink, I would never actively participate in a scheme to profit off how I would have murdered my loved one.
Click to expand...
How an ex wife with whom one had a history of calls to police is still "a loved one" is an open question. That his children by her were "loved ones" does not appear to be in doubt.
It boggles the mind that this would even be contemplated, let alone produced AND published.
Click to expand...
You underestimate the bad taste in American TV production by an order of magnitude.
Well . . . if I was innocent of a crime, but had been subjected to 133 days of television testimony with associated trial by media, culminating in a not guilty verdict which was watched by "one half of the US population" and many from other countries, and was wrongly found liable in a civil case and had had to contend with the mass public believing I was a murderer for a decade . . . if that's what happened, I might do a lot of things such as this.
Click to expand...
The appearance of "double jeopardy" in this case is yet another marker against public confidence in a fair legal system. Combine the incompetence in the DA's office (Belosi's Outrage is an argument for that position), or the "assault with a deadly lawyer" habits among those with the means to do so, and you end up with a Bob Dylan lyric describing California as a place

"Where justice is a game"

OJ played a game (football), and made himself rich doing so. He is now playing another game, and means to win.

DR
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Hence it's just more statistical evidence he did it.
Click to expand...
This was my gut reaction but I don't accept it on further thought. Per my previous post I don't find it hard to mentally simulate a motivation for doing something like this if innocent, and subjected to all that I list.

It's "evidence that he did it" if you think he did it already. On less biased analysis I don't think it is.
 
Disgusting to say the least!
A man who got his wife murdered writes about HOW HE MIGHT have comitted the murder?
To me it has always been clear that OJ was involved (direct or indirect) in the murder, no matter what any court says...

I wonder how his kids feel about this?
 
I for one won't watch it, read it, or listen to people talking about. (I see the contadiction of me writing this here, BTW, but I'm done after this post.)

It just doesn't matter to me. I think he did it, now he's going say how he would have done it? I can do that. A gun. A car. A knife. A candlestick. Who cares what he says?

We all have better things to do.
 
Sabra said:
Sure this is about a celebrity... but it is a current event and social issue as well.

O.J. Simpson to discuss killings

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade.

The interview will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed."

Wh...wh....wh....wh....WHAT!?!?! A two-part "event" & book where OJ will discuss how he would have committed the murders? I am speechless.
Click to expand...
What network should I be sending letters/emails to the sponsors of will be hosting this filth in semi-human form?:mad: :mad: :mad: :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp
 
How else is OJ going pay for all those green fees when he's out searching for the killers on all those Florida golf courses?

Charlie (my heart goes out to the victims) Monoxide
 
I must admit I never followed the trial, so I don't have an opinion on whether he did it or not.

I just find it odd that a guilty man would be doing such a thing. Why risk bringing this back to the public's attention?

:boggled:
 
Pardalis said:
I must admit I never followed the trial, so I don't have an opinion on whether he did it or not.

I just find it odd that a guilty man would be doing such a thing. Why risk bringing this back to the public's attention?

:boggled:
Click to expand...
He went to USC on a football scholarship, not an academic scholarship. ;)

DR
 
If he's innocent, he is desperate to clear his name.

If he's guilty, he's either the most moronic murderer or the most despicable one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom