OJ Simpson Interview on Fox News Channel....

I’m posting this in Great Debates because I have a feeling that it will turn into one at some point.

So, did anyone catch the interview that OJ did with Paula Zahn? I’d say he pretty much blew her out of the water. I think that she had a mission to make him look bad. But OJ was ready. He had a great answer to every question that she asked. He had verifiable information that his story was being slanted by the media in a bad way.

If I knew nothing about the OJ murder trial and then watched this interview, I would have believed that the man is, without much doubt, innocent of everything. Even the wife abuse allegations prior to the murders seem questionable at best.

And I laughed when I saw the look on Ms. Zahn’s face. She could not win. OJ was by far the more intelligent one. And you could see that it was burning her up inside.

I should admit that I thought the man was guilty all the way up until this interview. Now I’m not as sure.

Oh, please. He’s had, what, six years to do nothing but work up answers to every possible question? I’ll bet he’s even got himself half-convinced by now that he didn’t do it. I just read Dominck Dunne’s new book “Justice,” so I am moderately pissed-off about this all over again.

That’s what I thought, at first. But the answers that he gave were verifiable. For example, the media reported that when he was on the run, he had a travel bag that contained his passport and $10,000. Well, he always carried his passport in his travel bag, and he only had $3.67. This is proven by the fact that this is what he received when leaving prison. This is completely verifiable. He never had that kind of money with him.

And there were numerous instances in which he gives objective facts that support his claims. Facts about Mark Fuhrman, the limo driver, the shoes, the media, etc. were all given to support his position.

And the final point that he made was brilliant (in terms of ending the interview): The only people that weren’t corrupted by the media were the jurors. And they found him innocent unanimously.

Whether or not he’s had years to prepare for this or not, it takes a very intelligent person to remember everything without tripping up even once (unless he’s simply telling the truth). Also, he’s willing to take on all comers, as long as the interview is done live. He doesn’t want the media to twist his words around. And not many in the media are willing to allow him to do a live interview. Perhaps they’re afraid of something?

Is there a transcript available that you can link to, J.J.?

Also, I would point out that the jury did not find him innocent – they can’t do that. The jury found him not guilty. There’s a nontrivial difference there.

I don’t think they’re so much “afraid,” as they have no desire to give a public forum to a murderer. It’s been years, and I can’t off the top of my head refute what he said the other night, especially as I didn’t see the interview (and wouldn’t have watched it if I’d know it was on). But I wouldn’t believe a word he said—he’s been lying since the night he sliced two people to death.

The evidence was there that he did it. Plenty of evidence. More evidence than, sadly, the jury was allowed to hear. There is not the slightest shred of evidence of a police cover-up or framing (the same policemen who had let him get away with spousal abuse for years SUDDENLY decided to frame him for murder and concocted an elaborate Mission Impossible style plot on the spur of the moment?).

As far as the points you’ve mentioned: Mark Fuhrman’s racism has nothing to do with whether or not O.J. committed the murders. Furhman simply had no opportunity or reason to plant the glove, the blood and the DNA evidence. The shoes? There are plenty of photos of him wearing those shoes. Dunno what you mean by the limo driver and the media.

All I know is that a double murderer was set free by a jury that was too stupid, uninformed and racist to convict him.

Not having seen the interview . . .

How is it verifiable that he always carried around his passport? Didn’t he have an opportunity to ditch the alleged $10,000 he was carryinng when he got to his house? Would he be carrying 10g’s in his pocket or in a bag? If it was in his bag, wouldn’t that be left at his house, where he was taken into custody, rather than taken to jail with him?

IMHO, it is naive to believe that the jury was not corrupted by the press and the opportunity to make some quick $$$$ after the trial.

My sentiments exactly Eve. Bravo!

Um.

Not really. We have lots of people who remember everything without tripping up even once–they’re called “actors”. :wink:

Um, which jurors would those be? The ones in the criminal trial? Or the jurors in the civil trial, who found him guilty?

Er, this almost certainly has to do with the fact that he’s “old news” and not likely to increase their ratings/newsstand sales. They sucked all the juice out of “The Juice”, and he’s the only one who doesn’t seem to realize that the party’s over. He’ll have to wait another 15 years or so, for the “Where are they now?” nostalgia thing to kick in.

And the only reason Paula Zahn is giving him exposure is because she’s been covering the “O.J.” thing for years. So, far from “being on a mission to make him look bad,” for her it’s just another update. Ho hum, then on to the Next Big Thing–which as of today is Chandra Levy. http://www.foxnews.com/theedge/index.html
I seriously doubt whether Paula Zahn personally cares whether he did it or not. She dealt with him extensively back in 1996.
http://www.newstimes.com/archive96/oct2196/tvc.htm

Also in July 2000. (Incidentally, this was when Barbara Walters wouldn’t let him on her show-he was old news even back then.)

http://www.timesofindia.com/260700/26wrap8.htm

http://www.canow.org/Activist/0800.html

FoxNews wants money to provide a transcript. :frowning:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1585,00.html

So, no transcript link yet.

Anyway, Paula and O.J. evidently go way back together, she’s hardly a disinterested party when it comes to giving him screen time to air his views.

Oh, goodie! It’s the birth of the “O.J. Conspiracy Theory”! And I was there! I’m so happy.

:smiley:

I understand that OJ is old news and that 99% of people consider him a murderer. But unless you saw the crime occur, there has to be at least some doubt as to what happened (actually even if you saw what happened, there should still be some doubt, but we won’t get into that right now).

So we rely on information provided to us by the media. Now, even the media doesn’t really know what happened. But it does know what sells more newspapers and what creates more advertising revenue. That said, it’s still highly unlikely that every media source conspired to frame OJ. But OJ’s point was that they all just pick and chose the pieces of information that they wanted to go forward with. No media source is going to state that OJ really had no money, which would’ve made leaving the country pretty close to impossible. This doesn’t sell advertising.

12 jurors found him Not Guilty. And its statistically improbable that all 12 jurors were stupid and/or racist. Sorry, that’s just a bad argument. Its probably a much better argument to say that the jury in the civil trial was sufficiently influenced by the media to not have had the ability to make a fair decision. In fact, that’s what the appeal will be based on.

You mean this appeal that he already lost? AFAIK, he has not appealed it to the California Supreme Court.

“So we rely on information provided to us by the media.”

—No, we rely on information provided to us by the prosecution and the defense during the trial.

“And its statistically improbable that all 12 jurors were stupid and/or racist.”

—And ill-informed. You forgot ill-informed. AND the fact that the defense specifically CHOSE jurors who were stupid and/or racist, for their own purposes.

JJ, this whole post reminds me of one of those christian deals you find in great debates where somebody finds some new evidence on the subject. “Hey Athiests, what about this new proof?” or “Hey, this new movie will in minutes make you realize that a lifetime of knowledge was wrong!” Right.

Look, there was an overload of information from the OJ thing. There’s nothing new here. And there’s nothing redeeming here, not for OJ who is still a murderer or Paula Zahn who is still a fallen media personality in search of a career rebirth.

OK. OK. Hey, I’m not saying that OJ is innocent. It’s just that the interview that he gave was impressive in that he was very sharp and very confident in what he was saying. He was not a bumbling idiot, and even if he was lying through his teeth, he was very convincing. And I’ll repeat, that if you were on some other planet for the trial and then saw this interview and only this interview, I think that you’d believe the man was completely innocent.

Ho hum, here we go again. You are not comparing like with like. Criminal and civil trials apply different levels of proof and may follow different rules of evidence and procedure. The OP refers exclusively to the criminal trial and the jury’s acquittal.

I believe OJ probably did it, based on the probability of evidence as presented in the half dozen books I’ve read and all the other media sources, and on having visited what was the scene of the crime and OJ’s place, but I also believe the prosecution did a lousy job and failed to prove it - which, as we all know, is what counts. There’s no real need to slander the jury. Based on the merits of the prosecution’s case, I think they had little choice but to enter a Not Guilty verdict.

One of the best treatises I’ve ever read on the outcome of the trial is in Robin Lakoff’s The Language War. She explains both the brilliance of the defense and the inadequacy of the prosecution in terms of their language usage.

Jackknifed Juggernau said;

I dunno, Jack. I could see that guilt was burning OJ up inside. I only saw part of the interview, and I found his replies to be well rehearsed, at best. Not that she’s the best interviewer, to say the least.
Anyway, intelligence does not equal innocence.
Look at the dude, and listen to him. He did the deed.
He’s not a monster, nor is he a psychotic killer. That’s why he can’t pull off the innocent act. It’s wearing on him.
Peace,
mangeorge

Another thing O.J. constantly repeats is that he was willing to take a lie detector test as long as it would be admitted in court. He does this to try to show that he was fully willing to take such a test, because, heck, he didn’t do it!

But, if I’m not mistaken, aren’t lie detectors inadmissible in a court of law?

I caught most of the interview. Jackknifed Juggernaut: it’s nothing new that O.J. can make himself look innocent. He’s a con man, actor, manipulator, whatever you want to call it. I agree: if you only heard Simpson’s side of the story, you’d be convinced that he’s innocent. But why take his word for anything? Because it is less work to just sit and listen to O.J. than to to really research what happened. Everytime I have been blown away by O.J.'s powers of persuasion, and then experts on the case came on, they destroy his arguments. I’m not an expert, so I’m not going to debate the subject. What shocked me was a poll that showed that only 20% of African-Americans think that he is guilty.

I think what gets me is his whole attitude. His demeanor does not seem to me one of a person falsely accused.

At the trial, he seemed to happy, smirking, laughing, etc etc. He makes jokes about it occassionally.

Of course, this is just speculation on my part. I could be wrong. I’m just saying that I would think if he were falsely accused, he would be angrier…and well, more dignified, perhaps. He’s too cocky. And to accuse NICOLE of abusing HIM, well, that just burns me up.

He just comes off as an arrogant, smirking lout, giggling because he got away with murder. Now, this is JUST MY VIEW, it doesn’t mean that I’m right. Just how I see it.

O.J. was willing to give an interview six years later, so he is innocent. If he was so totally innocent, why did he cancel his first interview with Tom Brokaw right after the first trial. He’s never given any reason for that (boy, I would have loved to be in the NBC news studio when that happened).

Also, he has never said what he was doing during the time the murders were committed.