# OJ to discuss hypothetical account of murders in interview

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-to-discuss-hypothetical-account-of-murders-in-interview/380502>\
**Category:** Cafe Society\
**Created:** [November 15, 2006, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-to-discuss-hypothetical-account-of-murders-in-interview/380502 "2006-11-15T08:25:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-to-discuss-hypothetical-account-of-murders-in-interview/380502/41 "2006-11-19T15:59:24Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]  
We know that Simpson is protected from further criminal prosecution because of the existence of the double jeopardy clause. However, Since this book and interview are a confession,  
[/quote]

All I know about the book is the title, but that title doesn’t seem to me to constitute a confession. Is there something else from the book or interview which does constitute a confession?

I think there was a thread on the dope some months ago where it was discovered that it actually is possible to prosecute somebody for a crime they were acquitted of, if they later confess to it. (The thread was asking what happens if a person is found not guilty, and its entered into the record, but immediately there in the courtroom the person then laughs and declares that he actually did do it.) I can’t find the thread, and I don’t remember what the argument was, so maybe I’m remembering wrong.

-FrL-

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-to-discuss-hypothetical-account-of-murders-in-interview/380502.md?page=2)