Oh, sorry; I misunderstood. In that case, it’s the price we pay to have due process. Sometimes we get trials with what seem like patently ridiculous outcomes (like rich, famous people getting away with murder while poor, anonymous people get railroaded).
Really, what can one say about Simpson? It’s the people who treat him like a celebrity who’d I’d like to talk to. Is there any difference, anymore, between fame and infamy?
There are already a couple threads about this in different forums, and I don’t want to start a new one, so if I’m allowed to slightly hijack this thread, I’d like to take a poll of whether or not people plan to watch the interview. Be honest now. :dubious:
I don’t think I can bring myself to do that. Given that this seems like a confession, I’m interested in the details of what he has to say, but I don’t need to watch him actually tell it.
And if, by some ridiculous chance, he’s innocent and just fabricating this to make money and get himself back in the limelight, then he’s completely free to go fuck himself.
I was very amused this morning watching the KTLA news do man-on-the-street interviews to get people’s reactions about the interview and book. They got ahold of one character who had no problem calling Simpson a “pathetic whore” and saying the whole affair was complete bullshit. The interview was being shown taped, so they had a chance to bleep that out, but I couldn’t help but wonder if the guy had been interviewed live during an earlier segment of the news. 
I won’t.
Frankly, I’m astonished that anybody who is not directly involved in the incident still cares about it, but I can’t really judge people for what they’re interested in.
It was self defense. Nordberg wouldn’t kill anybody.
No. In fact I can’t imagine who would. There two camps regarding OJ - a vocal minority who still barks and snarls with rage over the outcome of his case over a decade later (meanwhile, Robert Blake who?), and the rest of the world who couldn’t give a crap.
And my point was that I’m a little suspicious of the idea that it’s a simple “either/or” proposition between “swine like OJ go free” and “Star chamber-controlled Juntas.”
Err, the vocal minority barking and snarling with rage were, as I perceive it, those who thought he was innocent.
I don’t have any idea what poll numbers may show, but I think he is guilty as hell, and I bet a large, mostly nonvocal, majority agrees with me.
Oops. To answer the OP, I have intention to watch this show.
Where on EARTH have you perceived anyone barking and snarling with rage about his innocence? Even if there are people adamant about his innocence, they’d have nothing to be enraged about - he was acquitted.
Things like this should help legislation to get passed that would prevent (or make it illegal in and of itself) for folks to get past Civil Judgments in the fashion that OJ is presumably doing… Meaing that whatever ‘loophole’ OJ is using needs to be closed, and whomever/whatever is being used to prevent the lawful orders of the court from being followed needs to be prosecuted.
That, coming from a person who believes that “Wrongful Death” suits such as this one are a form of Double Jeapordy… that if a person is aquitted of the crime, they shouldnt be sued to hell and back for the death.
The criminal charge of murder requires a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, while a civil suit for wrongful death requires only preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not). The two actions are different in parties, punishments, and a much different standard of evidence.
Has anybody speculated on who this accomplice was whom Simpson reportedly says was with him that night, stalking Nicole at her home? I’m guessing long-time friend and Ford Bronco driver Al Cowlings.
Please do not watch this show.
Crap. NO intention.
I think I know the answer to this question, though I’ve never dealt with this kind of money. I work in the legal department of a collection agency in Georgia.
We don’t pursue judgments against people in Florida, it’s too difficult. Each state gets to make up its own rules for garnishment of wages and property and Florida is a state that makes it very difficult to actually take monies owed. You can sue someone and get a judgment, but if the defendant does not voluntarily allow you to withhold wages, in Florida, and the defendant is the head of household, which OJ could be considered, then any money he earns is untouchable.
There are a few states that are considered “debtor’s havens” and Florida is one of them.
Weird. Can property be confiscated or anything like that instead?
-FrL-
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, and since Simpson cites an accomplice, this accomplice is not protected by this clause and can be criminally prosecuted, providing that his identity can be extracted from Simpson’s book.
Also, according to reports by Fox News, Simpson has already spent the bulk of the 3.5 million given to him for the book, paying off his home in Miami, and another home outside of the country.
My thoughts exactly. And if the accomplice can be leaned on, he might be able to spill something that would get OJ incarcerated for at least a little while. OJ couldn’t be tried with the murders of Goldman and Brown, but if, for example, Cowlings (or Kato “I’m the guy who hangs with OJ for no apparent reason, but maybe I’m the guy who goes and buys drugs for him, though no one ever asks me about that” Caitlin), actually was the one who whacked Goldman, then OJ could be tried as an accessory to his murder.