Qbasicnews.com

Quote:O.J. Simpson to Discuss Killings of Wife, Friend in Fox Interview and New Book

LOS ANGELES -- Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted, the network said.

The two-part interview, titled "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29, the TV network said.

Simpson has agreed to an "unrestricted" interview with book publisher Judith Regan, Fox said.

"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."

In a video clip on the network's Web site, an off-screen interviewer says to Simpson, "You wrote 'I have never seen so much blood in my life.'"

"I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood," Simpson responds.

Simpson, who now lives in Florida, was acquitted in a criminal trial of the 1994 killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was later found liable in 1997 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.

Messages left with Simpson and his attorney Yale Galanter were not immediately returned.

If you don't understand why this is wrong then I just don't know what to tell you.

What the hell. Here's what I imagine happening. OJ Simpson releases book shaming his ex-wife's and her friend's entire god damn families. An investigation starts looking for clues of "coming out" and admitting himself in the book by FBI agents. Evidence is found he murdered the fuck out of them. Next interview with him he will be in an orange jumpsuit.

Nothing could be done even if it was proven.

exactly what i was bout to say

Quote:Nothing could be done even if it was proven.

Why? If the law seriously can't pursue someone because at the time they couldn't prove it, then the law needs to be changed.

Quote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amend...nstitution

yeah. thats just the way the law works. thinking you can change it is foolish, there have been waaaay more cases than this where people blantantly admit they did it after the trial took place and no course of action can be taken against them.

for more information, read the constitution.

I think your country is broken ;-). Not that mine isn't too .

There may be other things that are broken, but the fifth amendment isn't. Without it, a person could be tried endlessly until the prosecutor got the verdict they wanted.

I would consider the ability for someone to be found not guilty, and then be able to freely admit to having been guilty, or for new conclusive, but unuseable evidence to be obtained, to be broken.

The UK had a similar Double Jeopardy law, but it was changed earlier this year to allow for retrials in serious cases that had new evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy. It makes no sense if someone can avoid prosecution in a trial and then legally be free of punishment if they admit it.