"IF I DID IT.." - Why bother with 'IFs' OJ?
They were brutally murdered some 12 years ago. Yet Nicole Simpson and Roland Goldman were hardly just another statistic on the murder records. This was BIG NEWS not just in America but in the rest of the world. The sheer goriness of the crime, the memory of American sports star OJ Simpson being pursued by the police, and the “trial of the century” that followed is hardly something that people are likely to forget about.
So it strikes me as nauseating, insensitive and in shockingly poor taste that OJ Simpson has written a book and is going to appear on the FOX TV two-hour special called “ If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened” to discuss the murders in a hypothetical sense.
I can’t help but ask the blaringly obvious –
• How sick does someone have to be to try and make a profit of a tragedy?
Very Sick it seems. The truth is I don’t even think I’m shocked by OJ Simpson’s audacity to write his book or participate is in this twisted show. It’s common knowledge that he appeared in a DVD called Juiced in which he makes frequent jokes about the murders and his trial. What kind of monster would make sick jokes about the mother of his children? The kind that gets away with murder actually.
• Can he actually write a book or talk about the murders?
I’m not at all acquainted with the nuances of American criminal and civil law but I have a feeling that there is something in the law. which prohibits convicted murderers from actually profiting from their crimes, whether it involves earning royalties from book sales or television. In the case of OJ Simpson as he was not actually convicted of the murders, he is in a sense free to write books, appear on television and indulge his sick mind in “how it happened scenarios”.
• Can he be re- tried or prosecuted for something in relation to this case?
Whether OJ Simpson could go back to court, because of something he says on TV, is a tricky question to answer but I’m sure people will be asking this question and examining the loopholes none the less.
OJ Simpson can’t actually be re-tried for the murders under the Bill of Rights. But, I remember reading somewhere that double jeopardy is not absolute . So he could find himself in court if he is found guilty of lying or perjury. Realistically, however, this is difficult to prove as Simpson never actually testified under oath at his own trial. At one point, he is said to have announced to the court, "I did not, could not, and would not have committed this crime," but he wasn't on the witness stand.
If Simpson “confesses” his guilt on National television, it’s possible that he could be closely examined for fraud or misleading the public, and the money he may have made over the past 12 years, from maintaining his innocence would be examined . But determining this as a confession will be difficult to prove because, if his sentences start with the phrase, “if I did it”, it gives him wriggle room. What could however, be damning to him, is if his hypothetical confession reveals any new information, about the case that only the killer could have known. This would probably set into motion some sort of civil or judicial action. But yet again, this is just a probability, and as I’ve said before I’m not knowledgeable enough on the subject of American Law.
NO one know what will actually be said by Simpson on the 27th of November, but needless to say that it will evoke the same kind of media frenzy and coverage that the trail did, along with lasting questions of IS HE GUILTY?
For my part, I am clear about what side of the fence I sit on. Whatever happens on November the 27th won’t sway my view of his guilt - not so much of the murders, but of his DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOUR since.
And, on that day I will be thinking about Nicole Simpson, Roland Goldman and their families. And I will be lamenting the loss of that fundamental sense of decency, respect for the dead and those that mourn them – something which clearly neither OJ Simpson nor the profit making TV station FOX seem to possess or care about.
So it strikes me as nauseating, insensitive and in shockingly poor taste that OJ Simpson has written a book and is going to appear on the FOX TV two-hour special called “ If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened” to discuss the murders in a hypothetical sense.
I can’t help but ask the blaringly obvious –
• How sick does someone have to be to try and make a profit of a tragedy?
Very Sick it seems. The truth is I don’t even think I’m shocked by OJ Simpson’s audacity to write his book or participate is in this twisted show. It’s common knowledge that he appeared in a DVD called Juiced in which he makes frequent jokes about the murders and his trial. What kind of monster would make sick jokes about the mother of his children? The kind that gets away with murder actually.
• Can he actually write a book or talk about the murders?
I’m not at all acquainted with the nuances of American criminal and civil law but I have a feeling that there is something in the law. which prohibits convicted murderers from actually profiting from their crimes, whether it involves earning royalties from book sales or television. In the case of OJ Simpson as he was not actually convicted of the murders, he is in a sense free to write books, appear on television and indulge his sick mind in “how it happened scenarios”.
• Can he be re- tried or prosecuted for something in relation to this case?
Whether OJ Simpson could go back to court, because of something he says on TV, is a tricky question to answer but I’m sure people will be asking this question and examining the loopholes none the less.
OJ Simpson can’t actually be re-tried for the murders under the Bill of Rights. But, I remember reading somewhere that double jeopardy is not absolute . So he could find himself in court if he is found guilty of lying or perjury. Realistically, however, this is difficult to prove as Simpson never actually testified under oath at his own trial. At one point, he is said to have announced to the court, "I did not, could not, and would not have committed this crime," but he wasn't on the witness stand.
If Simpson “confesses” his guilt on National television, it’s possible that he could be closely examined for fraud or misleading the public, and the money he may have made over the past 12 years, from maintaining his innocence would be examined . But determining this as a confession will be difficult to prove because, if his sentences start with the phrase, “if I did it”, it gives him wriggle room. What could however, be damning to him, is if his hypothetical confession reveals any new information, about the case that only the killer could have known. This would probably set into motion some sort of civil or judicial action. But yet again, this is just a probability, and as I’ve said before I’m not knowledgeable enough on the subject of American Law.
NO one know what will actually be said by Simpson on the 27th of November, but needless to say that it will evoke the same kind of media frenzy and coverage that the trail did, along with lasting questions of IS HE GUILTY?
For my part, I am clear about what side of the fence I sit on. Whatever happens on November the 27th won’t sway my view of his guilt - not so much of the murders, but of his DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOUR since.
And, on that day I will be thinking about Nicole Simpson, Roland Goldman and their families. And I will be lamenting the loss of that fundamental sense of decency, respect for the dead and those that mourn them – something which clearly neither OJ Simpson nor the profit making TV station FOX seem to possess or care about.
Comments
Yeesh.