It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OJ Confesses In Tell-All Book

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
www.nationalenquirer.com...

OJ CONFESSES IN TELL-ALL BOOK

O.J. Simpson confesses to the bloody slaughter of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her pal Ron Goldman – and reveals he had an accomplice at the scene--in a bombshell new book!

Eleven years after Simpson was acquitted of the Murder of the Century, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that O.J. is being paid $3.5 million to describe the brutal knife attack blow-by-blow.




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Who cares? Why would you give more publicity to this? Anyone who has looked into this case realizes he did it - we don't need to pay him $ to hear his "blow by blow" description.






posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Wow! are we not surprised! Um O.J. are you gonna try on that glove again for us?



I gotta hand it to that guy he did this and got away and he's still running.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Who cares? Why would you give more publicity to this? Anyone who has looked into this case realizes he did it - we don't need to pay him $ to hear his "blow by blow" description.





I second that notion! There are more important things to be focusing on.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Keep in mind the source here...is THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER....................

How frikken factual are they? .....umm, not very....................

Even though I feel it in my heart OJ did this awfull thing, just because 'the national enquirer' says so does NOT make it a fact.
Is he really writing a book??? I dunno
Is he really confessing in this so called book? I doubt it.....

its the NATIONAL ENQUIRER for heck sakes so only they and 'BAT BOY' will know for sure.............

.................................................just sayin




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
it is great to have a good laugh from time to time. i was curious until i saw the source was national enquirer.


don't belive none of what that paper says they are a fictional tabliod paper...pureley fantasy entertainment...



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Anyone who has looked into this case realizes he did it


Really?

I "looked into this case". In fact I watched the entire trial live on CNN. I have not come to the realization that "he did it". Just the opposite.

The jury, who also "looked into this case" agrees with me.

Anyone who has looked into this case realizes that OJ Simpson was framed by the LAPD for this crime.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Didn't this jury used more alternates than any other trail? Constantly changing the jury in and out. I don't think there was left one orginal jury.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna
Who cares?


Everyone should.

Not because it's a celebrity thing .. but because a man who beat his wife; eventually killed her; and got away with it. Even after they were divorced, he killed her and got away with it and now he may be trying to make money off that murder he committed.

Everyone with half a brain knows OJ did it, or that at least he was involved.

This is an important story because -

1 - Domestic abuse is serious.

2 - Domestic abuse can lead to death of the abused.

3 - Divorce doesnt' necessarily mean the woman is safe.

4 - OJ STALKED his ex-wife. Stalking is serious.

5 - The race card was played in a major way and that is part of what got OJ off. True, the DA didn't do a good job. However, there was enough evidence to convict the man but the highly volitile race card was played over and over .. sometimes blatently and sometimes in a sneaky way. The race card and the justice system is involved.

6 - This shows some major blunders by the DA and police ... something to be learned from. (Example - The killers fingerprints that Mark Furman found on the gate that day were not collected.)

7 - If he finally confesses to what most Americans know to be true anyways WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Seriously .. what can be done about OJ? Nothing.

8 - The victims families will have a sense of relief that the truth is finally out. It won't help much, but every little bit of help for them is good.

9 - Statistically black America backed OJ. They rejoiced when he was found innocent. They supported him when he said he was going to go find 'the real killer' .. even though he spent most of the past 10 years looking for that 'real killer' on golf courses around the country.
So what will this do to the collective psyche of black America? Something or nothing? It should do something .. and sociologists will be watching.

10 - This brings into question the whole jury selection process. I remember reading that the first vote in the jury room was split along race - blacks said he was innocent and the two whites said guilty. Did the blacks say he was innocent because they really thought he was; because the DA didn't prove the case; or because they refused to convict a successful black man of killing his white-trash ex wife?? I believe it's because the DA didn't prove the case, but there WILL BE people who will raise the question.

11 - ALSO - he supposedly admits to an accomplice. Was it his football buddy or his son?? (or someone else entirely??) Either way, THAT person has not been tried for murder and they definately could be. That particular murder was a double murder and could easily have carried a death sentence. There was debate about going for the death sentence when OJ was on trial. So... MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL THESE POINTS ... there is a murder accomplice still roaming the streets. That is very imporant and EVERYONE should care about that.


edited to add #11 and for spelling.



[edit on 10/19/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
OJ How could you! I believed you!


/end sarcasm



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Let me get this straight... If it was true, and OJ confessed to the murder, is there absolutely no way that he can be stuck in jail? If someone is found innocent they can't be brought to trial, even with new evidence? Somehow I fail to see "fair" and scales of justice in the justice system...?

Edit: And on a side note - the murder is still unsolved? I thought there wasn't something like a "perfect crime"!? Riiight.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Gemwolf]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
lolz yeah i knew OJ did it but hey it doesnt matter because he got away with it by working the system and for that i give him props. but this is old news so w.e



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Let me get this straight... If it was true, and OJ confessed to the murder, is there absolutely no way that he can be stuck in jail? If someone is found innocent they can't be brought to trial, even with new evidence? Somehow I fail to see "fair" and scales of justice in the justice system...?

Edit: And on a side note - the murder is still unsolved? I thought there wasn't something like a "perfect crime"!? Riiight.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Gemwolf]




I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitations on murder.


Far as perfect crimes go, the perfect crime - imo - is one that isn't recognized as a crime.


Didn't OJ's "high" speed Bronco driver brag at one time that the knife would never be found?

I'm surprised as well that a publicity seeking nut-case hasn't shot OJ just to gain 15 minutes of fame.


I wonder too if Rosy Grier - who visited OJ in jail quite a few times - and was the recipient of OJ passing important information to him pertaining to OJ's guilt in the murder will ever come forward and tell what he knows?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Desert Dawg

Originally posted by Gemwolf
If it was true, and OJ confessed to the murder, is there absolutely no way that he can be stuck in jail?

I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitations on murder.


Once a person has been found innocent in a court of law, they can not be retried for the crime.

It's done. He can dance in the streets and say 'I FOOLED EVERYONE' ...and there isn't a blasted thing that can be done about it.

BUT .. if there was an accomplice and OJ obstructed justice in some way with that accomplice .. they might be able to get him on something like that because he wasn't put on trial for that.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Gemwolf, if my understanding of the law and the constitution is correct (and I'll admit it's unlikely to be), any attempt at trying him in those deaths again would be double jeopardy, regardless of any new evidence. In fact, my understanding is that he could even come out now and say he did kill them, and give a play by play on Oprah, and no one could (legally) touch him for it. New evidence or not, he was acquitted, so he's "safe".

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this...)

Personally, whether he did it or not I'm getting tired of hearing about it. It's been a full decade since the trial, and it just will not die. About the only thing that came out of it worth while were some good laughs on Jay Leno. And the Dancing Ito's.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
Gemwolf, if my understanding of the law and the constitution is correct (and I'll admit it's unlikely to be), any attempt at trying him in those deaths again would be double jeopardy, regardless of any new evidence. In fact, my understanding is that he could even come out now and say he did kill them, and give a play by play on Oprah, and no one could (legally) touch him for it. New evidence or not, he was acquitted, so he's "safe".

That's more or less how I understand it as well. But I thought the term "Double Jeopardy" meant that you couldn’t be convicted for the same crime twice, i.e. if OJ was convicted for the murder he couldn't be convicted a second time for the same crime. It makes sense that way round. But he was never convicted. I don't understand how a guilty person can go free because of "Double Jeopardy"? It just doesn't make sense.

Edit: Ah I see. It still doesn't seem fair, but it makes sense in a way:


The phrase "double jeopardy" stems from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This clause is intended to limit prosecutorial abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense, as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in harmony with the common law concept of res judicata, which prevents courts from relitigating issues and claims that have already been the subject of a final judgment.


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Gemwolf]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
No,Gem,Double Jeopardy means that you can't be tried twice for the same crime.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
O.J. Who??

**crawls back under rock**

Been so long, can't remember... did they try him for both murders or just for Nicole's murder??

Regardless, the Goldman's seem like resourceful people and may find a way to get justice served some how.

If its not all BS.

( can't believe the National Enquirer has gotten almost a whole page of posts )



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mind_Virus
O.J. Simpson confesses to the bloody slaughter of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her pal Ron Goldman – and reveals he had an accomplice at the scene--in a bombshell new book!


Typical enquirer hype

msnbc is stating it is not a conffesion it is only Hypothetical, Big Differance. They will do anything Anything to sell a tabloid. :shk:

MSNBC


"O.J. Simpson is confessing. Hypothetically, that is. "


[edit on 10/19/2006 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join