Can they come back on this guy for helping OJ hide evidence?
sounds like he is confessing of a crime.

Originally posted by blimpseeker
Can they come back on this guy for helping OJ hide evidence?
sounds like he is confessing of a crime.

That's what I am thinking. Why is this legal, either he is lying and OJ should sue him or he is telling the truth and he should be thrown in jail. I hope no one buys his book.

He confessed to a crime. He should be investigated and possibly brought up on charges. The fact that OJ got away with it and was found 'not guilty' wouldn't change this guys fate.

I don't know how he could sleep at night for all these years.
He still doesn't seem to be remorseful. He just wants to sell the book.

Originally posted by RedGolem

"He finally did it," Gilbert repeats, his voice not even quavering a little as he recounts his firsthand experience with one of the most notorious crimes of the past century. In his new tell-all book How I Helped O.J. Get Away With Murder, Gilbert calls June 12, 1994 the "day the world stopped."

If he actively helped OJ cover up the murder, that makes him an accessory after the fact. If he lied in court about what he knew then that means he is in contempt of court. Finally, if he knew OJ was going to commit murder (his "he finally did it" seems to imply as much) then that makes him an accessory to the actual murder.

Jon

EDIT: Formatting and forgot there were two murders.

[edit on 5.15.2008 by Voxel]

Thanks for all your comments everyone!
This man was an agent to OJ. Would it be possible that he would be protected under attorney client privilege if he was working with the defence of OJ?

i would have to think that the man covered all of those bases. i doubt if he could help someone get away with murder, he would be stuoid enough to get himself locked up.

I think the only way we'll get an idea if this is true or not is if OJ sues for libel. If he does, then he is rightly, as anyone would, protecting his name and innocence. If he doesn't, to me it means he's guilty. There's no way any innocent person would allow someone to go around falsely accusing them of murder.

Where's Jonnie Cochran when you need him? Oh, yeah he's gone!

Would the LA police still be looking for the killer all these years given that OJ walked?

Anyone know off hand what the statute of limitations is for accessory after the fact?

Probably passed and now he's safe to speak to sell his book.

We all know that it doesn't matter if the time has passed and he can't be charged. If the PTB want him to go down for it, he will go down for it.

The article I read said he alleged in a moment of drunken stupor, OJ supposedly blurted out something to the effect that if Nic had not come outside with the knife, then she'd still be alive.

First of all, this guy may have a motive to make this up - OJ's lawyer rips on him for that.

Since what OJ allegedly said was somewhat cryptic and open to interpretation, and the whole thing probably amounts to hearsay, (in my non-lawyerly opinion), doubt if anything can come of it legally.

I figure the guy somehow covered it to avoid legal problems or else ISTM he couldn't publish the book - a publisher wouldn't accept the liability I'd guess.

2 cents.

I agree with Dribble.

I'm sure he is smart enough to make sure he couldn't be prosecuted. Of course the greedy often are so focussed on the $$$ that they become somewhat narcissistic in attitude.

Some people are saying 'OJ should sue'. What if he's a silent partner in all this? Reap some rewards that his book didn't.

Also, I think as many do... he wouldn't being putting this book out there to indicate himself in the murders.

It probably all comes down to 'hear-say' evidence.