Nov 15, 2006

What a class act, that O.J. Simpson guy.

Many years ago, when I was in college, a person of African-American background asked me if I thought O.J. was guilty. At the time, I wasn't sure (or maybe I just didn't want to get into it), and I told this person so.

That was before the "not guilty" verdict came out.

Eleven years later, O.J. still vehemently denies he killed his wife and her friend, and now he's getting ready to tell FOX TV how he would have killed her if he really, actually, did it.

Seriously, WHAT? Whatever happened to his dedicating-the-rest-of-his-life-trying-to-find-the-murderer promise? The thought that even went into constructing the hypothetical execution of a double murder is disturbing, to say the least. The murder of the mother of your children? Hel-LO? And have you seen the crime scene photos?

Is he going to use the proceeds from his book (who would buy this shit, anyway?) to finish paying the $33.5M he still owes the Brown and Goldman families as part of the civil suit (of which he was found guilty, by the way)? Or are the proceeds going to pay for his country club membership?

This latest in a series of questionable antics on O.J.'s part (this gem being the last one I recall) is seriously disgusting. I mean, I've encountered people who I've wanted to kill with my own bare hands, but I'd never actually DO IT. And you don't see me trying to write about how I'd go about it.

O.J.'s been tried (and acquitted) for a double murder, in a hyper-controversial case, and now he's writing a book about how he would have killed his wife and Ron Goldman? What the fuck is up with this guy?

So many things wrong with this. SO many. If you didn't believe O.J. was guilty before, you may want to re-think your position.


Anonymous said...

There's a book called Cracking Cases by Dr. Henry Lee, renowned forensic investigator, who I think testified for the defense during trial. This book details so much evidence that was either mishandled, misused, or in some other way botched that it's almost undeniable the bastard was guilty then and clearly is now. Also, though, shit on the media outlets giving him his platforms. Pull the mike already, pecker heads.

willis said...

I would have hated to have been a juror on that case. Time lines and mishandled evidence I admit gave me some doubts about his guilt. What removed that doubt was OJ's oath after the trial to find the real killer which apparently required a move to Florida to golf.

Anonymous said...

When a detective on the case is asked on the stand: "Did you plant evidence?" and he doesn't say "No", there's doubt.
When you have a case built on forensic evidence, and the foremost expert on the subject says there's planted evidence on the back gate and socks, there's doubt.

Mags said...

True, but when you're accused of killing your wife and her friend and then acquitted, only to write a book years later about how you WOULD have killed them if, for the sake of argument, you actually DID kill them, then that's just callous and way too opportunistic.

I'm not saying the book is tantamount to a confession as some have said; I'm just saying it's fucking tacky to the nth degree.