Report: O.J. Simpson confesses to 1994 murders to Oprah

OJ sets a shining example,

When you lie, you stick with it. No matter what everyone else thinks. Even if telling the truth afterwards holds no repercussions. Bill Clinton, Anthoney Weiner, John Edwards, should of taken notes.

I'll believe it when I see it although we already knew it.

its about time...chAzN93

I'm guessing you didn't read the post immediately under the original post linking to a story stating his "confession" was a hoax.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="MgamerBD"]He didn't do it...John_Merrick

So you think it was just a cash in? That's a pretty sick way get paid.

BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

So you think it was just a cash in? That's a pretty sick way get paid.

Hallenbeck77

if this is another lulzsec hacking im gonna be mad... i was so relieved that tupac was aalive too :/

[QUOTE="John_Merrick"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] Why make a book explaining how he had done it, if it really happened? I haven't read the book, though.BranKetra

It wasn't the most ethical thing in the world to do but he was broke (his only source of income was his NFL pension since nobody wanted anything to do with him after the case) and figured it was a way to make a few bucks. Unfortunately for him the Goldmans sued for the rights to the book and their laywers made it so any proceeds from it whould go to the wrongful death lawsuit. After that they published the book slightly altered so the it looked like a confession instead of a hypethical book.

The origina cover:

The new cover (the word "If" was made much harder to see and the words "Confessions of the Killer" were added to the title:

[QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]

So you think it was just a cash in? That's a pretty sick way get paid.

BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"] It didn't work. The Goldman family were awarded rights to the book as part of the $33 million Simpson owes them for the wrongful death judgement back in 1997. Any and all profits from the book, be it in published or film form goes to the Goldmans, and a percentage of that goes to the family of Nicole Brown Simpson. O.J. doesn't get one dime of it at all.Hallenbeck77

Personally I've always found it a bit absurd that a man can be held civilly liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]I wonder how that happened.Hallenbeck77

Personally I've always found it a bit absurd that a man can be held civilly liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]Personally I've always found it a bit absurd that a man can be held civilly liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

BranKetra

A "wrongful death" case is strictly a civil law case. It is essentially a lawsuit. So no, he wasn't charged with wrongful death as there is no such charge.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="worlock77"]Personally I've always found it a bit absurd that a man can be held civilly liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

worlock77

A "wrongful death" case is strictly a civil law case. It is essentially a lawsuit. So no, he wasn't charged with wrongful death as there is no such charge.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]He was charged with wrongful death. What I get from that: He was involved.

BranKetra

A "wrongful death" case is strictly a civil law case. It is essentially a lawsuit. So no, he wasn't charged with wrongful death as there is no such charge.

Ok. My point stands.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

A "wrongful death" case is strictly a civil law case. It is essentially a lawsuit. So no, he wasn't charged with wrongful death as there is no such charge.

worlock77

Ok. My point stands.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] That's just how it goes.BranKetra

Ok. My point stands.

Ok. My point stands. It is absurd that a man can be held liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

Ok. My point stands. It is absurd that a man can be held liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Ok. My point stands. It is absurd that a man can be held liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

BranKetra

Jesus Christ....

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Ok. My point stands. It is absurd that a man can be held liable for a crime he was aquitted of.

worlock77

Jesus Christ....

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] From what I read, the problem isn't the acquitted charges, it's what came afterwards. He hasn't paid the money he owes the Goldman family which he was ordered to give them as a result of the wrongful death judgement awarded in civil court. BranKetra

Jesus Christ....

Nothing other than that you seem to be having difficulty understanding my very plainly worded statement.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Jesus Christ....

worlock77

Nothing other than that you seem to be having difficulty understanding my very plainly worded statement.

In other news the sky is blue.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Is something wrong?

BranKetra

Nothing other than that you seem to be having difficulty understanding my very plainly worded statement.

That's how the legal system is set up? Really? Thank you for stating the obvious. And what, since I personally have not changed it I should not voice my opinion on it?

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Nothing other than that you seem to be having difficulty understanding my very plainly worded statement.

worlock77

That's how the legal system is set up? Really? Thank you for stating the obvious. And what, since I personally have not changed it I should not voice my opinion on it?

How could you ever ignore all that DNA evidence? Well, the jury did. lol.

How could you ever ignore all that DNA evidence? Well, the jury did. lol.

sonicare

Well considering that Mark Furhman all but admitted on the stand to planting evidence....

(There's also the fact that he was caught lying on the stand, which wrecked his credibility with the jury in the first place.)