O.J. Simpsons "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened."

[BadBoyBenny]

I know OJ killed those people, but I really don't care. I think it's great that he runs around free occasionally popping up for our entertainment.

[CrazyEyez]

Would anyone even be suprised if various parts of the interview go like this:
"So then I grabbed the knife and- I mean, I would have grabbed the knife and..."

Nothing would shock me anymore with this guy.

[top6]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly do not know what the rules are when a person who is not the defendant takes the 5th in a criminal trial - I would think (but am not sure) that in certain circumstances the jury can make similar inferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is definitely not true. A juror is not allowed to make any negative inferences against a defendant in a criminal trial because of his refusal to testify. In fact a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on this point according to Carter v. Kentucky 101 S. Ct. 1112 (1981).
http://www.jstor.org/view/00914169/ap040037/04a00090/0

What the jurors will actually do is another question.

[/ QUOTE ]Did you read what I wrote? I said I was unsure of the rules when a person who is NOT the defendant testifies in a criminal trial. Obviously, if a defendant invokes their 5th Amendment right, the jury can't infer anything - otherwise the 5th Amendment would be totally meaningless. The only thing I was talking about was Fuhrman's testimony - he, obviously, was not the defendant (although the defense was very successful in making it seem that he was). The whole issue I am unclear on was what the jury knew or could infer about Fuhrman's alleged tampering of evidence based on his decision to take the 5th. In a typical civil case, that would be basically tantamount to a confession - although of course there are exceptions. Again, I was stunned to learn that Fuhrman refused to deny under oath that he tampered with evidence in the OJ Simpson case, and this helped me understand the verdict a little more.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All-time rushing leaders

1 Emmitt Smith 18,355
2 Walter Payton 16,726
3 Barry Sanders 15,269
4 Curtis Martin 14,101
5 Jerome Bettis 13,653
6 Eric Dickerson 13,259
7 Tony Dorsett 12,739
8 Jim Brown 12,312
9 Marcus Allen 12,243
10 Marshall Faulk 12,162
11 Franco Harris 12,120
12 Thurman Thomas 12,074
13 John Riggins 11,352
14 O.J. Simpson 11,236



[/ QUOTE ]

It should be pointed out that OJ was better than at least half the guys ahead of him on that list; he played back when seasons were 14 games (rather than 16) and defenses were better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aside from maybe Payton, Dickerson, Sanders, and Brown, nobody on that list was as good as OJ at his peak. Also, nobody has yet mentioned his Heisman Trophy with USC or his 3-time player of the year awards during his time in the NFL. I'm mentioning this because the fact that one of the most recognizable figures in college and pro football history offed a couple of people is surreal beyond belief.

I really hope some of the people in this thread who think he could be innocent get picked for my jury trial after I kill two people.

[top6]

[ QUOTE ]
You say that you don't know much about the 5th Amendment in criminal contexts, but you are sure this guy is all wrong?

He is sort of right, but you are definitely wrong as I showed in my previous post.

A defendant cannot take the stand and then use his fifth amendment privilege to prevent the prosecutor from cross examining him about things he testified on direct examination. However, the defendant may invoke his fifth amendment privilege for cetain questions by the prosecutor if they were not addressed on direct examination.

For example if OJ wanted, he could testify about stuff he did on the day before the murder and then refuse to testify about anything he did on the day of the murder. But he could not refuse to be cross-examined about the stuff he said he did on the day before the murder.

[/ QUOTE ]OK, as I said above I was 100% right, except where I said I wasn't sure (and, indeed, I wasn't sure). Keep in mind, I was talking about a non-defendant testifying. I guess the poster wasn't completely wrong, but what he said had nothing at all to do with Fuhrman's testimony.

[samjjones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, so how in the hell else would you expect him to ever pay off the $33 million that he owes from the civil suit? It doesn't even really hurt him - he's fine. Shunning him just denies money from the people he legally owes.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's why OJ moved to florida so he doesnt have to pay the civil money he owes. florida residents are exempt from verdicts such as this. i dont think the goldmans have ever seen a penny from OJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the plethora of golf courses and strip clubs.

[Jasper109]

Fred Goldman is about to be interviewed on CNN. I have the utmost respect for that man.

[TheNoodleMan]

I've always thought they should make another naked gun movie where Nordberg is framed for murdering his ex-wife and a waiter and Frank has to prove his innocence.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always thought they should make another naked gun movie where Nordberg is framed for murdering his ex-wife and a waiter and Frank has to prove his innocence.

[/ QUOTE ]

and in a surprise twist, it turns out he did it all along

[fish2plus2]

So OJ can openly admit that he killed them right now, and there is nothing that the government could do about it?