OJ Simpson tv Interview
I just came across an A.P. story with the following first sentence:
Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted in a widely-watched trial, the network said.
What the #$%^*~? Did he recently fire his publicist? Did Borat conduct the interview under the pretext that it would only be shown in Kazakhstan? I suppose Simpson could have said that he would have killed them using a method so different from the actual stabbings -- tossed them into a volcano, say, or ripped out their hearts and eaten them -- as to somehow persuade viewers that therefore Simpson wasn't the actual killer. Or perhaps Simpson figures he's already on the hook from the civil verdict and protected against further criminal prosecution by the Double Jeopardy clause, so what the heck. But still, why say such a thing? This does seem to take Mark Twain's adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity a bit far.
Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted in a widely-watched trial, the network said.
What the #$%^*~? Did he recently fire his publicist? Did Borat conduct the interview under the pretext that it would only be shown in Kazakhstan? I suppose Simpson could have said that he would have killed them using a method so different from the actual stabbings -- tossed them into a volcano, say, or ripped out their hearts and eaten them -- as to somehow persuade viewers that therefore Simpson wasn't the actual killer. Or perhaps Simpson figures he's already on the hook from the civil verdict and protected against further criminal prosecution by the Double Jeopardy clause, so what the heck. But still, why say such a thing? This does seem to take Mark Twain's adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity a bit far.
posted by Michael C. Dorf @ 12:07 PM
3 Comments:
At 2:21 PM,
David C. said…
Well, OJ loves money, and, like his previous loves, he has a hard time keeping it around. It's not as if he's losing much credibility here---he's been a walking joke since the Bronco chase. It certainly is offensive to think he'd talk about the killings, but, of course, killing them in the first place was pretty offensive.
Bottom line: That guy is nuts and getting poorer---a dangerous combination. It's only a matter of time before we see OJ and Robert Blake on a Surreal Life or Survivor-like tv show.
At 3:49 PM,
Caleb said…
I think I remember reading that the families that successfully sued him in civil court have managed to get control of the rights to his name/image?
If so, will they be able to get the profits from his book?
Perhaps they could fashion a claim under the old principle of not profiting from your bad deed (so the grandson who killed his grandfather cannot receive his inheritence) and take the profits that he is clearly trying to make from the book.
At 3:57 PM,
Thomas Healy said…
Double jeopardy only protects a defendant from prosecution in the same jurisdiction, right? So that means California can't prosecute Simpson again for the murders. But what about the federal government? I'm not an expert on federal criminal law, but isn't there some federal crime he could be charged with in connection with the murders (assuming the statute of limitations hasn't expired)?
The problem is that it sounds as though the book is framed as a hypothetical: "I didn't kill them, but if I did, here's how I would have done it." This would make it difficult for prosecutors to introduce the book as a confession, even though that's what his publisher is calling it.
Post a Comment
<< Home