Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened"

This is topic "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened" - huh? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004875

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-14-2006, 11:28 PM:

Link to article

LOS ANGELES - 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, the network said.

The two-part interview, titled "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29, the TV network said.

Simpson has agreed to an "unrestricted" interview with book publisher Judith Regan, Fox said.

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."

Simpson, who now lives in Florida, was acquitted in a criminal trial of the 1994 killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was later found liable in 1997 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.

Messages left with Simpson and his attorney Yale Galanter were not immediately returned.

[Roll Eyes]

[ 11-15-2006, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Michael Schaffer ]

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-14-2006, 11:48 PM:

Fox: trying to get cheap ratings-course it won't work, this news is way too old
Simpson: trying to further prove his innocence by pointing out how 'illogical' it would be for him to commit the crime the way it was committed. Of course since this was clearly a crime of passion logic doesn't really enter into the equation.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-15-2006, 12:51 AM:

Or maybe OJ is simply broke and they are paying him a lot of money for the "story".

I never understood how he could have been acquitted in the criminal case, but convicted in the civil lawsuit. I understand these are two separate proceedings, but I still don't get why if somebody gets acquitted in a criminal law suit, you can then still sue him for damages, no matter how much everyone (well, except for the jury) believes he did it. But the jury said he didn't, so doesn't that mean that he is innocent "in the eyes of the law"?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-15-2006, 01:09 AM:

There are different rules of evidence in civil vs criminal trials-ie evidence that may not be admissable in a criminal trial could be in a civil one. Also for someone to be found guilty in a criminal court the evidence needs to prove their guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In a civil court you can be found liable for something if there is a 'preponderance of evidence'.

So, logically you are correct, it makes not sense. Logic does not always reside in the realm of legal proceedings though.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-15-2006, 03:54 AM:

So, since he was found guilty in the civil case, can you say "he did it" publically without facing libel charges? Can you say, "it has been proven he did it, he had to pay for it, he just wasn't put away"?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-15-2006, 05:47 AM:

That is a tough question. I suppose you could say 'He was responsible for it', since that's what the civl case was technically about-responsibility.

Then again I'm not a lawyer....

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-15-2006, 08:33 AM:

Our legal system should be changed such that double jepordy should apply to the entire claim such that if one has a criminal trial it trumps a civil trail...that is...pick one sue em for money or sue em to go to prison. As part of the criminal trail the damages may be assessed too.

Steve

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-15-2006, 10:56 AM:

Logic.....you have perfectly stated the reason I left law school. Louis

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-15-2006, 05:38 PM:

Michael - Libel refers to defemation in a fixed medium, such as the written word. The correct charge for your example would be slander which includes the spoken word. Regardless, they are both defamation. In my understanding, the two things required to win a defamation suit are:

1. You must show the statement is false.
2. You must show damages incurred due to contempt or ridicule caused by the false statement.

Taking these two parameters, I think you could scream "O.J. did it!" wherever you would like without fear of being sued. Because he was found "not guilty" in a case vs. California does not mean he is innocent. It's worded that way on purpose. Second, it would be nearly impossible for Simpson to show damages as he has pretty much lost all assets he once had already.

Steve - I understand your point about double jeopardy, but we have to keep civil seperate because we need a venue for person vs. person cases and a seperate one for government vs. person. Like Dustin said, the standards are different because we are protected from our government by the "innocent until proven guilty" rule which does not exist between people.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-16-2006, 09:45 AM:

I have no problem with civil cases but I do have a problem when essentially the same case is brought in both...it has to be one or the other. That is, if someone is found not guilty in a criminal case, it trumps the civil case as a non-starter. A defendant should not have to essetially be tested by two yardsticks.

Steve

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 11-16-2006, 11:27 AM:

Has anybody seen the show Dexter on Showtime? It's about a serial killer who takes matters into his own hands when the criminal justice system fail to properly punish murderers, rapists, etc. I'm sorry, but it sickens me to think that this man is making money off murder that he's obviously guilty of.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2006, 04:42 PM:

The glove didn't fit, SO ***YOU*** MUST acquit! HA!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2006, 06:29 PM:

OJ took care of his former lawyer as well. Jessie Jackson or whatever his name was won't be around any more. Hopefully Bob Costas is next!

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-17-2006, 08:51 AM:

That would be Johnny Cochran. He's pushing up daisies now.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 11-17-2006, 01:34 PM:

I thought he was Kramer's lawyer, Jackie Chiles. [Wink]

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-17-2006, 03:15 PM:

Kingfish's lawyer Algonquin J. Calhoon?

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-17-2006, 04:46 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
A defendant should not have to essetially be tested by two yardsticks.

I'm sure Daryl Gates couldn't agree with you more.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-17-2006, 09:41 PM:

Thanks for explaining these legal terms. BTW, I was never interested at all in the whole OJ case. I was just confused when I heard about the two lawsuits, and that made me a little curious. I now understand how and why that works.
It may or may not be good that there are two different standards because it should indeed be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" if someone gets put away for life or even executed - would he have been executed if he had been convicted? I know California has the death penalty, but I don't know if it is still usually carried out.
On the other hand, shouldn't it also be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" before you get made to pay - what was it? $38 million or so?

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-18-2006, 07:00 AM:

I've always been a fan of our judicial system. I think if you are found "not guilty", then you are NOT GUILTY. Whether I agree with the verdict or not, you shouldn't be made to pay (by money, time behind bars, or any other way) if you are found NOT GUILTY by a court of law. I can't fathom the idea of being found not guilty (meaning NOT having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable) and then having to face the court of public opinon in a trial that says "If you think this person MIGHT have had ANYTHING to do with this crime, punish him". Sounds like punishment, even though their might be reasonable doubt...

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 11-18-2006, 12:15 PM:

That's because "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "innocent." It just means you weren't found sufficiently resposible for the crime ("beyond a reasonable doubt") to put your life or liberty in jeopardy (that's the jeopardy in "double jeopardy"). Additionally, the criminal case is brought on behalf of "the people" with the reasoning that the crime and crimes like it are so bad as to hurt everyone if they are let to continue.

The standard of guilt in a civil matter is generally "the preponderance of the evidence," or, to simplify, whichever side has a more convincing argument (or sometimes the stronger "clear and convincing," which requires the argument of the plaintiff to likely to be true, not just more true than that of the defendant). Because the defendant's life and liberty are not at stake, the standard of guilt is easier to achieve. These suits are generally brought on behalf of a private person or corporation that has specifically been wronged.

So, in this case, the two trials had different purposes and motives. In the criminal trial, the idea was to lock OJ up if it was abundantly clear that he was guilty in order to prevent future damage to the state (both through deterrence for others and confining him up so he can't do it again).

The civil case was to punish him (other than through incarceration or death) for being anyhow responsible in their deaths, with damage occurring to the plaintiff, with a lower burden of proof. The rules of evidence are also looser in civil cases, so evidence that was not admissible in a criminal trial (because of the risk to the defendant's life/liberty) may be admissable in the civil trial.

So the idea is that he wasn't guilty enough to kill or put away, but he was guilty enough to pay up. IANAL, and all that. [Smile]

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 11-18-2006, 01:34 PM:

An article from our local paper, the Centre Daily Times, stated our local Fox affiliate won't air the program. See this article.

Posted on Sat, Nov. 18, 2006

Fox channel won't air O.J.
WWCP refuses to show Simpson chat about deaths of ex-wife, friend
By Anne Danahy
adanahy@centredaily.com

The local Fox affiliate announced it will not broadcast a two-part interview with O.J. Simpson about the killing of his ex-wife and her friend, called "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened."

Frank Quitoni, co-owner and president of WWCP-TV, called it "a pretty easy decision."

"I think it's wrong that someone should be able to possibly make a profit on such a tragic, tragic thing," Quitoni said, later noting that Simpson was found responsible for the deaths in civil court.

Simpson was acquitted of the June 1994 killing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in 1995. The interview comes just days before a book by Simpson, "If I Did It," hits store shelves. Its publisher, ReganBooks, is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which owns Fox.

Fox's two-part program is billed as a "no holds barred" interview of Simpson by the book's publisher, Judith Regan, who has been blanketed with criticism for publishing the book.

Fox will broadcast the show nationally Nov. 27 and 29. But Johnstown-based Fox 8 instead will air an hourlong special on St. Jude Children's Hospital on Nov. 27 and will show a locally-produced program about domestic violence called "When Violence Hits Home" on Nov. 29.

According to Fox, during the interview, Simpson described how he would have committed the 1994 slayings "if he were the one responsible." The book goes on sale Nov. 30.

Denise Brown, sister of Nicole Brown Simpson, lashed out at publisher Regan for "promoting the wrongdoing of criminals" and commercializing abuse.

Quitoni estimated the station will pay $6,000 for the Simpson program it isn't using.

"You take a financial hit when you turn away network programming, but it was an easy choice," Quitoni said in a news release. "However, we still had to fill those time slots and felt St. Jude's is an organization worthy of exposure in such a way. As for 'When Violence Hits Home,' we decided it wasn't just enough to ignore Simpson; we needed to pay attention to the massive problem of domestic violence."

The nation's two largest superstore chains, Barnes & Noble Inc. and Borders Group Inc., will sell Simpson's new book, with Borders expecting "strong sales" and Barnes & Noble saying it has no plans to donate proceeds to charity.

"Barnes & Noble will carry O.J. Simpson's new book, 'If I Did It,' just as we do every book in print," spokeswoman Mary Ellen Keating said Friday in a statement.

"As always with publicity books like this we prepare for strong sales, but ultimately it is up to the customers' reaction to the publicity," Bill Nasshan, Borders' senior vice president of adult trade merchandising, said in a statement.

Keating said Barnes & Noble had not seen the book and did not know how it would promote "If I Did It." Borders spokeswoman Ann Binkley said Friday that the book will have "easily visible" placement in stores, but that any profits will be donated to a charity, currently undetermined, that opposes domestic violence.

Numerous independent stores, appalled by Simpson's book, have said either they won't sell it or will offer limited copies and give away the proceeds.

Anne Danahy can be reached at 231-4648. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-18-2006, 08:00 PM:

Yawn! I hate censorship! I'd like to see his "confession" for myself without the goodie-2-shoes forcing THEIR views on me!

That guy at WWCP is a PUSSY! [thumbsdown]

AND! Robert Minichino! You are so right on target! [beer]

And Hillary, I totally agree with you... I think Jackie Chiles is THEEEE MAN! [Smile]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-18-2006, 08:39 PM:

California does still use the death penalty, although not nearly as often as Texas, although they have stepped it up in the past decade or so, killing 11 since '96. Their last was January of this year. I believe that the prosecution in the O.J. case was indeed seeking the death penalty.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2006, 03:04 PM:

Well according to the news on the radio just now, the whole project has been cancelled -- book, TV show and all.

They cite Fox affiliates refusing to air the show, and some major book outlets refusing to carry the book, as reasons. No word on what will happen to OJ's $3 mil book fee.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-20-2006, 03:43 PM:

I haven't heard that yet... if so, that's a shame.

quote: Mike Blakesley
No word on what will happen to OJ's $3 mil book fee.

C'mon Mike, we all know the $$$ are going to his kids... you know, the ones of which he murdered their mother. [Eek!]

(AND we all thought the CIA was the EXPERT in brain washing? HA!) [Razz]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-20-2006, 03:54 PM:

quote: Hillary Charles
I thought he was Kramer's lawyer, Jackie Chiles.

"You put the balm on? Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on. Why'd you put the balm on? You haven't even been to see the doctor. If your gonna put a balm on, let a doctor put a balm on......"

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-20-2006, 04:12 PM:

OK Mike, I just saw it on the news... the OJ "confession" will not be aired... what a bunch of pussies! [thumbsdown]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-20-2006, 05:23 PM:

The story broke in the British media today, which much gloating over Murdoch's volte face. He's also been in the headlines as the result of having just bought a 17.5% stake in Britain's second biggest TV broadcaster, ITV, thereby stopping Richard Branson's attempted takeover of the company. Branson is complaining that the move is anticompetetive, and is complaining to the government broadcasting regulator to that effect. Should be an interesting saga...

quote: Steve Guttag
I have no problem with civil cases but I do have a problem when essentially the same case is brought in both...it has to be one or the other. That is, if someone is found not guilty in a criminal case, it trumps the civil case as a non-starter.

As I understand it, that does apply the other way round - if you're convicted of the criminal offence, a judgement against you in a civil case related to the same offence is almost guaranteed, because you've already been judged by a much higher standard of proof to be guilty.

quote: Steve Guttag
A defendant should not have to essetially be tested by two yardsticks.

Actually, I feel that this is an important safeguard. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' means just that - you have to be absolutely, 200% certain that the defendant is guilty. If a jury is 99.9% sure a defendant is guilty but only 99.9%, they have to acquit. For a very serious offence such as murder - and especially one in which the defendant could get the death penalty - I imagine that a significant number of guilty people have been acquitted because they were given the benefit of what was only a very slight doubt. At least a subsequent civil action judged 'on a balance of probabilities' (the English law equivalent of 'preponderance of evidence') leaves open the possibility that an offender will receive some punishment for their crime, albeit a proportionally lower one (i.e. loss of money, rather than liberty or even life).

In Scotland (the UK's constitution is unwritten and fearsomely complicated and arcane, but the short version is that there are significant differences in the way the legal system works in Scotland from that in the rest of the UK), there is a third verdict of 'not proven' open to the jury. That means exactly what it says - the jury thinks the defendant is guilty on a balance of probabilities, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. The significance of such a verdict is twofold: firstly, it makes a subsequent civil case pretty much a formality, and secondly it counts as a sort of semi-conviction. No sentence can be passed on a defendant who receives a not proven verdict, but neither can they claim to have an unstained character. They can appeal against a not proven verdict in the same way as they can against a full conviction.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-20-2006, 06:17 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
'Beyond a reasonable doubt' means just that - you have to be absolutely, 200% certain that the defendant is guilty. If a jury is 99.9% sure a defendant is guilty but only 99.9%, they have to acquit.

That is not what the term was intended to mean. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is much different than "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which I believe you just defined. A reasonable doubt is just that. There may be some scenario by which someone else could have done it without leaving a trace of their presence or maybe the glove is a little too snug or maybe the blood in the back seat could have been from when she cut herself, but that doesn't make it reasonable. If you were to try to put a percentage on it, I would guess reasonable doubt would be around 97% certain. The only reason O.J. is free today is because Johnny Cochran was able to convince the jury that a reasonable doubt actually meant shadow of a doubt, or 100%, so they aquitted him. Many of the jurors even admitted they thought he did it. Cochran did his job very well and I believe it was in part his guilt from that success that caused him to eventually cease practicing as a criminal defense attourney and switch to only taking civil suits.

I am glad Fox is not airing the show. I would not have watched it, but even seeing a commercial with his disgusting face on it would make my stomach turn. Our system is not perfect and of course you want to error on the side of innocence, but this schmuck is rubbing it in the faces of everyone that he beat the system.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-21-2006, 05:28 AM:

A couple of people here have tried, however unsuccessfully, to explain our criminal justice system.

Right here in this thread people are saying that just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, and then in the same post say that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Others are saying that just because someone is found not guilty doesn'e mean they are innocent, so that is what the civil courts are for, so that they can use evidence they couldn't use in the criminal court and punish the person.

It is all so terribly twistedly wrong.

When someone is found not guilty in a criminal trial, they are, in fact, quite innocent, because they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. They were not proven guilty in a court of law, so they are innocent. This is pure and simple, so let's not get confused with what we think really happened and our own opinion of who is guilty and so forth.

Our system was set up with the intention that it be better that nine guilty men go free rather than imprison one innocent man. This was to directly counter the english justice system that our founding fathers so desperately wanted to abolish.

In civil court, it is often misunderstood about what is and is not admissable. It is often a misconception that you can admit evidince in civil court that you otherwise could not admit in criminal court, this is not correct.

The evidentiary rules apply to both civl and criminal courts. You cannot be caused to testify against yourself, or for yourself. Evidence must be collected legally. Evidence and testimony that is irrellevant can be thrown out.

What is truly different is the preponderance of evidence vs. beyond all doubt.

The reason for this difference is in criminal cases you must be absolutely sure that someone is in fact guilty of a crime before a sentence can be carried out. It is a moral obligation in a thoughtful society.

In a civil case, you are attaching the assets of a person or a company, or a group of people, or an organization, and so on. You are not threatening a sentence that can be imposed upon a person, so therefore there is no danger of causing personal harm upon the potentially innocent.

Instead you are trying to prove that someone did a wrong that caused you some emotional or financial harm, and you only need to prove that this person set up the stage for it to happen.

With OJ, there was no real additional evidence, but what was decided that the repeated violent outbursts that were made very public due to OJ's fame, it set the stage that a fanatic could have murdered the pair in order to spare OJ further pain and suffering.

What the jury found is that the behavior of OJ contributed significantly to the death of the two, not that he actually killed them.

It would be similar to a company that refuses to let people go home sick, and someone actually dying from an illness related to something that they should have gone home to rest for. The employer would be found liable for the severe contribution to the death of the employee, but not guilty of murder.

I am not implying innocence for OJ, but he is in fact innocent in the eyes of the law, but he was found severly liable for contributing to the death of the two, so his assets were sold off to pay the debt.

The only thing they cannot touch is his federally protected NFL pension that amounts to about 335K per year.

Ciao

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-21-2006, 05:36 AM:

Speaking of Branson, did he cameo in Casino Royale? There was a guy at the security gate at Miami airport who looked a lot like him.

Thanks for the last detailed replies - I will read them tomorrow. I have to go to bed now!

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-22-2006, 11:56 AM:

quote: Dave Williams
In civil court, it is often misunderstood about what is and is not admissable. It is often a misconception that you can admit evidince in civil court that you otherwise could not admit in criminal court, this is not correct.

quote: Dave Williams
You cannot be caused to testify against yourself, or for yourself.

Dave - Your post is mostly right except for a couple things. A very good summary of the differences (I should have posted this earlier) can be found here.

A quick summary of some differences are:
1. You are not protected by the constitution in a civil trial, therefore:
2. No right to speedy trial
3. Defendant must testify
4. No right to an attorney
5. In a civil case, an attorney may properly demand information that would be inadmissible at a criminal trial
6. Punishment

There are some others, but this is a good start. It can be a bit confusing, but Churchill wrote "Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all the others." I think the same can be said about our legal system.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-22-2006, 11:59 AM:

[sleep]

www.badoj.com

He's had a sex tape out, I'm surprised this hasn't made bigger news

(note: some nudity on the site, dont click at work or if you're offended easily)