O.J. didn't do it... or DID HE?!
by I'm sure we've all had out doubts about whether or not OJ actually killed his wife or not. Well, you've got to see this..
"For years, I've been pretty sure that I did not murder my wife, ... maybe I better take another look at this. ... If it turns out that I'm actually the one who did it, then looking for the real killers would be a big old waste of time," Simpson said.
Haahahaha... what an idiot! Check out the story on MSNBC: O.J. No Longer "100 Percent Sure" He is Innocent
AI Summary
33 Comments
LOL!!!!! that is one of the gayest things i've ever heard anyone say. he needs his lawyer to tell him if he's innocent or not? what a moron. he's just covering his butt.
This is so funny! I almost have no words! Is he retarded or what? Then again, he's the one the said "If the glove doesn't fit, then we must aquitt."
he gets props, black man in la kills 2 white people and goes free, now thats a feat!
You shouldn't have edited this, Ian... The whole paragraph reads:
“FOR YEARS, I’VE BEEN pretty sure that I did not murder my wife,” Simpson said today at a golf course in Boca Raton, Fla., where he was taking a rare break from searching for the real killers of his wife. “But if Johnnie’s not 100 percent sure, I’m like, hey, maybe I better take another look at this.”
I like the fact he was taking a "rare break"
AHAHAHAHHA TOOO FUNNY!
why are you wasting our time with this goofy satire?
I was thinking as I read this last night... isn't the statute of limitations up on this now?
the what?
I think he means that you can't try a person twice for the same crime....
yea, double jeopardy....even right after they announced "not guilty" he coulda gone out in the street and screamed that he'd gotten away with it...it wouldnt matter. at least they found him guilty in the civil trial though. (b/c in a criminal case, you have to be found guilty BEYOND a resonable doubt, in civil you have to be found guilty only by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence, which is ALOT less) i find this stuff totally interesting.
yeah i read this story about this kid being tried for the murder and stealing of a convienance store. the lawyer was awesome and the only proof was the kids hat that had been dropped at the scene of the crime. then the lawyer tore all the evidence to shreds and got the hat denounced as evidence and after the trial was over and he was not guilty. the boy turns to the D.A. and asks for his hat back.
wait, do you mean double indemnity? or is that something different?
double jeopardy was a kewl movie with ashley judd and morgan freeman. it's a twist on the legal term. ashley's character was convicted for murder, even though her husband faked the death. when she got out of jail and found out he was still alive, the concept of 'double jeopardy' came up. if she killed him now, could she go to jail again?
no, because the law states (as brought out before) that a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. And I wouldn't know about the movie...It was rated R :)
actually, she could be tried twice, since they are two seperate crimes that occurred at different times.
The whole "convicted of murder, victim not really dead, suspect free to kill said "victim" due to double jeopardy" is an urban legend.
Real double jeopardy is meant to protect suspects who are found innocent. If new evidence comes up, they cannot be tried again. On the other hand, if you are found guilty, you can appeal the judgement.
how would they be two different crimes?
they "occured at two different times" and under different circumstances. it doesn't matter if either one of them "actually" occurred.
think of it this way. If I rob you of $20 today and $20 tomorrow, have I committed two different crimes? Yes. Can I be convicted of robbing you of $20 in two seperate criminal trials? Yes.
Now what if I am falsely convicted of robbing you of $20? Does that mean that I can go and rob you of $20 for real whenever I feel like it without any repercussions? No.
since you have so much extra cash now..can you loan me a dollar?
hahahahhahahhaha, so funny.
nice explanation bro, hit the nail on the head.
Oooooh... Brian was shot down... hope he can save himself and say he saw it on broadcast TV (edited version) or read what it was about...
why would i need to 'save myself'?
Because you seemed to be saying "Hey, you should be seeing this R-rated movie!" But I know you weren't doing that
c'mon dave, i said nothing of the sort. you're reading too much into my comments.
I can tell you're not like that... it just sounded like it...
what does the movie's rating have to do with 'knowing about the movie'? obvious you DO 'know about the movie' since you know it's rating.
and because i know you're curious, you can see it 10/27/02 9:00p on CBS and 11:35p on ABC.
there is no statute of limitations on murder, its the only thing that doesnt have one....you coulda killed someone 40 years ago and still be found guilty today.
Wow! I don't believe!
useless info: the OJ verdict was announced over the loud speaker in my school on October 3rd, my 15th birthday - lol
we were all watchin th tv that day in computer class. it was funny.
This cant be for real, he should be charged for "How can this person be so humenly DUMB!!!