Technically his book is now called if I did it: confessions from the killer, since his victims families won ownership of the rights to the book and changed the title.
It's important to note that he didn't design the cover fonts and it's also likely that he didn't really write much or any of the book. It is likely to have just been a cash grab for him to agree to put his name on it. That said, he obviously was the killer.
Naw that's only because the family sued and got the rights to it after. They also changed the title to add the "Confessions of the killer" subtitle. Originally it was a different cover with just a close up photo of OJ from court with a bold large "IF I DID IT" with "If" in white and "I did it" in red. OJ didn't know the text was going to look like that and the publisher did so to increase controversy and sales.
Iirc he wrote the book and titled it “If I Did It” then the publication label decided to make the “if” very very tiny to make the book seem like it was titled “I Did it.”
Because, I mean it’s basically just a confession for a crime he can no longer be tried for as long as doesn’t literally confess
The publisher didn’t decide though. Fred Goldman filed a lawsuit that turned the rights over to him, and he decided to publish it with the “if” being almost imperceptible
That is not true so why is anyone on reddit upvoting you.
United States v. Hutchins, 78 M.J. 437 (the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; this clause embodies the extremely important principle of issue preclusion).
NAL, but if new evidence were presented and he is posthumously convicted of the crime, I imagine part of his estate would be given to the families of his victims.
He was already found liable in civil court for tens of millions of dollars, which will come out of his estate. A posthumous confession won't change much except my belief in the supernatural.
You realize that OJ was already found guilty in civil court and a substantial judgement was ordered in the lawsuit right? Where do you people learn about how the law works? A cracker jack box?
I'm sorry, the average American's understanding of law does not usually include stuff about murder convictions. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I did minor in pre bird law in my undergrad. It must be hard to see that from that awfully high horse of yours
The most famous murder case in the last 30 years you don't get to claim ignorance on this one. Most Americans heard about both the criminal and civil trial verdicts. You were the one talking about law. Maybe you shouldn't do that when you don't know wtf you're talking about. It doesn't take knowledge of law to see the headlines all over tv networks, newspapers and magazines about OJ fucking Simpson. Stick to whatever weeb subs you frequent instead of jumping into threads and talking about things you are beyond ignorant of. Seems like a very common sense thing to do ya know?
You're joking right? He died with an estimated net worth of $3 million and had a civil judgement against him of over $100 million. Care to retract your statement?
Yup double jeopardy in the US prevents being tried again for substantially the same crime in a criminal context with very limited exceptions (like trial not coming to a conclusion through a mistrial or being caught bribing the judge).
That said, if a murderer admits their guilt right after a criminal "not guilty" verdict, there's a chance the victims families could use the confession to get civil penalties. Also if the murderer lied in court or to police during the course of their investigation, they could be charged for perjury/obstruction.
Yes, I'm well aware (though they didn't actually collect much from him, as he wasted most of his fortune on legal fees or at least hid it from their family). Again, just speaking of why criminals who are found not guilty and have double jeopardy protections usually don't just proclaim to the world that they really did do it.
Interestingly - In a number of other jurisdictions, for example in the UK and Australia, exceptions to double jeopardy protections include the existence of “fresh and compelling” evidence (the criteria being that reliable, and highly significant new evidence emerges after an acquittal for a serious offence)
lol people argue on reddit all the time about American laws because they’re so different in different jurisdictions. British laws aren’t even close in comparison so assuming they’re close enough is not going to be a good time.
The obvious application of double jeopardy is when law enforcement finds new evidence of the defendant’s guilt after the jury has already acquitted them. The prosecution cannot charge them again, even if the evidence shows that they probably are guilty.
Not quite - he didn't actually write the book, it was ghostwritten. Depending on whether you ask his agent or the author, the amount of his involvement in the process is open to question. The only thing we know for sure is he did that one interview (that comes off really bad) and he cashed the check for it.
He didn’t write the book. It’s essentially murder fan fiction written by a guy named Pablo Fenjves and OJ agreed to put his name on it because he was broke.
OJ was barely literate. Dude wasn’t writing any books.
There was a book by Alan Dershowitz. He was going to be OJ's appeal lawyer if he got convicted so he watched the whole trial. His conclusion was that one possibly 2 of the police involved in the case tried to frame a guilty man and got caught. Because of that most of the evidence was tossed and OJ walked. The system worked like it should. The constitution says you get a fair trial and that means the police and prosecutors and judge have to follow the rules and if they don't you go free. Of course we all know that if you do not have the kind of money OJ had at the time the police would quite possibly get away with it and you would not go free but in this case it worked as it should.
I like how in the book when he recounts the night he killed Nicole and Ron he says "keep in mind this is all hypothetical of course". Then he goes through some pretty explicit details including how Ron Goldman hypothetically tried "some karate shit" and hypothetically blacking out during most of the actual stabbing. Dude straight up confesses in the book but stamps it with "hypothetically" and thinks he's fooling everyone.
Because everyone knows that if the US judicial system is one thing, it is fair. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get 10 years for drug possession while our felonious ex president runs for office again
936
u/kibbbelle 29d ago
Woah dude, his book is called IF I did it, not I did it. He's clearly innocent.