O.J. Simpson's ghost writer says he's a murderer

**SVZ** · January 17th, 2007, 07:18 AM

Hello? Los Angeles County district attorney's office? Anybody home? O.J. Simpson has delivered what any sensible person must now recognize to be a murder confession. If it isn't too much trouble, could you start collecting the evidence—audiotapes, videotapes, manuscript drafts—and then figure out what to charge him with?

I've been told that Simpson is a murderer by someone who's in an excellent position to know: Pablo Fenjves, the ghostwriter for the book containing Simpson's "hypothetical" confession, If I Did It. Fenjves taped many hours of interviews with Simpson in assembling the book, whose publication NewsCorp halted as it was shipping to bookstores in November because of what I've previously described as a bizarrely misdirected public outcry. (It would be obscene if Simpson were to profit from the book, but litigation is underway to recover these funds, and the payment question was always separate from the issue of suppressing Simpson's potential confession.) Fenjves discussed the Simpson book with me on Jan. 15, the day a paraphrase-heavy description of the chapter detailing the murder, "The Night in Question," surfaced in Newsweek. The reporter, Mark Miller, calls the chapter "surprisingly revealing" and "a seeming confession in Simpson's own voice," and if anything, I think Miller's being too tentative.

Here is how Fenjves described his meetings with Simpson to me: "I was sitting in a room with a man I knew to be a murderer, and I let him hang himself."

http://www.slate.com/id/2157652/fr/rss/

**Mel1973** · January 17th, 2007, 08:34 AM

Well .........nooooooooooooooooo shit!

**yanna** · January 17th, 2007, 08:49 AM

Well... I only know about it from that movie "Double Jeopardy" but doesn't double jeopardy apply? Can they really try him again for the same crime? I don't think so... Isn't it that now that he got away with it he can shout if from the rooftops if he wants? Looks like it.

**Classic Broad** · January 17th, 2007, 09:07 AM

This is supposed to be news???

**greysfang** · January 17th, 2007, 09:51 AM

He can never be tried for this crime again. Period. He can go on CNN and confess and no one can do a damn thing about it.

**cynic** · January 17th, 2007, 09:53 AM

Yeah, they can't even get him for perjury because I don't think he ever took the stand.

Where is karma when you need her?

**Brando** · January 17th, 2007, 09:59 AM

His conscience must be killing him for him to keep talking about the murders.

**darksithbunny** · January 17th, 2007, 10:19 AM

Money talks and the famous walk.

**Mira** · January 17th, 2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by greysfang

He can never be tried for this crime again. Period. He can go on CNN and confess and no one can do a damn thing about it.

Ah, but the lords of karma will git 'im. That's no joke.

**Picara** · January 17th, 2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Brando

His conscience must be killing him for him to keep talking about the murders.

He's a stone cold psychopath, he has no conscience. He only talks about the murders for the money. He also likes being talked about.

**Mira** · January 17th, 2007, 11:39 AM

Psychopath, sociopath, classic narcissist... yep, that about covers it.

**KrisNine** · January 17th, 2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Picara

He's a stone cold psychopath, he has no conscience. He only talks about the murders for the money. He also likes being talked about.

Yep, it's his ego. It's almost like he's bragging about it. I don't think it has a thing to do with having a conscience.

**suede** · January 17th, 2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Mira

Psychopath, sociopath, classic narcissist... yep, that about covers it.

I was just thinking that myself.

If I were the family of Nicole or Goldman I have tell you, if would hard not to walk up to Simpson and simply put a bullet in his scull and after the book and this article who could blame you?

**western** · January 17th, 2007, 01:52 PM

If new evidence services or if it can be proven that something "went wrong" with the first trial a second trial can be done. They just can't retry him using only what was used during the first trial - something new has to be introduced. From what I understand though, if he's cleared by a second trial he can never be tried again for that particular crime even if new evidence surfaces, as that's where double jeopardy comes into play.

**greysfang** · January 17th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by western

If new evidence services or if it can be proven that something "went wrong" with the first trial a second trial can be done. They just can't retry him using only what was used during the first trial - something new has to be introduced. From what I understand though, if he's cleared by a second trial he can never be tried again for that particular crime even if new evidence surfaces, as that's where double jeopardy comes into play.

In the United States he would not be able to be retried since he has been acquitted, even if new evidence were uncovered.

United States

The phrase "double jeopardy" stems from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This clause is intended to limit prosecutorial abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense, as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in harmony with the common law concept of res judicata, which prevents courts from relitigating issues and claims that have already been the subject of a final judgment.

There are three essential protections included in double jeopardy: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.

This law is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality, because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. For example, were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted, there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again (at least, not on the same or substantially similar charge) Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962).

Though the Fifth Amendment initially applied only to the federal government, the Supreme Court has ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to the states as well, through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Benton v. Maryland.)
Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial once the jury and alternates are impanelled and sworn in. In a non-jury trial, jeopardy attaches once the first evidence is put on, which occurs when the first witness is sworn.