O.J.'s new book: "If I Did It"
Fri, 2006-11-17 04:48
#1
O.J.'s new book: "If I Did It"
Fri, 2006-11-17 04:48
#2
Eww. Just eww. That's my totally prejudiced first reaction.
The Toronto Sun had his picture splashed on the front cover yesterday with a screaming headline claiming the book is a confession. I haven't read anything further on it, so that opening paragraph really is my prejudiced first reaction.
Has anyone else heard more?
Fri, 2006-11-17 05:04
#3
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/15/simpsoninterview.ap/index.html]...'s an article on the book.[/url]
I love the way the other publishers are self-righteously condemning O.J.'s publisher for taking on the book. I'm betting every single one of them would have jumped at the chance to publish it themselves. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2006-11-17 05:26
#4
under a different name, of course. kinda like Disney's doppleganger, what's-it-called.
[ 17 November 2006: Message edited by: BitWhys ]
Fri, 2006-11-17 07:17
#5
I have no doubt he is guilty. I read Marcia Clarke's book on the trial and the errors on both sides were amazing. But when push comes to show the physical evidence points right to that bastard.
Fri, 2006-11-17 09:28
#6
Writing a book on how you "would have" committed a crime doesn't do much to bolster claims of innocence.
Fri, 2006-11-17 10:36
#7
Some people will do anything for money and publicity...even if it includes confessing to slaughtering your wife and her boyfriend. Unreal.
Fri, 2006-11-17 10:50
#8
quote:
Originally posted by jrose:
[b]Some people will do anything for money and publicity...even if it includes confessing to slaughtering your wife and her boyfriend. Unreal.[/b]
He'll have to use the money to pay for his kids' psychiatric bills.
Fri, 2006-11-17 11:57
#9
One can only hope that Fred Goldman sues him for the profits on the books. Assuming there are any.
Fri, 2006-11-17 12:44
#10
Yes, it would be good if the family of the deceased gets some portion of the money owing as a result of this book.
It's amazing that Fox News, one of the original purveyors of wall-to-wall trial tripe in the Simpson case, now publishes a book like this.
They are shameless.
Fri, 2006-11-17 14:59
#11
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Yes, it would be good if the family of the deceased gets some portion of the money owing as a result of this book.
[/b]
Some portion? They should get every penny. He might as well have titled the book, "Ha Ha! I Killed My Wife and Got Away With It!"
Fri, 2006-11-17 15:40
#12
The most glaring error in that trial was the prosecution's baffling inability to counter, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!." Why the hell, in the spirit of the same sort of showmanship, didn't Marcia Clarke put on a pair of her own gloves, then take them off and put on latex gloves, and then show how she couldn't squeeze her own gloves back on over top of the latex? If the prosecution couldn't think of something this simple, they were ill-equipped to face OJ's expensively eloquent defense team.
OJ hasn't paid dime one to the families, who won an enormous judgement against him. Though If the book makes any profits, I doubt that the families would want this blood money. But they could take it away from him and give it to charity, say.
Fri, 2006-11-17 16:15
#13
The O.J. Simpson case is one of those topics that's so popular because the conclusion seems so obvious that it gives people a chance to put their brains on autopilot and work themselves into a self-righteous lather.
"That bastard, he got away with murder! Of COURSE he did it! Anyone can see that! Okay, the jury didn't think so, but what the hell did they know?"
The LAPD irreversibly damaged the prosecution's case in its zeal to come up with a "good-news" story in the aftermath of the Rodney King scandal. And the prosecution wasn't immune from a bit of sharp practice itself. And the jury smelled a frame-up.
Maybe Simpson DID get away with murder, but it's as much the state's fault as it is the fault of slippery high-priced lawyers or gullible star-struck jurors. I think I'd've acquitted Simpson too on the basis of the evidence presented.
Fri, 2006-11-17 17:52
#14
Yeah, after reading Dershowitz's book on the OJ case, I think I would have as well. There were a lot of good reasons to acquit. One of them might not have been OJ's innocence, but I don't think the prosecution proved his guilt.
Fri, 2006-11-17 21:21
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Nanuq:
[b]One can only hope that Fred Goldman sues him for the profits on the books.[/b]
[url=http://edition.cnn.com/US/9702/04/simpson.verdict1/index.html]He already sued him for the wrongful death itself, and won. (Civil courts require proof on a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)[/url]
quote:
O.J. Simpson is liable for the death of Ronald Goldman and committed battery against his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, a civil trial jury ruled Tuesday.The Superior Court jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family and to Ron Goldman's biological mother.
[url=http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1997/feb/02-11-97/news/news4.html]The jury then awarded $25 million in punitive damages, bringing the combined total of compensatory and punitive damages to $33.5 million.[/url]
That judgment is mostly unpaid. So the Goldman family can already seize any assets they can find.
[ 17 November 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Fri, 2006-11-17 23:59
#16
How old are OJ's kids now? I can't even imagine the problems those two will have, and it seems it just keeps getting worse and worse for them! It's amazing though how many people will actually see a title like the one of this book and be so intrigued that they'll have to go splurge on it. It's a curious read I'm sure, but I couldn't support it.
Sat, 2006-11-18 13:54
#17
M. Spector
quote:
Under a barrage of criticism, Judith Regan says she published O.J. Simpson's book "If I Did It" because she was a victim of domestic violence and thought the proceeds would go to Simpson's children. In an eight-page statement released Friday, Regan said Simpson approached her with the idea for the book, in which he hypothesizes how he would have committed the killings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman."I didn't know what to expect when I got the call that the killer wanted to confess," Regan said in the statement titled "Why I Did It." "But I knew one thing. I wanted the confession for my own selfish reasons and for the symbolism of that act. For me, it was personal."
Although Regan has acknowledged that Simpson does not directly say he killed the pair, she said she considers the book to be his confession.
"My son is now 25 years old, my daughter 15," said Regan's statement. "I wanted them, and everyone else, to have a chance to see that there are consequences to grievous acts. ... And I wanted, as so many victims do, to hear him say, 'I did it and I am sorry.'"
"I didn't know if he would," she wrote. "But I wanted to try. I wanted his confession."
Regan said she did not pay Simpson for the book. "I contracted through a third party who owns the rights, and I was told the money would go to his children. That much I could live with."
"What I wanted was closure, not money," she wrote.
- AP
Sat, 2006-11-18 18:27
#18
[img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2006-11-20 13:04
#19
I got a bleep on my phone that says publication of the book and the interview have been killed by Newscorp.
Mon, 2006-11-20 14:44
#20
So it seems:
quote:
NEW YORK — News Corp., the parent company of book publisher HarperCollins and the FOX network, has canceled publication of the O.J. Simpson book and television special "If I Did It.""I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman. "We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230838,00.html]http://www.foxnews.co...
I and most babblers are pleased with this result.
Mon, 2006-11-20 16:49
#21
How about that? Rupert Murdoch has a conscience.
Tue, 2006-11-21 07:28
#22
quote:
How about that? Rupert Murdoch has a conscience.
He doesn't. He just has a wallet and his lawyers and accountants probably made him realize this "project" would leave a considerable dent in it what with the bad publicity and lost advertising.
Tue, 2006-11-21 15:46
#23
Gives you some faith in humanity though, doesn't it? They must have found there was little interest in, and much aversion to, their proposal. I thought people would eat it up.
The best thing is that O.J. is being shown for the disgusting sociopath that he is, and now he's not even getting paid for it.
Tue, 2006-11-21 17:44
#24
quote:
Originally posted by Nanuq:
[b]He doesn't. He just has a wallet and his lawyers and accountants probably made him realize this "project" would leave a considerable dent in it what with the bad publicity and lost advertising.[/b]
I'm not so sure about that. I think everyone would watch the show, buy the book, and THEN complain about it. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2006-11-24 02:58
#25
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2006/11/23/oj-ebay.html?ref=rss]Dear Lord.[/url]
quote:
Purported copies of the book, scheduled for Nov. 30 release, have been offered on eBay and bids have topped $1 million US.
Fri, 2006-11-24 04:15
#26
Well, of course! That was bound to happen. Hell, if a copy of that book was to land in my lap when I knew the rest were being pulped, I'd do the same thing! (Well, anonymously. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] )
Seriously, I'm not positive that I would do that. But I don't think I'd condemn someone who did.
[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2007-08-13 18:22
#27
Polly B
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2007/08/13/simpson-book.html]This is too strange.[/url]
It seems the Goldmans are now going to publish it themselves?
Mon, 2007-08-13 18:29
#28
Well, that is a twist I never would have anticipated. [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-08-31 05:50
#29
I don't have a problem with them doing this. The book is basically an admission of guilt. So, if the Goldmans publish it, then not only are they publishing OJ's admission of guilt (which they've likely wanted all along), but OJ makes nothing off of it, and they recoup some of the money OJ owns them but just doesn't seem able to pay despite being able to afford to be on the golf links all the live-long day.
Fri, 2007-08-31 07:42
#30
OJ got away with murder. He was acquitted not because he wasn't guilty, but because the prosecution screwed up so badly. Regardless, he's a murderer who is enjoying his life golfing and having fun, suffering no consequences for his actions.
If you get a chance read Marcia Clark's book "Without A Doubt". Pretty eye opening.
Fri, 2007-08-31 08:34
#31
Mulroney has written one in the same vein, titled "If I Stole It". Should be a real page turner.
Fri, 2007-08-31 08:45
#32
hahahahaha. Good one!
Fri, 2007-08-31 12:31
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]If you get a chance read Marcia Clark's book "Without A Doubt". Pretty eye opening.[/b]
Funny - I read Dershowitz's book on the case, and I found that eye-opening too. It convinced me that there was at least enough reasonable doubt to acquit, although I do tend to think he did it. Certainly it changed my mind about my previous absolutely positive stance on the subject.
Fri, 2007-08-31 12:45
#34
The difference being, Marci Clark was actually in the trial, while this writer was not.
Fri, 2007-08-31 13:04
#35
Dershowitz was one of OJ's defence lawyers.
Fri, 2007-08-31 13:09
#36
Damn, ya got me on that one [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Then I would fully expect him to write a book about how his client is really innocent.
Fri, 2007-08-31 13:33
#37
Hee. Well, all that Dershowitz will commit to in the book is that there was not enough evidence to prove that he was guilty. He doesn't say that he was innocent. If I remember correctly, he made a big deal about how most people who get arrested actually committed the crime. He goes on to discuss the extremely uneven amount of resources at the disposal of the prosecution and the defence (the prosecution ALWAYS has more, even in OJ's case), and yet, he still believes that most people who are arrested have committed the crime.
But in this case, because of the extreme racism of the arresting officer, and some physical evidence (no, not that the glove didn't fit, other evidence but I can't remember exactly what now), it was enough for reasonable doubt.
I remember posting a babble thread about this when I was reading the book - I'll see if I can find it.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000543&p=...'s an oldie on the subject, but not the one I'm thinking about.[/url] Strange, I started that one too.
[ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Fri, 2016-03-04 20:02
#38
Only in America, eh!
Why don't they ask the knife merchant where OJ purchased one if it's the same knife
And maybe the DNA on the knife will have the ID of an accomplice who buried the knife
Why did the LAPD release this information prior to doing DNA tests etc?
Just about everyone believes OJ is guilty but double jeopardy laws says he cannot be retried
At least he's in jail
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/oj-simpson-property-knife/index.html
Fri, 2016-03-04 20:34
#39
So an ex-cop waits nearly two decades to acknowledge owning a knife that a construction worker found "possibly when the estate was being demolished".
Sounds legit. Why else would anyone's home contain a knife?