PDA

View Full Version : OJ Sipmson doing interview and releasing book called: If I Did It


Sally Struthers
Nov 15th, 2006, 03:06 PM
:scared: From what I understand this is basically a confessional of how he did it except told in the 3rd person and as supposition on OJ's part. It's too bad they can't put him on trial again for the killings. :fiery:

LOS ANGELES - In a new TV interview and book,
O.J. Simpson discusses how he would have committed the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend "if I did it."
ADVERTISEMENT

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

"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."

"This is an interview that no one thought would ever happen. Its the definitive last chapter in the Trial of the Century," Mike Darnell, executive vice president of alternative programming for Fox, said in a statement.

The interview, conducted with book publisher Judith Regan, will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed," the network said.

The book is published by ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers run by Regan.

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 returned Tuesday night.

NyCPsU
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:03 PM
:help:

how much of a shocker is it really though, i mean everyone knows he did it :shrug:

griffin
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:20 PM
:help:

how much of a shocker is it really though, i mean everyone knows he did it :shrug:

The shock is that he'd do something this shameless.

CrossCourt~Rally
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Great..i hope the book does well so he can pay off more of the millions of dollars he owes Nicoles family .:)

Nicjac
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:29 PM
God, someone get the kids away from him, please.

What a legacy to grow up with. Like "I killed your mom and got away with it. What do you want for breakfast?"

*sighs*

LeonHart
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:10 PM
Actually the family says they haven't recieved a dime from Simpson. Go figure

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:22 PM
I still don't believe he committed those murders because of the lack of evidence and the physical impossibility of him being able to do some of the things that were done.

However, I think he's trying to make some money and this will only add fuel to the rampant speculation that he did do it, which is something I thought he was trying to avoid, if in fact this story is true. Where's the link?

I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, it's hard for me to believe that he would bring this sort of attention to himself again.

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Keith Olbermann rounds up tabloid and entertainment news every night on “Keeping Tabs.” On Thursday, Oct. 19 he had this to say:

O.J. an author?
O.J. Simpson is in the news again. Well, not the news technically, he’s in the “National Enquirer,” which lands him right square in our nightly celebrity gossip roundup, “Keeping Tabs.”

The “Enquirer” says has signed up to write a book called “If I Did it,” a hypothetical account of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend, Ron Goldman. If, you know, the murders happened to have been committed by, say, O.J. Simpson. Reportedly he would make a non-hypothetical $3.5 million for the book.

Among the highlights, gruesome, detailed, and say the “Enquirer” “realistic” description of the murders themselves. Simpson’s book, just another in a long literary tradition of books by people wrongly accused of killing someone they loved who’s speculating, in print, at length and graphic detail about how they would have brutally stabbed the person they loved, hypothetically.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15236975/

MH0861
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:32 PM
I still don't believe he committed those murders because of the lack of evidence and the physical impossibility of him being able to do some of the things that were done.

However, I think he's trying to make some money and this will only add fuel to the rampant speculation that he did do it, which is something I thought he was trying to avoid, if in fact this story is true. Where's the link?

I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, it's hard for me to believe that he would bring this sort of attention to himself again.

Yeah, I agree. Obviously he's doing this for money and attention, but i just don't understand why he would release a book and do an interview like this. Talking about how he would have done it, if he did it? :tape: :help: I read about this this morning on Yahoo - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_en_tv/simpson_interview

MH0861
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:34 PM
Keith Olbermann rounds up tabloid and entertainment news every night on “Keeping Tabs.” On Thursday, Oct. 19 he had this to say:

O.J. an author?
O.J. Simpson is in the news again. Well, not the news technically, he’s in the “National Enquirer,” which lands him right square in our nightly celebrity gossip roundup, “Keeping Tabs.”

The “Enquirer” says has signed up to write a book called “If I Did it,” a hypothetical account of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend, Ron Goldman. If, you know, the murders happened to have been committed by, say, O.J. Simpson. Reportedly he would make a non-hypothetical $3.5 million for the book.

Among the highlights, gruesome, detailed, and say the “Enquirer” “realistic” description of the murders themselves. Simpson’s book, just another in a long literary tradition of books by people wrongly accused of killing someone they loved who’s speculating, in print, at length and graphic detail about how they would have brutally stabbed the person they loved, hypothetically.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15236975/

Hmm, interesting. The story that I read and linked to has quotes from Fox and confirms that he did write the book and is doing the interview with them.

"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."

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:38 PM
Some parts were left out of the story Sally posted above.

In a video clip on the network's Web site, an off-screen interviewer says to Simpson, "You wrote 'I have never seen so much blood in my life."'

"I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood," Simpson responds.

In recent years, Simpson has made a living signing autographs at trade shows. But according to the National Enquirer, he's being paid $3.5 million for his story, reports CBS News Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kaufman.

In September, Goldman's father, Fred, asked a court to give him the publicity rights to the name, image and likeness of Simpson, who has failed to pay the $33.5 million judgment in the lawsuit. However, a Santa Monica court rejected Goldman's claim two weeks ago.

"He personally has never paid a dime on the judgment to anyone," Fred Goldman said. "He has made it very clear over the years that he has no intention of doing so."

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:43 PM
God, someone get the kids away from him, please.


Umm, they are adults now aren't they?

Stamp Paid
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:45 PM
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."

WTF?!!! Who seriousy thinks about how they "would have" killed the mother of their children and her friend.

Besides a murderer.
Hes already a pariah. Maybe he just said WTF?
Classless shit, though.

treufreund
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:46 PM
what a complete and total worthless piece of scum he is.

treufreund
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:47 PM
The shock is that he'd do something this shameless.

I am shocked that you are shocked. The man has no shame.

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:48 PM
All I can say is, not only is it classless, it's about the dumbest thing he could do. :rolleyes: I give up on OJ.

griffin
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:49 PM
I am shocked that you are shocked. The man has no shame.

I am shocked that you are shocked that I am shocked :p

Come on, this is pretty low, even for him.

Nicjac
Nov 15th, 2006, 05:59 PM
Umm, they are adults now aren't they?

Well, to be honest I had to look it up.

Sydney was born 10/1985, and Justin 8/1988.

So Sydney is considered an adult being 21, but Justin isn't.

And in developmental psychology/medicine/neurology a lot develops until you are 23.

Whatever - maybe it is not breakfast anymore, but phone calls.

SelesFan70
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:04 PM
Digusting.

ampers&
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:18 PM
that is so unbelievably tacky and trife.
jeez, this man has absolutely no tact or class...

Nicjac
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:34 PM
that is so unbelievably tacky and trife.
jeez, this man has absolutely no tact or class...

Hey there :bigwave: Long time no see.

And I think it is not about tact or class, but money. And you really forget about education if money is involved.

And I am pretty pissed about him not thinking about his offspring while raking in the money.

Well, who would have give him an A+ parent certificate after killing the mother anyway.

RVD
Nov 15th, 2006, 07:52 PM
I still don't believe he committed those murders because of the lack of evidence and the physical impossibility of him being able to do some of the things that were done.

However, I think he's trying to make some money and this will only add fuel to the rampant speculation that he did do it, which is something I thought he was trying to avoid, if in fact this story is true. Where's the link?

I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, it's hard for me to believe that he would bring this sort of attention to himself again.This has always been my take as well Denise. And very well put.
My feelings on this is that so many wanted him to be guilty that they eventually discounted all possibility of all other alternatives...allowing the real killer to escape. :shrug:
O.J. was never smart enough, nor physically capable of pulling off such a dirty deed. And truth is, Nicole hung out with some of the worst scum possible [all of whom were addicted to some form of drug or another].
O.J. is just exploiting his notoriety like he's always done. No more, no less. :shrug: Which is in and of itself DISPICABLE!

RVD
Nov 15th, 2006, 07:56 PM
Umm, they are adults now aren't they?:lol:

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:01 PM
This has always been my take as well Denise. And very well put.
My feelings on this is that so many wanted him to be guilty that they eventually discounted all possibility of all other alternatives...allowing the real killer to escape. :shrug:
O.J. was never smart enough, nor physically capable of pulling off such a dirty deed. And truth is, Nicole hung out with some of the worst scum possible [all of whom were addicted to some form of drug or another].
O.J. is just exploiting his notoriety like he's always done. No more, no less. :shrug: Which is in and of itself DISPICABLE!

True that!

RVD
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:03 PM
Hey there :bigwave: Long time no see.

And I think it is not about tact or class, but money. And you really forget about education if money is involved.

And I am pretty pissed about him not thinking about his offspring while raking in the money.

Well, who would have give him an A+ parent certificate after killing the mother anyway.Yeah, money makes people do the most improbable of things. Too true.

Sydney and Justin are incredible people to have endured such a tragedy. I always wondered how they would deal with their mother’s death. Talk about strength. They appear to be doing incredibly well. I thought for sure that the hate-filled Goldmans would damage them beyond hope. I guess there’s still time for that though.

griffin
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:11 PM
My feeling is that some people want so badly to believe he isn't a murderer that they'll discount OJ's blood at the crime scene, the victims' blood in OJ's house and car and grab onto all kinds of remote "alternatives" rather than face the fact that, yeah, the real killer got away - but only because of the utter incompetence of the DA's office.

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Well, to be honest I had to look it up.

Sydney was born 10/1985, and Justin 8/1988.

So Sydney is considered an adult being 21, but Justin isn't.

And in developmental psychology/medicine/neurology a lot develops until you are 23.

Whatever - maybe it is not breakfast anymore, but phone calls.

Justin is 18 and very much an adult. He has graduated high school and is eligible to be drafted into the armed services.

All of the psychoanalytic stuff you posted doesn't mean a hill of beans because they are no longer minors and cannot be taken away from him. :shrug: It's their choice if they still want a relationship with their father and I haven't heard anything to the contrary just yet.

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:32 PM
My feeling is that some people want so badly to believe he isn't a murderer that they'll discount OJ's blood at the crime scene, the victims' blood in OJ's house and car and grab onto all kinds of remote "alternatives" rather than face the fact that, yeah, the real killer got away - but only because of the utter incompetence of the DA's office.

Yeah, and we all know how competent the Crime Scene Investigators and LAPD were the day the bodies were discovered. No chance of transporting evidence from the crime scene to OJ's house after not wearing shoe protectors at the crime scene and jumping over OJ's fence to apprehend him. I wonder where OJ deposited his bloody clothes after killing them, or did he do it butt naked? If he did do it butt naked, where did he rinse the blood and surely he couldn't have rinsed it all off in his rush to jump in the Blazer to escape the scene. Surely, more than a 1 inch smudge would have gotten on the door handle. Oh, and when he took off his running shoes and socks and put on those casual dress shoes and dress socks before killing them, surely those socks would have had more than a droplet of blood on the ankle. What happened to the shoes? You mean to tell me, he took off the shoes and threw them away with the blood soaked clothes and left the socks with a drop of blood on? Oh and I'm sure that OJ never spent a day at Nicole's house and never blew his nose, threw up or cut himself in order for his blood to be located in her house.

Yeah, those are remote alternatives. :rolleyes:

Frankly I couldn't give a damn about OJ and whether he was a murderer or not. I'm just going by the facts of the case and those facts cause me to have more than a reasonable doubt that he killed those people.

RVD
Nov 15th, 2006, 08:55 PM
My feeling is that some people want so badly to believe he isn't a murderer that they'll discount OJ's blood at the crime scene, the victims' blood in OJ's house and car and grab onto all kinds of remote "alternatives" rather than face the fact that, yeah, the real killer got away - but only because of the utter incompetence of the DA's office.For some reason I couldn't access the site to post a reply, and now I have to go pick up my princess. :(
Anyway, just real quickly, none of the evidence presented, nor the way in which the so-called evidence was presented pointed to OJ being the killer. Now how in the world could that be with so many detectives investigating this case. In FACT evidence had to be planted to make it appear that he was the killer. :shrug:
So honestly, i don't get the people who make the incredible leap that he is the outright killer when the LAPD, along with the nation's BEST forensic experts couldn't even do that.
Sometimes, the law does in fact get the wrong man.

RVD
Nov 15th, 2006, 09:05 PM
Yeah, and we all know how competent the Crime Scene Investigators and LAPD were the day the bodies were discovered. No chance of transporting evidence from the crime scene to OJ's house after not wearing shoe protectors at the crime scene and jumping over OJ's fence to apprehend him. I wonder where OJ deposited his bloody clothes after killing them, or did he do it butt naked? If he did do it butt naked, where did he rinse the blood and surely he couldn't have rinsed it all off in his rush to jump in the Blazer to escape the scene. Surely, more than a 1 inch smudge would have gotten on the door handle. Oh, and when he took off his running shoes and socks and put on those casual dress shoes and dress socks before killing them, surely those socks would have had more than a droplet of blood on the ankle. What happened to the shoes? You mean to tell me, he took off the shoes and threw them away with the blood soaked clothes and left the socks with a drop of blood on? Oh and I'm sure that OJ never spent a day at Nicole's house and never blew his nose, threw up or cut himself in order for his blood to be located in her house.

Yeah, those are remote alternatives. :rolleyes:

Frankly I couldn't give a damn about OJ and whether he was a murderer or not. I'm just going by the facts of the case and those facts cause me to have more than a reasonable doubt that he killed those people.Damn Denise. I didn't see this post, and honestly, you stated what I believed far better than I ever could.
It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for OJ to have committed this crime. People forget that Nicole wasn't the only one killed. :hehehe: If memory serves, there was a strapping young healthy male killed as well. How did OJ kill him? It's one thing to kill a defenseless half-drugged-out-of-her-head-middle-aged-woman. But quite another to kill her younger in-shape lover. And my understanding is that this younger fella didn't go down with a hell of a fight. So where are the bruises on OJ? :hehehe:

I just think people judged with their emotions in this case, than on the facts.
Again, people WANTED OJ to be guilty.

samsung101
Nov 15th, 2006, 09:08 PM
Hannity and Colmes should both just slam this thing.

Fox - humans racing animals, fake marriages, Tanya v. Nancy,
they do find the worst stuff to show on tv.

This really beats all of them though.

O.J. - you got off. Go away. Please. You beat the system.
Please just go away.

This is about as sick as anyone can get.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 15th, 2006, 09:12 PM
I still don't believe he committed those murders because of the lack of evidence and the physical impossibility of him being able to do some of the things that were done.

However, I think he's trying to make some money and this will only add fuel to the rampant speculation that he did do it, which is something I thought he was trying to avoid, if in fact this story is true. Where's the link?

I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, it's hard for me to believe that he would bring this sort of attention to himself again.

Do you see race that much that it impairs any judgement?
You won't even acknowledge that O.J knows more about the murders than he ever let on.
He ran in a white Bronco. Come On Denise.
He knows more about the murders which is why he's writing something like this at the least.

I was just as happy as any black person when celebrities like O.J. and Michael Jackson were found not guilty in a court of law.

At the same time I'm not stupid enough to live in the same district as O.J Simpson or let any relative sleepover with Michael Jackson.
Hey if you believe he's that innocent I guess you wouldn't mind living near him. I hope that works out for you. :wavey: :unsure:

As far as I'm concerned, O.J is a Hall of Fame inductee, he can do anything he puts his mind to, ANYTHING HE PUTS HIS MIND TO.
He might have not acted great in those Naked Gun movies but he acted the role of his life in that trial.

Dawn Marie
Nov 15th, 2006, 09:12 PM
My feeling is that some people want so badly to believe he isn't a murderer that they'll discount OJ's blood at the crime scene, the victims' blood in OJ's house and car and grab onto all kinds of remote "alternatives" rather than face the fact that, yeah, the real killer got away - but only because of the utter incompetence of the DA's office.


I agree.


I always thought O.J. did it. I think that the reason he got off was because of the past brutality that the LAPD has shown people of color. At least I feel some of this played a part.


In my heart I feel that O.J. killed his own wife and her friend.

The nature of the crime happens 24/7 8 days a week. (in fact my sisters childhood friend was shot to death and her body was found in a abandon garage a month ago) By her boyfriend because she was going to leave him.

This happens all the time. The fact that O.J. was going to blow his own head off while driving down the street in his Ford Bronco is enough for me to feel that he did this. Nicole has a saftey deposit box of her abuse.


Come on, Millions of women die at the hands of their husbands and lovers. I just feel that he is a guilty son of a bitch. What he's doing now shows just what he is capable of. The LAPD botched the case.

Hell, through out the trial you could tell he was medicated. The man is GUILTY of killing these two people.

He is a sick asshole, who'll reap what he's sewn. FUCK O.J and the horse that, the Mfer rode in on!

RIP Nicole and Friend. :sad: Goodluck to the children.

Denise4925
Nov 15th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Do you see race that much that it impairs any judgement?You won't even acknowledge that O.J knows more about the murders than he ever let on.
He ran in a white Bronco. Come On Denise.
He knows more about the murders which is why he's writing something like this at the least.

I was just as happy as any black person when celebrities like O.J. and Michael Jackson were found not guilty in a court of law.

At the same time I'm not stupid enough to live in the same district as O.J Simpson or let any relative sleepover with Michael Jackson.
Hey if you believe he's that innocent I guess you wouldn't mind living near him. I hope that works out for you. :wavey: :unsure:

As far as I'm concerned, O.J is a Hall of Fame inductee, he can do anything he puts his mind to, ANYTHING HE PUTS HIS MIND TO.
He might have not acted great in those Naked Gun movies but he acted the role of his life in that trial.

:weirdo:
You have to be the biggest idiot alive. :tape:

venus_rulez
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:22 AM
O.J. got off because he had money and the reason there is still so much bitterness about this case is because it was the first time, especially in such a high profile case, where the black man beat the system. For the first time, people really started looking at our judicial system because someone who "wasn't supposed to beat it" did and it was all because he had money. I believe O.J. didn't do it, though i also believe he probably hired someone to have Nicol killed, though Nicole was hardly a princess. This act though by him is dispicable and certainly makes me rethink my views on this case.

Rocketta
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:43 AM
Taaaaaaaccccckkkkky! :eek:

quasar
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:45 AM
The book title should be:

"How to kill your wife, get away with it, and profit from writing a best-seller about it" (They should place this book in the "True Crime" section of bookstores).

What's next? Ford Bronco commercials?

Cheers,

Carlos

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:51 AM
Every poster in here that THINKS or FEELS OJ.did kill Nicloe and her boyfriend just proved my point. This is all based upon emotions. There are no facts that can be presented in any court today that will convince any sane jury. And you can best believe that there are PI's and detectives STILL trying.
And how in the hell is a black man gonna beat a system designed to kick his ass?! Please! I don't care how much money he had, the only thing that he could possibly guilty of is being black and once married to a white woman.
I think the fact that he's STILL hooking up with white women is what's got most peoples' panties in a bunch. :lol:
I mean, the guy is without a doubt despicable, but the truth is the truth folks. No matter what color you paint it.

I will say this though...
Do I believe that he knows who did it? YES!!
I've always felt that he had a hand in her death. But the right questions weren't asked because people wanted OJ to pay.

Selah
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:52 AM
If that is true, how sad. I still don't know how he looks at his two children that he had with Nicole. I have always believed that the evidence showed he killed them and if he was a poor black man, he would have been fried (with the evidence they had).period.

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:00 AM
It still amazes me how badly the prosecution screwed up. I mean their 'mountain of evidence' was quickly reduced to 'a grain of sand' once the defense finshed with their sorry butts. :tape: :lol:
Honestly, that was some easy money made by the defense. SMH.

Hey Denise, that's my first time ever use of 'SMH'. :lol:

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:01 AM
:weirdo:
You have to be the biggest idiot alive. :tape:

This is not the first time this has happened.

There are some people who can watch the R. Kelly video of him pissing on a girl and look me right in the eyes and tell me R. Kelly is innocent.

That's fine.
Now those people are fans of R. Kelly.
If they want to be blinded by his celebrity to impair their judgement that's fine.

OJ hasn't done anything for 20 years before the trial.
He had little to no fans.
So there's another factor that happens to be impairing people's judgement on this case.

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:06 AM
This is not the first time this has happened.

There are some people who can watch the R. Kelly video of him pissing on a girl and look me right in the eyes and tell me R. Kelly is innocent.

That's fine.
Now those people are fans of R. Kelly.
If they want to be blinded by his celebrity to impair their judgement that's fine.

OJ hasn't done anything for 20 years before the trial.
He had little to no fans.
So there's another factor that happens to be impairing people's judgement on this case.Pardon me, but I have to ask you something. And of course you're not obligated to answer, but...

...didn't video tapes show R. Kelly engaging in his reported lascivious acts?

Soooooooooo, the point you are trying to make is ["......." ], what exactly? :shrug:

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Every poster in here that THINKS or FEELS OJ.did kill Nicloe and her boyfriend just proved my point. This is all based upon emotions.
I will say this though...
Do I believe that he knows who did it? YES!!
I've always felt that he had a hand in her death. But the right questions weren't asked because people wanted OJ to pay.

It has nothing to do with emotion.
It's a certainty that he knows more than he let on in that trial.
Thank you for at least acknowledging that because that seems to be an issue with many people over 10 years later.

Again when you have a person like OJ Simpson who has shown he can do anything he puts his mind to, then yes the person who before this trial was considered to be too nice, could do something out of his persona.

In 1990, OJ would have been considered one of the best role models you could have from the NFL.
In 2006, OJ is considered disgusting, despicable, and just plain sick.

Thank God for double jeopardy because the 2006 OJ would be in jail no matter how bad the LAPD messed up.

Whether you want to believe it or not OJ's goody goody persona was a factor in the trial.
He could never kill his wife, he's OJ Simpson.
He makes people laugh. He had a great family.
Why would OJ kill?
The prosecution could never break away at that but the defense was able to break away at the LAPD's shell.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:23 AM
Pardon me, but I have to ask you something. And of course you're not obligated to answer, but...

...didn't video tapes show R. Kelly engaging in his reported lascivious acts?

Soooooooooo, the point you are trying to make is ["......." ], what exactly? :shrug:

The point I'm trying to make is even with more than enough evidence for a crime, people's judgements can be blinded not to see that crime but to see anything else but the crime.

Instead of R.Kelly is guilty, you get, R. Kelly never really hurt anyone.
They're going after R. Kelly because he's a good black role model.

Randy H
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:26 AM
Whether or not he used his own hands to kill them may be debateable, but I believe that he knows who did it, and likely planned and paid for that person to kill Nicole and Ronald. In my eyes, that makes you just as guilty. The system did a poor job of organizing the case and getting to the facts without screwing things up along the way, and that's a shame. O.J. is a sick, narcissistic man, and it disgusts me to think that he is even being allowed to get the attention to write a book about this. He may have been let off the hook in court, but I sure hope he has a harsh final judgement day ahead for him if there is such a thing.

quasar
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:32 AM
ReeVee Dinasty:

Every poster in here that THINKS or FEELS OJ.did kill Nicloe and her boyfriend just proved my point. This is all based upon emotions.

Can only speak for myself, but emotionally-wise I always defended O.J simply because I'm a huge football fan and, even though I never had the chance of seeing him play, I admired him not only for his gaudy numbers on the field (2,003 yds in 14 games: are you kidding me!), but the fact that he had rickets as a kid and got over that hump to become one of the greatest RB's of all time (after Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Walter Payton, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers; in my book at least).

But from what I gathered out of the media circus that ensued; the mis-handling of evidence that would have been instrumental to proving his guilt, was deemed not acceptable, paving the way for his acquital. Much to my chagrin, this lead me to stop beleaving the fantasy that the great USC and Buffalo Bills standout, the affable guy from the Hertz comercials and Naked Gun movies, was nothing more than a facade behind someone who, if disposed of his athletes gifts, charming public persona and celebrity, was nothing more than a murderous wife-beater.

Justice is a concept that supercedes racial affinities.

And how in the hell is a black man gonna beat a system designed to kick his ass?!

Not being American, I would be curious about the reasons behind this assertion (if it's not too much trouble).

Cheers,

Carlos

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:55 AM
It has nothing to do with emotion.
It's a certainty that he knows more than he let on in that trial.
Thank you for at least acknowledging that because that seems to be an issue with many people over 10 years later.

Again when you have a person like OJ Simpson who has shown he can do anything he puts his mind to, then yes the person who before this trial was considered to be too nice, could do something out of his persona.

In 1990, OJ would have been considered one of the best role models you could have from the NFL.
In 2006, OJ is considered disgusting, despicable, and just plain sick.

Thank God for double jeopardy because the 2006 OJ would be in jail no matter how bad the LAPD messed up.

Whether you want to believe it or not OJ's goody goody persona was a factor in the trial.
He could never kill his wife, he's OJ Simpson.
He makes people laugh. He had a great family.
Why would OJ kill?
The prosecution could never break away at that but the defense was able to break away at the LAPD's shell.You really don't think that emotion had anything to do with people calling for OJ's head?! Come on Wannabeknowitall, even you have to admit that this was one of the most emotionally charged cases in modern history. Black successful male athlete marrying and then killing the white mother of his two children?! You're kidding, right?

I recall seeing the faces of people on the news how camped out...
YES!
Camped out at the courthouse calling for OJ's head before the case even went to trail. :eek: There was no evidence yet presented. There was no jury yet selected. However, there were people asking for the death penalty for OJ. Not looking to find the truth of what happened...but OJ's death.
I don't know what other term could define such a desire other than that of pure 'emotion'.

The point I'm trying to make is even with more than enough evidence for a crime, people's judgements can be blinded not to see that crime but to see anything else but the crime.

Instead of R.Kelly is guilty, you get, R. Kelly never really hurt anyone.
They're going after R. Kelly because he's a good black role model.Okay, let me lay it down for ya, because maybe you and others here may have forgotten...
This was a case that would have made many legal officials famous. I don't recall whether it was an election year or not, but I believe that this also had a HUGE bearing on the case as well.
I think folks quickly forget that the American system is not designed to discover the 'truth'. It's designed to determine which side is more convincing.
Hey, if he was guilty, I'd be the first to admit it.
He's scum. He's filth. He's an Uncle Tom to the Nth degree. And he's a shameless opportunist and a discredit to the race. But even so, he would have to be major doped up on high octane drugs to have "physically" done what the prosecution contended. That's all I'm trying to convey.

Again, the wrong question were asked because people wanted OJ's head.
Even now, with the case being a decade old, there are still folks who swear that he did it. Bwhere is their evidence? :shrug: It's all emotional. :hehehe:

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:00 AM
Whether or not he used his own hands to kill them may be debateable, but I believe that he knows who did it, and likely planned and paid for that person to kill Nicole and Ronald. In my eyes, that makes you just as guilty.Which is my point in a nutshell. The Prosecution asked the wrong questions because people wanted OJ's head ONLY.
The system did a poor job of organizing the case and getting to the facts without screwing things up along the way, and that's a shame. O.J. is a sick, narcissistic man, and it disgusts me to think that he is even being allowed to get the attention to write a book about this. He may have been let off the hook in court, but I sure hope he has a harsh final judgement day ahead for him if there is such a thing.:worship:
However, let's not forget those scum detectives that planted evidence in order to speed the conviction, and opportunistic prosecutorial attorneys. That's gotta count for something below 'scum-of-the-earth' status as well. :lol:

Ryan
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Lets put it this way. There are people here who WANT him to be guilty. And there are other people here who WANT to prove him innocent. It doesn't take much work to figure out who's who.

Anyway, I watched the Goldmans on Larry King and they seem to be handling it pretty well for people who've endured so much. Even if OJ didn't do it, you cant blame them for thinking he did.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:14 AM
You really don't think that emotion had anything to do with people calling for OJ's head?! Come on Wannabeknowitall, even you have to admit that this was one of the most emotionally charged cases in modern history. Black successful male athlete marrying and then killing the white mother of his two children?! You're kidding, right?

I recall seeing the faces of people on the news how camped out...
YES!
Camped out at the courthouse calling for OJ's head before the case even went to trail. :eek: There was no evidence yet presented. There was no jury yet selected. However, there were people asking for the death penalty for OJ. Not looking to find the truth of what happened...but OJ's death.
I don't know what other term could define such a desire other than that of pure 'emotion'.

Okay, let me lay it down for ya, because maybe you and others here may have forgotten...
This was a case that would have made many legal officials famous. I don't recall whether it was an election year or not, but I believe that this also had a HUGE bearing on the case as well.
I think folks quickly forget that the American system is not designed to discover the 'truth'. It's designed to determine which side is more convincing.
Hey, if he was guilty, I'd be the first to admit it.
He's scum. He's filth. He's an Uncle Tom to the Nth degree. And he's a shameless opportunist and a discredit to the race. But even so, he would have to be major doped up on high octane drugs to have "physically" done what the prosecution contended. That's all I'm trying to convey.

Again, the wrong question were asked because people wanted OJ's head.
Even now, with the case being a decade old, there are still folks who swear that he did it. Bwhere is their evidence? :shrug: It's all emotional. :hehehe:

What the hell are you talking about?
I made a comment that over 10 years later most people's comments about feeling or thinking that OJ did it have nothing to do with emotion.

You post something to me about people wanting OJ's head on a platter not even before the trial begin.
There was emotion ten years ago noone is denying that.
That emotion has changed into certainty.
Either you can see through that veneer of OJ Simpson or you don't.
There have been things that have come up including this book that continue to show OJ Simpson not in the best of light.

Even people who supposedly knew OJ Simpson didn't do it are now saying perhaps he knows more about the killing than he let on.

So he would have to be major doped up on high octane drugs to have physically done what the prosecution has contended?

I wonder where OJ could have found high octane drugs in LA. :rolleyes:
LA of all places. There are none of those kinds of drugs in LA right?
It's the cleanest place in the country.

Also the fact that you haven't mentioned that this could be a two way street concerns me.
You continue to mention that those who think he did it 10 years ago, only have emotion on their side when they think or feel he's done it.
You've yet to mention that the people who think he didn't do it 10 years ago, might also have some emotion on their side as to when they're thinking or feeling he hasn't done it.
It's not all facts on either side.

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:30 AM
ReeVee Dinasty:



Can only speak for myself, but emotionally-wise I always defended O.J simply because I'm a huge football fan and, even though I never had the chance of seeing him play, I admired him not only for his gaudy numbers on the field (2,003 yds in 14 games: are you kidding me!), but the fact that he had rickets as a kid and got over that hump to become one of the greatest RB's of all time (after Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Walter Payton, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers; in my book at least).

But from what I gathered out of the media circus that ensued; the mis-handling of evidence that would have been instrumental to proving his guilt, was deemed not acceptable, paving the way for his acquital. Much to my chagrin, this lead me to stop beleaving the fantasy that the great USC and Buffalo Bills standout, the affable guy from the Hertz comercials and Naked Gun movies, was nothing more than a facade behind someone who, if disposed of his athletes gifts, charming public persona and celebrity, was nothing more than a murderous wife-beater.

Justice is a concept that supercedes racial affinities.So many people were taken in by OJ's seeming apathy. He stated that he'd discover the true murderer, but never did. He stated that he'd secure the services of a PI and never rest until her killer was found. :rolleyes: Right, OJ! He couldn't even account for a good portion of his whereabouts; which is when I believe he may have been planning Nicole's death with the actual 'contracted killer'. This is purely speculation on my part though. And I believe that he hated Nicole enough to have given all the pertinent information necessary to have her 86'd. Ronald Goldman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I then believe that immediately following the murder he felt extreme remorse, and thus the low speed Bronco "chase". But being that OJ isn't the type of fellow to concede for anything or anybody, he recovered enough to fight his conviction and / or incarceration.
Personally, I despise the man, and he should NOT be out enjoying life the way he has. But when the wrong question are asked because the Prosecution is opportunistic and inept, and the LAPD is too corrupt to control its on officers, then this is the sort of outcome that one can expect.
Not being American, I would be curious about the reasons behind this assertion (if it's not too much trouble).

Cheers,

CarlosNo trouble at all. ;)

America is and has always been preoccupied with race. There was a time [during slavery] when a Black man/woman was considered little more than an animal to be sold and rented out . Even so, these slaves were raped and/or used as sexual tools as well. Black men submitted to the white plantation owner's wives; Black women were raped by the plantation owners. The alternative was death. This is an overly simplified version, but you get the point. :)
Thus, since the times of slavery, there has been this animosity on both sides. Interracial marriage was illegal for a great many states. Black men have been beaten to death, dragged to death, or hung, just for [I]LOOKING at a white woman. So you can well imagine the enmity between the two “races” where interracial relationships are concerned, even today.

Again, there’s MUCH more to this history than related here. And to be honest, it’s some pretty painful, heart-wrenching stuff.

Now here’s the grey area that most don’t speak of…
Black people hate OJ possibly more than whites, because he epitomizes the ignorant Black man who can’t get enough of the white woman. His white wife dies and what does he do? He dates white women who resembles like her and HITS them! :fiery:
Anyway, that about the gist of it. :angel:

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:33 AM
What the hell are you talking about?
I made a comment that over 10 years later most people's comments about feeling or thinking that OJ did it have nothing to do with emotion.

You post something to me about people wanting OJ's head on a platter not even before the trial begin.
There was emotion ten years ago noone is denying that.
That emotion has changed into certainty.
Either you can see through that veneer of OJ Simpson or you don't.
There have been things that have come up including this book that continue to show OJ Simpson not in the best of light.

Even people who supposedly knew OJ Simpson didn't do it are now saying perhaps he knows more about the killing than he let on.

So he would have to be major doped up on high octane drugs to have physically done what the prosecution has contended?

I wonder where OJ could have found high octane drugs in LA. :rolleyes:
LA of all places. There are none of those kinds of drugs in LA right?
It's the cleanest place in the country.

Also the fact that you haven't mentioned that this could be a two way street concerns me.
You continue to mention that those who think he did it 10 years ago, only have emotion on their side when they think or feel he's done it.
You've yet to mention that the people who think he didn't do it 10 years ago, might also have some emotion on their side as to when they're thinking or feeling he hasn't done it.
It's not all facts on either side.HEY DENISE, I now see what you mean. :rolleyes:

Randy H
Nov 16th, 2006, 03:10 AM
Which is my point in a nutshell. The Prosecution asked the wrong questions because people wanted OJ's head ONLY.
:worship:
However, let's not forget those scum detectives that planted evidence in order to speed the conviction, and opportunistic prosecutorial attorneys. That's gotta count for something below 'scum-of-the-earth' status as well. :lol:

Absolutely - I think it's a pity that because many of these people are either 1. feeling pressure to solve a case immediately or 2. dealing with a case with pre-conceived/discriminatory judgement, they stoop so low as to try and make the truth themselves instead of getting to the facts and finding out what really happened. It just makes the whole system look like a complete farce, and it really makes you question the people who are supposed to be protecting our lives and legitimately putting away the bad apples.

treufreund
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:03 AM
I am shocked that you are shocked that I am shocked :p

Come on, this is pretty low, even for him.


well not really. the murders themselves were a bit lower than this.:p

LoveFifteen
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:21 AM
If my ex-wife were brutally murdered by someone else, I would definitely ride down the freeway with a gun to my head instead of being at my children's side, comforting them from the horror and grief. I think that's what any innocent person would do, right? :angel:

NyCPsU
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:23 AM
The shock is that he'd do something this shameless.

i would consider the murders pretty shameless;) :p

NyCPsU
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:26 AM
i was very young when this trial was going on and didnt really understand that much about it, basically i was like omg oj, no way he did it and was rooting for him.

now that im older its clear as water, whether he did(or just had a hand in it), and those who defend him just make me laugh

harloo
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:27 AM
Taaaaaaaccccckkkkky! :eek:

I wish O.J. would dissapear at this point. He should rap it up and stop disrespecting the death of his wife.

LoveFifteen
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:35 AM
I wonder if the book says, "If I did it, I would've blown my brains out while riding down the highway in that Bronco, but since I was innocent, I just held the gun to my head." :angel:

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:49 AM
i was very young when this trial was going on and didnt really understand that much about it, basically i was like omg oj, no way he did it and was rooting for him.

now that im older its clear as water, whether he did(or just had a hand in it), and those who defend him just make me laugh

It makes me sad because I see now how Bush can still be president after all he's done.
I'm sure there are some who defend him even now who believe there's more evidence that he's a good president than anything else.
It's the same thought process.

Sally Struthers
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:28 AM
I wonder if the book says, "If I did it, I would've blown my brains out while riding down the highway in that Bronco, but since I was innocent, I just held the gun to my head." :angel:

If I didn't throw out my National Enquirer from 2 weeks ago I'd scan the book excerpts lol

Sally Struthers
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:28 AM
I'll be making a long trip to Barnes and Noble that day to thumb through the book :angel:

IcePrincess
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:32 AM
O.J. Simpson is GUILTY AS SIN.

I don't care if your skin color is green, black, purple, white, yellow, brown, or mauve.

Only a fool would say he was innocent in those brutal murders.

(Yes, the first jury were a group of fools.)

:)

Stamp Paid
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:47 AM
i was very young when this trial was going on and didnt really understand that much about it, basically i was like omg oj, no way he did it and was rooting for him.

now that im older its clear as water, whether he did(or just had a hand in it), and those who defend him just make me laugh

me too, i was like, 8 and 9 when this all happened. :help:
but from what I've read, I believe OJ seriously had something to do with the murders.
but people were so enraged at the Rodney King case (I remember that case from when I was little too :help: ) that they wanted revenge. And they got it, apparently.

Selah
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:00 AM
me too, i was like, 8 and 9 when this all happened. :help:
but from what I've read, I believe OJ seriously had something to do with the murders.
but people were so enraged at the Rodney King case (I remember that case from when I was little too :help: ) that they wanted revenge. And they got it, apparently.

I don't think people ( when you say people i know who you mean;) ) wanted revenge because of the Rodney King case. I think many of those people were rejoicing that a black man was able to beat the American Justice system because he had money, fame and celebrity, money being the most important. There was so much hypocrisy in this case, another being white people being thoroughly pissed the fuck off that he got off, when it happens every day for white people, with or without money. The American people really should have been miffed at their Judicial system that consistently favors the rich, and not in this case white people. Your point about rodney is taken though because we also didn't see the outrage portrayed by whites for those cops getting off, and to top it off there were cameras and proof. They were no cameras recording OJ committing those murders, and yet the outrage. The celebration that some black people was equally as disgusting in my eyes.

It was indeed a fascinating time. I was consumed by this trial, and my main interest was always the children. It really showed the good, the bad and the ugly of American society (from family and friends benefitting from the murders on).

griffin
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:19 PM
Every poster in here that THINKS or FEELS OJ.did kill Nicloe and her boyfriend just proved my point. This is all based upon emotions.

You mean to tell me you can read your OWN posts in this thread, and claim the people who think he's guilty are the ones basing their opinion on emotions?

Oookay.

Ryan
Nov 16th, 2006, 03:32 PM
You mean to tell me you can read your OWN posts in this thread, and claim the people who think he's guilty are the ones basing their opinion on emotions?

Oookay.

Game, set, match Griffin. :tape:

samsung101
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:15 PM
It's pretty sick.
The man has two children, does he sit around and discuss
this with his kids?

He's a jerk and a pig and a killer in my view.
He should be thankful he got away with it.

But, his ego is too big.
His bank account needs a boost too.

The Karr interview with Larry King is right on par
with this. Sick guy given free air time to spew more
sick ideas.


Other than football and Chris Wallace, I don't watch
Fox.



Fox is giving the public the kind of junk it seems to like to see.

Don't watch it, they won't put this kind of stuff on.

We do watch it.

We are tabloid driven.

We prefer fables and myths and rumors to truth.
In celebrity and other things.
We prefer to believe a movie to facts and history.

Is it the worst thing ever on tv?


Barbara Walters talks to Robert Blake, he got away with it.
Mike Wallace does a puff piece with the President of Iran.
Castro gets interviewed w/no hard questions.

griffin
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:26 PM
And on that note, I believe this thread has officially jumped the shark.

timafi
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:29 PM
OJ is a waste for a human being with all due respect to his mother who gave birth to him
this man has no business being alive if it weren't for his poor kids who I pity for having acriminal for father
as for that book, I've come to realize that our culture really in some extent glorifies the scum of the earth like the bastard who killed Lennon, Mark D. Chapman by doing tv interviews with him; Hitler with all the movies on him ,Charles Manson who killed Sharon Tate and now Simpson.:mad: :mad:
as for Fox,what's new right:rolleyes:

Cilla
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:43 PM
The shock is that he'd do something this shameless.
I agree. I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I heard this on the news.

Denise4925
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:48 PM
Well, I was a 34 year old practicing attorney when this trial took place and saw every ounce of evidence and every argument presented. I would so appreciate it if anyone of you who believe that he is without a doubt guilty, refute the defense's case and present evidence of his guilt. All I hear from the likes of Wannabeknowitall and others is "he did it and I can't believe you think he's innocent" or "you just believe he's guilty because of his race" or "you think he's innocent because he was some kind of sports hero". I don't hear you refuting the facts of the case or the forensic evidence presented. I don't see anything from you but bandwagon riding because you can't make a factual and/or evidential argument that he did do it.

When Griffin spoke of the blood evidence in an earlier post, I refuted the argument, but no other poster after me commented or attempted to argue why my contention was baseless. Please I beg you to come up with something more substantial, other than it's what you think, to try to convince me why he is guilty.

If you were 8 or 9 years old at the time of the trial, it was no way you could possibly understand the evidence even if you did see the trial, nor could you say now that you are an adult that you think he's guilty based on anything substantial and factual because you haven't seen all of the evidence from both sides.

If someone was an adult with reasonable intelligence at the time of the trial and watched everyday and every hour from the time of the arraignment to the verdict, and can tell me from the evidence presented at trial, why you think he's guilty, I would certainly love to hear it. Otherwise, the posts for his guilt are all hearsay, bandwagon riding and emotion, and very unconvincing in my opinion.

Again, I don't believe he's guilty based on the facts and evidence presented at trial. It has nothing to do with his race, former status as a sports hero and movie star and certainly nothing to do with any personal opinion I may have or still have of him.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:17 PM
Well, I was a 34 year old practicing attorney when this trial took place and saw every ounce of evidence and every argument presented. I would so appreciate it if anyone of you who believe that he is without a doubt guilty, refute the defense's case and present evidence of his guilt. All I hear from the likes of Wannabeknowitall and others is "he did it and I can't believe you think he's innocent" or "you just believe he's guilty because of his race" or "you think he's innocent because he was some kind of sports hero". I don't hear you refuting the facts of the case or the forensic evidence presented. I don't see anything from you but bandwagon riding because you can't make a factual and/or evidential argument that he did do it.

When Griffin spoke of the blood evidence in an earlier post, I refuted the argument, but no other poster after me commented or attempted to argue why my contention was baseless. Please I beg you to come up with something more substantial, other than it's what you think, to try to convince me why he is guilty.



I have never beyond a doubt said OJ was guilty.
What I have continued to say is that I acknowledge that OJ knows more about the murders than he has let on and this book is evidence of that.

You have never acknowledged that it could be possible.
That is why I commented about the impairment.

Stamp Paid
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:20 PM
Well, I was a 34 year old practicing attorney when this trial took place and saw every ounce of evidence and every argument presented. I would so appreciate it if anyone of you who believe that he is without a doubt guilty, refute the defense's case and present evidence of his guilt. All I hear from the likes of Wannabeknowitall and others is "he did it and I can't believe you think he's innocent" or "you just believe he's guilty because of his race" or "you think he's innocent because he was some kind of sports hero". I don't hear you refuting the facts of the case or the forensic evidence presented. I don't see anything from you but bandwagon riding because you can't make a factual and/or evidential argument that he did do it.

When Griffin spoke of the blood evidence in an earlier post, I refuted the argument, but no other poster after me commented or attempted to argue why my contention was baseless. Please I beg you to come up with something more substantial, other than it's what you think, to try to convince me why he is guilty.

If you were 8 or 9 years old at the time of the trial, it was no way you could possibly understand the evidence even if you did see the trial, nor could you say now that you are an adult that you think he's guilty based on anything substantial and factual because you haven't seen all of the evidence from both sides.

If someone was an adult with reasonable intelligence at the time of the trial and watched everyday and every hour from the time of the arraignment to the verdict, and can tell me from the evidence presented at trial, why you think he's guilty, I would certainly love to hear it. Otherwise, the posts for his guilt are all hearsay, bandwagon riding and emotion, and very unconvincing in my opinion.

Again, I don't believe he's guilty based on the facts and evidence presented at trial. It has nothing to do with his race, former status as a sports hero and movie star and certainly nothing to do with any personal opinion I may have or still have of him.

I definitely dont think that he was guilty as far as the purely legal connotations of the word imply. I dont believe that OJ Simpson actually himself killed those people in the way that the prosecution described, and I also know that the LAPD allowed key evidence to get contaminated, and that racist fuck Mark Fuhrman (who already had a complex about seeing white women and black men together) probably planted key evidence (glove? :help: ), so I would not say that he is guilty per se. However, I believe that O.J. Simpson had something to do with the murders.

The fact that his limo driver was waiting for him and got no answer at the gate 10:45, then saw a someone enter the house at around 10:50 and lights came on and suddenly OJ answered the door. The fact that OJ was trying to call his girlfriend right before those people were murdered from his car phone, the fact that the perfectly working dome light inside his car was removed and placed under his seat so that when he got out of his car, the light would not come on, and the blood smears on the floor of the Bronco showing that he was probably trying to put the light back in the car, the fact that he couldnt explain how he cut his finger down to the bone the night of the murders, the fact that jurors even said themselves that they believed OJ had something to do with it! They just couldnt convict him based off of anything other than the evidence and theories that were presented. The fact that he had a passport, a gang of money, a fake mustache, a fake goatee when he was in the white bronco with Al Cowlings, these things all scream to me that this man had something to do with the murders. This is my own gut feeling. But as I said earlier, of course from a purely legal standpoint, he may be not guilty. But thats moreso because of Fuhrman's malfeasance and the prosecutions incompetence/shortsightedness, not because OJ truly had nothing to do with murdering those people. Legally, thats all that matters. But in my mind, I'm sure he was involved in the murders of those ppl.

Denise4925
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:25 PM
I have never beyond a doubt said OJ was guilty.
What I have continued to say is that I acknowledge that OJ knows more about the murders than he has let on and this book is evidence of that.

You have never acknowledged that it could be possible.
That is why I commented about the impairment.

Whatever :rolleyes: I'm not even going to go back through these threads to prove you a liar. But, I will say that just because I don't see a need to aknowledge that something could be possible, doesn't mean that my judgment is impaired. Besides, that is not the reason you stated when you accused me of having an impaired judgment regarding this case. I have no opinion on whether he knows something about it or not and will not speculate. I am only going by what was presented at trial and I dare not speculate beyond that because because I have not read the book. I have no idea at this point what evidence if any this book will present, beyond being a vehicle to capitalize off the sensationalism that should have died after the civil trial. Therefore, at this point for me, the book is not evidence of anything.

Other than speculating about this book, what other evidence or facts do you have that make you believe he knows more about the murders?

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Whatever :rolleyes: I'm not even going to go back through these threads to prove you a liar. But, I will say that just because I don't see a need to aknowledge that something could be possible, doesn't mean that my judgment is impaired. Besides, that is not the reason you stated when you accused me of having an impaired judgment regarding this case. I have no opinion on whether he knows something about it or not and will not speculate. I am only going by what was presented at trial and I dare not speculate beyond that because because I have not read the book. I have no idea at this point what evidence if any this book will present, beyond being a vehicle to capitalize off the sensationalism that should have died after the civil trial. Therefore, at this point for me, the book is not evidence of anything.

Other than speculating about this book, what other evidence or facts do you have that make you believe he knows more about the murders?

So I'm the biggest idiot alive and a liar?
I seem to be hitting a nerve.
Since you don't want to go through the thread I'll do it for you.

Do you see race that much that it impairs any judgement?
You won't even acknowledge that O.J knows more about the murders than he ever let on.
He ran in a white Bronco. Come On Denise.
He knows more about the murders which is why he's writing something like this at the least.


This is supposedly where I have lied at.
The facts that King has in his post above you is sufficent not for me to believe but to know OJ knows more than he's let on in the trial about the murders.

Denise4925
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:42 PM
The fact that his limo driver was waiting for him and got no answer at the gate 10:45, then saw a someone enter the house at around 10:50 and lights came on and suddenly OJ answered the door.

And, this proves what? Maybe he was in the toilet, in the shower or out in the backyard? :shrugs:

The fact that OJ was trying to call his girlfriend right before those people were murdered from his car phone,

What does this prove or suggest?

the fact that the perfectly working dome light inside his car was removed and placed under his seat so that when he got out of his car, the light would not come on, and the blood smears on the floor of the Bronco showing that he was probably trying to put the light back in the car,

So, you're saying that there was no switch on the dashboard to prevent the dome light from coming on? He had to dismantle it in order to prevent it from coming on? I don't remember any evidence of blood smears on the floor of the Bronco, but I do remember a smidgen on the handle of the Bronco. As I stated before, the CSI and detectives were so careless about everyone including the dog walking through the crime scene and carrying blood everywhere, you can't say that it didn't come from one of the detectives.

the fact that he couldnt explain how he cut his finger down to the bone the night of the murders,

I thought he said he broke a drinking glass in the hotel room in Chicago when he got the call about the murders. But, where are the bruises from Goldman (who was a Karate expert) fighting him off? Ron Goldman had defensive wounds on his hands and body indicating he fought his attackers. Plus, he was in his twenties and very athletically built and fit. Whereas OJ was in his 40's and afflicted with crippling arthritis and bad knees.

the fact that jurors even said themselves that they believed OJ had something to do with it!

When, after the media storm that justice was not done? And, what did they base it on? From the very few who stated that, it sounded like peer pressure.

The fact that he had a passport, a gang of money, a fake mustache, a fake goatee when he was in the white bronco with Al Cowlings, these things all scream to me that this man had something to do with the murders.

LOL, he panicked when he heard that he was going to be arrested for the murders. And, where was OJ going with a passport with his picture, a fake mustache and fake goatee and not look like OJ in a fake mustach and fake goatee.:lol: I do remember the passport and money in the Bronco, but not the mustache and goatee.

This is my own gut feeling. But as I said earlier, of course from a purely legal standpoint, he may be not guilty. But thats moreso because of Fuhrman's malfeasance and the prosecutions incompetence/shortsightedness, not because OJ truly had nothing to do with murdering those people. Legally, thats all that matters. But in my mind, I'm sure he was involved in the murders of those ppl.

It's also because of the blood and DNA evidence. It's because of the pure physical impossibility of OJ being capable of committing this crime against two individuals with the fitness level of these two people in their 20's and 30's and getting away, with no one hearing a thing, no bloody clothes found, no weapon, but glove not fitting, etc. It really looked to me like a professional hit made by more than one person.

Denise4925
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:44 PM
So I'm the biggest idiot alive and a liar?
I seem to be hitting a nerve.
Since you don't want to go through the thread I'll do it for you.



This is supposedly where I have lied at.
The facts that King has in his post above you is sufficent not for me to believe but to know OJ knows more than he's let on in the trial about the murders.

No, you lied when you said that you didn't think he wasn't guilty of the actual murders.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:55 PM
No, you lied when you said that you didn't think he wasn't guilty of the actual murders.
Now that's a lie.
I never beyond a doubt said OJ was innocent or guilty unlike other posters on here.
In many of my post though I have acknowledged that OJ knows something more about the murders than he let on in the trial.

Stamp Paid
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:15 PM
And, this proves what? Maybe he was in the toilet, in the shower or out in the backyard? :shrugs:



What does this prove or suggest?

This proves that at the very least, at the time around when Allan Park was waiting on him outside of his gate, OJ was neither on the toilet or in the backyard. He was somewhere in his Bronco, using the phone, trying to call Paula Barbiere(sp) for whatever reason.

So, you're saying that there was no switch on the dashboard to prevent the dome light from coming on? He had to dismantle it in order to prevent it from coming on? I don't remember any evidence of blood smears on the floor of the Bronco, but I do remember a smidgen on the handle of the Bronco. As I stated before, the CSI and detectives were so careless about everyone including the dog walking through the crime scene and carrying blood everywhere, you can't say that it didn't come from one of the detectives.I dunno, like I said, the LAPD allowed much evidence to become contaminated in the process. So you may be right here.


I thought he said he broke a drinking glass in the hotel room in Chicago when he got the call about the murders. But, where are the bruises from Goldman (who was a Karate expert) fighting him off? Ron Goldman had defensive wounds on his hands and body indicating he fought his attackers. Plus, he was in his twenties and very athletically built and fit. Whereas OJ was in his 40's and afflicted with crippling arthritis and bad knees.Oh, I thought he couldn't explain the cut, I may be remembering incorrectly. But damn, that must have been some thick ass beer mug to have cut him so deeply, down to the bone (this was a big, black man with what I'm sure were thick, football throwing hands), and to break it, he must have slammed it down mighty hard, which considering the fact that he had crippling arthritis is hard to fathom. Also, as far as the bruises go, as I said before, I dont buy the prosecutions argument. I dont believe that OJ Simpson went and killed those people himself, but I believe he was involved. To which capacity, I do not know. And OJ was a big, strong man, despite his arthritis and bad knees, I'm sure he could handle Nicole easily (like he did when kicking her ass in the past), and Goldman would have put up more of a fight, but if OJ and Ron Goldman were fighting on the street, who do you think would kick who's ass? A former football player with a history of domestic violence, or a Jewish 20 something waiteraspiring actor/part time model? Despite how fit and young Goldman was. But thats besides the point, because I dont believe that OJ killed both of these people alone and with his own bare hands (and required weapons).


When, after the media storm that justice was not done? And, what did they base it on? From the very few who stated that, it sounded like peer pressure.I dont know, personally. They reminded me of the jurors in the first Andrea Yates case, after the verdict, how the women on the jury said they believed that Yates was insane, but simply because of the Texas rules for declaring whether someone is sane or not at the moment of the crime, they could not declare her not guilty by reason of insanity. The Yates jurors and the OJ jurors just sounded like ppl who felt that they had to do their jobs as instructed, and not going off of gut instinct.



LOL, he panicked when he heard that he was going to be arrested for the murders. And, where was OJ going with a passport with his picture, a fake mustache and fake goatee and not look like OJ in a fake mustach and fake goatee.:lol: I do remember the passport and money in the Bronco, but not the mustache and goatee.LOL, I dont know. Like you said, he panicked. He wasn't thinking rationally obviously, he had a gun to his head and was being chased by the police. And his suicide note, saying "Dont feel sorry for me, Ive had a good life." WTH? :tape::lol: Why are you contemplating suicide at this moment, sir? :scratch:


It's also because of the blood and DNA evidence. It's because of the pure physical impossibility of OJ being capable of committing this crime against two individuals with the fitness level of these two people in their 20's and 30's and getting away, with no one hearing a thing, no bloody clothes found, no weapon, but glove not fitting, etc. It really looked to me like a professional hit made by more than one person.You are right about all of that. I have no theory as to how the murders were committed, I'm far from a crime scene investigator. But I know that OJ had an involvement in the murders, whether he hired the hitman, or he slit the first throat then had henchmen do the rest, I dunno. Although its purely speculative, do the likely probablility that OJ was directly involved somehow in these murders?

Denise4925
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:22 PM
This proves that at the very least, at the time around when Allan Park was waiting on him outside of his gate, OJ was neither on the toilet or in the backyard. He was somewhere in his Bronco, using the phone, trying to call Paula Barbiere(sp) for whatever reason.

Maybe he was in the backyard or in the garage with his cell phone. :shrug:



Although its purely speculative, do you deny all possibility that OJ was directly involved somehow in these murders?

I don't deny that anything is possible. I just don't know and I don't want to speculate.

Stamp Paid
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:35 PM
I don't deny that anything is possible. I just don't know and I don't want to speculate.
I respect that.

Back to the trial stuff tho, didnt one of Nicole's neighbors say she saw a white bronco speed away at like 10:45 that night? And someone else said they made eye contact with him at a stoplight, with his lights off? Or am I remembering that stuff wrong, I read so much about it but I'm going mostly off memory, so I may be wrong.

Nicole was an idiot anyway. Why would she be fucking Ron Goldman and leting him ride around in her car when OJ had 5-7 minute access to her crib? Its a lesson not to marry for money. :tape::help:

Denise4925
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:56 PM
Sorry, the man was guilty. Carl Sagan, before he passed away, said it best in an interview with Psychology Today with regards to the DNA/forensic evidence acquired:



(source: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n1_v29/ai_17955280/pg_6 )

First, did you see the trial or are you relying on articles, interviews and reports?

Frankly, I think his opinion is biased. Like he said, there are those who already have their minds made up and nothing can be said to change it. I disagree that the DNA evidence was not explained, because Barry Scheck of the defense went to great lengths to explain the evidence in the defense's case.

I give the jury the benefit of the doubt that they didn't have their minds made up from the start and I take offense to the conclusion that the jurors were not educated or intelligent enough to understand the evidence. Plus, there was other evidence mitigating guilt besides the DNA evidence.

Denise4925
Nov 16th, 2006, 08:07 PM
I respect that.

Back to the trial stuff tho, didnt one of Nicole's neighbors say she saw a white bronco speed away at like 10:45 that night? And someone else said they made eye contact with him at a stoplight, with his lights off? Or am I remembering that stuff wrong, I read so much about it but I'm going mostly off memory, so I may be wrong.

. :tape::help:


I don't remember anyone testifying to any of that.

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 08:17 PM
You mean to tell me you can read your OWN posts in this thread, and claim the people who think he's guilty are the ones basing their opinion on emotions?

Oookay.Touché! :worship: :o

However, mine is based upon the 'absence of facts' in the case.
[...but yes, a good deal of 'emotion as well]:p

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 08:30 PM
Okay, this was a great debate and all but, bottom line is...OJ was not proven to be the killer. Period.
Now we can all speculate till we're blue in the face, and I'd imagine that there are law classes in various corners of the U.S. presently investigating every shred of evidence there is [and probably have been since trial's end], however, at this point no new evidence has been provided.
This will probably go down in the annuls of one of the worst 'Unsolved Legal Mysteries' of our time.
Denise has presented the best case here, and no one has even come close to a logical rebuttal or opposing argument. But I'm sure that both she and I get it...
EVERYONE, including she and I detests OJ.

Anyway, I'm moving on. :wavey:

azinna
Nov 17th, 2006, 02:32 PM
....Sagan: There are a lot of studies of juries that suggest that people make up their minds in the opening arguments, selectively remember the evidence that supports their initial judgment, then simply reject the contrary evidence, put it out of their heads. I suspect that did happen here.

The fault lies with prosecutors for relying on complex scientific and mathematical arguments without explaining it in a way the average person can understand. It was a failure to understand what is necessary in talking to the public about science....

Iacobus, I actually think Sagan and other were/are seriously underestimating the jurors. I watched only about 75% of the trial (while a pre-med) and was convinced (really by the media) of OJ's guilt until two important moments: (a) Mark Fuhrman taking of the stand, and (b) Cochran questioning of a Police Videoman who reguarly taped crime scenes about the existence of two tapes of OJ's bedroom, timed several minutes apart, the later one with The Glove at a spot they had previously been empty. They rolled back both tapes so we all (including the jurors, of course) could see and when Cochran asked the man if was at all usual to tape a scene twice just minutes apart, the response, delivered with a poker-face, was "No." When asked why: he was just following instructions.

Once you've got evidence (or even a strong believable suggestion) of police tampering, the DNA argument becomes seriously weakened, regardless of the math. Sagan's continued insistence that "explaining the math" would have helped win the case leads me to believe that he either watched little of it OR would have been a terrible juror, the sort that continue to give the US judicial system its very bad name: making up his mind in the opening arguments, selectively remembering the evidence that supports his initial judgment, then simply rejecting the contrary evidence and putting it out of his head.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 17th, 2006, 09:45 PM
The issue has been discussed in the liberal democraticunderground.com website. Folks there believe that the Fox network has decided to promote this book as part of their campaign to create division among white vs black liberal Democrats.

It's a good bet that this is true.

Helen Lawson
Nov 19th, 2006, 06:47 PM
I want some new stories about OJ and Christie Prodie, his Nicole-look-alike girlfriend, doing coke and partying for days on end. About once a year, she gets off the dope and runs back to her mother, who lives in a trailor in Idaho, boo-hoos for a couple of weeks and spills her guts to her mother and about violent drug-fueled sexcapades with OJ, and then reunited with OJ and the mom spills all to the Enquirer. She's apparently really violent and attacks OJ a lot, so this is a girl who you know is a handful.

Helen Lawson
Nov 19th, 2006, 07:03 PM
If I didn't throw out my National Enquirer from 2 weeks ago I'd scan the book excerpts lol

I remember the excerpts. It says he had an unnamed accomplice with him (Kato?) and that OJ got wind that Nicole was "entertaining" men with the kids upstairs and went over to give her a hard time. He's outside when Ron comes up and OJ assumes he's the one Nicole's been entertaining and starts screaming at him and stuff and Ron is saying he hardly knows Nicole and is just returning glasses and they're getting into it (but not physical) and then Nicole comes out in a sexy outfit to walk the dog and starts going off on OJ about stalking her, and then OJ goes into a rage, and when he comes out of it, they're both slashed to death, and the accomplice is like freaking out like, "look what you did" but OJ claims he has no memories of it.

drake3781
Nov 19th, 2006, 08:04 PM
I remember the excerpts. It says he had an unnamed accomplice with him (Kato?) and that OJ got wind that Nicole was "entertaining" men with the kids upstairs and went over to give her a hard time. He's outside when Ron comes up and OJ assumes he's the one Nicole's been entertaining and starts screaming at him and stuff and Ron is saying he hardly knows Nicole and is just returning glasses and they're getting into it (but not physical) and then Nicole comes out in a sexy outfit to walk the dog and starts going off on OJ about stalking her, and then OJ goes into a rage, and when he comes out of it, they're both slashed to death, and the accomplice is like freaking out like, "look what you did" but OJ claims he has no memories of it.

Sounds about right.

drake3781
Nov 19th, 2006, 08:06 PM
The issue has been discussed in the liberal democraticunderground.com website. Folks there believe that the Fox network has decided to promote this book as part of their campaign to create division among white vs black liberal Democrats.

It's a good bet that this is true.

That is extremely interesting. Hopefully that plan will backfire, if it is clear as day to even the most challenged mind that this is a confession - as it has already been described.

RVD
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Iacobus, I actually think Sagan and other were/are seriously underestimating the jurors. I watched only about 75% of the trial (while a pre-med) and was convinced (really by the media) of OJ's guilt until two important moments: (a) Mark Fuhrman taking of the stand, and (b) Cochran questioning of a Police Videoman who reguarly taped crime scenes about the existence of two tapes of OJ's bedroom, timed several minutes apart, the later one with The Glove at a spot they had previously been empty. They rolled back both tapes so we all (including the jurors, of course) could see and when Cochran asked the man if was at all usual to tape a scene twice just minutes apart, the response, delivered with a poker-face, was "No." When asked why: he was just following instructions.

Once you've got evidence (or even a strong believable suggestion) of police tampering, the DNA argument becomes seriously weakened, regardless of the math. Sagan's continued insistence that "explaining the math" would have helped win the case leads me to believe that he either watched little of it OR would have been a terrible juror, the sort that continue to give the US judicial system its very bad name: making up his mind in the opening arguments, selectively remembering the evidence that supports his initial judgment, then simply rejecting the contrary evidence and putting it out of his head.:worship: Excellent points. You have great recall of the specifics. :cool:

Again, as I stated earlier, if you have a mountain of evidence, then why taint the evidence pool by planting your own? :shrug:

*JR*
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:03 PM
FWIW, OJ won't get to keep whatever money from the book, as his numerous creditors (Fred Goldman, some of his legal team, the IRS, etc.) will surely slap a lien on the publisher (if they haven't already). Only his 25K per month NFL pension is legally untouchable, along with whatever equity he's built up in his Florida house @ 9450 112th St. in Miami and various personal stuff like a vehicle. As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz (a defense team member) later said, both verdicts may have been correct. (That there was reasonable doubt in the criminal trial, but that the civil trial established that it was more likely that he did it than he didn't). Though I'd still like to know where his son Jason and his buddy Al Cowlings were @ the time of the murders.

RVD
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:07 PM
The issue has been discussed in the liberal democraticunderground.com website. Folks there believe that the Fox network has decided to promote this book as part of their campaign to create division among white vs black liberal Democrats.

It's a good bet that this is true.I'm not surprised in the least. This same ploy has been used to divide Latinos and Blacks for decades, and look at how I responded...? By marrying my Latina wifie. :lol:
But seriously, this is a ploy that has been used in Oakland for as long as I can recall. And unfortunately, it's effective on the most simple-minded of the population. Which accounts for QUITE a significant number on both sides. :o

RVD
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:10 PM
I remember the excerpts. It says he had an unnamed accomplice with him (Kato?) and that OJ got wind that Nicole was "entertaining" men with the kids upstairs and went over to give her a hard time. He's outside when Ron comes up and OJ assumes he's the one Nicole's been entertaining and starts screaming at him and stuff and Ron is saying he hardly knows Nicole and is just returning glasses and they're getting into it (but not physical) and then Nicole comes out in a sexy outfit to walk the dog and starts going off on OJ about stalking her, and then OJ goes into a rage, and when he comes out of it, they're both slashed to death, and the accomplice is like freaking out like, "look what you did" but OJ claims he has no memories of it.Yep. That's the theory I recall as well.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:18 PM
:worship: Excellent points. You have great recall of the specifics. :cool:

Again, as I stated earlier, if you have a mountain of evidence, then why taint the evidence pool by planting your own? :shrug:

Because bigots like Furman were 99.9% sure OJ did it, he just wanted to make it was 100%.

RVD
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:51 PM
Because bigots like Furman were 99.9% sure OJ did it, he just wanted to make it was 100%.Yeah, he's a real 'stand-up' kinda guy.
And did you read his wiki-BIO & Articles, and his involvement in the case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman
WOW!

Even I'd be hard pressed to suggest that this mongrel represents the typical U.S. cop.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:53 PM
Frankly, I think his opinion is biased.

Unlike all those other people who have opinions which aren't....?

Like he said, there are those who already have their minds made up and nothing can be said to change it.

That wasn't his point, exactly. We have all exhibited confirmation bias from time to time, unconsciously, more often than not.

I disagree that the DNA evidence was not explained, because Barry Scheck of the defense went to great lengths to explain the evidence in the defense's case.

That's because you view the explanation of how the DNA evidence was explained as a lawyer. Sagan sees it from the eyes of a scientist.

That's not to say that you're wrong and he's right, of course.

I do agree with his general sentiment regarding scientific evidence, mind you:

I give the jury the benefit of the doubt that they didn't have their minds made up from the start and I take offense to the conclusion that the jurors were not educated or intelligent enough to understand the evidence.

Most people aren't educated or intelligent enough to properly analyse scientific evidence. He's entirely correct on that.

Hell, most fourth year university students are neither intelligent or educated enough to properly understand analyse it ;)

This is why the jury system stinks ;)

Shimizu Amon
Nov 20th, 2006, 08:04 AM
I don't get this guy. I don't know if he did it or not, but he's still creeping me out.
But he's getting attention, yet again. And we all know he deserves none of it.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 20th, 2006, 08:01 PM
The project has been cancelled.

CASE CLOSED!

Stamp Paid
Nov 20th, 2006, 08:54 PM
Isn't sad how blacks turn criminals like OJ into some kind of hero? And all because he got away with killing his white wife and her handsome white friend? Wow. The extreme racism and hatred of white people that blacks carry with them is appalling. :)

Yet highly understandable if you think about it. :)






:cuckoo:

*JR*
Nov 20th, 2006, 08:55 PM
O.J. Simpson book, TV show canceled
POSTED: 4:46 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled 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 his has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

A dozen Fox affiliates had already said they would not air the two-part sweeps month special, planned for next week before the Nov. 30 publication of the book by ReganBooks. The publishing house is a HarperCollins imprint owned -- like the Fox network -- by News Corp.

In the projects, Simpson speaks in hypothetical terms about how he would have committed the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend Goldman.

Relatives of the victims have lashed out at the now scuttled publication and broadcast plans.

"He destroyed my son and took from my family Ron's future and life. And for that I'll hate him always and find him despicable," Fred Goldman told ABC last week.

The industry trade publication Broadcasting & Cable editorialized against the show Monday, saying "Fox should cancel this evil sweeps stunt."

One of the nation's largest bookstore chains, Borders Group Inc., said last week it would donate any profits on the book to charity.

Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of murder in a case that became its own television drama. The former football star, announcer and actor was later found liable for the deaths in a lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.

Judith Regan, publisher of "If I Did It," said she considered the book to be Simpson's confession.

The television special was to air on two of the final three nights of the November sweeps, when ratings are watched closely to set local advertising rates. It has been a particularly tough fall for Fox, which has seen none of its new shows catch on and is waiting for the January bows of "American Idol" and "24."

The closest precedent for such an about-face came when CBS yanked a miniseries about Ronald Reagan from its schedule in 2003 when complaints were raised about its accuracy. The Reagan series was seen on its sister premium-cable channel, Showtime, instead.

One station manager who had said he wasn't airing the special said he was concerned that whether or not Simpson was guilty, he'd still be profiting from murders.

"I have my own moral compass and this was easy," said Bill Lamb, general manager of WDRB in Louisville.

For the publishing industry, the cancellation of "If I Did It" was an astonishing end to a story like no other. Numerous books have been withdrawn over the years because of possible plagiarism, most recently Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," but a book's removal simply for objectionable content is virtually unheard of.

Sales had been strong, but not sensational. "If I Did It" cracked the top 20 of Amazon.com last weekend, but by Monday afternoon, at the time its cancellation had been announced, the book had fallen to No. 51.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:10 PM
I remember the excerpts. It says he had an unnamed accomplice with him (Kato?) and that OJ got wind that Nicole was "entertaining" men with the kids upstairs and went over to give her a hard time. He's outside when Ron comes up and OJ assumes he's the one Nicole's been entertaining and starts screaming at him and stuff and Ron is saying he hardly knows Nicole and is just returning glasses and they're getting into it (but not physical) and then Nicole comes out in a sexy outfit to walk the dog and starts going off on OJ about stalking her, and then OJ goes into a rage, and when he comes out of it, they're both slashed to death, and the accomplice is like freaking out like, "look what you did" but OJ claims he has no memories of it.

These excerpts are coming from the National Enquirer, right??!!

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:13 PM
Isn't sad how blacks turn criminals like OJ into some kind of hero? And all because he got away with killing his white wife and her handsome white friend? Wow. The extreme racism and hatred of white people that blacks carry with them is appalling. :)

Are you on drugs? :weirdo:

Helen Lawson
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:15 PM
These excerpts are coming from the National Enquirer, right??!!

Yes, they claimed to have had a close-to-final draft. Even after OJ's lawyer denied the book, the Enquirer taunted them with an article claiming to have the manuscript. Who knows.

In any event, in a lot of the Christie Prodie articles, Christie Prodie's mother claims OJ has confessed to Christie a number of times while on drug binges, I mean, literally, there's been 3-4 headlines "OJ confesses" and it's basically what they now claim is in the book.

RVD
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:16 PM
Isn't sad how blacks turn criminals like OJ into some kind of hero? And all because he got away with killing his white wife and her handsome white friend? Wow. The extreme racism and hatred of white people that blacks carry with them is appalling. :)Oh yeah, OJ's my hero, and every black man woman and child worships at his shrine.

You don't get it it, do you?
Black people were calling for OJ's head even before white people knew what had happened.

You really should stop while you're 15 steps behind everyone else on this issue. :o :tape:

RVD
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:21 PM
O.J. Simpson book, TV show canceled
POSTED: 4:46 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled 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 his has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

A dozen Fox affiliates had already said they would not air the two-part sweeps month special, planned for next week before the Nov. 30 publication of the book by ReganBooks. The publishing house is a HarperCollins imprint owned -- like the Fox network -- by News Corp.

In the projects, Simpson speaks in hypothetical terms about how he would have committed the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend Goldman.

Relatives of the victims have lashed out at the now scuttled publication and broadcast plans.

"He destroyed my son and took from my family Ron's future and life. And for that I'll hate him always and find him despicable," Fred Goldman told ABC last week.

The industry trade publication Broadcasting & Cable editorialized against the show Monday, saying "Fox should cancel this evil sweeps stunt."

One of the nation's largest bookstore chains, Borders Group Inc., said last week it would donate any profits on the book to charity.

Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of murder in a case that became its own television drama. The former football star, announcer and actor was later found liable for the deaths in a lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.

Judith Regan, publisher of "If I Did It," said she considered the book to be Simpson's confession.

The television special was to air on two of the final three nights of the November sweeps, when ratings are watched closely to set local advertising rates. It has been a particularly tough fall for Fox, which has seen none of its new shows catch on and is waiting for the January bows of "American Idol" and "24."

The closest precedent for such an about-face came when CBS yanked a miniseries about Ronald Reagan from its schedule in 2003 when complaints were raised about its accuracy. The Reagan series was seen on its sister premium-cable channel, Showtime, instead.

One station manager who had said he wasn't airing the special said he was concerned that whether or not Simpson was guilty, he'd still be profiting from murders.

"I have my own moral compass and this was easy," said Bill Lamb, general manager of WDRB in Louisville.

For the publishing industry, the cancellation of "If I Did It" was an astonishing end to a story like no other. Numerous books have been withdrawn over the years because of possible plagiarism, most recently Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," but a book's removal simply for objectionable content is virtually unheard of.

Sales had been strong, but not sensational. "If I Did It" cracked the top 20 of Amazon.com last weekend, but by Monday afternoon, at the time its cancellation had been announced, the book had fallen to No. 51.:worship: This is the best thing the media could have done.
Yeah, they would have possibly scored a record viewership, but it would have been morally suicide, at least for a while.

SelesFan70
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:23 PM
If the advertisers won't pay, the show goes away.

:D

Helen Lawson
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Really? Where? All I saw was tons of black people celebrating like slavery had ended or something.

Where was that? I know a couple of black people who told me they thought he did it, but weren't upset he was acquitted because rich, white people get away with murder every day, so why not a black person for once. Hard to argue with that logic, as it's basically true. OJ was able to afford the best, and he was acquitted. Happens every day, but not usually to a black person.

There was an HBO special maybe 5-6 years ago that delved into OJ. I'm not sure how accurate it was, but it made the point that OJ was one of the few black athletes in the 70s who was really able to cross over in the world of endorsements and appealed to white people, i.e. he could market products to white people and white people liked him. I can't remember the reasons, or if there really were any apart from it was a simple fact. But the special also made the point that the black community as a whole, if you can generalize, weren't real entralled with OJ. The minute OJ made it big, he moved to Brentwood and got a white wife and started living "the white life" and didn't do much for the black community. The point was, it was more complicated that simply black people being on his jury, because he had a lot of baggage that didn't appeal to the typical black person either.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:30 PM
Yes, they claimed to have had a close-to-final draft. Even after OJ's lawyer denied the book, the Enquirer taunted them with an article claiming to have the manuscript. Who knows.

In any event, in a lot of the Christie Prodie articles, Christie Prodie's mother claims OJ has confessed to Christie a number of times while on drug binges, I mean, literally, there's been 3-4 headlines "OJ confesses" and it's basically what they now claim is in the book.

So, maybe there was no book to begin with. And, this mother of Christi Prodie is selling her stories to NE, and they are saying that's what's in the book?

Helen Lawson
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:33 PM
So, maybe there was no book to begin with. And, this mother of Christi Prodie is selling her stories to NE, and they are saying that's what's in the book?

No, Christie Prodie's mother's version of OJ's alleged confessions to Christie were along the same lines as what they're saying was in the book--not premeditated, got into with Nicole, murder was crime of passion/lost his temper. If he did it, that's probably how it happened, I don't think he drove over there with the intent to kill her. They are not saying that the book was based on anything related to Christie Prodie or what he's told her in the past. I was just pointing out the similiarity in the version from Christie Prodie's mother and the version in the book.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:38 PM
:worship: This is the best thing the media could have done.
Yeah, they would have possibly scored a record viewership, but it would have been morally suicide, at least for a while.

For the publishing industry, the cancellation of "If I Did It" was an astonishing end to a story like no other. Numerous books have been withdrawn over the years because of possible plagiarism, most recently Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," but a book's removal simply for objectionable content is virtually unheard of.

I'm thinking it was "cancelled" because maybe there is no book? As the article said, publishers don't stop publishing a book merely because it's controversial, cold-blooded, morally corrupt, sensational or has objectional content. There is no precedent for it. If it sells, they will publish it.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:42 PM
No, Christie Prodie's mother's version of OJ's alleged confessions to Christie were along the same lines as what they're saying was in the book--not premeditated, got into with Nicole, murder was crime of passion/lost his temper. If he did it, that's probably how it happened, I don't think he drove over there with the intent to kill her. They are not saying that the book was based on anything related to Christie Prodie or what he's told her in the past. I was just pointing out the similiarity in the version from Christie Prodie's mother and the version in the book.

I know, but I was pointing out that the so-called excerpts and the story from Christi's mother are from the same source, the NE. I was also pointing out that OJ's lawyer denied that there was any book. The only thing we have from OJ is a comment that could have been taken out of context about the plan to do an interview about the book. We also don't have a manuscript or excerpts from any reliable source.

Pardon me, but I just can't believe that OJ is that stupid to first write such a book and two, to do a TV show about it, further incriminating himself in the public eye. :shrug:

griffin
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Pardon me, but I just can't believe that OJ is that stupid to first write such a book and two, to do a TV show about it, further incriminating himself in the public eye. :shrug:

I find it easier to believe that he's that stupid than to belive that BOTH that Fox and HarperCollins made the whole thing up.

Helen Lawson
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I know, but I was pointing out that the so-called excerpts and the story from Christi's mother are from the same source, the NE. I was also pointing out that OJ's lawyer denied that there was any book. The only thing we have from OJ is a comment that could have been taken out of context about the plan to do an interview about the book. We also don't have a manuscript or excerpts from any reliable source.

Pardon me, but I just can't believe that OJ is that stupid to first write such a book and two, to do a TV show about it, further incriminating himself in the public eye. :shrug:

They may have been bluffing on the book and using Prodie's mother's version, but the last Prodie "confession" article was at least a year ago, so the timing is odd.
I'm not sure OJ's reputation has anything to lose at this point, and with double jeopardy, he could confess on nationwide TV. I'm not sure of the timing of the book, though, and he can't get any money from it.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:49 PM
I find it easier to believe that he's that stupid than to belive that BOTH that Fox and HarperCollins made the whole thing up.

I believe Fox would stoop that low, but did we have anything concrete from Harper Collins?

IceHock
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:51 PM
If he did write a book, it should be "I did it". Seeing as it would be completely retarded to write that, I don't know if I believe it.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:51 PM
They may have been bluffing on the book and using Prodie's mother's version, but the last Prodie "confession" article was at least a year ago, so the timing is odd.
I'm not sure OJ's reputation has anything to lose at this point, and with double jeopardy, he could confess on nationwide TV. I'm not sure of the timing of the book, though, and he can't get any money from it.

He could get money from it. They could set up a non-profit to receive all of the proceeds and he can be the director of the organization.

Rocketta
Nov 20th, 2006, 09:57 PM
I believe Fox would stoop that low, but did we have anything concrete from Harper Collins?

The actual publisher is an imprint of HarperC and yes they released a statement about it. The owner of the publishing company sounds a little nuts. Unfortunately it's all true. That's why it was announced that they pulled the book and tv deal and want people to believe that the upper echelon didn't improve....Please! :rolleyes:

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:06 PM
The actual publisher is an imprint of HarperC and yes they released a statement about it. The owner of the publishing company sounds a little nuts. Unfortunately it's all true. That's why it was announced that they pulled the book and tv deal and want people to believe that the upper echelon didn't improve....Please! :rolleyes:

A small subsidiary of HC? I wonder if it was approved by HC. I don't know, it all seems so fishy. You can't get a concrete explanation or story from a reliable source. I hadn't heard about this publishing company sending out PR about the book, except to the National Enquirer. Surely, the talk shows would have picked it up. But, nothing.

meyerpl
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:12 PM
O.J. Simpson is also smart enough to know that there is no way in the world he could FURTHER incriminate himself in the public eye. I think he realizes that he already rode that train into the station when he routinely beat the fuck out of his wife and then hacked her to death when she finally left him.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:14 PM
O.J. Simpson is also smart enough to know that there is no way in the world he could FURTHER incriminate himself in the public eye. I think he realizes that he already rode that train into the station when he routinely beat the fuck out of his wife and then hacked her to death when she finally left him.
:lol: If there's nothing else I can say about you meyerpl, I can say that you have tenacity and conviction.

meyerpl
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:22 PM
:lol: If there's nothing else I can say about you meyerpl, I can say that you have tenacity and conviction.
Thanks!:wavey:

I have always hoped that Nicole Brown Simpson's death served some purpose by opening the eyes of at least a few women about the very real danger of being in an abusive relationship. The truth is, if you find yourself in an abusive relationship, the longer you stay the greater the danger. The overwhelming lilelyhood is that the abuse will escalate and become more violent over time. The cruel irony is, the abuser becomes most dangerous when his partner tries to leave and end the relationship.

Rocketta
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:27 PM
A small subsidiary of HC? I wonder if it was approved by HC. I don't know, it all seems so fishy. You can't get a concrete explanation or story from a reliable source. I hadn't heard about this publishing company sending out PR about the book, except to the National Enquirer. Surely, the talk shows would have picked it up. But, nothing.

O.J. publisher: I was victim of violence

By ULA ILNYTZKY, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 17, 4:11 PM ET


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.


Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of murder in the 1994 slayings after a highly charged trial. The former National Football League star was later found liable in a wrongful-death suit filed by the Goldman family but has failed to pay the $33.5 million judgment. Regan said the book was a way to undo the "criminal injustice system" that let her own abuser go free.


She said she was abused while in her 20s by a man "who could charm anyone" and with whom she had a child. "And then he knocked me out, with a blow to my head and sent me to the hospital," she said. She said police initially didn't believe her story.


"I made the decision to publish this book, and to sit face to face with the killer, because I wanted him, and the men who broke my heart and your hearts, to tell the truth, to confess their sins, to do penance and to amend their lives," she said.


"If I Did It," published by ReganBooks — an imprint to Harper Collins, is scheduled for release Nov. 30. Fox is airing a two-part TV interview of Simpson on Nov. 27 and 29. Harper Collins and Fox are owned by News Corp.


After word of the book emerged, Regan wrote, she's watched as the media "have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him." "To publish does not mean 'to endorse'; it means 'to make public,'" she said.


"If you doubt that, ask the mainstream publishers who keep Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' in print to this day. ... There is historical value in such work ... for anyone who wants to gain insight into the mind of a sociopath."
___
AP National Writer Hillel Italie contributed to this report.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:33 PM
O.J. publisher: I was victim of violence

By ULA ILNYTZKY, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 17, 4:11 PM ET


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.


Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of murder in the 1994 slayings after a highly charged trial. The former National Football League star was later found liable in a wrongful-death suit filed by the Goldman family but has failed to pay the $33.5 million judgment. Regan said the book was a way to undo the "criminal injustice system" that let her own abuser go free.


She said she was abused while in her 20s by a man "who could charm anyone" and with whom she had a child. "And then he knocked me out, with a blow to my head and sent me to the hospital," she said. She said police initially didn't believe her story.


"I made the decision to publish this book, and to sit face to face with the killer, because I wanted him, and the men who broke my heart and your hearts, to tell the truth, to confess their sins, to do penance and to amend their lives," she said.


"If I Did It," published by ReganBooks — an imprint to Harper Collins, is scheduled for release Nov. 30. Fox is airing a two-part TV interview of Simpson on Nov. 27 and 29. Harper Collins and Fox are owned by News Corp.


After word of the book emerged, Regan wrote, she's watched as the media "have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him." "To publish does not mean 'to endorse'; it means 'to make public,'" she said.


"If you doubt that, ask the mainstream publishers who keep Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' in print to this day. ... There is historical value in such work ... for anyone who wants to gain insight into the mind of a sociopath."
___
AP National Writer Hillel Italie contributed to this report.

:lol: Are we sure this woman is sane? She doesn't sound at all professional or objective, like I would assume a mainstream or credible publisher to sound.

Rocketta
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:35 PM
:lol: Are we sure this woman is sane? She doesn't sound at all professional or objective, like I would assume a mainstream or credible publisher to sound.

I told you the publisher was a little :cuckoo: :lol:

Infiniti2001
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:38 PM
I believe Fox would stoop that low, but did we have anything concrete from Harper Collins?

I'm actually shocked that Fox even thought of airing such a program. Just imagine the outcry from their morons had shoe been on any of the other networks foot

meyerpl
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:57 PM
:lol: Are we sure this woman is sane? She doesn't sound at all professional or objective, like I would assume a mainstream or credible publisher to sound.
She sounds like a survivor of domestic violence to me. Her description of her abuser as a man "who could charm anyone" and the disbelief of the police. That's a common reaction when a respected and admired member of the community beats his wife.
Can you imagine being married to an enormously popular football star, having him beat you bruised and bloody, calling the police and seeing the expressions on their faces when they realize who your married to? I can picture Nicole watching officers ask O.J. for his autograph while she stands there, ignored and forgotten.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:02 PM
She sounds like a survivor of domestic violence to me. Her description of her abuser as a man "who could charm anyone" and the disbelief of the police. That's a common reaction when a respected and admired member of the community beats his wife.
Can you imagine being married to an enormously popular football star, having him beat you bruised and bloody, calling the police and seeing the expressions on their faces when they realize who your married to? I can picture Nicole watching officers ask O.J. for his autograph while she stands there, ignored and forgotten.

What she sounds is hysterical, bitter and unresolved. And, you're right she does sound like a survivor and not a victor. She needs some counseling and if she's had it, she needs some more. Honestly, it's quite embarrassing to read as a woman.

I'm a victor and I don't have to imagine what it's like to be in an abusive situation, but I've moved on and it doesn't consume me as it seems to consume her. It's the difference between being merely a survivor and a victor. Instead of sounding like that, she should be professional about her job, and not use her former circumstances as a crutch.

meyerpl
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:20 PM
What she sounds is hysterical, bitter and unresolved. And, you're right she does sound like a survivor and not a victor. She needs some counseling and if she's had it, she needs some more. Honestly, it's quite embarrassing to read as a woman.

I'm a victor and I don't have to imagine what it's like to be in an abusive situation, but I've moved on and it doesn't consume me as it seems to consume her. It's the difference between being merely a survivor and a victor. Instead of sounding like that, she should be professional about her job, and not use her former circumstances as a crutch.

I'm saddened to learn that you were abused and heartened that you've emerged from it a victor. It really is a remarkable accomplishment and I congratulate you!:worship:
Different women have different coping skills. The woman in the article is either using her past to justify doing something rather sleazy or she has a lot of unresolved issues.

Denise4925
Nov 20th, 2006, 11:26 PM
I'm saddened to learn that you were abused and heartened that you've emerged from it a victor. It really is a remarkable accomplishment and I congratulate you!:worship:
Different women have different coping skills. The woman in the article is either using her past to justify doing something rather sleazy or she has a lot of unresolved issues.

Spot on!!! :yeah:

Stamp Paid
Nov 21st, 2006, 04:45 AM
I've watched Judith Regan's show on Fox before and I had no idea she was such an obviously broken individual. I hope she gets help.

*JR*
Nov 21st, 2006, 09:23 PM
NEW YORK (AP) -- The O.J. Simpson book saga took another twist Tuesday when his former sister-in-law, Denise Brown, accused the media company behind the project of trying to buy her family's silence for "millions of dollars."

Simpson's book, "If I did it," was a sequel few had dared conceive, with Simpson -- acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend but later found liable in civil court -- describing how he would have killed them.

A spokesman for News Corp., owner of Fox Broadcasting and publisher HarperCollins, confirmed that the company had conversations with representatives of Nicole Brown Simpson's and Ron Goldman's families over the past week and that the families were offered all profits from the planned Simpson book and television show, but he denied that it was hush money. (Watch why Fox cancelled the special Video)

"There were no strings attached," News Corp. spokesman Andrew Butcher said.

Denise Brown told NBC's "Today" show Tuesday that her family's response was "Absolutely not."

"They wanted to offer us millions of dollars. Millions of dollars for, like, 'Oh, I'm sorry' money. But they were still going to air the show," Brown said. "We just thought, 'oh my god.' What they're trying to do is trying to keep us quiet, trying to make this like hush money, trying to go around the civil verdict, giving us this money to keep our mouths shut."

Any fascination with Simpson's shocking return to public life was overcome by revulsion and disbelief from the public.

Even News Corp's Rupert Murdoch, a media king with a famous taste for scandal, couldn't stand it anymore. On Monday, he canceled the whole thing, less than a week after it was announced.

"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," Murdoch said. "We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

"If I Did It" had been scheduled to air as a two-part interview November 27 and November 29 on Fox, with the book to follow on November 30. HarperCollins spokeswoman Erin Crum said some copies had already been shipped to stores but would be recalled, and all copies would be destroyed.

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, told The Associated Press: "We had known for three or four days that this was a possibility."

"There are only three possible reactions: anger, happiness or indifference. He's totally indifferent about the fact that it's been canceled," Galanter said.

He said he didn't know if Simpson was paid upfront.

Simpson was acquitted of murder in 1995 but was later found liable for the deaths in a wrongful-death suit filed by the Goldman family. Simpson has failed to pay the $33.5 million judgment against him in the civil case. His NFL pension and his Florida home cannot legally be seized. He and the families of the victims have wrangled over the money in court for years.

Ron Goldman's sister, Kim Goldman, said on CBS' "The Early Show" Tuesday that the family would take legal action to collect any money Simpson received from the deal. Denise Brown went farther, saying that money was being hidden for Simpson so he didn't have to pay the civil judgment. "The courts one day will find out who that person is," Brown said.

Simpson told the AP in a phone interview late Monday he could not comment on the situation "until I know legally where I stand."

"I would like nothing better than to straighten out some things that have been mischaracterized," he said. "But I think I'm legally muzzled at this point."

Sensation has long been in News Corp's game, but the Simpson book drew almost universal anger -- from those who knew Goldman and Brown, from booksellers and advertisers, even from Fox News Channel personality Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly urged a boycott of any company that advertised on the special.

A dozen Fox network affiliates said they would not air the two-part special, and numerous stores had either declined to sell the book or had promised to donate any profits to charity.

"I really don't think there would have been very many advertisers who would have been willing to participate in this show," said Brad Adgate of the ad buying firm Horizon Media.

With little advertising, Fox would miss the chance to profit from the show. If there were no advertisers, the show wouldn't even be rated by Nielsen Media Research -- so the number of people watching would have done nothing to help Fox's season average, he said.

The cancellation was a stunning rebuke to ReganBooks -- a high-profile imprint of HarperCollins -- and Judith Regan, who had labeled the book and interview Simpson's "confession." She insisted that she had done it not for money, but as a victim of domestic violence anxious to face down a man she believed got away, literally, with murder. (Watch how Regan defended her interview Video)

ReganBooks is known for gossipy best-sellers such as Jose Canseco's "Juiced" and Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star." Regan, one of publishing's most driven and forceful personalities, did not immediately respond to requests for an interview.

The TV special was to air on two of the final three nights of the November sweeps, when ratings are watched closely to set local advertising rates. It has been a particularly tough fall for Fox, which has seen none of its new shows catch on and is waiting for the January appearances of "American Idol" and "24."

The closest precedent for such an about-face came when CBS yanked a miniseries about Ronald Reagan from its schedule in 2003 when complaints were raised about its accuracy. It was seen on CBS' sister premium-cable channel, Showtime, instead.

One Fox affiliate station manager said he wasn't going to air the special because he was concerned that, whether or not Simpson was guilty, he'd still be profiting from murders.

"I have my own moral compass and this was easy," said Bill Lamb, general manager of WDRB in Louisville.

During an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live," Fred Goldman, Ron's father, expressed appreciation to anyone who opposed the book.

"We want to say thank you, thank you for everyone in this country who raised their voice and stood up for the right thing," Goldman said.

Numerous books have been withdrawn over the years because of possible plagiarism, most recently Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," but removal simply for objectionable content is exceptionally rare. In the early 1990s, Simon & Schuster canceled Bret Easton Ellis' "American Pyscho," a graphic account of a serial killer. The novel was released by Random House Inc., and later made into a feature film, an improbable fate for Simpson's book.

Sales for "If I Did It," had been strong, but not sensational. It cracked the top 20 of Amazon.com last weekend, but by Monday afternoon, at the time its cancellation was announced, the book had fallen to No. 51.

Helen Lawson
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:38 PM
The latest Enquirer claims that OJ has signed on to do a reality TV show in the UK. It says he's being paid $400,000 USD, wired to an off-shore account. The show involves OJ showing up at a "typical family's house" and staying for two weeks where he goes out for fish and chips, crams himself into a Mini, and goes to the pub for a pint.

It's in the print edition, I can't find it on the website.

Sally Struthers
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:41 PM
The latest Enquirer claims that OJ has signed on to do a reality TV show in the UK. It says he's being paid $400,000 USD, wired to an off-shore account. The show involves OJ showing up at a "typical family's house" and staying for two weeks where he goes out for fish and chips, crams himself into a Mini, and goes to the pub for a pint.

It's in the print edition, I can't find it on the website.

Do you remember his other reality show that was a rip off of candid camera and when he finished with the joke, would jump out and say "You got juiced!" ?

And then the sheer terror on some of their faces when they saw OJ jumping out at them doing that? :tape: :lol:

Lord Nelson
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:42 PM
OJ does not need to recieve hush money. If the Californian civil court was strong enough they could seize OJ's assets such as his home, cars etc..But they cannot even do that so OJ has absolutely nothing to fear from this feeble court.

Helen Lawson
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:47 PM
Do you remember his other reality show that was a rip off of candid camera and when he finished with the joke, would jump out and say "You got juiced!" ?

And then the sheer terror on some of their faces when they saw OJ jumping out at them doing that? :tape: :lol:

I heard about it. I'd have no fear of OJ, he's not obsessed with me and I'm not fucking his ex-wife or girlfriend.

griffin
Nov 22nd, 2006, 07:30 PM
Not directly related to the topic, but I thought Denise would enjoy this column about the publisher/editor in this mess (from today's Boston Globe)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/22/a_vulture_gets_plucked/

By Eileen McNamara, Globe Columnist | November 22, 2006

Judith Regan finally found an envelope that even she couldn't push.

O.J. Simpson might well have killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but the tasteless exploitation of that slaughter reeks of Regan, the editor known as the "culture vulture" for the tabloid publishing style she helped to define.

I know. I once got caught in her claws.

After I spent months researching a book for Simon & Schuster about a psychiatric malpractice case, Regan returned the manuscript to be rewritten with less emphasis on psychiatry and more on sex. When I protested, she invited me to lunch in New York to explain publishing to the rube from Boston. It did not go well.

No one wants to wade through chapters on the tension between psychoanalysis and psychopharmacology, the exasperated editor enlightened me; they want to read about the psychiatrist's underwear. Silk? Satin? Cotton? No one cares if there is a theoretical basis for the doctor's unconventional therapy, she said; they want to know if she slept with her patient. If I were not willing to say definitively that she did -- and I was not -- then the book would be a pointless flop.

The editor who propelled Rush Limbaugh into the national spotlight, who claimed to have rewritten Howard Stern's autobiography during one marathon weekend in his guesthouse, was offering me the key to the bestseller list if only I would listen and learn. I wouldn't, so she kicked me over to a freelance editor and publishing obscurity. I could not have been more relieved.

I have never met anyone like Regan, before or since. The phrase "force of nature" could have been invented to describe her, although other phrases have been used, including "foul-mouthed tyrant" and "enfant terrible of American publishing." She might be the most successful editor in history, if profits are the measure. Until now, everything she has touched has turned to gold, from Jose Canseco's "Juiced" to Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star."

This time, Regan's instinct for the lowest common denominator failed her. She aimed too low.

On Monday, News Corp., which owns both HarperCollins and its imprint ReganBooks, canceled publication of "If I Did It," the book and the television special in which Simpson explains to Regan how he might have killed his former wife and her friend. The decision by News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch to ax the odious project reflects a revolt by Fox affiliates and advertisers and the revulsion of the public, not his own moral outrage. This misguided enterprise did not get launched without Murdoch's blessing.

At our lunch all those years ago at the trendy Royalton in midtown Manhattan, Regan kept her eyes focused over my shoulder to monitor the arrival of well-known personages and to predict how long it would take each one to drop by the table to pay homage to the editor with the golden touch. It never took long. In between, she regaled me with a hair-raising and much-too-personal narrative about her bitter, long-running divorce.

She really understood Betty Broderick, she said of the California housewife who in 1989 shot and killed her former husband and his new wife as they slept. That is why Regan had the late Bella Stumbo of the Los Angeles Times, one of the finest feature writers in the business, write a book about the case. The book was too long for Regan's taste and not sympathetic enough to Broderick, who was convicted of the double murder, but the meticulously researched account won the Edgar Allan Poe Award that year.

As Regan predicted, my book made a quick trip to the remainder table, but Regan developed an interest in psychiatry after all. "I listened carefully, and what went through my mind surprised me," she said of her now-shelved interview with Simpson. "Mental illness. Thought-process disorder. No empathy. Malignant narcissism." Kind of what went through my mind when I heard that Judith Regan was behind this debacle.