OJ's impropriety and obvious absence of conscience is appalling, but so is the mentality and greed of those capitalizing on it.

alwayslate said:

no, but he should be convicted on stupidity though.

Yeah, if I were 1 of his 2 youngest kids, I sure would want 2 watch a TV special where my Dad trivializes my Mother's brutal murder. Jeez louise, that man is not worth the flesh he occupies.

PurpleKnight said:

It's hard for me to believe no one HAS tried to kill him already. He must travel with an entourage of bodyguards.

When this was first discussed here a few weeks ago, I totally didn't buy it. It's tough for me to think that even O.J is this low.

babynoz said:

Yep, the trial and the verdict brought a lot of sh!t to the surface and revealed how phony people are. All I heard were calls for professional juries, jury nullification, revamping the system, etc. I didn't hear this when folks of color were getting f----d over by the system and the racist LA cops for decades. But it took some rich house Negro killing his blond trophy wife to get folks outraged about "the system".

It also bothers me that O.J. became a symbol for the struggle. I couldn't believe black women were marching for this fool. Please, O.J. wouldn't even look at your ass. Like Steve Harvey said, "O.J. hasn't been black since he won that damn Heisman!" F-- O.J. too.

Wonder how his two kids feel about this. Not only that, but will this affect them?

Here's more.....

Publisher says she considers new O.J. Simpson book 'his confession'

at 23:40 on November 15, 2006, EST.


NEW YORK (AP) - O.J. Simpson created an uproar Wednesday with plans for a TV interview and book titled "If I Did It" - an account the publisher pronounced "his confession" and media executives condemned as revolting and exploitive.

Fox, which plans to air an interview with Simpson Nov. 27 and 29, said Simpson describes how he would have committed the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman, "if he were the one responsible."

Denise Brown, sister of Simpson's slain ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, lashed out at publisher Judith Regan of ReganBooks for "promoting the wrongdoing of criminals" and commercializing abuse. The book goes on sale Nov. 30.

She added: "It's unfortunate that Simpson has decided to awaken a nightmare that we have painfully endured and worked so hard to move beyond."

Regan refused to say what Simpson is being paid for the book but said he came to her with the idea.

"This is an historic case and I consider this his confession," Regan said.

Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of murder after a trial that became an instant cultural flashpoint and a source of racial tension. The former football star was later found liable for the deaths in a wrongful-death suit filed by the Goldman family. In the years since, he has been mocked relentlessly by late-night comedians, particularly for his vow to hunt down the real killers.

"He's willing to tell the world how he 'would' murder his children's mother and Ron. Sick," Goldman's father, Fred Goldman, said on CNN's "Larry King Live" Wednesday night.

Simpson has failed to pay the US$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.

The victims' families could go after the proceeds from the book's sales to pay off the judgment. But one legal analyst said there are ways to get around that requirement - such as having proceeds not go directly to Simpson.

"Clever lawyering can get you a long way," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University law school professor and former federal prosecutor who has followed the case closely.

Levenson noted the criminal justice system's protection against double jeopardy means Simpson's book, explosive as it may be, should not expose him to any new legal danger. She added Simpson could create an extra layer of insulation from any legal worries by presenting the story hypothetically.

"He can write pretty much whatever he wants," Levenson said.

"Unless he's confessing to killing somebody else, he can probably do this with impunity."

Goldman's sister, Kim Goldman, told CNN: "He's snubbing his finger to the system, to the community again. He's telling us one more time: 'I'm gonna continue to get away with killing your family members and I'm not gonna honour the judgment and look at me, ha, ha, ha."'

Simpson did not return numerous calls for comment. Simpson's own lawyer, Yale Galanter, said he did not know about the book or the interview until this week.

"The book was not done through our office," Galanter said.

"I did not have anything to do with the negotiations of the book. This was strictly done between O.J. and others."

He said there is "only one chapter that deals with their deaths and that chapter, in my understanding, has a disclaimer that it's complete fiction."

On Amazon.com on Wednesday, the 240-page book was being offered for $16.47. An image of the cover featured Simpson's face and the title "If I Did It," with "If" highlighted in white and the other letters in red.

Other publishers and publishing industry observers practically fell over each other to criticize ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, and Simpson.

Otto Penzler, who runs Otto Penzler Books, a crime imprint of Harcourt, said he would have a moral problem with "carrying a book like that and enriching this lowlife in any way."

"If I were betting, I would say the book won't sell," he said.

"I think people are so disgusted with this guy that they're having the same feeling I do."

ReganBooks has gained a reputation for publishing some less-than-highbrow material, including Jose Canseco's "Juiced," billed as a tell-all on steroids in baseball, and books about the slaying of Laci Peterson.

Patricia Schroeder, president and chief executive of the American Association of Publishers, described the developments as sickening.

"But I think it's going to stir an awful lot of debate and make the culture take a real look at itself and that may not be unhealthy," she said.

Indeed, one thing that seemed certain was that the book and interview - which Fox will air at the end of the crucial sweeps month - were bound to generate a torrent of publicity.

Shari Anne Brill, a television analyst for the Madison Avenue firm Carat USA, predicted public interest would rival that of the 2003 interview with Michael Jackson, seen by 27 million people in 2003.

At least one other network, NBC, said it had been approached to air the special but declined the offer.

"This is not a project appropriate for our network," said Rebecca Marks, a spokeswoman for the entertainment division of NBC, a network that once employed Simpson as a football analyst.

CBS said it was unaware of any pitch for the project. ABC did not immediately return a call for comment.


©The Canadian Press, 2006

Im still witing on the Amy fisher debacle...

I reported this a few weeks back. I think it's disgusting. He has such nerve and no conscience at all.

I will not watch nor will I read the book. He is a double murderer and I won't contribute to anything that may assist him in any way. He should rot in hell.

IrresistibleB1tch said:

Me too - I can only hope that anyone with even half a brain will not watch or read this shit.

kisscamille said:

now if we could only mobilize that disgust, we could also form a boycott of Faux News Programming.....

XxAxX said:

Not sure, but I thought double jeopardy didn't apply to murder. Anyone?

carmand said:

Double jeopardy applies to murder and pretty much any crime....what doesn't apply is the statute of limitations....had they not tried him, they could have come back at any time and charged, tried, and probably convicted him....


and as luck would have it, I came across this article as I was typing this response....sheds a little light on some ways that double jeopardy could be circumvented, but doesn't provide much hope....still a good read tho....

http://www.slate.com/id/2...20GT1=8717
[Edited 11/16/06 13:43pm]

i guess violence against women is okay? what does impact does this have on his daughter as a woman? what impact does have on his son as a man? its normal to be a victim? its normal to hurt your family?

reneGade20 said:

Thanks.

I feel so bad for his children

DanceWme said:

Yeah, this is really the saddest part. How in the world can you possibly respond to something like this?

"Kids, hypothetically speaking, this is how I slit your mother's throat."

Beyond fucked up.

PurpleKnight said:

They're gonna hate him if the already don't

So WHERE are all the morons that thought he wasnt guilty? It has been 11 years, whats your thoughts now?

Imagine being one of those retards on tv when they said the verdict You have watch yourself make an asshole of yourself jumping up and down for a killer

ElectricBlue said:

I don't think he did it....but he had something to do WITH it....they just couldn't prove shit!!

Far safer title than the original.. "If I Could Do It Again"

carlcranshaw said:

he better not go signing no books!!!

if he does, he will be assassinated and the shooter will never be found. i mean...

ElectricBlue said:

Hummmm morons is an interesting perspective. If u had seen the same evidence as the jury, he would have been found NOT guity. It's really that SIMPLE.

ElectricBlue said:

I still think that he didn't do it....so I guess I'll keep being a moron because I believe in the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"....if it was an open and shut case, then there's no way that Clark and Darden could have fucked it up....and if Ito felt the the jury just found him "not guilty" to give the system a big he could have declared a mistrial and set aside that jury's verdict....

I believe that OJ has snapped....I believe that he's obviously not doing himself any favors by even hypothetically suggesting that he may have commited those heinous crimes....because all that does is start the whole process of people swearing up and down that this proves his guilt.....when all it really boils down to is money.....a $3.5 million advance on the book and god knows how much free pub he's getting for the interview....

I can't wait for "Krakatoa: If I Didn't Blow Up and Spew Molten Lava on Many Island Residents". On Fox.

Being found "not guilty" does not automatically mean that he did not do the crime.

The jury did the right thing as all the incompetence of the LAPD definitely gave some reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, you are not supposed to convict.

This is why he got off, not because it was proven that he didn't do it.
[Edited 11/17/06 11:40am]

luv4all7 said:

POST OF THE YEAR!

JustErin said:

I agree that reasonable doubt was the main reason why he got off...but they never actually proved that he DID do it....I've been on jury duty and we convicted a guy on way less evidence than they had available in the OJ trial because the prosecutors tried the case without relying on a whole bunch of scientific yada yada and gloves and all that shit....too often people on a jury will replace the science with their own logic....for example the blood evidence....Nicole and Ron were nearly decapitated, yet all they found around OJ in the Bronco was almost like a spray...barely enough for a regular person on a jury to correlate to the pictures of the crime scene....a lot of the things that the prosecution focused on was shit that made no sense...evidence that on its face contradicted reality....here's this murderer who gets away from a hellacious murder scene who was so quiet and careful in his movements that no one actually heard or saw a thing....(I mean he managed to kill one person while the other did.....what....stand there, watch, and wait to get killed...this was never really ever explained either)...hardly the actions of a man driven by "an insane, jealous rage"....yet is stupidly absent minded enough to drop 1 glove at the scene....the other glove at his house, along with a pair of blood soaked socks (but no other article of clothing...what, did he commit the murders naked in socked feet?)....if I was on the jury, these are the types of things that would've raised a red flag with me.....in fact, they still do to this day....the amount of blood spilled at the scene should have been all over him.....I've seen more than my share of bloodied bodies during 3 tours of duty in the Middle East, and I know when guys get shot and you're grabbing all over them trying to help them, you get a lot more than just a couple of drops of blood on you...and the way it was described, OJ allegedly came up from behind them grabbed them and cut them...his clothes at the very least would have been covered in blood just from being in close proximity to his victims....especially since the sidewalk in front of her home looked for all intents like they bled out....

I definitely don't agree with his decision to profit from their deaths, though, regardless of whether he's guilty or not....because all that does is give him more notoriety and we all know the man is an attention whore....

reneGade20 said:

Written by someone with COMMON sense. Thanks 4 the REALITY based post.