Talking about huge cajones!!!!

ND13

Have ya'll heard about OJ's book???

It's titled something like "If I did it, this is how" or something close to that. This is where double jeopardy sux!!!

janmike

...and money talks.

Disc Jockey

...and it's going to be a two part tv show on FOX.

Both the publishing house and the network are owned by Murdoch.

PolkThug

Utterly distasteful. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15723351/

zombie boy 2000

Gotta love Fox....

Oh, bastion of discretion

Early B.

Hey, OJ is gonna make a killing (oops.)

OJ sees the whole, and he's gonna run through it.

Don't hate him for making some money. Profitting from tragic events by exploiting the public's insatiable appetite for foolish media -- it's the American way.

bobman1235

Early B. wrote:

Don't hate him for making some money.

I think people hate him for murdering his wife, actually.

slush

wtf....

ohskigod

bobman1235 wrote:

I think people hate him for murdering his wife, actually.

poor taste be damned, I had to laugh at this statement..LOL

hey, he has to occupy himself in between stints of looking for the real killers

Refefer

Don't blame OJ for this, blame American's addiction to pain and grief and the fascination with murder.

BRB, setting up the tivo... when was it coming on again?

ND13

I'm pretty certain that any money he makes, other than his NFL retirement checks, goes to the Goldmans and his children. Remember, he lost the civil suit, which was for....what...$35 million????

AndyGwis

That's why OJ searching for the "real killers" is on Bill Simmons Vengence scale as a 0.1

Maybe he meant he was searching for the band, the killers. How's their new album, anyway?

Early B.

ND13 wrote:

I'm pretty certain that any money he makes, other than his NFL retirement checks, goes to the Goldmans and his children. Remember, he lost the civil suit, which was for....what...$35 million????

I seriously doubt that he actually paid (or will pay) much of that suit. Rich people have lots of ways of hiding their money such as putting it in foundations, trusts and corporations, so they are protected if they get sued. It's no different than establishing a corporation for your business in order to insulate yourself against potential lawsuits.

Maurice

+1^^

ND13

I know he hasn't paid that suit off, that's why any money he makes goes to them. The judge ordered that the only monies they can't touch was his retirement money. Let's also not forget what he owes his lawyers. I doubt he's paid them in full either.

It'll be very hard for him to hide money he makes off a book.

Early B.

ND13 wrote:

It'll be very hard for him to hide money he makes off a book.

Not necessarily. The question becomes, "Who (or what) receives the proceeds from the sale of the book?" Again, OJ probably will not personally receive the money, but the money will go to one of his corporate entities. If so, the Goldmans would probably not be entitled to any of it.

Look at it this way -- if you were OJ, would you consider profitting off this event if all the money went to the Goldmans and some damn lawyers? Hell, no.

Trust me, the lawyers got paid, one way or the other. For instance, OJ's main lawyer, Johnny Cochran (RIP) became very famous and, as a result, and set up law firms all over the country.

Maurice

You're dead on early. I set up corps as a business and specialize in asset protection. If OJ's corp recieves the proceeds, then that money cannot be attached by the Goldmans because from a legal standpoint OJ doesn't own the money. That corp is a "legal person" in the eyes of the law. There are lots of laws that protect assets like that, why do you think OJ, Ken Lay, and the like all live(d) in Florida. There is a law there that prohibits ANYONE from taking your primary residence away from you. Thats why they build big mega mansions in that state, its protected. Unless OJ slips up big time, the Goldmans are SOL.

John in MA

Even by Fox standards this is distasteful.

I don't understand why he never found the real killers. After all, he searched most of the country's golf courses.

DarqueKnight

This reminds me of the big buildup to Jeraldo's "safe mystery"...remember that?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what OJ says in light of what the jurors in his case concluded. To summarize: the jurors voted for acquittal based on the following reasons:

1. The prosecution built their case on the premise that OJ was the sole killer. The jurors had a problem with this because OJ was (and is) an arthritic ex-football player with limited mobility. They could see how he could have easily overpowered his petite ex-wife. However, they had trouble believing how OJ, with his well documented physical infirmities, could overpower Ron Goldman, who was a healthy, strapping, 6 foot-2 inch, 25 year old man. Furthermore, the wounds on Ron Goldman's arms, hands, and face indicated that he put up a vigorous and protracted defense before he was murdered. This, coupled with the fact that OJ didn't have a mark on him (except for a cut on his finger that he said he got from a broken glass the next day), led the jury to conclude that OJ was not the person or one of the persons who attacked and murdered Ron Goldman.

2. Assuming, again, that OJ was the sole killer, the jury had difficulty understanding how OJ could have done everything the prosecution said he did at the murder scene, and then have time to get back to his house, clean up, and then make it to the airport in time to catch a late night flight. A man that was sitting next to OJ on the flight, and who OJ signed an autograph for, testified that he saw no wounds on OJ's hands or face.

3. OJ's former sister-in-law testified under oath that earlier that day, she had observed OJ at a family birthday party and that he seemed to be in a "weird" and "agitated" state of mind. The defense countered that testimony with video footage taken at the birthday party showing OJ joking and clowning around with his ex-wife, ex-inlaws, and his kids. At the end of the video, Juditha Brown, Nicole Brown Simpson's mother, is shown smiling and kissing OJ on the cheek outside the restaurant before they both leave.

4. There was a heavy suspicion of evidence being planted by the LAPD. The jury was well aware of the LAPD's reputation of corruption, lying under oath, and framing innocent suspects. There are many well-documneted cases of LAPD officers going to jail for this and of prior convictions being overturned because of improper testimony and evidence gathering procedures.

5. Some of OJ's blood, which was drawn by an LAPD investigator, came up missing and unaccounted for. The defense successfully made the case that this missing blood could have easily been planted at the murder scene and elsewhere.

6. LAPD detective Mark Furhman's (impeached) testimony.

7. The infamous non-fitting gloves (if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit).

It seems to me that a more plausible prosecution case would have been built on the premises that:

A. OJ wanted Nicole dead because he was tired of financing her (and her broke, unemployed friends) debauched, cocaine-fueled lifestyle.

B. OJ wanted his kids taken out of the environment described in "A" and he didn't want to go through a long, expensive custody battle.

C. OJ contracted the killing to achieve "A" and "B". Maybe he went over to watch it go down, but he didn't participate.

D. The way that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed (nearly decapitated) was very similar to the way that some drug dealers murder their deadbeat clients who owe them large sums of money and then don't pay or have no means of paying. Respect and fear must be maintained.

E. Assuming that "D" is true, said drug dealers could have approached OJ for the money owed them, claiming that they were going to cut off Nicole Brown Simpson's head if they didn't get their money. I can imagine his reply being something along the lines of "Can I come watch?" and "Don't touch my kids".

F. Assuming "D" is true, OJ knows full well who the true killers are, but ratting them out would be counterproductive as they rendered a service to him. If I recall correctly, his alimony and child support payments payments to Nicole Brown Simpson were on the order of $25,000 a month or $300,000 a year. Many, many people have been killed for far, far less than that. If "D" is true, then OJ's vow to track the true killer's takes on a different meaning. I'm sure he wants to keep up with their whereabouts just as they want to keep up with his. Each knows damaging secrets about the other. However, assuming "D" is true, another reason OJ can't talk is because he would not risk putting his children's lives in jeopardy.

---

I personally don't understand why the whole country got so worked up about this. I mean really, it was just another murder trial. I did not see this degree of national outrage and agitation in the following cases:

1. That lady in South Carolina (Susan Smith) who strapped her two sweet little boys in the back seat of a car and then pushed it into a lake. She felt that her children were a hindrance to her romantic prospects. She initially said a black man had kidnapped her kids. The police didn't buy it because there were numerous inconsistencies in her story. The most glaring of which was the way she kept talking about her sons in the past tense (as if she knew they were already dead).

2. That lady in Texas who drowned her five innocent little babies (Andrea Yates).

3. That man in Massachusetts who murdered his pregnant wife (Charles Stuart). Mr. Stuart identified a black man as his and his wife's assailant. He probably would have gotten away with it, if his accomplice, his brother Matt, hadn't gotten a guilty conscience and told the truth after some months had passed.

4. That man in California who murdered his pregnant wife (Scott Peterson).

5. That lady in Texas who eagerly participated in death of two people. (Karla Faye Tucker). Karla used an axe and her partner in crime used a hammer. Ms. Tucker bragged to a police informant wearing a wire that she had multiple orgasms during the killings. Prior to her execution there was worldwide pleading for her life to be spared.

Question: If you remove the celebrity and racial aspects of this case, would anyone really give a gnat's **** about it?

read-alot

To tell you the truth Raife, I never cared a "gnat's ****" about it anyway.

Things were better when we didn't have 24 hour "news" running BS down everybodys throat.
BTW- how are the JC monoblocks working out?

bobman1235

Why does everyone care? Because it was a high profile case, and a man who was almost OBVIOUSLY involved with the murder of two innocent people not only got away with it, but publically mocked the family of the murdered people AFTER he had been acquitted by all but admitting to the crime, and profiting from it. That really doesnt' bother you? Good for you.

Yes, celebrity in this country is a strange phenomenon. Why do we care about these people so much? I dont' think it's anything beyond the fact that we've HEARD of them. OJ Simpson was a VERY good football player, and even had a little bit of a film career (Naked Gun anyone?). He was a likable character. Then his wife and Goldman were murdered, and most people believed he did it. The evidence seemed to point to his involvement. So someone who is recognizable to most of the country is shown to be a murderer... and you expect no one to care? Of course they're going to care more about this than some crack **** in Compton killed by her pimp. And NOW, he is shoving the case in the face of not only the family of two people who were murdered, but the rest of America. Even if he DIDN'T do it, I can't imagine something being in poorer taste. Can you imagine someone in your family being murdered, the person who everyone is convinced was behind it gets off, and then profits from the death of your loved one? Can you even fathom that?

zombie boy 2000

Right on Bob

read-alot

To tell you the truth until you have been screwed over by the court systems letting someone get off by doing harm to you, maybe then you will understand why I don't give a rat's **** what happens to OJ.

DarqueKnight

bobman1235 wrote:

Why does everyone care? Because it was a high profile case, and a man who was almost OBVIOUSLY involved with the murder of two innocent people not only got away with it, but publically mocked the family of the murdered people AFTER he had been acquitted by all but admitting to the crime, and profiting from it. That really doesnt' bother you? Good for you.

Oh, It's not that it doesn't "bother" me, it just doesn't "bother" me any more than any other murder case, some of which were far more heinous, involving cannibals, serial killers, and other such deviants.

I am not going to allow myself to be emotionally manipulated and exploited by a callous, sensational, hypocritical media because I know that they (none of them) have no real interest in providing balanced news coverage. Thier true interest lies only in holding a viewer's interest long enough so that maybe, just maybe, you will sit through their insipid toothpaste, deoderant, tampon, toilet paper, or shampoo commercials.

As far as him "getting away with it", if he played the game and won, well, I have to hate the game and not the player. The legal literature is full of cases of rich defendants who were able to "get away with it" and then thumbed their noses at their erstwhile prosecutors. I didn't fry my brain over any of those cases and I'm not going to fry my brain over this one either.

DarqueKnight

read-alot wrote:

Things were better when we didn't have 24 hour "news" running BS down everybodys throat.

Hi Mike,

I agree 100%.

read-alot wrote:

BTW- how are the JC monoblocks working out?

They're sounding sweeter every day. They must have put some sugar in the power supply caps.:)

DarqueKnight

bobman1235 wrote:

Even if he DIDN'T do it, I can't imagine something being in poorer taste. Can you imagine someone in your family being murdered, the person who everyone is convinced was behind it gets off, and then profits from the death of your loved one? Can you even fathom that?

OK...let's assume, that he didn't do it. That means that he has been locked up for months, had his home confiscated and destroyed, incurred millions in legal fees, had his reputation irreparably damaged, had other personal property confiscated and sold...all for something he did not do.

Can you imagine yourself being falsely accused and imprisoned for a crime, and suffering the repercussions of that, while the real culprit gets off, and then profits from your false imprisonment? Can you even fathom that?

I imagine most people would be a little bit bitter if such a thing happened to them. I agree that what OJ is doing is in extremely poor taste, even if he did not do the crime. However, if he is innocent, as he maintains, then I can understand him wanting to torment those who have been tormenting him...for years.

ND13

I feel for his kids. Now they're gonna have to hear or read about their father's "hypothetical" murder plot of their mother.

MSALLA

I belive in our legal system and stood by the fact that he was found not guilty. But to do an interview and talk about how you would have done it if you were the murder! Not the smartest guy.

DarqueKnight

MSALLA wrote:

But to do an interview and talk about how you would have done it if you were the murder! Not the smartest guy.

I certainly would agree that OJ is not the smartest guy, but the empirical evidence demonstrates that he does know how to hire some very smart lawyers. OJ has shown that he has an interest in receiving the best of legal counsel. Is he doing this for money or free? I'm sure he would not be doing this if his legal counsel had advised against it and if there were no financial incentive for doing so.

How smart is Fox for airing the interview? Are they looking to get any ad revenue from this?

How smart is his book publisher? Are they looking to recoup their author's advance and publishing expenses?

Would any of them be doing this if they didn't feel there was an audience for it and that they could recoup their investment.

Which is worse: a purveyor of filth or the consumer who buys it? Could one exist without the other?

bobman1235

DK,

I understand where you're coming from. No one hates the media more than I do, with the way they manipulate their viewers / readers and sensationalize anything for ratings. But to say that you don't care about a case like this any more than any other crime is just ridiculous. I don't know how many murders there are every day in America... say 50, though I think it's probably more like 75. Lucky for me, I don't know any of those people. So while I care in the hypothetical sense that folks are dying, I have no vested interest in the lives of complete strangers. I have never heard of Stu DeShamalamadingdong in Western Kentucky, and it won't even cross my radar that he murdered someone, or was murdered. If someone I've HEARD of commits a murder, or IS murdered, I will care, because in some small way it DOES affect my life. To say differently is just denying basic human nature and curiosity for hte sake of spiting the media, and is patently absurd. And considering your noticeable participation in this thread, saying you don't care any more about this than any of the other thousands of murders taht have happened since is ALSO pretty absurd.

As for hating the game and not the player, can't you hate both? If he did it and got away with it, and I understand that's a big IF, but if he did, I pretty much hate the justice system for letting him go, but I'm pretty sure I hate him MORE for, you know, stabbing two innocent people to death, including the mother of his children. I don't "fry my brain" over it, but when something like this story comes out I'm going to have an opinion about it. It's not going to keep me up at night, but I'll have an opinion.

And finally, you're right, if he's in fact innocent, he probably does have a right to a little bitterness. But I'm sure the Brown or Goldman family would gladly take a year in prison and defamation of character for their family members back. Why doesn't he take it out on the media if he has a bone to pick, and not some people who lost members of their family? If he really cared that much, why doesn't he write some scathing satire on the ridiculousness of false accusations and misinformed opinions as perpetrated by the media, instead of making a quick buck trivializing a murder and rubbing it in the face of those who had to deal with it?

DarqueKnight

ND13 wrote:

I feel for his kids. Now they're gonna have to hear or read about their father's "hypothetical" murder plot of their mother.

I feel for his kids also, and for all kids who have lost a parent, tragically or otherwise.

I don't know OJ, but I don't think he cared much for Nicole. However, I do believe that he loves his kids. Based on that, I found it difficult to accept that he would brutally murder his children's mother and then just leave her body at the front door to be discovered by them the next morning.