Good Taste Is Timeless (Mr. Simpson and Planned FOX Interview)
 

Hard to believe, but it's being reported many places -- ABC, NBC, etc. Here's an ABC story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ory?id=2654088

Gah, this is disgusting.

Apparently the interviewer is the publisher of the book so this is nothing more than an hour of advertising for it. What kind of balls do you have to have to say "I didn't do it, but here's how I would have done it. It's all based on the evidence that points to me doing it, even though I didn't do it"

BLEH

It's pretty simple:

1. Broke ->
2. Write obscenely sensational book explaining murder, but in hypothetical so as to not 'accidently' introduce new information and evacuate double jeopardy protection ->
3. Promote ->
4. Lose nothing from (completely awful) public perception ->
5. Buy yacht

Isn't all his money gonna go to the estates from the civil trial?

Yeah, clearly - but the vaguaries of this kind of law could result in liability for future family etc . . . it most likely behooves him to eliminate that debt, for serious.

Especially if he can do it in a completely insulting and awful fashion, maybe?

just the thought of it is disturbing...you would have to be a really disturbing person to "recreate" a muder scene and descibe all those little details.. (assuming that he "didn't" do it) :mad:

Nope, apparently if he a) spends it fast enough or b) does some other tricky lawyery loophole thing, he doesn't pay a dime.

I don't think the family has collected much if anything from him and I read somewhere that he pulls in 2-3 million a year. The guy charges $125 for an autograph... and people pay it!

So is he looking back and telling people how he should have killed ron & nicole. maybe try to cover up some of the overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him? He shouldn't have worn his bruno mali shoes and he shouldn't have dropped his glove. what is he trying to prove? anybody with any kind of sense knows he killed those two. And what about his kids? I feel so bad for them, it's bad enough their father killed their mom, but know dad has to write a book about it...come on.

His glove? It didn't even fit! And the problem with the Simpson trial was that there was NOT "overwhelming evidence that pointed straight to him," most of the evidence that supported him as the killer was circumstancial at best.

I don't think the guy is totally innocent, but then again, I don't think the prosecutors should have gone to trial without good evidence.

Most evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. "I saw him stab her" or the like is direct evidence -- pretty much everything else is circumstantial.

TV and movies notwithstanding, plenty of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

I dunno whether the glove would have fit or not, but you can make a glove, particularly a leather one, not fit on your hand if you hold your hand right.

Yeah . . . circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid in a court of law, as MysticCat noted - evidence can really only be direct or circumstantial, and it's hard to have direct - but you've just exhibited a fantastic example of the "Law & Order Effect," which is one reason why people like me have a job (it actually may be the main reason).

It's also one of the key strategies they used to get him off - "So the DNA match is one in 1.5 million? So there are all of TEN other people in the LA area that might match? OMG ACQUIT" . . . never mind that the actual figure was 99.99998% match, not "1 in 1.5mil will match." Pretty impressive swap, actually - God bless cognitive dissonance.

We've kind of bastardized the term "reasonable doubt" - thank God we've stopped using "beyond a shadow of a doubt" on any shows . . . ugh

How are you not "totally innocent" in a trial like that? Do you think he "kind of" murdered Ron Goldman and nearly cut his wife's head off? When that piece of shit was arrested he had a gun on him, thousands of dollars in cash, fake beards and mustaches, and a passport. Boy, that sure doesn't make him look guilty or anything. Too bad that was never put into evidence though..and neither was his note that he wrote before fleeing in the Bronco.

The OJ Simpson trial was lost because Christopher Darden and Marcia Clark did a crappy job of prosecuting. They left out key evidence, left out taped statements made by Simpson which were extremely incriminating, and they did a bad job of studying juror statistics during the selection process. The evidence that they did have was pretty damn strong......but I don't think the utilized it at all.

You should read Vincent Bugliosi's book on the case.......its a good one.

He also tried to put the glove on over a latex glove. Try that sometime and tell me how it works.

The jurors who were interviewed after the fact said that the DNA evidence was too complicated so they just ignored that. There was more physical evidence for OJ killing those two than there was for Scott Peterson killing Lacy.

I was on I-10 near Sepuldeva when OJ went buckwild on the freeway...

Traffic totally sucked that day...

Uggghhh can we please not argue "Is OJ guilty or not" AGAIN.. those were bad 90's memories

yeah, that was in the 8th grade for that trial, I didn't think anybody still had an opinion

Only kstar would make a dumb comment about OJ being kinda innocent. Good job kstar.

-Rudey

Well, the jury in the criminal trial couldn't find him guilty.

Of course that doesn't mean they thought he is innocent either.

You're right. Stupidity does not exist in a bubble.

-Rudey

It seems to me that he is inviting it.

This reminds me of how Ted Bundy gave a third person account of his serial killings just before his execution, without ever really saying he did it. It's a very sociopathic type thing to do.

Uh, they certainly didn't find him "kinda innocent" - I'm pretty sure that wasn't an option on the verdict sheet.

is "innocent" an option or just simply "guilty" or "not guilty"? because saying "there wasn't enough solid evidence to convict" is not the same as saying "this person didn't have anything to do with" whatever is in question

Exactly. The options are:

guilty -- meaning the jury finds that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant, and

not guilty -- meaning the jury finds that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant.

Neither "innocent" nor "totally innocent" are on the verdict sheet.

But in the civil trial, they did find him to be "responsible", right?

Yes, though "liable" would be the word.

But the standard of proof in a civil trial is "preponderance of the evidence" -- basically meaning "more likely than not" or, if you imagine the scales of justice, that the evidence against him tipped the scales, even if only so slightly. Not nearly as heavy a burden as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Well, apparently both the book and the TV special have been pulled.

I just saw that on TV Week online, but you beat me to it.

Sanity prevails sometimes -- even with Rupert.

The publisher (who was going to interview him) said she considers this book his confession.


Oh really? Ya think?

Obviously.

The point being that even if a jury finds (found) him "not guilty," it doesn't necessarily mean they believe he is "innocent." Just that guilt wasn't proven. Right?

A view on matter from the Op-Ed/Editorial Cartoons:
http://cagle.com/news/OJDidIt/

Another twist from TV Week:

"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.

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

Right.

What? Another controversy connected to the book.... shocking....

I guess the cynic in me finds the fact that all the little branches of Rupert's little empire seem to be doing their darn best to keep the story alive through outrage and controversy a little ummm... exploitive, manufactured, and grossly capitalistic.... which sadly is in keeping with the SOP of Ruperts little empire...

I thought that Rupert was on a mission to keep everything "fair and balanced."

Am I the only one who wonders what his children think about all of this? Sydney is 21, and Justin is 18 - other than not wanting to lose Daddy's money, it seems odd to me that they would want to be around the man who ("possibly") killed their mother.

Good question.