|
|
|
|
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/15/2006 7:00:43 PM | Absolutely outrageous:
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- In a deal that some media executives called revolting, O.J. Simpson plans a book and TV interview to discuss how, hypothetically, he could have killed his ex-wife and her friend -- a story his publisher considers "his confession."
Two weeks before the book, "If I Did It," goes on sale, scorn was already being heaped Wednesday on Simpson, the publisher and Fox, which plans to air the Simpson interview in two parts November 27 and 29.
Denise Brown, sister of Simpson's slain ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, lashed out at the publisher for "promoting the wrongdoing of criminals" and commercializing abuse.
Judith Regan, whose ReganBooks imprint is publishing the book, declined to reveal further details of the book's contents.
"This is an historic case, and I consider this his confession," Regan told The Associated Press. She also refused to say what Simpson is being paid for the book but said he came to her with the idea.
The former football star was acquitted in 1995 of murdering his ex-wife and her friend Ron Goldman after a trial that became an instant cultural flashpoint.
He was later found liable for the deaths by in a civil 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 true killers.
Simpson has failed to pay the $33.5 million judgment against him in the civil suit. 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.
Simpson and his attorney Yale Galanter did not immediately return calls for comment.
Meanwhile, other publishers and publishing industry observers practically fell over each other to criticize ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, and Simpson himself.
"This is not about being heard. This is about trying to cash in, in a pathetic way, on some notoriety," said Sara Nelson, editor in chief of Publishers Weekly. "That a person keeps wanting to bring this up seems almost nutty to me."
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.
Representatives for CBS and ABC did not immediately return calls for comment.
One expert noted that the justice system's protection against being tried twice for the same crime means Simpson's book, explosive as it may be, should not expose him to any new legal danger.
"He can write pretty much whatever he wants," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University law school professor and former federal prosecutor who has followed the case closely. "Unless he's confessing to killing somebody else, he can probably do this with impunity."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/15/simpsoninterview.ap/index.html
It's astounding to me that Simpson has the nerve to publish this book, but I know he's certainly been inclined to make a buck off the murders wherever possible in the past. I wonder if the Brown and Goldman families will receive any monies from the sale of the book, to help pay down that massive 35.5 million dollar settlement. Does anyone else besides me think it's in poor taste for Fox to be interviewing Simpson?  | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/15/2006 7:13:33 PM | | Consider the source; Fox has a lot of really bad programming. This OJ thing is like a train wreck to me, know I should turn away but I can't, morbid curiosity. That guys got balls, I'll give him credit for that. He's already stated not one cent of the profit from the book is going to the Goldmans or the Browns. He intends to spend all of it quickly before they have a chance to claim. Seems like they should be able to intercept wouldn't you think? | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 3 | |
| |
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/15/2006 7:58:11 PM | I am sure OJ will profit. If there was no money in it for him i dont think he would bother. Afterall its been over a decade and he would probably prefer that the public forget that chapter of his life. By bringing out this book it just returns him to being laughed at and the subject of jokes.
He will be getting money but what needs to be answered is if any of that money will ever get handed over to the goldman and simpson families. I am sure they have worked out some method for paying him that will make it very difficult for them to get at the funds. Perhaps he will have the cash deposited into his kids accounts.
He is no fool, he will be paid and he will keep the money. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/15/2006 9:33:56 PM | Absolutely pathetic that he is doing this and being so arrogant about this, and that stupid rotten network Fox are actually DUMB enough to go about this like the other shit that they put on their stations. I feel bad for the Goldmens and the Brown families. My heart goes to them all.
I hope that the Brown and Goldmen families get money out of this. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/15/2006 10:07:23 PM | I think OJ's acting suicidal... like he couldn't care what anyone thinks of him or even what he has to think of himself. I expect him to eat a bullet any day now.
This could be caused by guilt... or it could be caused by depression from being innocent and having the whole world think he's guilty.
It proves nothing except that he's gone bananas.
It's a tragedy and extra tough on his kids, the Goldmans and the Browns...
I feel sorry for all of them. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/15/2006 11:40:29 PM | I won't make any predictions on how well the book will do, but I suspect that his T.V appearance will sadly enough attract a nice share of viewers.
It's like someone before me wrote....its that morbid curiosity that keeps people from turning away. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 4:38:40 AM | | He is getting something like 3.5 mill for the book. How a killer can still make a profit of his victems is unreal. I heard the goldmen interview on Larry knig, how they are looking in to way to sue him for the money he makes, but already Oj is hidding money in off shore accounts, which is where the money from his book will probley go. He makes money, but never honers the jugment agaist him, why the heck the courts themself have not taken action on him is beond me. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 4:51:47 AM | | this is just another way for OJ to recoop some of his losses...hopfully any profit made from this will be paid to the families of the victims and not go into his pockets...hell why should he keep wasting his money on playing golf when he really sucks anyway... | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 5:05:19 AM | Consider me naive here somewhat...BUT say this IS O.J.'s confession (for real), I know he was tried before on the deaths of Nicole and Ron...but I always thought that there was "NOT A LIMITATION/ MORATORIUM ON MURDER"? I know someone is going to say the law of "Double-Jeopardy" comes into play, but there seems there should be a way for him to be held accountable for their deaths. (if he did it - which I believe he did)
Yes, HE will be reaping the funds from the book and the interview. Why else would he do this? As stated earlier, rather than they being "ear marked" to go directly to the Browns and the Goldmans, O.J. has them made out to others, so that they can retrieve the funds for him. I'm sure, "whoever" gets a hefty amount too for their help.
O.J.'s "KARMA" is coming around soon to bite him, just watch. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 6:38:29 AM | "Double-Jeopardy" does apply in the murder cases,...so he can litterally shout it from the rooftops,....HOWEVER!!!
He can,..(and in my opinion should) be charged with purgery,...and
[ by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,
or by a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or
by both that imprisonment and fine for each violation of this
section] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=118-131
at the discresion of the sitting judge can (and in my opinion should) be given the max for each and every count of pergery,...starting from the lie under oath that he is "not guilty"
I also think the families should get a document garnasheeing any moneys, from the sale of the book and the 2 part TV special,...until all of their money is paid in full,.....they do have garnashee's in the USA don't they? If they do get a court ordered garnashee,...then neither the publishing company nor Fox (which are actually owned by the same people) are allowed to pay O.j. and are held liable if they don't comply with the court order,....
Someone earlier in their post thought that he imagines that soon O.J. would be eating his gun,....I say top you I rather doub t it,...since it would assume a conscious on his part,....
The absence of any conscious is prooven by the very publishing of a document that for the record states, if he had done it,...then here is how I would have done it,....which his children are now old enough to read and understand the full ramification there in,.....
So no he won't be eating his gun soon or even ever,....once again,...I feel sorry for the kids,... | |
|
| |
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 7:23:22 AM | Marita, if they charge him with perjury than they would also have to hold several other people involved in the case to the same standard and that just isn't going to happen. Mark Furman, Marcia Clark, Gil Garseti (sp?), and the list goes on.
For me, personally, I was at home during the trial and watched most of, ( a lack of anything else that I could do, because of being ill). I am not so convinced that he is guilty. There are some other factors that play into my thoughts and opinions on this whole case that I won't go into here.
As to why he can make money on the book and the interviews, that is because he was never actually convicted of a crime. There is a difference in criminal court and civil court and what can be done by the civil courts as far as collecting on any judgement that someone can win. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 7:37:04 AM | This could be an insult he's hurling at the world for believing he did it, even though he was exonerated in court. His life has been ruined. It could be he's saying "Okay, the police tried everything they could to frame me. I never had a chance in court, because the world judged me guilty, but if you're going to keep believing I did it, I'm going to find a way to make money from it. You were never fair and honest with me, so I'll live by your rules. Up yours."
I'm not going to watch it, though.
It's sick, no matter what else... | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 7:39:57 AM | so what,...SilverIon:...they should charge anyone who was lying under oath,....especially if they also happen to be officer's of the court,....as such they should be held to an ever higher standard than everyone else,...they certainly should (IMO) be given a walk BECAUSE they are officer's of the court,....
your right about the why he can bennefit financially,....but only after his debts have been taken care of,....and regardless of which court gives them an order for garneshee of his earnings,...it is an order which all courts have to adhere to,...there are very few items that have a priority over a garnashee,....like child support payments,....a court order is a court order,....no matter which court issued it,....
and the garnashee BTW,....is served on the publisher,....and the fox network,....so OJ isn't ev en given the choice of paying off this due | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 7:53:37 AM | | I hope there's some law that OJ can't collect his money from the sale of the book. If anything, why open wounds to the families and if anything, I like to think they collect the money, Not OJ... | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 9:55:25 AM | All one has to do is refuse to participate in this in any way.
If I had been a superstar football player, a film star, and a well respected celebrity (as he was) ; and I had been falsely accused of brutally murdering two people...
Let's just say once free, I would have devoted every waking minute to proving my innocence. I'd make "The Fugitive" look like a slacker. 
O.J.'s record since being found innocent is a joke. A failed attempt at a "stolen home porn tape", that idiotic TV skit of him trying to sell a Ford Bronco, etc...
He's turned into a pathetic joke, which (if he is in fact guilty) is actually a far better punishment than spending his life in jail as a celebrity. Until his last breath on the planet, he'll face people pointing in his direction and laughing...or just walking away.
From what he used to be, to where he is now, is about the greatest fall such a person can have. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 9:59:12 AM | Actually, I don't think he committed murder. The evidence was all falsified. The prosecution's case was leakier than a noodle strainer. I don't trust our legal system or the authorities very much. They think they know what they don't... and as a father I long ago found out that's not the way it is.
The only way one can guess and have a chance of being right is judging by evidence. Nobody knows how someone "is"... and even then it's a guess.
We must have laws. We must enforce laws to protect citizens in society.
That involves a whole lot of risks and a whole lot of mistakes. | |
|
| |
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 10:44:09 AM | marita_b, it doesn't quite work that way here in the states. It was a civil matter, the families won a lawsuit of wrongful death against him in a civil court. They did collect some of it already, I don't know how much.
Now please understand, it is garnishment of his earnings and they can only garnish a certain amount of his earnings here. He doesn't have child support payments because he has his two children with him. That is one of the reasons that they are going to have a hard time doing any garnishment of his earnings. Plus there are certain things that they can't get, and that was all spelled out in the court documents.
I don't know where you are getting your information on who is served what, but you really do need to check into that because I don't believe the garnishment would be or could be served on anyone but him. But see if you can find someone with a legal background to confirm that. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 11:19:27 AM | What a lowlife piece of garbage
To believe he is innocent you would have to disbelieve the evidence that is there and believe evidence that isn't there
I think some people just don't care that he did it | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 12:02:43 PM | the garnishment ios in fact served on whoever provides the person who is garnasheed, with money,...be it an employer or a debtor of his,...as would be the case of the publishing company and it would be withheld of the actual person who has the garnashee,....
the whole point of a garnashee is not givin g the debter an oportunity to decide to pay or not,....by paying off his debt on his behalf,....either in a lump sum or in certain incriments,...
and according to some of the reading I've done this is the same in the USA as Canada,...once a garneshee is declaired even if no moneys has yet been withheld from the debtor,...the debtor can not make this garnashee disappear by declairing bankruptcy,....
it stays enforceable untill all moneys owing has been collected....regardless of how long that takes,....and earnings will diverted until this debt has been paid and the garneshee'd amount has been satisfied,....
A garnashee can also be implimented by the tax department,....and to fullfill this obligation property may be seized and sold,....
He does have child support of a kind,...in as much as by way of having the children a certain percent of any earnings may not be garnasheeable, to allow for maintenance and support of his children by him,....so he can't be made homeless because the kids would then be homeless too,...and so forth,...but he certainly doesn't need to live in a mansion,...or live the life of Reiley,.....maintenance doesn't mean luxury...
according to on Goldman's father,....neither family have to date received a dime,....from OJ,... | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 12:05:08 PM |
To believe he is innocent you would have to disbelieve the evidence that is there and believe evidence that isn't there
Excercise in logic: Can you prove you didn't eat dirt yesterday morning?
Of course you can't.
Nobody can prove they didn't do something...
Disbelieve the evidence?
Yes... very much so.
1) Bloody glove that didn't fit: his hand was gigantic in it. they tried to pull it onto his hand and it wouldn't go down past his fingers.
2) DNA samples in blood found at the scene of the crime: proved by forensic experts to have been most likely dropped from a motionless carrier. 6.5 cc's of OJ's blood were taken as a sample. After the carrier of the sample took four hours to deposit it with the department that warehouses such things, it was found to contain only 4.5 cc's when delivered.
3) Bloody socks found on bed: were found the second night police came to OJ's to search, but photos of the room show they were not on the bed the first night and they were found to have been soaked through with blood, as though no foot was in them when the blood dripped on the fabric.
there were even more suspicions about other evidence in this case. It was a joke.
The most incriminating thing in the trial was OJ's history of using physical violence against her, but it was never life threatening. Also the notes found in the safe deposit box.... but without evidence to prove murder, what did it mean?
No case.
how many husbands have hit or threatened their wives?
How many wives have threatened their husbands.
Not quite the same as murder. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 3:54:10 PM | it wasn't just that the glove or the socks that got me anticon.
It was actually the pictures of her when he supposedly beat up on her on New Year's.
But then I had doubts that Mike Tyson ever hit Robin whatever her name was in the face too. | |
|
| Publisher on O.J.: 'I consider this his Confession'
Posted: 11/16/2006 4:14:06 PM |
it wasn't just that the glove or the socks that got me anticon.
It was actually the pictures of her when he supposedly beat up on her on New Year's.
But then I had doubts that Mike Tyson ever hit Robin whatever her name was in the face too.
I think things too... but proving it is something else entirely.
I don't like OJ... but I don't think he killed them. I believe there would have been good evidence if he had. They never showed it.
Maybe it was there and sloppy police work blew it. They sure screwed everything else up... but I wouldn't convict a person of murder on evidence I know is lies.
There's no way anyone else could know if OJ was guilty, but we have to guess or there wouldn't be any law.
That would have been a horribly wild guess.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
