Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: pumpster on November 15, 2006, 04:13:57 AM

Title: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: pumpster on November 15, 2006, 04:13:57 AM
Would someone please accidentally drive into him?




O. J. Simpson Writes a Book He’ll Discuss on Fox TV

The TV special will be on Fox during the final week of the November sweeps, the period when local network affiliates measure viewership in order to determine what rates they can charge for advertising.
           
O. J. Simpson has written a book and will appear on television telling “how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible,” his publisher and the Fox television network said on Tuesday.

Judith Regan, whose publishing imprint ReganBooks will release Mr. Simpson’s book Nov. 30, also conducted the television interviews, which will be broadcast on Fox in two one-hour segments on Nov. 27 and Nov. 29. Both ReganBooks and Fox are owned by the News Corporation.

According to a news release, the book and the TV special, which has a working title of “O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened,” will depict Mr. Simpson describing “how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade.”

Mr. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges, but a civil court found him responsible for the deaths, and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in restitution to the families. Only a part of the amount has been paid, and relatives of the victims have continued to pursue their claims.

It is not clear how much, if any, of the royalties on the sale of the book will go to the victims’ families. A Regan representative and a spokeswoman for Fox declined to comment beyond the news release.

The National Enquirer reported in October that a Simpson book was being planned, but that report was dismissed after Yale Galanter, a Florida lawyer said to be representing Mr. Simpson, told The Daily News that it was untrue. Mr. Galanter did not respond to phone calls yesterday seeking comment.

The TV special is being produced by Ms. Regan, who moved to Los Angeles from New York this year. Ms. Regan has previously produced shows for television featuring her authors, including a special with Jenna Jameson, the sex-film star and author of the book “How to Make Love Like a Porn Star,” which was also published by ReganBooks.

Fox representatives would not comment on whether it would solicit advertisers for the specials or whether it had concerns about presenting the specials in prime time. In its news release, the network quoted Mike Darnell, executive vice president for alternative programming, who said: “This is an interview that no one thought would ever happen. It’s the definitive last chapter in the trial of the century.”

At least one other network said it had passed on the chance to bid on the TV special because it thought the content was of questionable taste.

Rebecca Marks, a spokeswoman for NBC Universal Television, said the network passed because “from an advertising point of view, from a public relations point of view, everything, it was impossible.”

Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Diesel1 on November 15, 2006, 04:29:16 AM
Talk about bad taste. 'Only in America'  :-\
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: ieffinhatecardio on November 15, 2006, 05:20:49 AM
Leave it to Fox to air this garbage and Judith Regan isn't any better.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: JasonH on November 15, 2006, 05:35:26 AM
What an asshole.  ::)

Let's say for a minute that he didn't commit the murders. That's like me writing a book on saying how I would have killed someone in my close family, but didn't. What purpose does this serve? Her family must be livid.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 15, 2006, 06:17:50 AM
Quote
Leave it to Fox to air this garbage and Judith Regan isn't any better.
OJ deserves a real heavyweight interviewer, say George Stephanopolos. ::)


Quote
Let's say for a minute that he didn't commit the murders. That's like me writing a book on saying how I would have killed someone in my close family, but didn't. What purpose does this serve? Her family must be livid.
During the interview they should ask him with a straight face how the hunt for the real killers is going.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Victor VonDoom on November 15, 2006, 07:38:14 AM
Who cares?  Bah!

Doom disapproves.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 15, 2006, 07:47:00 AM
Quote
Who cares?  Bah!

Doom disapproves.
Silly
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2006, 07:47:17 AM
Unreal.  He couldn't just take his judgment proof monthly $18,000 after tax retirement income and just be quiet.  Got away with double murder, plays golf, doesn't have to work.   >:(  He really is a psychopath.  
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 08:13:47 AM
He is dying to confess. he's overcompensating for the guilt.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 15, 2006, 08:22:28 AM
Quote
He is dying to confess. he's overcompensating for the guilt.
Can he be tied in to 9/11?
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 08:24:25 AM
Can he be tied in to 9/11?

No.  because OJ didn't get to run his own trial ;)
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Faust on November 15, 2006, 08:26:26 AM
Everybody will see it as a confession. Dunno why he does this, i mean who will want to have anything to do with a cold-blooded murderer. Maybe he needs the money from the book?

During the interview they should ask him with a straight face how the hunt for the real killers is going.

He's doing a lot of searching on the golf course.  ;D
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Colossus_500 on November 15, 2006, 08:33:01 AM
No other way to put it... OJ is a straight-up punk!
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Cavalier22 on November 15, 2006, 11:26:30 AM
he needs money for his bimbos and his lifestyle man.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Colossus_500 on November 15, 2006, 11:41:52 AM
I wonder how his kids are doing?  :-\
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2006, 11:43:48 AM
I wonder how his kids are doing?  :-\

I wonder the same thing man.  How screwed up are they?  Mom murdered by dad.  Dad is a pariah.  Terrible.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: buffbodz on November 15, 2006, 11:48:15 AM
Even if he confessed, nothing would happen.  We have this law call Double Jeopardy just made for guys like OJ.  He could write a book telling the truth and never be prosecuted for the murder of his wife Nicole or Ron.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: bmacsys on November 15, 2006, 02:39:08 PM
“how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible,”
Come on, give me a break. OJ is fucking sick.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: bmacsys on November 15, 2006, 02:40:29 PM


During the interview they should ask him with a straight face how the hunt for the real killers is going.

He has been looking for the murdurers on golf courses around the USA since 1994. ::)
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Parker on November 15, 2006, 03:59:04 PM
OJ would probably say, "Well, If I was going to kill my wife and her boyfriend on the front steps of the house that I paid for, I would..."

"did you know, that the assailant was about my height and my build, what coincidence, isn't it?"

Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 07:13:06 PM
from what i've read, the goldman's are trying to get the rights to oj's name. any money made from his name goes straight to them. 

every dime made from this book should go right in their pocket.
my question is what moron would buy it??

is there anyone alive who still thinks he's innocent??
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 07:30:55 PM
is there anyone alive who still thinks he's innocent??

Remember back when a lot of people seriously said OJ was innocent?
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 07:45:32 PM
Remember back when a lot of people seriously said OJ was innocent?

i was watching a brief story about the oj trial on tv last week.  they showed the footage of the "black community" cheering when the verdict was read.

it made sick to the pit of my soul to watch that again.  just as bad as the day it happened.   >:(  &   :'(
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 07:48:22 PM
So you're saying that with time, more evidence has come to light which has caused people who believed the lie to come to their senses and see the obvious?
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: gordiano on November 15, 2006, 08:07:43 PM
What POS!  >:(
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 08:26:04 PM
So you're saying that with time, more evidence has come to light which has caused people who believed the lie to come to their senses and see the obvious?

i don't believe there could be anymore evidence against the man.  they had everything possible to convict him short of a video.  people just wanted him found not guilty because of all the racial issues brought into the trial by jonnie cochran-lord rest his soul.  oj could have confessed and the jury would have said not guilty. 

all the racial tension about the trial is gone so i think people just don't care anymore.  plus he was found responsible for the deaths in another trial so that may have opened peoples eyes. 
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 08:31:02 PM
i don't believe there could be anymore evidence against the man.  they had everything possible to convict him short of a video.  people just wanted him found not guilty because of all the racial issues brought into the trial by jonnie cochran-lord rest his soul.  oj could have confessed and the jury would have said not guilty. 

all the racial tension about the trial is gone so i think people just don't care anymore.  plus he was found responsible for the deaths in another trial so that may have opened peoples eyes. 

So people ignored the physical evidence because of the racial hatred they had?  It clouded their ability to see what was clear to everyone else?
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 08:47:33 PM
So people ignored the physical evidence because of the racial hatred they had?  It clouded their ability to see what was clear to everyone else?

10-4
racial hatred might be a strong term, but you are correct sir.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 09:25:57 PM
10-4
racial hatred might be a strong term, but you are correct sir.

I think that very series of events could happen in other things too.

Like, all the physical evidence pointed at OJ. yet because one racial group resented another group so badly, they were able to completely ignore the evidence (he was cut for gods sake, there was goldman's blood everywhere in his car) and actually cheer for a murderer.

With time, though, people were able to 'step back' from the event, and look at facts, look at OJ's behavior afterwards, and quietly realize "shit, maybe he did kill them." 

I bet they called white people "racists", "crazy", and other mean names because they were blinded by their hatred for another race, and fear of them as well.  As time passed, the evidence remained when the fear and racial resentment subsided.

And it will happen again.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2006, 09:58:50 PM
i was watching a brief story about the oj trial on tv last week.  they showed the footage of the "black community" cheering when the verdict was read.

it made sick to the pit of my soul to watch that again.  just as bad as the day it happened.   >:(  &   :'(

Coincidentally, I just watched an OJ documentary with my students last week.  The reaction selectively showed by the media was blacks cheering and whites jeering (and crying).  The trial and verdict really exposed the race problems that still exist in this country.   
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2006, 10:00:12 PM
i don't believe there could be anymore evidence against the man.  they had everything possible to convict him short of a video.  people just wanted him found not guilty because of all the racial issues brought into the trial by jonnie cochran-lord rest his soul.  oj could have confessed and the jury would have said not guilty. 

all the racial tension about the trial is gone so i think people just don't care anymore.  plus he was found responsible for the deaths in another trial so that may have opened peoples eyes. 

So why did the two whites and one Hispanic on the jury vote to acquit? 
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 10:10:51 PM
So why did the two whites and one Hispanic on the jury vote to acquit? 

pressure
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 10:14:42 PM
pressure

this is so true dude.  It'd take a lot of courage to stand up and look at the evidence, and try to overcome the emotion surrounding it.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2006, 10:17:50 PM
pressure

 :)  So the big bad black ladies on the jury must have ganged up on the poor white and Hispanic jurors?  I guess people who think the verdict was race-based have to come up with some excuse for the fact that the jury was not all black. 

Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 10:20:46 PM
I think that very series of events could happen in other things too.

Like, all the physical evidence pointed at OJ. yet because one racial group resented another group so badly, they were able to completely ignore the evidence (he was cut for gods sake, there was goldman's blood everywhere in his car) and actually cheer for a murderer.

With time, though, people were able to 'step back' from the event, and look at facts, look at OJ's behavior afterwards, and quietly realize "shit, maybe he did kill them." 

I bet they called white people "racists", "crazy", and other mean names because they were blinded by their hatred for another race, and fear of them as well.  As time passed, the evidence remained when the fear and racial resentment subsided.

And it will happen again.

i don't think those people will ever admit, not publicly anyway, that oj is really guilty.  pride. 

and it is happening now.  how about the duke lacrosse players.  when all this first came out, every black man with the word Rev. in front of his name was pissing and moaning about how no charges were being filed against the players and just pretty much convicting them in the media.  now that the accuser is found to be more screwed up in the head than charles manson, you don't hear a word from anybody.  go figure.    ::)
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 10:32:37 PM
I don't wan tto hijack the thread or anything, but I see some big similarities to the way we were attacked on 9/11.

Because of fear and what some would characterize as our national hatred of Muslims, we have all believed the 'alibi' of the Bush Administration that there was no foreknowledge, no cover-up, and no involvement.  The actual evidence - well, most people get so mad at the suggestion that they would rather start a fistfight than watch a documentary showing how the buildings collapsed.

i think in 5 years, when people don't feel the sting of the attacks, and when the wars in iraq and afghanistand are (hopefully) over, people will step back and look at the evidence surrounding 9/11.  They certainly will never admit it out loud.  But like OJ, they'll quietly realize, feel stupid for a moment, and move on.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: yellowdog on November 15, 2006, 10:56:54 PM
We are at work watching the trial and  the whites are gathered around one TV while all the blacks are gathered around another seperate TV.  OJ is aquited while cheers and clapping erupt from the black workers.  I go to the office of one of the black workers and ask what his true beliefs are concerning OJ.  He smiled and said, "Of course OJ did it but the justice system finally worked for us.  Whites have been getting away with murder for years." Not those exact words but I think you get the picture. 


They know he did it.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 11:29:11 PM
I don't wan tto hijack the thread or anything, but I see some big similarities to the way we were attacked on 9/11.

Because of fear and what some would characterize as our national hatred of Muslims, we have all believed the 'alibi' of the Bush Administration that there was no foreknowledge, no cover-up, and no involvement.  The actual evidence - well, most people get so mad at the suggestion that they would rather start a fistfight than watch a documentary showing how the buildings collapsed.

i think in 5 years, when people don't feel the sting of the attacks, and when the wars in iraq and afghanistand are (hopefully) over, people will step back and look at the evidence surrounding 9/11.  They certainly will never admit it out loud.  But like OJ, they'll quietly realize, feel stupid for a moment, and move on.

did i read you correctly??
you think the government knew about 9/11?? covered it up?? 
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 11:32:44 PM
did i read you correctly??
you think the government knew about 9/11?? covered it up?? 

I think we need a second 911 investigation.

Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 15, 2006, 11:43:20 PM
I think we need a second 911 investigation.



with the demorats in charge now i think you'll get your wish.  they're going to waste more of our money investigating everything bush has done from 9/11 to what toothpaste he uses.

i don't take your comment seriously though. 
no straight thinking human can honestly believe we knew of the attacks.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2006, 11:50:33 PM
i don't take your comment seriously though. 
no straight thinking human can honestly believe we knew of the attacks.

I used to feel the same way, man.  I'm a lifelong republican.  I nearly fought a guy with the audacity to even suggest such a thing LOL.  But after all the study I've done of the political and economic conditions, the events of the day, the science behind the collapses...

We need a second investigation.  No person can watch two 911 documentaries and still believe what they've been told.  We need a second investigation.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Bigger Business on November 15, 2006, 11:56:38 PM
Johnny Cochran's dead?
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 16, 2006, 12:04:43 AM
Johnny Cochran's dead?

yeah. some kinda inoperable brain tumor i think. few years back. RIP johnny.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 16, 2006, 12:43:55 AM
yeah. some kinda inoperable brain tumor i think. few years back. RIP johnny.

BIH jonnie!!
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Bigger Business on November 16, 2006, 12:48:35 AM
yeah. some kinda inoperable brain tumor i think. few years back. RIP johnny.

Oh man...he was a genuis of his craft. RIP

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." 


Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 01:12:22 AM
Quote
So why did the two whites and one Hispanic on the jury vote to acquit? 

It was pressure, they admitted later. At least one said she'd realized later that she'd made a mistake caving. One of the black jury members was seen giving OJ the black power sign before leaving the courtroom.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 01:14:44 AM
Quote
Johnny Cochran's dead?

Bizarre that two central characters around him are already dead, Johhny Cock Ring and Kardashian, who was a strange, key player. Apparently it was he who disposed of the knife, knew he was guilty, kept quiet and then later regreted it during the trial, saying that he expected a guilty verdict and was appalled by the outcome.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 01:16:43 AM
Quote
The reaction selectively showed by the media was blacks cheering and whites jeering (and crying).  The trial and verdict really exposed the race problems that still exist in this country.   

Blacks seen cheering was the worst part, but at least now it makes some sense in that it wasn't about OJ but about 2 centuries of perceived injustice that caused that innappropriate behavior.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 01:20:55 AM
Goldmans were on CNN last night. Such a decent family!

Fox is disgusting-not only were they the only ones to allow this book via their publishing arm and then to arrange the interview to air on TV late November, they also arranged to have OJ paid through an offshore account so that the monies (3.5 mm) will not be retrievable to satisfy the civil suit repayment obligations. Hideous that they would allow this, and a reminder of Murdoch's past in tacky bad taste newspapers. Hopefully something can be done about this but i don't understand Fox allowing it.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Parker on November 16, 2006, 04:38:42 AM
At, first, I will admit that I thought he was innocent, I thought his son did it, because his son didn't like Nicole Brown. But then when the 911 tapes came out, I was like, "OJ did it."

But I think the Borwn family is partly responsible for their daughter's death. I remember seeing an interview with the sister and she was crying saying, "OJ had pushed Nicole out of a moving car", and other abuses. If the family all this as going on, why didn't they try to stop it, while she was alive. Well the reason is , they were making mone off of OJ (they owned the Herz rental car biz, I believe), So as long as he was running thur the airport in commercials it was fine, Nicole was the "sacrificial lamb"

Basically they framed a guilty man, botched up evidence, and had a racist cop trying to hit on the black  lead singer of Vanity 6 (Vanity). Johnnie Cochran had this case given to him. It all had the makings of a very bad movie.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2006, 07:27:32 AM
At, first, I will admit that I thought he was innocent, I thought his son did it, because his son didn't like Nicole Brown. But then when the 911 tapes came out, I was like, "OJ did it."

But I think the Borwn family is partly responsible for their daughter's death. I remember seeing an interview with the sister and she was crying saying, "OJ had pushed Nicole out of a moving car", and other abuses. If the family all this as going on, why didn't they try to stop it, while she was alive. Well the reason is , they were making mone off of OJ (they owned the Herz rental car biz, I believe), So as long as he was running thur the airport in commercials it was fine, Nicole was the "sacrificial lamb"

Basically they framed a guilty man, botched up evidence, and had a racist cop trying to hit on the black  lead singer of Vanity 6 (Vanity). Johnnie Cochran had this case given to him. It all had the makings of a very bad movie.

I've heard others say this.  I believe OJ is guilty as sin, but there was substantial evidence of police misconduct.  For example, one of the experts called by the defense testified that there was a blood preservative and "more DNA" in blood on the socks in OJ's bedroom and the blood on the back gate.  The police lab didn't "find" this blood until weeks after the crime. 

I think Henry Lee's testimony was very harmful to the prosecution too.  "Something wrong."   :)

For me, the most compelling piece of evidence against OJ was the Bruno Magli shoe print at the crime scene.  Size 12.  The defense couldn't touch that evidence.  Then, after the trial, they found numerous pictures of OJ wearing those shoes as a sideline reporter at NFL games.  The pictures were used during his civil trial.     
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 16, 2006, 07:32:11 AM
People were so blinded by disgust for police, racial issues, etc to just look at the evidence. 

Bruno Magli shoe print at the crime scene lol... I forgot about that one.  What an incredible smoking gun of guilt.  And today, most people - of any race - would look at the evidence and say 'guilty!!'.

But back then, people would seriously fistfight over it.  They were so wrapped up in emotion that they wouldn't even LOOK at the facts.

Sounds kinda familiar!
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 07:38:55 AM
The most glaring and overlooked evidence was his admission of guilt to Rosey Grier, in prison. In yet another Ito blunder, the evidence of neither witness was ever admitted:


Following Simpson's arrest, Grier had been a regular visitor at the Los Angeles County Jail. A giant, African-American former NFL defensive lineman, Grier had become an ordained minister.

On November 13th, 1994, a Sunday afternoon at about 4:30 p.m., he and Simpson were talking by telephone, separated by a glass partition. A deputy called Jeff Stuart was sitting close by and heard Simpson yell, and slam down his telephone, shouting: "I didn't mean to do it. I'm sorry." Grier leaned forward and yelled back: "O.J., you gotta come clean. You gotta tell somebody!" Simpson then buried his face in his hands, looking distraught. They talked for another few minutes and then Grier left.

Although both Stuart and Grier gave testimony to Judge Ito regarding the overheard conversation, and the judge ruled that Simpson had waived any right to "clergyman-penitent privilege," he nevertheless disallowed the prosecution from presenting the guard's testimony.



Quote
I believe OJ is guilty as sin, but there was substantial evidence of police misconduct.
Police bumbling soiled the evidence.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2006, 07:43:20 AM
The most glaring and forgotten evidence was his admission of guilt to Rosey Grier, in prison. Apparently because he was a priest, Grier was never pressured to forgo his credo of discretion.

That wasn't an admission of guilt.  Hardly the strongest piece of evidence either.

The bloody glove found in OJ's yard would have been the strongest piece of evidence, if not for Fuhrman.   
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 07:45:13 AM
Quote
That wasn't an admission of guilt.  Hardly the strongest piece of evidence either.

Absurd. A minister's words as well as those from a guard would have been huge. Besides which, i said forgotten/ignored. This event isn't even known by most.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2006, 07:49:07 AM
Absurd. A minister's word as well as that of a guard would have been huge.

I heard various reports of what Simpson allegedly yelled when talking to Grier.  I think the judge did the right thing by keeping it out.  The judge should have also kept out the "dream" testimony (OJ allegedly saying he had dreams about killing Nicole). 
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 07:50:29 AM
Quote
I heard various reports of what Simpson allegedly yelled when talking to Grier.  I think the judge did the right thing by keeping it out.
Given the fact that you're going on hearsay and the established reality that Ito did a poor job, that's pretty lame.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2006, 07:53:24 AM
Given the fact that you're going on hearsay and the established reality that Ito did a poor job, that's pretty lame.

 ???  The guard's comments were hearsay.  OJ's alleged comments might have been a hearsay exception.   

Did I say Ito did a poor job? 
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 08:01:52 AM
Quote
The guard's comments were hearsay.  OJ's alleged comments might have been a hearsay exception.   

Did I say Ito did a poor job? 

No you didn't; maybe you think he did a great job. ;D

Neither a minister's words, or those of a guard, would have been hearsay-they were both there, which is not hearsay.

Their words would have been huge in the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 16, 2006, 08:31:05 AM
I sure hope the same people who refuse to even look at the 911 evidence are getting their panties in a wad over OJ evidence. 

Well, perhaps in ten years, here in the general room we'll finally be discussing 9/11 evidence while you refuse to look at whatever major issue is relevant at the time.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 08:34:37 AM
Quote
I sure hope the same people who refuse to even look at the 911 evidence are getting their panties in a wad over OJ evidence. 

Well, perhaps in ten years, here in the general room we'll finally be discussing 9/11 evidence while you refuse to look at whatever major issue is relevant at the time.

Would it be possible to create discrete threads on 9/11 rather than trying to peddle these theories everywhere? Most don't believe or care.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 16, 2006, 08:38:41 AM
Would it be possible to create discrete threads on 9/11 rather than trying to peddle these theories everywhere? Most don't believe or care.

IMO most people who look at the evidence suddenly do care a great deal.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 08:58:21 AM
Quote
IMO most people who look at the evidence suddenly do care a great deal.
Self-delusion. Please try to control the spread of this to every thread it's tired.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Hulkster on November 16, 2006, 09:08:50 AM
from what I have seen as well, there were probems the intelligence of the jury.

I watched a tv show and they said something like the highest level of education completed by any of the jury members was grade 10 or something.

according to the show, the jury literally could not grasp the concept of the DNA and forensic evidence, thus, part of why they disregarded the mountain of it...
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2006, 09:43:15 AM
No you didn't; maybe you think he did a great job. ;D

Neither a minister's words, or those of a guard, would have been hearsay-they were both there, which is not hearsay.

Their words would have been huge in the court of public opinion.

Ito did okay.  I'd give him a C.   :)

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by someone not testifying at trial.  Grier's testimony about what OJ allegedly said outside of court would be hearsay.  The guard's testimony about what he allegedly heard Grier and OJ say would be hearsay.  There are exceptions, and OJ's comments might fall into one of those exceptions. 

I don't think the disputed comments would have impacted public opinion.  People are and were already firmly entrenched with their beliefs of guilt or innocence.  OJ cannot possibly become any more of a pariah than he is now.   
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2006, 09:44:01 AM
Would it be possible to create discrete threads on 9/11 rather than trying to peddle these theories everywhere? Most don't believe or care.

Tell me about it. 
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: bmacsys on November 16, 2006, 03:55:44 PM
Remember back when a lot of people seriously said OJ was innocent?

No, as soon as he ran in the white Bronco nobody thought he was innocent.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: bmacsys on November 16, 2006, 03:57:48 PM
10-4
racial hatred might be a strong term, but you are correct sir.

I think how bad many people thought of the LAPD at the time may have helped OJ be aquitted. After all it was right after Rodney King.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: bmacsys on November 16, 2006, 03:59:15 PM
I don't wan tto hijack the thread or anything,

Oh come on. Of course you do! ;)
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 04:03:03 PM
Quote
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by someone not testifying at trial.  Grier's testimony about what OJ allegedly said outside of court would be hearsay.  The guard's testimony about what he allegedly heard Grier and OJ say would be hearsay.  There are exceptions, and OJ's comments might fall into one of those exceptions. 

I don't think the disputed comments would have impacted public opinion.  People are and were already firmly entrenched with their beliefs of guilt or innocence.  OJ cannot possibly become any more of a pariah than he is now. 

Whatever tech details about it, it's significant that Grier's a minister & a guard was a part of the equation.

You opinion on public opinion's just yours. It would've made a difference at that time, IMO. Trials are not just based on evidence, as was seen in that trial.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: bmacsys on November 16, 2006, 04:03:53 PM
I heard various reports of what Simpson allegedly yelled when talking to Grier.  I think the judge did the right thing by keeping it out.  The judge should have also kept out the "dream" testimony (OJ allegedly saying he had dreams about killing Nicole). 

Supposedly he yelled at Rosy Grier  "I killed the bitch!" This came out in 1994. I remember hearing that it wasn't admissable due to Rosy being his minister. Kind of like a priest not being able to rat you out at confession.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Camel Jockey on November 16, 2006, 04:04:19 PM
THIS IS A FUCKING CONFESSION! PUT THE guy IN PRISON ALREADY!  >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 05:03:47 PM
That confession should not have been ruled out on technicalities, like the one about Grier being a minister. Nice job, judge Itoh!  ::)
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 05:04:51 PM
November 16, 2006

A pathetic O.J. Simpson delivered a blubbering double-murder "confession" during his shocking TV interview that hypothetically details his role in the grisly slayings.

"I can't do this, I can't have my kids hear me say this," a tearful Simpson says in his Fox special, "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," which will coincide with the release of his book by the same name.

The book's publisher, Judith Regan, is the on-camera interviewer in the jaw-dropping spectacle.

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

The allegedly fictional account will explain how his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were slaughtered outside her Los Angeles condo on June 12, 1994.

Talk of that bloody night proved too much for Simpson.

"I can't do no more of this," he said, in an interview clip posted on the Fox network Web site yesterday. Simpson appeared to be putting down a book as he cried.

A source close to the production - which will air Nov. 27 and 29 - said Simpson broke down in tears several times.

"It was extraordinarily difficult but detailed," the insider said. "For a story that's supposed to be hypothetical, this guy could barely get through it."

Even though the book's title implies guilt, Simpson still clings to his claims of innocence. The former Buffalo Bills star and Heisman Trophy winner could confess to the killings, but still remain free under double-jeopardy protection.

"I don't think two people could be murdered without everyone being covered in blood," Simpson said in the clip.

Traces of Brown's blood were found on Simpson's socks in his bedroom. Cops, however, were never able to find the clothes worn by the killer.

Simpson sat down with Regan on Monday in Miami, according to O.J.'s lawyer Yale Galanter, who said he didn't know about the deal until then.

Galanter said he would have advised Simpson against doing this book and TV deal - and even encouraged the Goldman and Brown families to go after the money O.J. might make.

"Absolutely . . . they can go after Fox and find out what the financial arrangement was between Fox and Regan Books," Galanter told Court TV. "And I think they could go after HarperCollins [the publisher for which Regan Books is an imprint] and Regan and find out what the deal was with Simpson and the people behind the book."

The book and TV deal made Simpson's lawyer so nervous, Galanter said he hit the law books to make sure his client was legally bulletproof.

"I actually spoke to a law professor about that today and the conclusion that everybody is reaching is that any murder suspect that is tried for a murder in 1995 would be absolutely immune from any type of prosecution in 2006," Galanter said.

"O.J.'s been tried, he's been acquitted in terms of the murder of Ron and Nicole. That issue is over. The only issue that's left on the table is the $33 million judgment."

Simpson is reportedly going to make $3.5 million from the book and TV special. Galanter declined to confirm that figure, but disclosed that his client's contract gives complete control of publicity to Regan and bars the grid great from speaking publicly for 30 days.

"There's little that would surprise me from this murdering s.o.b., but this does reach an all-time low, even for him," Ron Goldman's dad, Fred Goldman, told The Post from his home in Arizona.

"What's so morally reprehensible to me is that he's pretending 'how I would have done it' when in reality we all know how he did it."

The families lashed out not just at Simpson, but at Regan and Fox as well.

"We hope Ms. Regan takes full accountability for promoting the wrongdoing of criminals and leveraging this forum and the actions of Simpson to commercialize abuse," fumed Nicole Brown's sister Denise Brown.

Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2006, 05:18:41 PM
This really makes me sick.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 16, 2006, 05:22:01 PM
Looks like there may be some backlash against Fox and Regan. Goldman said last night that OJ's already been paid into an inaccessible off-shore account, which doesn't make Fox look good.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: yellowdog on November 16, 2006, 08:55:23 PM
This is long as hell. Pumpster may want to read at least part of this rant...I could not get through half of it.

Full Statement From Publisher Judith Regan:

Why I Did It

I was sitting with Howard Stern, of all people, when the verdict came down. Many of you probably remember where you were at that moment. It was a moment I, like so many others, was dreading.

Because, I knew that the “killer,” as Kim Goldman so eloquently named him, would be acquitted. I knew it from my own experience.

Conviction is what I wanted—and not just in the legal sense.

I wanted it because I had once been that young woman who loved with all of her heart and believed in the goodness of man, the trusting girl who fell for the guy, who believed in the beauty of romance, the power of love, the joy of family and the miracle of motherhood. Like Nicole Brown, I believed with all my heart . . . and then got punched in the face.

Literally.

On that day, October 3, 1995, as Howard and I sat watching the television with a conference room full of people, I said, “He’ll be acquitted.” I said it out loud, and the others in the room looked at me in a way I’d been looked at before: “Oh, God. She’s crazy.”

But I knew it, because I’d been there. I’d listened to the lies (“She hit herself’), watched him charm the police (“Sir, I don’t know why she’s saying this”), endured the ignorance of one cop who looked at me with disdain and said “You must like it,” and couldn’t understand why they didn’t believe me.

That man was tall, dark, and handsome. A great athlete. A brilliant mind. He was even a doctor, with an M.D. after his name and a degree that came with an oath: “First, do no harm.” He was one of the brightest men I’d ever met. And he could charm anyone. He charmed me. We had a child. And then he knocked me out, with a blow to my head, and sent me to the hospital.

He manipulated, lied, and broke my heart.

And then, after all but leaving me for dead in a hospital, where his daughter died a few days later, he left for good.

So as I watched this new scene play itself out, I knew that this man—the killer, as Kim calls him—would be acquitted. I’d seen it before: The men in court, dressed in their designer suits, blaming the women they attacked. I’d seen, firsthand, the “criminal injustice system,” as I called it in my twenties—the system that let him go one night after assaulting me so he could come right back and do it again.

I had my witnesses, thank God, or no one would have believed me. But he, too, had his fans, the ones who could not believe that a man that smart, that good-looking, and that successful “would ever do anything like that.”

“Why,” one of my own family members said in one of the many denials I’d heard, “would someone like him do that to you? Why? And if he did, you must have done something to provoke him.” I’d heard it all.

So when the verdict came down, I watched the faces in the room freeze in shock.

“I told you,” I said, and left the room.

The Trial of the Century, as it was called, was not just a moment for me, it was a seminal moment in American history. The curtain was pulled back on the issues of domestic violence, police corruption, and racism—on both sides. And when the final curtain fell, it fell on the killer, as he is known, providing a protective shield from the consequences of his grievous act.

Conviction, or lack thereof, is the story of the trial of the century. Where was that sense of conviction when racist police officers abused and battered their victims? Where was that sense of conviction when Nicole Brown was being battered and people stood by and let him get away with it time and time again? Where was it when NBC kept him on the air when they were sure to know? Where was it when the Browns lost custody of the children, who were sent to be raised by the narcissist who killed their mother? Where was it when Fred Goldman, who lost his beautiful son, won a civil judgment, but was unable to collect it?

Where was it?

I never lost my desire for his conviction. And if Marcia Clark couldn’t do it. I sure wanted to try.

In the past few days, since the announcement of the forthcoming book and televised interview If I Did It, it has been strange watching the media spin the story. They have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him. A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood, nor when she conducted her celebrated interviews with dictator Fidel Castro or Muammar al-Gaddafi; not called for when 60 Minutes interviewed Timothy McVeigh who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City, not called for when the U.S. government released tapes of Osama bin Laden; not called for when Geraldo Rivera interviewed his dozens of murderers, miscreants, and deviants.

Nor should it be.

“To publish” does not mean “to endorse”; it means “to make public.” If you doubt that, ask the mainstream publishers who keep Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf in print to this day. They are likely to say that there is a historical value in publishing such material, so that the public can read, and judge for themselves, the thoughts and attempted defenses of an indefensible man. There is historical value in such work; there is value for law enforcement, for students of psychology, for anyone who wants to gain insight into the mind of a sociopath.

But that is not why I did it. That is not why I wanted to face the killer. That is not why I wanted to publish his story.

I didn’t know what to expect when I got the call that the killer wanted to confess. I didn’t know what would happen. 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.

My son is now twenty-five years old, my daughter fifteen. I wanted them, and everyone else, to have a chance to see that there are consequences to grievous acts. That the consequences of pain and suffering will ultimately be brought upon its perpetrators. 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. But I wanted to try. I wanted his confession.

I wanted the acknowledgment, not for me but for my son, so I could turn to him and say, “I’m sorry that he was not a father to you. I’m sorry that he could not teach you what it means to be a man. And, finally, he’s sorry too.”

When I was a girl, a young, innocent, and believing girl, my parents made me go to confession. I didn’t always like to go. It was spooky going into the dark confessional booths, where I was told to say my penance for my sins and to recite The Act of Contrition.

Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee. And I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all because I offend thee my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life, amen.

To confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life, amen.

I was seven or eight years old at the time, and I had no idea what I was saying or doing. But I do now.

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.

Amen.

I have not spent a lifetime in the study of deception detection, but ex-CIA specialist Phil Houston has. “When killers confess,” he told me, “the way they often do it is by creating a hypothetical”—and then they spill their guts.

For many of them, it is the only way to tell the truth.

I thought of this and the many books I’ve published over the years on the subject of sociopaths and their lack of empathy (Without Conscience and Snakes in Suits). And I thought about The Mind & The Brain, a book about the power of the human will. Is such behavior the result of a genetic flaw? Could it be caused by a head injury? Is it the result of a weak and damaged human will? Was this man suffering from a sort of emotional autism?

How did it happen? How could a man with so much have so little? And how could we, as a society, continue to protect him and others from the consequences of his wrong-doing?

I don’t know why he did it—why he did the book, and sat for the interview. Was it his own disturbed need for attention? Did he have remorse? Was he ready to come clean and make amends and do his penance? I wouldn’t know until I sat down in a chair across from him.

What I do know is I didn’t pay him. 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.

I had never met him and never spoken with him until the day I interviewed him. And I was ready. Fifty-three years prepared me for this conversation.

The men who lied and cheated and beat me—they were all there in the room. And the people who denied it, they were there too. And though it might sound a little strange, Nicole and Ron were in my heart. And for them I wanted him to confess his sins, to do penance and to amend his life. Amen.

We live in a world right now where hatred and vengeance is a way of life.

And as the killer sat before me I was not filled with vengeance or hatred. I thought of the man who had beaten me so many years ago, who left me in a hospital, the man who broke my child’s heart. And I listened carefully.

And what went through my mind surprised me. Mental illness. Thought process disorder. No empathy. Malignant narcissism.

In the years to come, I hope we will have a better understanding of this type of disordered personality. Are certain people simply born that way? If not, what goes wrong that changes them? How does this happen? And why?

I took on this project with the belief that his life must be a constant torture, a kind of hell. And I wondered: In his confession, however he chose to state it, would he do his penance, could he amend his life? Could he say he was sorry?

I thought back to Christmas Eve, a few years ago. The man who broke my heart was now standing on my doorstep, shaking. He talked about my son, now in his twenties, and told me I’d done a great job raising him alone.

During the years that I was running from work to homework, from my office to every school play, assembly, swim meet or parent conference, he never showed up for a single thing. While I was raising my son, he had lived a high life and then lost everything. He ended up in prison, lost his medical license, lost many of his worldly possessions, lost his looks and now, most of the women who once cared had gone, too.

And he was losing his mind. His hand was shaking violently. He had Parkinson’s disease, and was a broken man. He looked at me. The girl he’d left in the gutter had raised two children alone, had built a successful company, and was now a happy woman.

“I guess you think I’m getting my comeuppance,” he said.

And strangely I didn’t. That a man who had so much could throw it all away and fall so low—it gave me no pleasure.

I was sad for my son, sad for the women he’d left behind, sad for the mother and siblings he’d disappointed and I was sad for him that he’d missed the opportunity to live a beautiful life.

When I sat face to face with the killer, I wanted him to confess, to release us all from the wound of the conviction that was lost on that fall day in October of 1995.

For the girl who was left in the gutter, I wanted to make it right.

Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: beatmaster on November 16, 2006, 09:24:41 PM

oj's a piece of sh*t, and should die for what he did
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: 240 is Back on November 16, 2006, 09:26:19 PM
No, as soon as he ran in the white Bronco nobody thought he was innocent.

No.  Some people seriously believed he was innocent.  A smaller, even less rational group believes it to this day.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: mightymouse72 on November 16, 2006, 10:47:45 PM
No.  Some people seriously believed he was innocent.  A smaller, even less rational group believes it to this day.

a better term would be even more stupid group

people have been put to death with much,much less evidence than he was acquitted with. 
in my eyes the jury commited the real crime
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: Parker on November 17, 2006, 04:46:51 AM
"We hope Ms. Regan takes full accountability for promoting the wrongdoing of criminals and leveraging this forum and the actions of Simpson to commercialize abuse," fumed Nicole Brown's sister Denise Brown.



This is the Bitch that said OJ commitment multiple abuses to Nicole, but never went to the police or confronted OJ. As I saidbefore, as long as OJ was making money for the family, they didn't mind sacrificing a daughter. Hell, I bet she probably gave OJ a BJ or two. 
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance
Post by: pumpster on November 18, 2006, 11:06:16 AM
O.J. Deal Leaves Sour Taste in Many Mouths

Saturday, November 18, 2006
An angry wave of criticism swept through the publishing and broadcast worlds Friday over the coming Fox television interview tied to the promotion of a book by O.J. Simpson, in which he describes how he would have murdered his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman -- if he'd done it.

The two-part, two-hour TV interview is scheduled to be aired on the Fox network Nov. 27 and 29 and was conducted by hard-charging and controversial publisher Judith Regan. The show will run before the Nov. 30 release date of Simpson's pseudo-confessional tome, "If I Did It," a book published by ReganBooks, a division of HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
 
The outrage that has been brewing all week seemed to boil over in recent days as members of the public, television station executives and fellow publishers criticized the book and the taped interview.

Geoff Shandler, editor in chief of Little, Brown, said yesterday, "It's so outrageous and flamboyant and audacious that part of you almost laughs while the other part of you wants to puke."

It was just one example of the kind of fire that Regan has drawn, and that has had some wondering if the envelope-pushing publisher had finally pushed too far.

On Thursday, Regan issued a rambling, eight-page statement in which she said she was motivated not by notoriety or money but by a kind of ersatz revenge and desire to have Simpson confess his crimes (which he reportedly is careful not to do). Regan also said she was compelled by her own history of domestic abuse -- "like Nicole Brown, I believed with all my heart," she said, "and then got punched in the face. Literally."

Media companies that own Fox stations are mulling this weekend whether to direct their stations to run or to preempt the Simpson interview, scheduled to air on the final Monday and Wednesday of the November sweeps ratings period, when ratings are closely watched and future ad rates are tabulated based on those numbers.

On Friday, at least two broadcasters directed their Fox-affiliated stations to preempt the Simpson broadcasts. One of them, California-based Pappas Telecasting Co., owns Fox stations in Fresno, Calif.; Sioux City, Iowa; and Omaha and Lincoln, Neb.

"Our company feels very strongly that there is no beneficial interest to the airing of this program except to O.J. Simpson, and we have no desire to benefit O.J. Simpson," said Pappas's Mike Angellos. He added that his station had been deluged with complaints from the public.

The other broadcaster, LIN TV Corp., owns Fox-affiliated stations in Norfolk; Providence, R.I.; Mobile, Ala.; and Toledo.

"After careful consideration regarding the nature of the show, as well as the feedback we received from the viewers of Northeast Wisconsin, we determined that this programming was not serving the local public interest," WLUK-TV General Manager Jay Zollar said on the station's Web site yesterday.

A Fox spokesman contacted Friday declined to comment regarding the special.

Simpson is no stranger to public outrage. But it appears that much of the condemnation was directed at Fox and Regan, with questions about who will ultimately profit from the deaths of two people whose throats were slashed in Brentwood, Calif., on the night of June 12, 1994.

Regan, 53, has long been a source of gossip, envy and disdain among her colleagues and competitors. She got her start in publishing as a reporter for the National Enquirer, and is now an industry powerhouse.

"Who else has the combination of nerve, foresight and soullessness to publish a book by O.J. Simpson," Sara Nelson, editor of Publishers Weekly, wrote in an online editorial.

"Judith Regan is a very smart and very savvy publisher," Nelson said later in an interview. "But this is just different. This is just . . . " She searched for a word. "This is just really awful."

Publishing companies routinely print books that people find in bad taste, but Regan pushes the envelope -- with profitable results. Her catalogue for ReganBooks, in which a sexy image of the publisher herself sometimes graces the cover, details graphic adult novels and other pulp, such as the memoirs of porn star Jenna Jameson, alongside serious novels by writers such as Jess Walter, who was a finalist for this year's National Book Award for fiction.

The cover of Simpson's book features a picture of the former National Football League star. The portion of the title "I Did It" is in blood-red ink and the word "If" is in white. As of Friday evening, the book was ranked No. 22 on Amazon's bestseller list, though it will not be released until the end of the month. Amazon users tagged the product with the words "shameful," "disgusting," "murderer" and "pathetic."

Regan did not return phone calls on Friday, nor did her publicist. HarperCollins would not comment on the book. In her statement, Regan said she secured the book deal after being approached by a "third party" representing Simpson, whom she did not reveal. "What I do know is I didn't pay him. 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," Regan said. "What I wanted was closure, not money."

The National Enquirer reported that Regan paid $3.5 million for the Simpson book. In so-called trial of the century, Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court; but he was found responsible for the deaths in a civil trial and was ordered to pay the Brown and Goldman families $33.5 million, only a fraction of which has been paid.

Simpson lives in Florida, where his home is protected from seizure, and he receives a pension from the NFL worth about $400,000 a year.

Regan said she wanted to do the TV interview, which she characterizes as "a confession," herself. Because he was acquitted in court, Simpson cannot be tried again for the same crimes.

"I had never met him and never spoken with him until the day I interviewed him. And I was ready," Regan said. "The men who lied and cheated and beat me -- they were all there in the room. And the people who denied it, they were there, too. And though it might sound a little strange, Nicole and Ron were in my heart. And for them, I wanted him to confess his sins, to do penance and to amend his life. Amen."

Regan further described herself as a victim when she said the media "have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him," something she called a double standard.

Regan continued, "A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood . . . not called for when '60 Minutes' interviewed Timothy McVeigh, who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City."

She characterized the Simpson trial, for better or worse, as "a seminal moment in American history," as it was a perfect tabloid mystery double murder, with its crosscurrents of violence, celebrity, racism, wealth, police corruption and the media.

However accurate that may be, families of the victims were furious.

Nicole Simpson's sister, Denise Brown, who chairs a foundation to fight domestic violence, said in a statement: "It's unfortunate that Simpson has decided to reawaken a nightmare that we . . . worked so hard to move beyond. We hope Ms. Regan takes full accountability for promoting the wrongdoing of criminals and leveraging this forum and the actions of Simpson to commercialize abuse."

On Friday, a number of Fox station managers were wondering what to do with the Simpson special. "I think everybody thought Fox was beyond this, beyond those days of 'When Animals Attack' and all that kind of stuff," said a disgusted general manager of a top 50 Fox station who did not want to be named. The GM said he would bet that as soon as one big station-owning company rejects the Simpson show, "other owners will follow."

Among the more creative ways of dealing with a public relations disaster, a Fox station in Seattle has promised that if it airs the interview, it will not sell any local ads. Instead it will help tape public service announcements for local organizations that aid victims of domestic abuse, which will run in place of local ads.

Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: 240 is Back on November 18, 2006, 11:12:01 AM
FOX news agreed to pay him using an offshore account which the Goldmans couldn't touch.  And NBC completely rejected OJ's offer.

Disgusting.
Title: Re: OJ book & TV appearance creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: pumpster on November 18, 2006, 11:14:11 AM
Quote
FOX news agreed to pay him using an offshore account which the Goldmans couldn't touch.

Already mentioned; apparently his kids are not bothered, either. Killing two birds with one stone, the payment's been made in their names, further diminishing the Goldmans' ability to retrieve funds.
Title: Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: pumpster on November 19, 2006, 02:40:28 PM
OJ 'confession': now US turns on Murdoch

It must have seemed like a good idea to someone. The man most Americans believe is behind their country's most infamous murder agrees to a virtual confession in a book and TV interview. Surely it would be a ratings and publishing smash.
Not quite so fast. For in reality OJ Simpson has succeeded where millions of angry liberals have always failed: striking a direct blow at the media empire of Rupert Murdoch, and especially its controversial broadcasting arm, headed by Fox television.

A wave of revulsion and open criticism, reaching a climax this weekend, has swept America in the wake of revelations that Simpson intends to capitalise on the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman with a book and TV 'confession' in a £1.8 million deal brokered by Murdoch-owned companies. So widespread is the condemnation that even some of the top names on Murdoch's own cable channel, Fox News, have urged viewers not to buy the book or watch the interview.
It is no surprise. In both book and interview Simpson describes how he would have murdered Brown and Goldman. But only if 'hypothetically' he had done it. He even describes the amount of blood that would have been caused by slashing the pair to death.

The extent of the reaction perhaps typifies a case that has both outraged and enthralled Americans.

Certainly, the public vilification of Simpson seems to have taken its toll on Judith Regan, the controversial US book publisher who conducted the interview and whose Murdoch-owned ReganBooks is behind the deal. She has issued a bizarre eight-page defence of the deal in which she confessed to being a battered wife and that she felt the spirit of the slain couple in the room with her as she spoke to Simpson.

Given the scale of the backlash, it is no surprise that Regan is feeling the pressure. Murdoch and Fox must have been taken aback at the sheer speed at which the publishing scoop of the century has turned into a potential public relations disaster.

Local TV stations have already been swamped by complaints from the public, prompting many to opt out of showing the interview.

The outrage has spread to the publishing world, where revulsion at the book itself, entitled If I Did It, has already seen some stores start sending it back.

The anger was sharpened by publicity stunts such as the colouring of the 'I Did It' part of the book's title in red, and the fading of the 'If' into a pale white. In California the owner of Brentwood Bookstore, near where the murders took place, has refused to stock it, while the Northern California Independent Booksellers' Association, made up of some 240 bookstores, has emailed its members suggesting cash generated by the book be donated to domestic violence charities. Even some of the biggest media names in Murdoch's own empire have joined the fray, though the cynical might interpret that as a clever media ploy to have one's cake and eat it.

Bill O'Reilly, the conservative and outspoken anchor of a talk show on Fox News, called for a boycott of advertisers who buy ad space during the two-hour long interview. Another Fox star, Geraldo Rivera, famous for his patriotic stance on the war on terror, declared that the Simpson deal was 'appalling' and vowed to oppose it.

The Fox channel has long been a liberal bete noire and the subject of numerous documentaries about its obvious conservative bias. But the Simpson scandal is different, with the sheer involvement of Murdoch's empire striking at the heart of middle America. It was controlled from the start by disparate elements of Murdoch's News Corp empire: ReganBooks is owned by Murdoch's HarperCollins. The interview is to be shown on two separate shows on Murdoch's Fox network, just in time for a vital ratings boost that will set lucrative future advertising rates. And news of the deal was first revealed in the Murdoch-owned New York Post last week.

The New York Daily News, bitter rival to the Post, immediately came out blasting both its editorial barrels at Murdoch and Regan. In an editorial directly addressed to Regan, the newspaper accused her and her boss of making blood money. 'He did it for buckets of bloody bucks, just as you and Murdoch are,' the paper thundered.

But Murdoch is used to media storms. Fox, too, has long revelled in controversial attention. Both have often trusted the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, even when it involves Simpson's hypothetical confession of a murder that was all too real. But if millions of Americans still tune in to watch or buy the book, then Murdoch will have had the last laugh over his critics.

It would not be the first time.

Where are they now?

The lawyer
Johnnie Cochran, OJ's lawyer, attracted as much attention in the trial as OJ himself or the famous glove the footballer struggled to pull on in front of the court. Cochrane died in 2005.

OJ's home
The house in Brentwood, Hollywood, where the former football star once lived, was sold long ago and demolished.

The restaurant
Mezzaluna, where Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ's former wife, had dinner before her murder has been replaced by a coffee shop.

The condo
The house number has been changed on the condo where Nicole and friend Ronald Goldman were killed.

Title: Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: 240 is Back on November 19, 2006, 03:07:31 PM
I read that Rupert Murdoch has dinner with Hilary Clinton once a week.

Is this true?  pretty interesting, if so.  Would make hedgehog look pretty smart.
Title: Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: sandycoosworth on November 19, 2006, 04:03:46 PM
As convincing an argument for double jeopardy if ever there was one >:(
Title: Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: Dos Equis on November 20, 2006, 01:29:03 PM
I can't believe it.  The long lost media conscience has surfaced.  That, or they were afraid of a boycott, loss of income, etc.  Show has been cancelled. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230838,00.html

Title: Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: Al-Gebra on November 20, 2006, 01:36:56 PM
I can't believe it.  The long lost media conscience has surfaced.  That, or they were afraid of a boycott, loss of income, etc.  Show has been cancelled. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230838,00.html



why not? they got enough publicity out of the deal. 
Title: Re: OJ book/TV canceled
Post by: BayGBM on November 20, 2006, 01:49:22 PM
What’s the big deal here and why the cancellation?  Like everything else on TV if you don’t want to watch it, don’t watch it.  ::)
Title: Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: Diesel1 on November 20, 2006, 02:34:38 PM
I can't believe it.  The long lost media conscience has surfaced.  That, or they were afraid of a boycott, loss of income, etc.  Show has been cancelled. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230838,00.html



Fucking cowards. Depite the whining, people would've watched and bought the book the fucking hipocryts
Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: 240 is Back on November 20, 2006, 02:48:19 PM
Free OJ.  He's innocent.
Title: Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
Post by: Dos Equis on November 20, 2006, 03:00:26 PM
why not? they got enough publicity out of the deal. 

Yes.  The "bad" publicity will likely help book sales.  I'm just surprised they even thought about giving this murderer a stage.  I think respect for the victim's families should trump the short-lived ratings bump they would have gotten for this show.  The media has no conscience. 
Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: 240 is Back on November 20, 2006, 03:02:09 PM
The media has no conscience. 

NBC declined OJ's offer.
FOX accepted it initially, then changed mind based upon protest.

NBC showed some decency in their passing up a story everyone would talk about.  Who would have thought FOX wasn't the ethical stalwarts we thought they were?
Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2006, 09:21:11 AM
The plot sickens.  Families offered hush money?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/21/oj.cancel.ap/index.html
Title: Re: OJ book/TV canceled
Post by: Faust on November 21, 2006, 09:23:21 AM
What’s the big deal here and why the cancellation?  Like everything else on TV if you don’t want to watch it, don’t watch it.  ::)

That's a strange comment. You honestly think this isn't something special (hence the big deal)? And you agree with the way they paid him?
Title: Re: OJ book/TV canceled
Post by: BayGBM on November 21, 2006, 09:50:56 AM
That's a strange comment. You honestly think this isn't something special (hence the big deal)? And you agree with the way they paid him?

I know nothing of how he was paid. I assume it was the way most celebrities are paid when they work with a ghost writer.

And no, I don't think this is anything special.  There are lots of books out there by authors I disapprove of for one reason or another.  If I'm not interested I don't buy the book. Likewise for TV; if I'm not interested, I don't watch it. 

People in this country get “upset” over OJ’s TV/book deal but they don’t much care about servicemen dying in a unnecessary war that the country was lied into.

This cancelled epiosde is no more objectionable to me than other tasteless grabs at money aired on TV.  Remember, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?  That show grabbed tons of viewers and her Playboy issue was one of their bestsellers.  People pretended to be "offended" even as they watched and bought it up by the millions.  The same thing would have happened with OJs TV special and book.

The world is filled with trash.  Putting it out there is not a crime; consuming it is.

I had no interest in reading his book... but now that it has effectively been banned I  do want to read it.  And I'm sure I'm not alone.
Title: Re: OJ book/TV canceled
Post by: Faust on November 21, 2006, 10:17:16 AM
I know nothing of how he was paid. I assume it was the way most celebrities are paid when they work with a ghost writer.

And no, I don't think this is anything special.  There are lots of books out there by authors I disapprove of for one reason or another.  If I'm not interested I don't buy the book. Likewise for TV; if I'm not interested, I don't watch it. 

People in this country get “upset” over OJ’s TV/book deal but they don’t much care about servicemen dying in a unnecessary war that the country was lied into.

This cancelled epiosde is no more objectionable to me than other tasteless grabs at money aired on TV.  Remember, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?  That show grabbed tons of viewers and her Playboy issue was one of their bestsellers.  People pretended to be "offended" even as they watched and bought it up by the millions.  The same thing would have happened with OJs TV special and book.

The world is filled with trash.  Putting it out there is not a crime; consuming it is.

I had no interest in reading his book... but now that it has effectively been banned I  do want to read it.  And I'm sure I'm not alone.

Agreed, there's a lot of smut on tv.
But when you commit a double murder in a gross way, get away with it and end up making millions of dollar out of it, that tops it all.
Consuming trash is not a crime, it's just a waste. Killing somebody and even supporting the murderer is a crime and that's what happening.

You think people should consider this as normal? I can see where you're coming from, but this is not the regular lack of taste we're used to. This is disgusting.

*Btw, i agree on your Iraq standpoint. Dozens of americans are dying each month. Shame.
Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: pumpster on November 21, 2006, 10:33:41 AM
Bottom line Fox & Regan finally stepped over the line. They'd still be doing the special if not for the reaction and price to their rep.

The OJ interviews have already been taped, will eventually come out probably online.
Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: Slick Vic on November 21, 2006, 11:26:50 AM
And just think.... Even if he flat-out said he was the murderer, there's nothing the justice system can do.
Title: Re: OJ book/TV canceled
Post by: BayGBM on November 21, 2006, 01:08:35 PM
Agreed, there's a lot of smut on tv.
But when you commit a double murder in a gross way, get away with it and end up making millions of dollar out of it, that tops it all.

You think people should consider this as normal? I can see where you're coming from, but this is not the regular lack of taste we're used to. This is disgusting.

What you’re really saying is this crosses the line for you.  Fair enough.  Don’t watch it or buy the book.

I just think it’s silly for people to get “outraged” over this when they have the option to ignore it.  The truth is lots of people in this country were going to watch that special and buy his book.  That is their choice to make--not mine and not yours.

It is not the place of person A to decide that person B should not have access to a TV program or book because person A happens to find the material offensive.  Should conservative evangelicals be able to prevent your access to pornography because it offends their sensibilities?

Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: 240 is Back on November 21, 2006, 01:13:57 PM
All I know, is that if Fred Goldman comes down with some kind of inoperable cancer, OJ'd better watch his ass.  I could see him pulling some Charles Bronson-type shit. 
Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: BayGBM on November 21, 2006, 01:34:52 PM
All I know, is that if Fred Goldman comes down with some kind of inoperable cancer, OJ'd better watch his ass.  I could see him pulling some Charles Bronson-type shit. 

I doubt it.  He's too busy grooming his mustache.  ::)
Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: pumpster on November 21, 2006, 02:01:54 PM

The O.J. Simpson project is dead, but the book and the TV interview could turn up in bootleg form in this age of YouTube and eBay, when scandalous information seldom stays secret for long.

News Corp., owner of Fox Broadcasting and publisher HarperCollins, called off Simpson's "confession" Monday after advertisers, booksellers and even Fox personality Bill O'Reilly branded the project sick and exploitive.

A two-part interview had been scheduled to air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29 on Fox, with the book, "If I Did It," to follow on Nov. 30.

HarperCollins spokeswoman Erin Crum said some copies had already been shipped to stores but would be recalled, and all copies would be destroyed. She would not say how long that would take.

But with the interview already taped, and thousands of books either sitting in warehouses or headed to booksellers, his supposedly hypothetical account of how he would have committed the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman appears all but certain to surface.

"A book becomes collectible when it's hard to find, and this will become very, very collectible, surely worth four figures," said Richard Davies, a spokesman for AbeBooks.com, an online seller that specializes in used and collectible books.

It's entirely possible that the Simpson TV interview will get out in some form, said Jeff Jarvis, operator of the BuzzMachine Web log and a journalism professor at City University of New York.

"All life is on the record now," he said. "Anything you can do can get out there and get out there quickly."

The Simpson book will also almost certainly remain underground, with another publisher unlikely to take on "If I Did It."

Even Michael Viner, whose previous releases include a memoir by disgraced New York Times reporter Jayson Blair and a tell-all by four Hollywood call girls, said his Beverly Hills-based Phoenix Books was not interested.

"It's the public equivalent of doing a snuff film," said Viner, referring to films that claim to show a person being killed. "People can make money by doing snuff films, but no one wants to be associated with it."

The Simpson saga took another twist Tuesday when his former sister-in-law, Denise Brown, accused News Corp. of trying to buy her family's silence for millions of dollars.

A News Corp. spokesman confirmed that the company had conversations with representatives of the Brown and Goldman families over the past week and said that they were offered all profits from the book and TV show, but he denied it was hush money.

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

Denise Brown told NBC's "Today" show 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."

Pre-publication sales for "If I Did It," had been strong but not exceptional. It cracked the top 20 of Amazon.com last weekend, but by Monday afternoon, at the time its elimination was announced, the book had fallen to No. 51.



O.J. Says Book Wasn't Confession

O.J. Simpson's ill-fated "If I Did It" book and TV project was not a confession to the murders of his ex-wife and her friend, and that the title wasn't his idea, he said in a radio interview Wednesday.
Simpson, who lives in the Miami suburbs, also told WTPS-AM the reported advance payment figure of $3.5 million was inaccurate. Although he would not specify how much he was paid, he did say it was a "windfall" that would go mainly to pay bills and support his children. "Would everybody stop being so naive? Of course I got paid," Simpson said with a laugh. "I spend the money on my bills. It's gone."

Simpson's interview came two days after News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch canceled the book and two-part interview that had been set to air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29 on the company's Fox TV network. All copies of the book will be destroyed, officials with publisher HarperCollins have said.

The cancellation came amid an intensely negative nationwide reaction to what was being billed as a thinly veiled confession by Simpson to the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. Simpson was acquitted in 1995.

In the Miami radio interview, Simpson was asked point-blank if he killed the pair.

"Absolutely not, and I maintained my innocence from day one," he replied, adding a little later: "No matter what everybody wants to say, I didn't do it."

Simpson also said he told the writer, "I have nothing to confess."

As for the "If I Did It" title, he added: "That was their title. That's what they came up with. I didn't pitch anything. I don't make book deals."

Simpson also accused the Goldman family _ which won a $33.5 million civil wrongful death judgment against him _ of "opening up those old wounds" on frequent TV appearances.

"It happens every month to me. Everybody's calling me names," Simpson said.


Title: Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
Post by: Dos Equis on December 16, 2006, 10:36:07 AM
Judith Regan, Mastermind of Failed O.J. Simpson Book, Is Fired
Saturday, December 16, 2006

NEW YORK —  O.J. Simpson's would-be publisher, Judith Regan, was fired, with her sensational, scandalous tenure at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. ending with a terse announcement.

"Judith Regan's employment with HarperCollins has been terminated effective immediately," HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman said in a statement Friday. "The REGAN publishing program and staff will continue as part of the HarperCollins General Books Group."

Regan's firing comes less than a month after Murdoch's cancellation of Simpson's hypothetical murder confession, "If I Did It," a planned book and Fox television interview that was greeted with instant and near-universal disgust when announced.

The book was said to describe how Simpson hypothetically would have killed ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. He was acquitted of murder in 1995.

An industry force since the 1980s, when she produced best-sellers by Drew Barrymore and Kathie Lee Gifford for Simon & Schuster, Regan has been labeled a "foul-mouthed tyrant" and the "enfant terrible of American publishing." She is also widely envied — if not admired — for her gift of attracting attention to her books and to herself.
 
Since 1994, she has headed the ReganBooks imprint at News Corp.'s HarperCollins, an ideal fit for Murdoch's tabloid tastes. Regan has published a long list of racy best-sellers, including Jose Canseco's "Juiced" and Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star," and is the rare publisher of interest to gossip columnists, notably for a rumored affair with former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.

She often clashed with her more temperate peers and is widely believed to have had tense relations with Friedman. Last year, Regan moved her offices to Los Angeles, further distancing herself from corporate officials in New York.

Regan has often complained that her more literary side has been overlooked, pointing out that she has published books by Wally Lamb, Douglas Coupland and novelist Jess Walter, whose "The Zero" was a finalist for the National Book Award in November.

The Simpson project, announced the day before the awards ceremony, quickly overshadowed the nomination.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236819,00.html