SPCR

At least that's how his publisher described this new book. Fox will air (supposedly) a special this week-end on the subject. The book is about "how I would have killed my wife, if I had actually done it".......something like that. This man was found innocent of the murder by a jury of his relatives (far as I'm concerned), but in a second civil trial, was found guilty. Of course he has paid not a penny of the 35million dollar settlement.

O J Simpson, great athlete turned scum-bag. Still at it I guess....

The Juice is loose!

How'd he manage to get around the 35m settlement?

Supposedly the company publishing the book is owned by the same company that owns Fox, so they are scratching their own back here.

Bluefront wrote: O J Simpson, great athlete turned scum-bag. Still at it I guess....

I wasn't aware that being a great athlete and a gigantic scumbag were mutually exclusive.

Trip wrote:The Juice is loose!

How'd he manage to get around the 35m settlement?

He moved to Florida where they can't take his house or cars I believe. Then he spends every sent he makes before it can be accounted for and go to the settlement. Something to that extent.

I personally think he was guilty, but was against the civil suit. Cheapens the lives of those who were killed. They have not gotten a cent, it cost tax payers money, and he's living not a bad life.

breunor wrote:Supposedly the company publishing the book is owned by the same company that owns Fox, so they are scratching their own back here.

Exactly, it's like when you see glowing reviews for Disney movies on ABC News or ABC-affiliated websites, or like when an AOL-Time-Warner media outlet hypes up a Warner Brothers movie and such. All the big media companies advertize their own media under the guise of reporting the news. After all, news is just entertainment for the purpose of selling advertisements anyway.




Buy it now on Amazon.com for $16.47

After all, news is just entertainment for the purpose of selling advertisements anyway.

I don't see that news is entertainment. I think news is something to draw people to the channel. Once people are drawn to a channel, they are more likely to check what programs are on that channel. Of course, companies will try to spice up the bulletins to make them sound dramatic and such.

Too often a "news" station will air the trash not because it's real news, but because it draws the most viewers for advertising dollars. I doubt many news companies consider anything other than profit as their first priority. So while entertainment might not be the best word to describe the distribution of "news", audience retention and market share are key factors.

You guys just assume he's guilty. Sure this latest thing is in bad taste, but you guys are making it sound like it's

and that's just not right.

Mar., "I would have killed her if I got the chance, but she got killed before I could do it" is the closest things to a confession you can get. Perhaps he didn't do 'it', but would mean he would have done it.

Of course, I don't doubt this is taken out of context and he said no such thing. They just want to sell the book.

Are we all forgetting that not only was he on the run after the murder, his DNA matched the DNA found at the scene? Only in California can they take a DNA match and say "Well that only narrows it down to 1 out of 30,000,000 which means that any of 10 people in the USA could have done it!" Of course he did it! Everyone knows it, and only thanks to the failings of the California judicial system was he not found guilty of the criminal trial.

AZBrandon wrote:Everyone knows it, and only thanks to the failings of the California judicial system was he not found guilty of the criminal trial.

Don't blame the judicial system. Blame the black jury...

I should change the title of this thread to.....Why guilty people go free in California. Something like that anyway, because California usually mirrors what will happen in the rest of the USA in a few years. And nobody I know, wants murderers set loose on society. And this Simpson episode is a perfect example. The only piece of missing evidence against the man, was a videotape of the actual murder.

The reasons he went free are numerous.......

Too much evidence, so much so it looked like a setup.

The reluctance to convict a sports-hero, or a movie-star in California.

An incompetant prosecution, compared to the high-priced defense team.

The race thing, combined with political correctness.

The exact place of the trial, combined with an inept jury selection procedure.

And so on......

What we are left with is a two-time murderer, whom we are unable to try for murder a second time, even with a confession of sorts. It's a sad commentary on the judicial process in California, hopefully not spreading to the rest of the country.

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Yeah right.....

I wonder if the state could have tried Simpson for his ex-wife's murder only. Then retried him later for the murder of Ron Goldman if the first trial went badly.....like it did.

Why drag this up? Right or wrong (probably wrong), this case was decided years ago. Why dwell on the mistakes of the past. Why give this obvious publicity stunt the dignity of succeeding? Let the past die.

Nobody "dragged this up", except Simpson himself, apparently in an attempt to sell a book. This thing has been all over the news since it first came out, so I think it's a legitimate topic for discussion.

The man thumbed his nose at the USA judicial system, and at USA society in general, and he remains a threat to everyone, as long as he is not behind bars...... O J Simpson, a now confessed two-time murderer.

The man thumbed his nose at the USA judicial system, and at USA society in general, and he remains a threat to everyone, as long as he is not behind bars...... O J Simpson, a now confessed two-time murderer.

The greater threat is corrupting the system.

Beyonder wrote:

Bluefront wrote: O J Simpson, great athlete turned scum-bag. Still at it I guess....

I wasn't aware that being a great athlete and a gigantic scumbag were mutually exclusive.

PERFECT!

The difference here.....while he was playing football, he was not a scum-bag. After his retirement from football, he was an actor, making commercials, doing football commentary. Nothing much to complain about.

Was a woman brought him down, like so many other men.

Bluefront wrote:The difference here.....while he was playing football, he was not a scum-bag. After his retirement from football, he was an actor, making commercials, doing football commentary. Nothing much to complain about.

Was a woman brought him down, like so many other men.

Couldn't think for himself? More like pure greed.

Sounds like the kind of person who votes the same party regardless.

He was found "not guilty" by a court of law. If you are an American and have any desire whatsoever to see our legal system work properly, drop it. He may or may not actually be innocent (I'm trying to keep my personal opinion out of this), but as far as the courts are concerned, he didn't do it, and that's supposed to be good enough for us.

Sure, the evidence seems overwhelming to some (most?) but, suppose some earth-shattering proof of his innocence was found suddenly? By this point he's been branded a murderer for years, despite going through the proper procedure to clear his name.

You people are half the problem with America.









Please don't burn me at the stake for this.

Bluefront wrote:The difference here.....while he was playing football, he was not a scum-bag. After his retirement from football, he was an actor, making commercials, doing football commentary. Nothing much to complain about.

Was a woman brought him down, like so many other men.

Misogynist much?

-Derek

Mar. .....not exactly true. In the second civil trial he was found guilty, bearing full responsibility for the two murders. And so far as clearing his name.....after the first trial he swore he would make every effort to find the "real" murderer. Of course he did nothing of the sort, since he already knew the identity of that person.

Yeah we should all feel sorry for murderers, murderers wrongly found innocent.

Mar. wrote:Please don't burn me at the stake for this.

You wish.

He was found "not guilty" by a court of law. If you are an American and have any desire whatsoever to see our legal system work properly, drop it. He may or may not actually be innocent (I'm trying to keep my personal opinion out of this), but as far as the courts are concerned, he didn't do it, and that's supposed to be good enough for us.

We all know, that being innocent by court judgement is not the same as being actually innocent. In this case it's far worse because there was plenty of solid evidence, even DNA evidence. I don't claim to know the truth of what happened, but it's clear that Simpson was guilty at least on some level. Either he did it, or he was covering for someone. I think lawyers should have no saying in picking the jury members.

Bluefront wrote:Was a woman brought him down, like so many other men.

And it was women who redeemed him. In his jury there were 10 women and 2 men, 9 blacks, 1 hispanic and 2 whites. The jury pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian. Guess why the whites were left out of the jury? Probably for the same reason that 70% of blacks believe that Simpson was innocent and only 30% of the white believe the same. The defense lawyers knew that it would be a matter of race and not guilt, that's why they pursued the black jury with lots of women who they know to be softer on criminals. One could say that dismissing jury members because of their white skin color is racist, but the public consensus is that white people can't be victims of racism.

I think the jury system is ultimately the reason why American judical system is such a joke. The use of uneducated people without a proper knowlegde of law is stupid in my opinion. The use of stupid jurors is probably the reason for those ridiculously large numbers in compensatory and punitive damages. When I hear from the massive jury awards for punitive damages, I can only come to the conclusion that jury members have no sense of reality or the value of money. Take for example that a pharmaceutical company Merck & co and it's Vioxx drug was found liable to causing heart attacks on some patients. One widow was awarded with 250 million dollars as punitive damages. Some sources have estimated that the litigation and reparation costs for Merck could amount up to 50 billion.

You people are half the problem with America.

And you are the other half. It's people like you who protest death penalty, by saying that "innocent" people are freed from the death rows all the time, when innocent in the moral sense is not the same as innocent by law order. When presumtion of innocence was forged - innocent until proven guilty - it had good intentions. It still has good intentions, but instead of protecting the really innocent, it has just become a tool for the guilty to wriggle their way out of responsibility. Even people who are clearly guilty e.g Jack Ruby are considered innocent, when they are not. Jack Ruby was found guilty to murder, but his sentence was overthrown when the court ruled that he had not recieved a fair trial. 4 years after he had killed Oswald in a television broadcast he died of natural causes as an innocent man, because his new trial never took place.

Sure, the evidence seems overwhelming to some (most?) but, suppose some earth-shattering proof of his innocence was found suddenly? By this point he's been branded a murderer for years, despite going through the proper procedure to clear his name.

We had a similar case in Finland in the 1960s. The lake Bodom triple murder when 4 kids were camping and 3 of them were brutally stabbed to death, the only "survivor" Nils Gustafsson was found the next day severely beaten, his jaw was broken and his eyes were swollen shut and he claimed he had no recollection of what happened. He was considered as one of the victims although the public thought he was guilty. The case came back to headlights in 2004 when new evidence, that he had acted on jealousy, was brought in. But in october 2005 district court found him innocent. He sued the goverment and was paid 45000€ for mental sufferings caused by the trial.

If they find new earth shattering evidence of his innocence, maybe they should pay OJ 45000$ .

I'm suprised that Bluefront, as a fan of conspiracy theories, doesn't believe in the conspiracy theories of how O.J was framed.

I find it hard to believe that OJ, documented as beating his wife multiple times in the past before she walked around with a new boyfriend, would suddenly be framed for killing his ex wife and her boyfriend, staining his clothes and car with their blood.

I think people get caught up in the CSI of things, and assume it's the jealous mother-in-law who wanted to keep her son's image pure in her homeland that did the deed.

OJ was found innocent primarily due to one of the cops who investigated was found to be a racist, and about 2 years earlier the Rodney King beating had reinforced the african american community mentality of "us versus them" as far as the police were concerned.

This case can be considered a form of "an eye for an eye" when it comes to equality of the US justice system. I think it is wrong, but to some people 2 wrongs make a right. The other wrong being the long-standing preference to sentence blacks to harsher terms than whites.

"In theory" our justice system works well, just like many things in theory. But ultimately it's not about fairly implementing standardized justice through the use of properly informed peers. It's about telling the best version of the truth to enable/prevent people from getting revenge for a crime.

Bluefront wrote:[O.J.] remains a threat to everyone, as long as he is not behind bars......

Nah, only to women who dump him and the men who date those women.

NPR just reported the TV special to promote the book has been canceled, because too many stations were refusing to show it due to public outcry.

Common Sense & Decency:1, Profiteering:0

derekva wrote:

Bluefront wrote:The difference here.....while he was playing football, he was not a scum-bag. After his retirement from football, he was an actor, making commercials, doing football commentary. Nothing much to complain about.

Was a woman brought him down, like so many other men.

Misogynist much?

-Derek

Misogyny/ist is a term that is far too casually bandied about these days; seems as soon as you simply criticise a woman (regardless of what she has done) suddenly the M-word comes out; fact is, women can corrupt and betray men just as much as vice versa; there is no gender-specific monopoly on virtue (or lack of). It seems to me it is inspired by some kind of recidivist remnant of "white knight syndrome" in men who think they are being "chivalrous" by suppressing all criticism of women; it's like people who wheel out the "anti-semitic" label whenever anyone criticises Israel. Misogyny refers to a blind, monolithic hatred of all women, which if you have read any of Bluefront's posts you would know is not a fair accusation.


PS. I heard on the news O.J.'s publishers have withdrawn the book.

Poor guy....how's he ever going to pay back that 35 million? And I was already saving up to buy the book.

IMHO, once you have proven yourself capable of murder, everyone around you is at risk......