Mystery Writers Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please read this important notice about the November 2018 outage.

collapse collapse
* Search



* User Info
 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Who's Online
  • Dot Guests: 1
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 1
  • Dot Users Online:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor  (Read 7545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Karen1

  • Scribbler
  • **
  • Karma: 3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2006, 06:19:27 PM »

I'm not surprised that Fox is airing this crap, but I think they should suffer some consequences.  Perhaps pressure could be brought by their advertisers.  I will do my part to let Fox know my feelings, not that I expect it to do any good.  The advertisers could bring real financial pressure. 

Karen
Logged

Lee Lofland

  • Expositor
  • *****
  • Karma: 26
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
    • www.leelofland.com
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2006, 07:03:11 PM »

I sometimes consult for Slate Magazine's Explainer column. Here's their take on the OJ thing and what, if anything he could be charged with at this point if he makes any sort of confession.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153863/?nav=fix&%20GT1=8717
Logged
There are no perfect crimes, merely imperfect investigations.

www.leelofland.com

Susan August

  • Ink Slinger
  • ****
  • Karma: 15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 344
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2006, 07:23:12 PM »

It seems to me that our only recourse to express our outrage at this turn of events is to vote at the bookstore.  Anything we can do to ensure that no one buys this book will be a monetary and philosophical message about this attempt to capitalize on a crime by flagrantly throwing it in the face of our laws on double jeopardy.  We too can ensure that the glove does not fit, simply by boycotting the branding of that glove (or shoes) or anything related to the initials OJ. 

When I consider the value of any midlist writer v. the self-centered OJ Simpson (ugh), I can't even imagine reading, let alone buying, this book...no travesty. 

Let Fox and the publisher perish in their greedy pursuit of notoriety and let this book, whatever they call it, fade in ignominy.

Susan
Logged

Lee Lofland

  • Expositor
  • *****
  • Karma: 26
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
    • www.leelofland.com
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2006, 07:25:43 PM »

Bravo, Susan!
Logged
There are no perfect crimes, merely imperfect investigations.

www.leelofland.com

Chase

  • Scribbler
  • **
  • Karma: 23
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2006, 08:59:21 PM »

Simpson's insensitivity and boorishness notwithstanding, I'm really surprised at the mob mindset expressed here.  Doesn't the fact that the man was found not guilty in a court of law count for anything?  That's the "technical" reason Simpson can't be made to pay in the civil matter.  Isn't it possible the jury was right -- or at least erred on the side of not doing more wrong?

I wouldn't buy nor recommend Simpson's book, either, but not because I believe he's guilty of a crime.  It's because I know from experience, he's guilty of tasteless behavior and poor writing.

Chase
Logged

Debbie Matthews

  • Ink-Stained Wretch
  • *****
  • Karma: 15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,322
    • Deborah Matthews - Romance Author
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2006, 09:09:19 PM »

On tv they were hypothesing that if the money didn't go to him, the Goldmans/Browns wouldn't be able to get to it.  Such as going into a trust for his children.

Debbie
Logged
Debbie
"Do or do not.  There is no try."-Yoda
---------------------
Deborah Matthews
winner of the 2002 National Reader's Choice Awards
http://deborahmatthews.net
http://shoutlife.com/deborahbriscoe

Bob Mueller

  • Administrator
  • Ink-Stained Wretch
  • *****
  • Karma: 66
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,944
  • Benevolent Admin
    • More about me
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2006, 10:32:27 PM »

Simpson's insensitivity and boorishness notwithstanding, I'm really surprised at the mob mindset expressed here.  Doesn't the fact that the man was found not guilty in a court of law count for anything?  That's the "technical" reason Simpson can't be made to pay in the civil matter.  Isn't it possible the jury was right -- or at least erred on the side of not doing more wrong?
Actually, he was found not guilty in a criminal trial, but was found liable for their deaths in a later civil claim (to the tune of something like $33 million in damages), so they should be able to get all of that money,as he's not paid much, if any, on the claim.
Logged
--
Bob

Sometimes it takes therapy to put the past behind you. Other times, it takes a 20 gallon trash bag and a couple of cinder blocks.

JIM DOHERTY

  • Wordsmith
  • *****
  • Karma: 95
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,138
    • http://www.deadlyserious.com/JimDoherty
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2006, 10:34:00 PM »

Chase,

Re your question below:

Doesn't the fact that the man was found not guilty in a court of law count for anything?  That's the "technical" reason Simpson can't be made to pay in the civil matter.  Isn't it possible the jury was right -- or at least erred on the side of not doing more wrong?

To answer your last question first, no it's just not possible that the jury was right.  It's possible that they decided to err on the side of caution because they didn't understand the DNA evidence, which was pretty conclusive, but it's not possible that they were right.  The jury either made an egregious, if good-faith, error or engaged in deliberate jury nullification.

As for the criminal verdict being the reason Simpson can't be made to pay, that has nothing to do with the civil judgment.  He was found guilty of killing both victims in the civil case, and a financial judgment was rendered against him.  Thus far, he has yet to pay penny one on what the court has ordered him to pay.  Now he has assets that are neither pension payments, nor real property in which he lives, both of which are protected from civil seizure in Florida, which is how he's been able to avoid paying the civil claim.  That being the case, I'm curious as to what "technical reasons" a California judge might have for denying the claims of the plaintiffs who, after all, won their case in a court of law.

Finally, let's just suppose the impossible, that OJ really is completely and utterly innocent.  Isn't making money off the vicious murder of two people, one of them the mother of two of his children, the height of insensitivity, boorishness, vaingloriousness, greed, and general wickedness?  Isn't that, all by itself, enough to justify the negative reactions posted on this list?

Paul Kuczynski

  • Cub
  • *
  • Karma: 5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2006, 12:08:16 PM »

I figured this topic would show up on this board.

I can't think of a bigger waste of time than give OJ Simpson any attention whatsoever!

Paul
Logged

Debbie Matthews

  • Ink-Stained Wretch
  • *****
  • Karma: 15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,322
    • Deborah Matthews - Romance Author
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2006, 01:58:52 PM »

Interesting that Fox and the book company are owned by the same parent company.  Yet, it wasn't their first choice for the interview.  Barbara Walters (ABC) & NBC are saying they turned down the interview.

What really gets me is Wal-Mart, who has refused to carry certain music because of lyrics & books, even some romance novels because of the cover, is selling this crap of a book.  It's already on their web site.

This is the first time I've ever hoped they lose their shirt on a book.  You've got to feel sorry for his kids.

Debbie
Logged
Debbie
"Do or do not.  There is no try."-Yoda
---------------------
Deborah Matthews
winner of the 2002 National Reader's Choice Awards
http://deborahmatthews.net
http://shoutlife.com/deborahbriscoe

Chase

  • Scribbler
  • **
  • Karma: 23
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2006, 02:26:19 PM »

Jim,

As stated, the mob mind set – so many treating the U.S. Constitution as a menu where this right is okay because it protects us, but that right is wrong because it protected him – is surprising here.  However, the entirely specious rationalization rejoinder wasn’t a surprise.

The jury didn’t understand “pretty conclusive” DNA evidence?  Does that make them wrong?  Or was it that so much of the evidence was tainted as to be questionable?  At any rate, “just not possible the jury was right” seriously begs the question and at minimum includes false authority and equivocation.

Likewise, it’s wishful thinking and entirely misleading to assert the non sequitur that the fact Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law had nothing to do with erecting hurdles to the civil verdict – with its lesser constraints to evidence and greater leeway for popular opinion. 

As for the last, the red herring argument which actually used some of my own words, it blatantly ignores the question.  I stipulated the idea that Simpson’s actions are nowhere near the realm of honor.

But then, most who drive points with fallacious arguments have a desire to be viewed “right” without benefit of logical foundation.  However, I'm sure it will garner many coveted applauds to elevate karma.

Chase
Logged

Chase

  • Scribbler
  • **
  • Karma: 23
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2006, 02:39:33 PM »

For examples of convoluted arguments, go to:

http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2006/11/17/522953.html&cvqh=itn_oj

Judith Regan, Simpson's publisher, really does several numbers on logic in defending her decision to publish Simpson's latest mockery.

Chase
Logged

JIM DOHERTY

  • Wordsmith
  • *****
  • Karma: 95
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,138
    • http://www.deadlyserious.com/JimDoherty
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2006, 03:06:40 PM »

Chase,

If a jury doesn't understand evidence that conclusively proves a defendant guilty, and then acquits him because they didn't understand the evidence, then, yes, that makes them wrong.

And, in interviews after the fact, it was evident that that the Simpson jurors either didn't understand, or chose to ignore, the DNA evidence.  And the DNA evidence was conclusive.  So the jurors not understanding, or choosing to ignore, that evidence, made them wrong.

A person is not innocent or guilty because a jury says they are.  A person is innocent or guilty because he commits the crime, whether or not his or her culpability can later be proved, and whether or not a jury believes that proof.  Al Capone was guilty of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, notwithstanding the fact that he was never charged.  John Dillinger was guilty of multiple bank robberies and cop-killings, notwithstanding the fact that he never was tried for those crimes.  John Gotti was guilty of all kinds of organized crime activity, notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted time after time until a case that held together was finally built.

The criminal justice system is set up as a check on the power of the state.  Its main purpose isn't to convict the guilty, but to hold the state to a standard so that individual rights can't be trampled.  That doesn't give juries the jurisprudential equivalent of papal infallibility.  It means that, more often than not, when they err, they err on the side of caution.  This is because, as a society we've made a value judgment, and have decided, that, given the inherent imperfections in any humanly designed system, it's better for guilty people to go free than for innocent people to be mistakenly convicted, and consequently have, to the best of our abilities, stacked the deck in favor of the defendant.

That's a value judgment I agree with, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating when a guilty person goes free, particularly when the evidence conclusively proved guilt.

Now you can argue that the Simpson jury didn't understand the DNA evidence because the prosecution did a bad job of making those points clear.  You can argue that the prosecution didn't defend the evidence-gathering process as vigorously as they should have when the "tainted" argument came up from the defense.  You can argue that the prosecutors were simply out-lawyered.  You can argue that the jurors weren't allowed to see evidence that might have caused them to render a different verdict.  All that is very different from saying that the jury was right.  They weren't.  Maybe it wasn't their fault.  Maybe they were acting in good faith.  But, as the triers of fact, they made a factual error and they set a guilty man free.

Later, in a civil trial, where, as you noted, the standard of proof is not as stringent, Simpson was found guilty of the murders.  At this point he was charged with a tort, not a crime.  But he was found guilty, and a financial judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.  So far, he's avoided paying a single cent of that judgment.

What does the criminal verdict have to do with the financial judgment rendered against Simpson in the civil trial?  They are two separate proceedings.  Why, now that he has assets that can't be shielded from seizure by Florida law, can't those assets be used to pay off the long-standing debt from that civil trial?  That's all I asked.  The fact that he was found not guilty of the crime has nothing to do with what he owes after being found guilty of the civil tort, so why do you continue to hearken back to that criminal verdict?

Finally, your original dismay was at the level of negative reaction to the news that Simpson would be writing a book about how he committed the murder in the face of his having been found not guilty.
My final paragraph was meant to point out that there is plenty of reason to have a negative reaction to that news even presuming that Simpson was actually innocent.  You said you found it surprising, assuming that he was innocent, that there was such a high level of resentment (what you called a "mob mindset"), even allowing for his sheer obnoxiousness.  I didn't, and I tried to explain why in my last paragraph.  It wasn't a fallacious argument because it went to the heart of the issue you raised.

And now I know why I'm knocked down to "9" from "11."
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 03:45:01 PM by JIM DOHERTY »
Logged

Chase

  • Scribbler
  • **
  • Karma: 23
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2006, 03:58:26 PM »

Jim,

Assumptions stated more verbosely over and over is, by definition, fallacious argument.  So is innuendo.  It's why I gave up responding to it at the last site and guess I should do the same here.

Chase
Logged

Susan August

  • Ink Slinger
  • ****
  • Karma: 15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 344
Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2006, 05:27:41 PM »

Gee, whiz.  I think it makes no sense for us to argue about OJ.  It just validates a character who few of us hold in good esteem.  Understandably the situation creates great emotion, since the outcomes of the criminal v. civil trials were in conflict and there seems to be no widely held belief that 'persons unknown' have escaped detection in this case.  (Even OJ is no longer looking for the perpetrator.) Civil guilt v. criminal guilt should not have distinction in the "court of truth."

But I hope that we can close this discussion and silence the publicity that will only serve to sell books for him.  I haven't seen the reference to the comment about the family not getting compensation for technical reasons.  Let's hope that is just an internet myth.

Just MHO,

Susan

PS  Chase...please don't give up on us!  Life is all about the right to argue for what you believe in, whether your argument is reasoned or not and whether anyone agrees with you!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 


* Calendar
October 2019
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 [19]
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

No calendar events were found.

Paying the bills...

* Forum Staff
admin Bob Mueller
Administrator
admin MWF Bot
Administrator
gmod MysteryAdmin
Global Moderator
gmod laurihart
Global Moderator

Page created in 0.125 seconds with 45 queries.

SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal