Mystery Writers Forum

General Discussion and News => Chat => Topic started by: Debbie Matthews on November 15, 2006, 02:45:37 PM

Title: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Debbie Matthews on November 15, 2006, 02:45:37 PM
I read somewhere the OJ book was just a rumor, but alas, no.  He's also going to talk about it on Fox.  He's actually going to tell if he'd murdered Nicole and Ron, how he'd done it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229504,00.html

Barbara Walters said today on The View she'd turned the interview down.  She has also read the book, but had signed a confidentiality statement, so couldn't talk about it.  One thing she did say the papers had reported was that someone was with him.

Some publishers have no ethics!

Debbie
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: dhparker on November 15, 2006, 02:49:48 PM
I sincerely hope that every penny of any money he makes on it goes to the families of the murdered.   I wonder about the ethics of anybody who offers the man airtime.  The whole thing sickens me.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland on November 15, 2006, 03:16:25 PM
This is indeed one of the most tasteless things I've ever seen. And considering some of the things I've seen that says a lot.

The sad thing is that the general public will buy this book like it's the best thing in the world - like kids in a candy store. I guess that's not a good analogy anymore. I should say, like kids in a video game store. Or, like a congressman in a Boys and Girls Club.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Nellie on November 15, 2006, 03:30:57 PM
I have to admit I'm torn.  It would be a fascinating read, but I don't want a  murderer to profit from what he did. I can imagine that him and his lawyer have already figured out how to keep the money.  I was laid off for part of the trial and really got immersed in it since I had nothing else to do.  I suppose enough details will leak out so I really don't have to buy it.  One of the tabloids already said Simpson describes the murder "hypothetically", and does say someone else was with him.
I know, I can wait and buy it second hand.  No profit for Simpson that way.
Nellie
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Bob Mueller on November 15, 2006, 06:35:54 PM
I was discussing this with a cop friend today, and we touched on the double jeopardy aspect.

If he (hypothetically, of course  :-\ ) admits to having a second person there, he's admitting conspiracy. Could he then be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime he was previously found innocent of? I'd say yes, but I am not a lawyer.

Here's another AP article (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061115/D8LDPMKO0.html). Several publishers turned it down, and one attorney suggests he may be able to hide some of the money. Nicole's family has already lost one court decision about the book a couple of weeks ago.
 
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lynette on November 15, 2006, 07:28:06 PM
I had just read an internet article about the book when I logged on to MWF. I saw that the the book was published by Regan Books, an inprint of Harper Collins, but they are refusing to say how much they paid Simpson. Maybe I shouldn't feel this way, but I hope they lose lots of money on the deal. I certainly don't intend to give them any of mine. And neither will I waste my time watching the FOX interview with him.


Lynette
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Karen1 on November 15, 2006, 07:51:20 PM
I suppose OJ's children are all grown up now, but can you imagine the effect this is having on them?  How horrible to lose your mother and then have "good old dad" confess "hypothetically."

OJ Simpson won't get any of my hard-earned dollars, and I'll not indulge his ego by watching him on television.

Karen     
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Debbie Matthews on November 15, 2006, 08:42:24 PM
>Could he then be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime he was previously found innocent
>of?

Jack McCoy does that sort of thing all the time.  I wish it were possible.

Debbie
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland on November 15, 2006, 09:59:16 PM
He cannot be charged with conspiracy to committ a crime that he's already been found not guilty of committing. A general verdict of not guilty bars a subsequent prosecution for the original offense, the attempt to committ that offense, for being an accessory to the offense, and for conspiracy to committ the offense.

He'd have to be charged with committing an entirely different offense.

I don't believe he is confessing to the crime in his book and during his TV appearance. I think he's telling how he'd have committed the crime if indeed he was the killer.

Gee, I wonder how he knows...Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Bob Mueller on November 15, 2006, 10:49:38 PM
Lee,

What if he were to admit in the interview that he was there, and had entered her house, to surprise her and kill her? I know he wouldn't do much time on a burglary charge, but could they do that?

What about offenses following the murder, such as tampering with evidence? Probably not, eh?

What saddens me the most is that I really used to like him, as a football player, and an actor, and here I'm trying really hard to put him in prison.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland on November 15, 2006, 11:11:50 PM
I'm not sure what the statute of limitations are in California for offenses other than murder, but I'm sure they've all run their course and have expired. It's been over ten years, right?

My guess is that he's not going to admit to anything. This story is all going to be hypothetical.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Nellie on November 16, 2006, 03:27:08 AM
Too bad a prosecutor can't find some obscure law to get him with.  We can always hope :).
I wonder if someone ghost wrote Simpson's book?  Seems likely, though I suppose it's possible he did it himself.
I know what his next book should be.  It should be about how he's hypothetically looking for the real killers.
Nellie
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: krisneri on November 16, 2006, 11:44:48 AM
That sick #%$$ just can't stand not being the center of attention. I feel for his children. If they've been in denial up until this point, it's going to be hard to remain in that state. His daughter, judging by her own legal scraps, appears to be a troubled girl, so she probably has few illusions. I also feel sorry for the families of the victims. Those wounds are going to be reopened by this. But I hope that they can manage to tap whatever money he makes from this book, unlike his football pension. He shouldn't be able to profit from what he did.

The media and some publishers are such whores.

Kris
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: JIM DOHERTY on November 16, 2006, 12:18:35 PM
Bob,

In addition to Lee's point about the statute (which may or may not apply; it depends on how much time Simpson's spent in California; the statute stops running anytime an offender leaves the state, and Simpson lives in FLA precisely because his assets, specifically his home and his NFL pension, are protected there), the burglary (defined in California as entering a home or building with intent to commit a theft or felony) would be regarded as part of the lesser included offense, and covered by the original acquittal.

What surprises me is that the family that got the "wrongful death" judgment can't collect from the advance.  I read that a California judge will be rejecting the claim on "technical grounds."  Could someone with more knowledge of civil law than me explain what technical grounds would protect income deriving from the commission of a tort, when the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs has already been made?
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: CarolG. on November 16, 2006, 03:34:28 PM
What surprises me is that the family that got the "wrongful death" judgment can't collect from the advance.  I read that a California judge will be rejecting the claim on "technical grounds."  Could someone with more knowledge of civil law than me explain what technical grounds would protect income deriving from the commission of a tort, when the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs has already been made?

It surprises me too. If you can point me to where you read about it, I'll take a look. The only info I could find on the net from a quick search related to the Goldmans' attempt to take Simpson's publicity rights generally, rather than profits from this book specifically. (And the article didn't say how the court decided, or if it has decided, on that issue.) "Technical grounds" can be extraordinarily frustrating and, by definition, may have nothing to do with the equity of the situation... maybe they filed a piece of paper in the wrong court or something  ???
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Karen1 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Susan August 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland on November 16, 2006, 07:25:43 PM
Bravo, Susan!
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Chase 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Debbie Matthews 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Bob Mueller 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.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: JIM DOHERTY 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?
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Paul Kuczynski 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Debbie Matthews 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Chase 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Chase 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: JIM DOHERTY 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."
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Chase 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
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Susan August 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!
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland on November 17, 2006, 05:29:31 PM
The criminal trial has nothing to do with the verdict in Simpson's civil trial or in any other civil trial.

The jury in the civil trial found OJ guilty of the deaths by a preponderance of evidence. That's all that's required in a civil trial, unlike the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria of a criminal proceeding. The preponderance of evidence was proven in the civil trial.

I also believe preponderance was proven in the criminal trial, but that's not enough to convict someone of a crime; therefore, the jury didn't see their way clear to say that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There were too many discrepancies.

I could see the easily see the guilt during the criminal trial, but I'm an ex-detective. I knew he was guilty before the trial.

DNA was fairly new back then and not everyone could understand it. Shoot, the prosecutors didn't really understand it. If they did, they didn't explain it very well.

With that said, I'm not buying the book. I really don't like to support people who showboat.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Ingrid on November 18, 2006, 01:22:43 PM
Shame on Harper Collins!  And shame on readers who reward killers.

Ingrid
Title: Someone came to their senses
Post by: Bob Mueller on November 20, 2006, 04:38:48 PM
Quote
O.J. Simpson Book, TV Special Canceled
Nov 20, 4:09 PM (ET)

By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) - After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and TV special "If I Did It."

"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. (NWS) chairman. "We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

Here's the rest of the story. (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061120/D8LH1JE00.html) Good taste has prevailed.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Susan August on November 20, 2006, 04:42:05 PM
You beat me to the punch, Bob.  I was just about to post it!  There is some justice there, albeit not all that would be preferred, of course!

Susan
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Ingrid on November 20, 2006, 04:58:09 PM
Umm!  Not good taste!  A storm of criticism!  They were perfectly happy to make big bucks out of the book and TV show until some influential people went public with their outrage.

Ingrid (who doesn't trust publishers where money is involved).
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Debbie Matthews on November 20, 2006, 05:59:45 PM
Had just seen the article on Yahoo news.  The question is does he have to give the advance back.  Probably not.  They ought to make Judith Regan pay the company back.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland on November 20, 2006, 06:25:09 PM
I am so pleased with this decision. Things don't normally bother me a lot, but this book and TV show did. I hope OJ has to return the advance, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Bob Mueller on November 20, 2006, 09:16:54 PM
I hope OJ has to return the advance, but I doubt it.
I'd like to see that advance seized and turned over to begin satisfying the civil judgment. But I doubt that will happen either.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Lee Lofland on November 20, 2006, 09:26:30 PM
I agree, Bob. I can't figure out why and how this guy has been protected for so long. There's something about this whole case that we don't know and probably never will.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Charles King on November 20, 2006, 11:31:19 PM
This has to be the most twisted story of the year, although, that smuck who said he killed that little girl and got out of a Thailand prison will probably make a run at that dubious prize too. I heard a story he was busted looking into the windows of an elementary school the day after he got released. Geeez! ... But back to OJ. Is the publisher really off the hook now? I mean even though they did the right thing in the end, shouldn't someone get fired. It shows a total lack of judgment, and a stain on the publisher-- Of course if they're owned by Fox maybe I shouldn't be surprised they went for it. I think the advance should go to some charity that helps victims of violent crime myself, and Rupert should clean up trash on the nearest interstate for 8 Saturdays in a row-- at least.

Charles  8)
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Nellie on November 21, 2006, 02:09:54 AM
Some how I don't think we've heard the end of this.  What's to keep another publisher or Simpson himself from publishing it?  True it wouldn't be as profitable without the exposure or distribution, but it would still make money, and that's all some people care about.
Nellie
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Michele Viney on November 21, 2006, 04:14:54 AM
The cancellation of the book made the morning news in Ireland!!!

It felt a little strange to hear the news journalists here, playing catch up, after me following the story through you guys.

I did hear Ron Goldman's father threatening to boycott any goods that might be advertised during the interview, obviously advertisers got worried that others might follow his example. Now that's one way to get Rupert Murdock's attention - hit him in the pocket.

Michele
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Bob Mueller on November 21, 2006, 10:27:10 AM
Some how I don't think we've heard the end of this

You're probably right. There was an article (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061121/D8LHH3J80.html) this morning where the Goldmans and Browns claim Fox offered them what they're calling "hush money" and what Fox called "profits with no strings attached."
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: B L McAllister on November 21, 2006, 12:47:00 PM
Some how I don't think we've heard the end of this.  What's to keep another publisher or Simpson himself from publishing it?  True it wouldn't be as profitable without the exposure or distribution, but it would still make money, and that's all some people care about.
Nellie

I agree.  It's had all the publicity it needs from all the networks and others that have expressed their shock and dismay--over and over again.
Byron
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Ingrid on November 21, 2006, 02:14:50 PM
Quite right about not having heard the end of this.  The books have been shipped. The publishers are asking the stores to return them . . . but . . . Those books have just sky-rocketed in price.

Ingrid
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Debbie Matthews on November 23, 2006, 07:09:41 AM
Okay, OJ is saying he used the money to get out of debt, which means no matter who the money was paid to, he got it.  So, I guess even if the Goldmans' lawyer could get at it, it's no longer there for them to get.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061123/ap_on_en_tv/simpson_interview

Debbie
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: stevent on November 23, 2006, 03:09:51 PM
I read that the money was being paid to his children. I might have misunderstood. I also heard the IRS wanted the money. I don't doubt they'd cut in front fo the victims' families to grab the cash.
Title: Re: O.J. Simpson Book not a Rumor
Post by: Chase on November 23, 2006, 04:51:31 PM
Indeed, it feels great to see less-than-honorable behaviors catch up to pretenders in what used to be the distinguished profession of writing – from aspiring writers through those who would publish.

Sometimes it seems as though it’s too little too late, but I’ve lived long enough to see lots of instances of what goes around comes around.  It’s comforting to think those who don’t take hard looks at their excesses eventually pay for them.

Chase
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal