Newscorp/Fox have come to their senses. They will not publish the O.J. Simpson book, nor will they run the planned television show. Thank God. Lets just hope that Simpson didnt get any money up front for the disgrace.

I don't see why people should even care what the hell OJ Simpson does

Well that's good news. However I believe that he's already received some upfront money for the book. How unfortunate.

Let me tell you something, the Goldbergs, especially Ron's father, must be very disciplined people. I just don't know if I would be able to control myself, the way the he has, knowing that this animal murdered my son, got away with it and 12 years later was still out there trying to make money off of the memory of my child.


Don Cardi

Hey, its America, OJ has every right to earn a legal living

But then again, who cares?

DonT -

Let me pick your brain here for a second. When O.J. Simpson was found guilty for those murders in a civil court, wasn't a large monetary judgement made against him in that court, an amount that he cliamed that he could not afford to pay?

If that is the case, then wouldn't it be illegal for him to try and make any money for himself above and beyond what he needs to live, and not turn it over to the familes that those monetary judgements were made for?



Don Cardi

He was found liable for the murders in civil court, not "guilty". It is a fine, but important distinction.

After the civil court verdict, the plaintiffs' attorneys would have gone through discovery to find out what assets he had. Satisfying a civil court award is largely up to the plaintiffs. Also, obtaining any of his income is a matter of what state it is earned in. His book deal may have been consummated outside of California and payments to him could be arranged outside of California also.

Yes, he was held liable, which translates to his being held accountable and legally responsible. Guilty in my book.

Are you telling me that he is only responsible to surrender monies made within the state where the court's judgement was made?


Don Cardi

The Goldman's did get a large monetary judgement (in the millions I believe). However, I heard a few days ago that, thus far they haven't seen a penny.

I'm certain they are not in it for the money. They need to see some kind of "justice", and I don't blame them at all. Poor Ron Goldman! Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What a shame.

TIS

He was given 2 million advance for the book. It was put into his children's account so that the Brown/Goldman families could not get it from him.

Effing bastard.

You're being way too kind.

I cannot post the words on these boards to describe what I think he really is.


Don Cardi

There are many ways to shield money against payment of a judgement. Money made in another state could be pursued by the plaintiffs' lawyers, but it is more difficult than in the home state. Theoretically, Simpson could hold signings in all 50 states. As long as the money stays in each state, your lawyers would have to pursue it in each state.

I just knew God would take care of that book!

You are correct, TIS...and Fred Goldman (that's Goldman, not Goldberg) has stated as much on interviews. He and his family are not interested in the money, but plan to hound 'the killer' for the rest of his life. It is all they can do.

I attended a Barnes & Noble book signing when 'His Name is Ron' was first published and Goldman said outright in his introductory statement that he wasn't there for the recognition, the fame, or the money. He thanked us all for attending but made it clear that this was not where he wanted to be. All he wanted was his son back, and knew that since that could never happen all he and his family could do would be to speak out and make their presence known whenever and however possible.

Though he is technically 'Not Guilty' of the crime in criminal court...the way O.J. Simpson has behaved over the past 12 years especially toward The Goldmans speaks volumes of his guilt. Were he even remotely innocent (or had half a conscience), Simpson would probably have reached out to the Goldmans long ago, or at the very least expressed and understanding of their pain and rage.

Apple

Yes, it's true. We should keep in mind that being "not guilty" does not make you innocent.

Since when? Obviously, somebody thinks that OJ should burn in hell, even though that person never met him and has nothing to do with him

which brings me back to

why do people even care?

Yes. People seem to mix up the two thinking that just because someone was aquitted of a crime in a court of law that the person was found innocent. Not the case. All it means is that the jury felt that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to find that person guilty. It does not mean that the person is neccesarily innocent of the crime itself.


Don Cardi

DON C.. he was acquittted of the murders, so the laws which apply to criminals making money writing about their crimes does not apply to Simpson. As the other members have pointed out being found "not guilty" does not mean the person is innocent. All it means is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant. IMHO, having watched most of that trial, the prosecutors seriously dropped the ball, the judge was an idiot, and the defense team was brilliant (don't even get me started on how bad a case the prosecution put on). You will recall that Simpson never testified (if he had he would have given up his 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and I have been told that the defense team took him through several mock cross examinations in which he did terribly). I have always thought that the prosecution should have raised holy hell about that little stunt where Simpson took the glove, which had shrunk while sitting in an evidence locker, pretended to try it on, and mouthed to the jury "it doesnt fit." The prosecution should have argued that gesture and the speaking of those works from counsel's table constituted a waiver of his 5th Amendment rights, and they should have demanded that he testify. They also should have asked for a mistrial at that point. They did neither, so they waived their rights to appeal. Even if this trial tactic had not worked, it would have allowed an appellate court the opportunity to review all of this, and possibly order that a mistrial should have been granted and/or he waived his right to remain silent, either of which would have resulted in a new trial. It could also have kept Simpson behind bars while the appeal was pending. If the appeal was won, Lance Ito would probably have been recused for the new trial, and at best he would have been convicted of first degree murders, and at worst the defense might have panicked and there woyuld have been some kind of pleas bargain.
In the wrongful death case the standard of proof is merely a "preponderance of the evidence" which is a lot easier to prove that "beyond a reasonable doubt." Because of the civil judgments against him Simpson moved to Florida where the Homestead Law allows anyone to buy a house and make improvements on it without any fear that any judgment creditor can ever touch it. Florida also has very stringent laws which basically protect deadbeats, and which makes collection of judgments especially difficult and costly.