..some small amount of revenge for the Goldmans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070813/people_nm/simpson_book_dc


New York company to publish O.J. Simpson book

By Michelle Nichols
Mon Aug 13, 1:44 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - O.J. Simpson's hypothetical account of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson will be printed by a New York publisher, a spokesman for literary agent Sharlene Martin said on Monday.

Martin struck a deal on the controversial book -- a previous print of it was scrapped last year -- on behalf of the family of Ron Goldman, who was murdered along with Brown Simpson at her Los Angeles home in 1994, according to a spokesman.

A federal judge last month gave the rights to the book, entitled "If I Did It," to Goldman's family, who are owed $33.5 million in damages by Simpson.

Simpson was acquitted of criminal murder charges in 1995 but was found liable for the deaths two years later in a civil case brought by the victims' families. The former U.S. football star has vowed to never voluntarily pay damages to the families.

The identity of the publisher is due to be announced on Tuesday, Martin's spokesman said.

"The (Goldman) family and publisher have pledged to leave Simpson's manuscript entirely intact, but they will also add key commentary," Michael Wright, the spokesman for Los Angeles-based Martin, said in a statement. The nature of the commentary was not disclosed.

The Goldman family, the publisher and Martin will contribute portions of the proceeds to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice, Wright said.

Under the court agreement, the Goldman's obtained all rights to the book, and to Simpson's name and likeness in connection with it. Simpson will not receive any money.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned publishing house, HarperCollins, printed 400,000 copies of the book but scrapped it in November amid public outrage shortly before its release. Murdoch apologized, and all copies were recalled and destroyed.

Relatives of Simpson's ex-wife had not previously pursued a claim to the book but made an 11th-hour request for up to 40 percent of the proceeds. The claim was denied the court.

But last month's agreement requires the Goldmans to give a court-appointed trustee 10 percent of the first $4 million in gross proceeds and a percentage of all proceeds beyond that. The Brown family will get most of that money.

In an interview last month with Dallas-based Web site Market News First (www.MN1.com), Simpson said the book was composed by a ghost author and that he reluctantly agreed to include a "night-of-the-crime" account as told by him only after it was agreed to clearly label it as hypothetical.

What a fucking joke.....

Surprised after all these years no one has put one in OJ's head yet.

Simpson was acquitted of criminal murder charges in 1995 but was found liable for the deaths two years later in a civil case brought by the victims' families.
Whether or not you think Simpson actually did it or not, this is a fucking joke.

Redefining crime and law to bypass double jeopardy is a crock. Either he belongs behind bars, should be free and clear.

A preponderance of the evidence shouldn't be enough to penalize anyone in a serious criminal matter.

What's really a joke here is that in our system, when a person is accused of something this serious, it's given over to a jury to decide how to weigh the evidence. The average person has no fucking idea about the law.

This is the reason that criminal jury trials have been outlawed in India since the 1960s: even though there was a craze of rural "witch-killing" going on in the nation, it was almost impossible to prosecute a man for killing a woman in any village because all the villagers would always vote to acquit. Now all criminal cases are decided by a judge. It turns out that hey, yeah, a person who's been to law school and represents the law in their every day life actually has a much better ability to judge people according to the law than does Ray-Ray, the clerk from Radio Shack.

What's really a joke here is that in our system, when a person is accused of something this serious, it's given over to a jury to decide how to weigh the evidence. The average person has no fucking idea about the law.
Given the complexities of the law in certain fields, the average judge may not have a good idea either. Try chasing down white collar crime, or crime with a scientific or technical bent to it. The fuzzy line between civil law and criminal law that I mentioned earlier is at the heart of many of these.


This is the reason that criminal jury trials have been outlawed in India since the 1960s: even though there was a craze of rural "witch-killing" going on in the nation, it was almost impossible to prosecute a man for killing a woman in any village because all the villagers would always vote to acquit. Now all criminal cases are decided by a judge. It turns out that hey, yeah, a person who's been to law school and represents the law in their every day life actually has a much better ability to judge people according to the law than does Ray-Ray, the clerk from Radio Shack.
I'd consider Ray-Ray from Radio Shack over an average judge for online crime.

As far as India goes, I thought that had more to do with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_vs._State_of_Maharashtra

Basically, a naval officer's wife fools around with a seducing cad. The naval officer finds out and shoots seducing cad that day. The local jury wouldn't convict, especially when conviction carried a life sentence and by the laws of the day he was clearly guilty. It seemed like a better solution would've been more granular laws for mitigating factors.

Justice makes is so comforting.

Given the complexities of the law in certain fields, the average judge may not have a good idea either. Try chasing down white collar crime, or crime with a scientific or technical bent to it. The fuzzy line between civil law and criminal law that I mentioned earlier is at the heart of many of these.

I will grant you two things: (1) there are specialty areas in which not every judge is qualified to sit and (2) the legal community in general is sorely lacking in the scientific literacy necessary to understand technological crimes. But aside from that, we're talking about a case of simple murder here, and I still trust a judge to be more impartial about this than the average shlub.


As far as India goes, I thought that had more to do with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_vs._State_of_Maharashtra

Yes, this is the high-profile, high-caste version of the same phenomena. But understand that the legal process had reached crisis point in the country before the Nanavati case.

I will grant you two things: (1) there are specialty areas in which not every judge is qualified to sit and (2) the legal community in general is sorely lacking in the scientific literacy necessary to understand technological crimes. But aside from that, we're talking about a case of simple murder here, and I still trust a judge to be more impartial about this than the average shlub.
Yeah, I think a criminal judge is less likely to be influenced by celebrity and media than several assorted average shlubs in a jury, but that's certainly not a guarantee. Some judges have turned into drama queens. Heck, Lance Ito presided over a circus. You think that had he been the final word that things would've been less a joke? Many judges are elected officials, subject to the whims of their constituents. Make the unpopular decision and you're toast.

If the O.J. case were so simple, "it does not fit, you must acquit" would have been the end of it, right? <laughs> By the time the lawyers get done with things, there's a gazillion different charges, and core issue(s) get lost in the shuffle. Throw the book, see what sticks, then have them serve sentences concurrently. <groan>

Honestly, the prosecution lost it in jury selection. I have to wonder if O.J. gets jail time if shows like CSI were popular back then. Or, perhaps someone would've learned to better hide their tracks.

"Justice makes is so comforting."

That's really a great sentence I put together there.

The drunk thread is that way.

"Justice makes is so comforting."

That's really a great sentence I put together there.

:dismissed:

Justice Makes--Sounds like a name from a great western movie.

Starring Kris Kristofferson as Justice Makes, the devil-may-care gunfighter with a lust for whiskey and a talent with the ladies.

I will grant you two things: (1) there are specialty areas in which not every judge is qualified to sit and (2) the legal community in general is sorely lacking in the scientific literacy necessary to understand technological crimes. But aside from that, we're talking about a case of simple murder here, and I still trust a judge to be more impartial about this than the average shlub.


Why pick on the jury? All they could do was render a verdict based on the facts brought before them. If you think OJ did it, the failure to convict cascaded through every city department involved from the police department (no need to recap the sterling reputation and conduct of the LAPD here, right?) to the forensics people to the prosecutors.

Note that these are all paid, professional shlubs for whom the expectations are certainly above average and the results... less than impressive.

Starring Kris Kristofferson as Justice Makes, the devil-may-care gunfighter with a lust for whiskey and a talent with the ladies.

I was thinking more like Harvey Firestein as Justice Makes: Rugged marshall by day, transvestite showgirl in Miss Kitty's saloon by night. Can Justice find true love on the western frontier? How long can he hide his secret identity, and his true self, especially when a new deputy is hired--Jake Gullenhall--fresh in from a summer of tending sheep in the high Tetons.

Barnes & Noble not stocking O.J. book

By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer
Tue Aug 21, 12:41 PM ET

If you're hoping to buy O.J. Simpson's "If I Did It," don't expect to find a copy at Barnes & Noble.

Citing a perceived lack of customer interest, the chain said the book would only be available by special order or for purchase online through Barnes & Noble.com.

"Our buyers don't feel there will be enough of a demand to carry it in our stores," Barnes & Noble spokeswoman Mary Ellen Keating told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

A rival chain, Borders Group Inc., said Tuesday that it would stock "If I Did It," a fictionalized account of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. But spokeswoman Ann Binkley said Borders "will not promote or market the book in any way."

Simpson's book was originally scheduled to be published last November by ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins, with an announced printing of 400,000. But "If I Did It" was dropped in response to widespread outrage. ReganBooks founder Judith Regan was later fired and her imprint disbanded.

Last month, a federal bankruptcy judge awarded rights to the book to Goldman's family to help satisfy a $38 million wrongful death judgment against Simpson.

Beaufort Books, a small New York-based publisher, is reissuing "If I Did It" in October, with Simpson's original manuscript intact and commentary included. The Goldman family is calling the book Simpson's confession — the same description Regan offered in justifying the original publication.

Denise Brown, Nicole Brown Simpson's sister, has accused Goldman's father, Fred Goldman, and other family members of hypocrisy for publishing a book that he had called "disgusting and despicable" when Simpson first planned to publish it.

Simpson has maintained his innocence in the 1994 killings in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles. The former football great, who now lives near Miami, was acquitted of murder in 1995.