You have got to be fucking kidding me!
Blood money row as OJ ‘admits’ killings
ELEVEN years after O J Simpson walked free from America’s most controversial murder trial, the former star athlete is at the centre of a row over reports that he is being paid $3.5m for an autobiography in which he describes how he “hypothetically” might have murdered his ex-wife and her male friend.
Relatives of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, the two victims of the 1994 double murder that made headlines around the world, expressed disgust and frustration that Simpson might be continuing to profit from a crime that most Americans are convinced he committed, despite his notorious acquittal.
[…]
The book is reported to have the working title If I Did It. Details were published by the National Enquirer newspaper last week on the same day that Goldman’s father, Fred, launched a new court attempt to seize some of Simpson’s assets in part repayment of a $33.5m judgment against him after he lost a 1997 civil court case.
The National Enquirer’s account could not be verified this weekend but the newspaper provided extensive details in a four-page report on what it called a “tell-all blockbuster”. Simpson is said to describe how he “grabbed a knife from a man who accompanied him to Nicole’s home — and moments later found himself covered in blood and looking down on the bodies of Nicole and Ron”.
The man’s a freak, so let him speak
But ask blacks if OJ did it and 8 out of 10 will still say he was innocent.
This scum bag will pay the price someday.
If the glove don’t fit – you must aquit
Hooray legal system — Jury of my peers my butt
Hey Bryan, ask around inside America’s newsrooms. The Enquirer was highly regarded in its insider coverage of the OJ trial. No joke. I’d guess that as you look into this it’s probably true. And it makes logical sense in some sick way.
Who is black and reading/commenting on Dvorak Uncensored? The demographics of this blog I would say is mostly white. And being white, you only understand a white perspective. Be black for a year and see what they see. I grew up in Harlem. Almost all the people I knew as a kid were black. I used to go to the projects to visit a friend and play with him and his friends on the project’s playground. Guess what? They were all black and even though I am not “white” in the normal sense they used to taunt me as being one, going so far as to call me “white boy”. Was O.J. guilty? Yes– to a white society, NOT to a black society because black men are treated differently in their eyes. I understand where they are coming from because I’ve seen people mistakened for criminals just because of the color of their skin. I’ve been thrown in jail. I know how the system uses its power to create convictions. The system is unfairly biased. Setting O.J. free was a message to white society for all the accumulated innocent black men who have served time simply because the color of their skin was black. I’ve been in jury rooms five times. I’ve seen the ignorance of our peers who cannot tell right form wrong or when someone is lying, especially those rotten prosecutors. Yes, I think that O.J. was 100% guilty but I am 100% glad that a black jury set him free for all lynches that white juries have decreed on blacks.
I grew up as a poor black child on the banks of the Mississippi River.
Navin, I’d love you if you were the color of a baboon’s ass.
😉
Personally, I think Chris Rock got it right.
She loaned her Ferarri, which he paid for, to her boyfriend.
I’m not sayin’ he shoulda killed her, but I understand.
Why is Johnnie Cochran’s photo posted? The guy has been dead going on two years?
There was an interesting article in Rolling Stone about the case. They went into some depth, and it spanned two issues. One interesting point is that O.J. insisted he was guilty, in a room full of cops, no less. he wasn’t speaking to the cops though, he was speaking to his friend Roosevelt Grier, who is an ordained minister, and could not be made to take the stand to say what he had heard, and the cops couldn’t relate that confession because it was hearsay evidence.
Personally, I think he should do time for butchering the English language during his stint as an announcer on ABC’s Monday Night Football.
Why is he writing a book about how he killed, i mean could have killed them? Becuase he can.
gquaglia #1
You must know some very different black people than I do, as my black acquantinces seem to be about 8 to 10 for guilty. Most of the people I know who think O. J. didn’t do it are Jewish.
DAve
#11 Ithink the dividing line of those who think guilty or innocent leans more towards stupid/smart than any race or social status.
#5 Your attitude is the reason OJ got away with murder. I hope your proud.
4. John, I briefly went out to prove you wrong that newsrooms highly regarded the Enquirer’s reporting. But the first Google return from the Columbia Journalism Review actually supported your point.
http://archives.cjr.org/year/95/3/mud.asp
Still, I’d believe the Bat Boy is real first.
On a complete digression: I had to laugh upon reading the final paragraph of that CJR article which first made me think the article fresh:
“And what will the Enquirer do when the O.J. case is over? Not to worry — there’s always another scandal down the road. Photo editor Virga, for one, has her eye on the Speaker of the House. “I’d love to catch him doing the nasty — Newt with some little bimbo on his lap.” ”
RBG
bah.
I “hypothetically” couldnt care less
#13 Your attitude is the reason why southerners got away with lynching black men and sending picture postcards of them as jokes. I can see your relatives in this photo below. You don’t have to tell me that they are proud. It shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchings
0113addiv – bullshit. He isn’t advocating lynchings, he is saying that someone (who happens to be black) was probably guilty.
You’re a weird little cuss, but there is no way you can rationalize that accusation.
#1 gquaglia this is bull.
#14 — the “Bat Boy” was not in the Enquirer. While the Enquirer is sensational, they manage a lot of interesting scoops that are legit and everyone in the business knows this. The public — you for instance — still associates it with the World Weekly News which has actually become a onion-like humor rag with a lot of faked stories. I’d put the Enquirer ahead of People magazine and Us. Sad but true.
I may be dead but I still get read
0113addiv – What a reach. How you associated lynching with my post is beyond me. I just sought to show the relationship between race and ones interpretation of OJs guilt or innocence. Where as most blacks did not think OJ was guilty. You further proved my point by saying it (the verdict) was a message for all the other “innocent” blacks that had been convicted in the past. Cochran knew this and played the race card to the max with the blacks on the jury. Knowing full well they would not convict OJ even if they were showed a picture of OJ cutting off Nicole’s head.
Whether or not he killed anybody seems to be up for grabs, but after hearing the 911 tapes it would be hard to dispute that, at the very least, he was an out-of-control spouse-abuser.
#20, There’s something that you, and most people, do not understand, and that is that inside the jury room, YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW. If I were inside that O.J. jury room I would have fought for O.J.’s innocence even knowing that O.J. was guilty because I can see a bigger picture than you can never see. You see for you and white America is would have been just another WIN. That’s all, just another check in the win column. Justice would not have been served. Millions of white people were upset but that’s all they were. They didn’t sabotage afterward or start riots. If you were on that jury and convicted O.J. you would have brought on hundreds of more deaths on whites by riots all over Black America. Do you remember the Rodney King verdict? Justice was served. And peace was kept throughout the Land. Why do you want to be greedy and win all the time? Let some other people win for a change, especially people you have enslaved and lynched in the past. And again, remember, that inside that jury room YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW. That is a great responsibility so be in touch with God if and when you are inside that room. There is a reason why the highest words in a courtroom are written above the heads of everyone in the courtroom including the judge’s, and it says (in case you forget to notice): IN GOD WE TRUST.
19. I don’t believe it. Another “I’ll show that guy” moment for me that again backfires. This time I was sure I’d be able to Google a thousand outrageous National Enquirer headlines, but didn’t find a thing. A good article that explains why most of us have such a rotten opinion of the National Enquirer is here at Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2102303/
I Believe the National Enquirer
Why don’t you?
By Jack Shafer
“Almost three decades ago, the National Enquirer abandoned the traditional supermarket tabloid formula of UFOs, bizarre sex, séances, gross-outs, Loch Ness-ish monsters, cooked-up stories, and celebrity gossip for a new formula mostly devoted to celebrities. ”
“One would think that the Enquirer’s discovery of accurate journalism would have elevated its reputation. Instead, the tabloid is regarded slightly worse today than it was in 1985, according to a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.” “61% believed nothing.”
It’s tainted goods. But for now, I’ll have to give you “the benefit” of my doubt.
RBG
I like 0113addiv, he stirs the crap pot with his theories and diatribes that even retarded dolphins shake their head at and say “Oh boy, here we go again.”
Everyone that argues with him makes this blog worth reading.
#9. “One interesting point is that O.J. insisted he was guilty, in a room full of cops, no less. he wasn’t speaking to the cops though, he was speaking to his friend Roosevelt Grier, who is an ordained minister, and could not be made to take the stand to say what he had heard,the cops couldn’t relate that confession because it was hearsay evidence.”
one, the minister priviledge does not apply if there are other people present. two, it is not hearsay if the defendant says it.
of course OJ was guilty. blame prosecutors who bungled the case – which you can’t do when going up against a defense team that can spend every bit as much money as you can – cops who were obviously lying, and a judge who lost control of his courtroom.
#6 Kudo!! Did Navin ever get his blow job??
22. I have to hold my nose and state that I too have discovered that juries can be above the law in ways 0 described. Not that they are supposed to be such, just that they can make it so by basing their decisions on pretty much anything they please.
That said, I’m sure another jury member would bring it to the attention of the judge if any juror was obviously doing something unethical – like basing facts and decisions on a coin flip or calling for help from dead people. There is also something I believe that is called a “perverse judgement” where the jury results clearly and obviously go against anything close to common sense.
But frightening as it may be, jurors can do just about anything they want – though they are not supposed to work that way. I suppose that is why lawyers work hard to pick those who appear to be reasonable people for jury duty. That kind of jury-questioning is generally not permitted in Canada.
One can only hope that a juror sticks to facts and is moral enough to avoid simply trying to right the errors of others who think they can see the “bigger picture.”
RBG
OK. I finally figured 0113 out. He is being ironic and sarcastic and a whole lot of other things as well. Very smart! He shows up the idiocy of the position he appears to be taking by playing it to the hilt and beyond.
Well played, 01113! I knew even you couldn’t believe the crap you appear to be spewing.
You are right about juries. Up to a point. While they judge will “suggest”‘ you deliberate carefully and weigh all the evidence and testimony, if they want to flip a coin and be done with it, no way it can be reversed. The only place this can be challanged is in length or severity of sentence in a criminal case or amount of award in a civil case. These are often changed depending on the rules of the particular state.
#28, Uncle Dave, I like you– and, you even look nice (!) in that Pisa picture, but I tell you with all sincerity, you do not have me figured out because there is nothing to figure. My words are true. 100% true. Why do you think I have no friends? (hint: no one can agree with me…friendship=agreement)
Where is this picture supposedly of me? I know he used my name d’blog in a column, but was there an actual pic somewhere? Got a link to it? All I ever sent to John was the headshot he used on the About Us page.
Why is there so much yearning to find OJ Simpson guilty. The prosecution used two very qualified attorneys. The full might of the L.A. Police Department was at their disposal. There was all this evidence against Simpson. So what happened?
Simply put, the jury weighed the evidence and found there was sufficient doubt to its veracity. Blood spots appeared to be staged. Blood was missing. Some blood evidence had preservative in it. A lead detective blatantly lied on the stand. If the prosecution has been shown to give so much falsified evidence, how much of the rest can be believed?
Instead of hanging Simpson, why not be upset at the many thousands who didn’t have the top notch lawyers and ended up behind bars after the cops falsified evidence. I know gquaglia is a cop so he thinks it’s ok to falsify evidence. The true rage should be leveled at a system where witnesses swear to give the truth and then gave fabricated evidence.