you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Today’s Male Terrorism: O.J. Simpson to Tell How He “Would Have” Killed Nicole Brown Simpson

 Nicole Brown Simpson Murder Scene

Nicole Simpson Murder Scene

In a new TV interview and book, O.J. Simpson discusses how he would have committed the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend “if I did it.”

The two-part television interview, titled “O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened,” will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29 on Fox, the TV network said Tuesday.

“O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes,” the network said in a statement. “In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade.”

So: Now I will terrorize all women and children everywhere by making big bucks describing in gory detail how I killed my wife, except, you know, I really didn’t, I was found innocent, so this is all hypothetical.

What a fine dad he is, too.

I was in the process of divorcing my ex when Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered in June, 1994.   My ex moved had moved out in March of 1994.  I was excommunicated in July of 1994, two weeks after Nicole was murdered.  The year of this trial was a year of darkness for me, personally.  It all rushes back in a flood.

Like O.J., my ex was a tall, athletic, charismatic, charming, handsome black man.  Like Nicole Brown Simpson, I am blonde and Nordic looking.  Simpson and I are both mothers of biracial children, both abuse survivors.  Just as nobody believed O.J. was an abuser, nobody believed my ex was an abuser either.  He was just so charming and charismatic and fun to be around.  Except when he wasn’t.

 Heart

Discussion

38 thoughts on “Today’s Male Terrorism: O.J. Simpson to Tell How He “Would Have” Killed Nicole Brown Simpson

  1. This is just disgusting. Abusers get off on making their victims relive the abuse, and in this case it is Nicole’s and Ron’s familes and all the women and girls abused by men in this world. How wonderful it is that he sits around fantasizing about murdering his ex-wife. And you’re right about the kids. How much is he re-traumatizing them? Ugh.

    Posted by psyck | November 15, 2006, 10:06 pm
  2. Unbelievable that some publisher is willing to go with this, probably sought it out.

    But not unbelievable about men being chameleons, two-faced, kind to one women why helping old ladies across the street, while they’re rearranging their wives faces.

    To me, sobbing, long ago, after the stitches were done, a doctor in an Arctic community said as he handed me the valium “Go home and try to understand your husband”.

    To me, sputtering through tears several years later, about how kind everyone said he was, a feminist counsellor said:

    “For every man a wife.”

    Posted by Pony | November 15, 2006, 10:13 pm
  3. Honestly, this show and book deal is just bad for Civilization, the Goldmans, O.J.’s kids and even O.J. Who’s up for not watching? (raises hand)

    Posted by Daniel K. | November 15, 2006, 10:38 pm
  4. I never used to believe there is actual evil in this world. I do now.
    I too was married to an evil and deceiving person. This is a
    terrible thing to do – “How he would have killed Nicole…” SICK.

    One saving grace is that I believe there will come a time that the “debt”
    of these types of people will come to fruition and be paid in full.

    My former husband, also a mental and physical abuser, is now dead.
    And no – I didn’t do it – he did it to himself with his continuous acts
    of horrible crimes against our human brothers and sisters.

    Posted by Marsha J. O'Brien | November 16, 2006, 4:27 pm
  5. Here’s my enraged question: why isn’t this being blogged by feminist bloggers?
    Even if — by flights of fantasy and denial which are unimaginable to me — somebody really thinks OJ is innocent, what kind of human being writes a book fantasizing murdering a woman he theoretically loved, the mother of his kids, as Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, depicted in that photo up there?
    Here’s what I think. I think the lives of women as beautiful and courageous and defiant as Nicole Brown Simpson’s was mean less than nothing to most people. Including people who fancy themselves to be feminists. And to those for whom this applies, a hearty FUCK YOU. THIS is why ALL I care about, ALL the livelong day, is the lives of women. Including women like Nicole Brown Simpson, who was too blonde, too beautiful, too model, too married-to-O.J., too perfect for anyone to give a good goddamn if she ended up bleeding all over the goddamn concrete, awash in the life flowing out of her veins. Too bad. Stupid white woman. She deserved to die. Somebody, for goddess’s sake, is going to cry out on behalf of these raped, mutilated, dead, abused women and that’s going to be ME, and I don’t care who comes along with me, but fuck you if you don’t, and don’t for one moment expect me to be in your sad and ugly corner. Goddess I wish I could name the names going through my head right about now.
    Disgusted.
    Doesn’t.
    Begin.
    To.
    Cover.
    It.
    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | November 16, 2006, 6:58 pm
  6. TRAPPED IN A PATTERN OF PAIN WHERE NO ONE CAN HELP
    by Andrea Dworkin, from the Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1994, Copyright © 1994 by Andrea Dworkin, All rights reserved.
    Courtesy of Nikki Craft

    You won’t ever know the worst that happened to Nicole Brown Simpson in her marriage, because she is dead and cannot tell you. And if she were alive, remember, you wouldn’t believe her.

    You heard Lorena Bobbitt, after John Wayne Bobbitt had been acquitted of marital rape. At her own trial for malicious wounding, she described beatings, anal rape, humiliation. She had been persistently injured, hit, choked, by a husband who liked hurting her. John Wayne Bobbitt, after a brief tour as a misogynist-media star, beat up a new woman friend.

    It is always the same. It happens to women as different as Nicole Simpson, Lorena Bobbitt–and me. The perpetrators are men as different as O.J. Simpson, John Wayne Bobbitt and the former flower-child I am still too afraid to name.

    There is terror, yes, and physical pain. There is desperation and despair. One blames oneself, forgives him. One judges oneself harshly for not loving him enough. “It’s your fault,” he shouts as he is battering in the door, or slamming your head against the floor. And before you pass out, you say yes. You run, but no one will hide you or stand up for you–which means standing up to him. You will hide behind bushes if there are bushes; or behind trash cans; or in alleys; away from the decent people who aren’t helping you. It is, after all, your fault.

    He hurts you more: More than last time and more than you ever thought possible; certainly more than any reasonable person would ever believe–should you be foolish enough to tell. And, eventually, you surrender to him, apologize, beg him to forgive you for hurting him or provoking him or insulting him or being careless with something of his–his laundry, his car, his meal. You ask him not to hurt you as he does what he wants to you.

    The shame of this physical capitulation, often sexual, and the betrayal of your self-respect will never leave you. You will blame yourself and hate yourself forever. In your mind, you will remember yourself–begging, abject. At some point, you will stand up to him verbally, or by not complying, and he will hit you and kick you; he may rape you; he may lock you up or tie you up. The violence becomes contextual, the element in which you try to survive.

    You will try to run away, plan an escape. If he finds out, or if he finds you, he will hurt you more. You will be so frightened you think dying might be OK.

    If you have no money, can’t find shelter, have no work, you will go back and ask him to let you in. If you work, he will find you. He may ask you back and make promises filled with repentance. He may beat you and force you back. But if you do stay away and make a break, he will strike out of nowhere, still beat you, vandalize your home, stalk you.

    Still, no one stops him. You aren’t his wife anymore, and he still gets to do it.

    Nicole Simpson, like every battered woman, knew she would not be believed. She may have been shrewd enough to anticipate the crowds along the Orange County freeways cheering on O.J. Every battered woman has to be careful, even with strangers. His friends won’t stop him. Neither will yours.

    Nicole Simpson went to many experts on domestic violence for help but none of them stopped him. That’s what it takes: The batterer has to be stopped. He will not stop himself. He has to be imprisoned, or killed, or she has to escape and hide, sometimes for the rest of her life, sometimes until he finds another woman to “love.” There is no proof that counseling the batterer stops him.

    It was Nicole who asked the police to arrest Simpson in 1989, the ninth time the police had been called. Arrest needs to be mandatory. The 1989 assault on Nicole Simpson should have resulted in O.J. Simpson’s ninth arrest. We don’t know by what factor to multiply the number nine: How many episodes of being beaten women endure on average, per phone call to the police. In 1993 alone, there were 300,000 domestic violence calls to the police in New York City.

    Wife-beating is not America’s dirty little secret, as the press and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala say. Feminists have spent two decades exposing wife-abuse with insistence and accuracy, organizing refuges and escape routes and changing law-enforcement practices so that, increasingly, wife-beating is recognized as a violent crime.

    Wife-beating is commonplace and ordinary because men believe they have rights over women that women dispute. The control men want of women, the domination men require over women, is expressed in this terrible brutality. For me, it was for a four-year period, 25 years ago in another country. For 4 million women in the United States, one every 15 seconds, it was yesterday and today.

    What no one will face is this: The problem is not with the woman; it is with the perpetrator. She can change every weakness, transform every dependency. She can escape with the bravado of a Jesse James or the subtle skill of a Houdini. But if the husband is committed to violence and she is not, she cannot win her safety or her freedom. The current legal system, victim advocates, counseling, cannot keep her safe in the face of his aggression.

    Accounts of wife-beating have typically been met with incredulity and disdain, best expressed in the persistent question, “Why doesn’t she leave?” But after two decades of learning about battery, we now know that more battered women are killed after they leave than before.

    Nicole Simpson was living in her own home when she was murdered. Her divorce had been finalized in 1992. Whether or not her ex-husband committed the murder, he did continue to assault her, threaten her, stalk her, intimidate her. His so-called desire for reconciliation masks the awfulness of her situation, the same for every woman who escapes but does not disappear. Having ended the marriage, Nicole Simpson still had to negotiate her safety with the man who was hurting her.

    She had to avoid angering him. Any hint that her amiability was essentially coerced, any threat of public exposure, any insult to his dignity from his point of view, might trigger aggression. This cause-and-effect scenario is more imagined than real, since the perpetrator chooses when he will hurt or threaten or stalk. Still, the woman tries. All the smiling photographs of them together after the divorce should evoke alarm, not romantic descriptions of his desire to reconcile. Nicole Simpson followed a strategy of appeasement, because no one stood between her and him to stop him.

    Escape, in fact, is hell, a period of indeterminate length reckoned in years, not months, when the ex-husband commits assaults intermittently and acts of terrorism with some consistency. Part of the torment is that freedom is near but he will not let the woman have it. Many escaped women live half in hiding. I am still afraid of my ex-husband each and every day of my life–and I am not afraid of much.

    Maybe you don’t know how brave women are–the ones who have stayed until now and the ones who have escaped, both the living and the dead. Nicole Simpson is the hero. The perpetrator is the problem, stupid.

    END

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | November 17, 2006, 4:25 am
  7. In Nicole Brown Simpson’s Own Words
    by Andrea Dworkin
    Courtesy of Nikki Craft

    Words matter. O.J. Simpson’s defense team asked Judge Lance A. Ito to order the prosecution to say domestic discord rather than domestic violence or even spousal abuse–already euphemisms for wife-beating–and to disallow the words battered wife and stalker. Ito refused to alter reality by altering language but some media complied–for example, “Rivera Live,” where domestic discord became a new term of art. The lawyer who successfully defended William Kennedy Smith on a rape charge also used that term systematically.

    Where is the victim’s voice? Where are her words? “I’m scared,” Nicole Brown told her mother a few months before she was killed. “I go to the gas station, he’s there. I go to the Payless Shoe Store, and he’s there. I’m driving, and he’s behind me.”

    Nicole’s ordinary words of fear, despair and terror told to friends, and concrete descriptions of physical attacks recorded in her diary, are being kept from the jury. Insignificant when she was alive–because they didn’t save her–the victim’s words remain insignificant in death: excluded from the trial of her accused murderer, called “hearsay” and not admissible in a legal system that has consistently protected or ignored the beating and sexual abuse of women by men, especially by husbands.

    Nicole called a battered women’s shelter five days before her death. The jury will not have to listen–but we must. Evidence of the attacks on her by Simpson that were witnessed in public will be allowed at trial. But most of what a batterer does is in private. The worst beatings, the sustained acts of sadism, have no witnesses. Only she knows. To refuse to listen to Nicole Brown Simpson is to refuse to know.

    The law, including the FBI, and social scientists used to maintain that wife-beating did not exist in the United States. But in recent years, the FBI acknowledged that wife-beating is this country’s most commonly committed violent crime.

    Such a change happens this way. First, there is a terrible and intimidating silence–it can last centuries. Inside that silence, men have a legal or a tacit right to beat their wives. Then, with the support of a strong political movement, victims of the abuse speak out about what has been done to them and by whom. They break the silence. One day, enough victims have spoken–sometimes in words, sometimes by running away or seeking refuge or striking back or killing in self-defense–that they can be counted and studied: Social scientists find a pattern of injury and experts describe it.

    The words of experts matter. They are listened to respectfully, are often paid to give evidence in legal cases. Meanwhile, the voice of the victim still has no social standing or legal significance. She still has no credibility such that each of us–and the law–is compelled to help her.

    We blame her, as the batterer did. We ask why she stayed, though we, of course, were not prepared to stand between her and the batterer so that she could leave. And if, after she is dead, we tell the police that we heard the accused murderer beat her in 1977, and saw her with black eyes–as Nicole’s neighbors did–we will not be allowed to testify, which may be the only justice in this, since it has taken us 17 years to bother to speak at all. I was a battered wife; I had such neighbors.

    Every battered woman learns early on not to expect help. A battered woman confides in someone, when she does, to leave a trail. She overcomes her fear of triggering violence in the batterer if he finds out that she has spoken in order to leave a verbal marker somewhere, with someone. She thinks the other person’s word will be believed later.

    Every battered woman faces death more than once, and each time the chance is real: The batterer decides. Eventually, she’s fractured inside by the continuing degradation and her emotional world is a landscape of desperation. Of course, she smiles in public and is a good wife. He insists–and so do we.

    The desperation is part fear–fear of pain, fear of dying–and part isolation, a brutal aloneness, because everything has failed–every call for help to anyone, every assumption about love, every hope for self-respect and even a shred of dignity. What dignity is there, after all, in confessing, as Nicole did in her diary, that O.J. started beating her on a street in New York and, in their hotel room, “continued to beat me for hours as I kept crawling for the door.” He kept hitting her while sexually using her, which is rape–because no meaningful consent is possible or plausible in the context of this violence.

    Every battered woman’s life has in it many rapes like this one. Sometimes, one complies without the overt violence but in fear of it. Or sometimes, one initiates sex to try to stop or head off a beating. Of course, there are also the so-called good times–when romance overcomes the memory of violence. Both the violation and the complicity make one deeply ashamed. The shame is corrosive. Whatever the batterer left, it attacks. Why would one tell? How can one face it?

    Those of us who are not jurors have a moral obligation to listen to Nicole Simpson’s words: to how O.J. Simpson locked her in a wine closet after beating her and watched TV while she begged him to let her out; to how, in a different hotel room, “O.J. threw me against the walls . . . and on the floor. Put bruises on my arm and back. The window scared me. Thought he’d throw me out.” We need to hear how he “threw a fit, chased me, grabbed me, threw me into walls. Threw all my clothes out of the window into the street three floors below. Bruised me.” We need to hear how he stalked her after their divorce. “Everywhere I go,” she told a friend, “he shows up. I really think he is going to kill me.”

    We need, especially, to hear her call to a battered women’s shelter five days before her murder. In ruling that call inadmissible, Ito said: “To the man or woman on the street, the relevance and probative value of such evidence is both obvious and compelling . . . . However, the laws and appellate-court decisions that must be applied . . . held otherwise.” The man and woman on the street need to hear what was obvious to her: The foreknowledge that death was stalking her.

    We need to believe Nicole’s words to know the meaning of terror–it isn’t a movie of the week–and to face the treason we committed against her life by abandoning her.

    When I was being beaten by a shrewd and dangerous man 25 years ago, I was buried alive in silence. I didn’t know that such horror had ever happened to anyone else. The silence was unbreachable and unbearable. Imagine Nicole being buried alive, then dead, in noise–our pro-woman, pro-equality noise; or our pro-family, pro-law-and-order noise. For what it’s worth–to Nicole nothing–the shame of battery is all ours.

    END

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | November 17, 2006, 4:34 am
  8. The woman who is publishing OJ’s book is using the excuse that she is publishing his “confession.” That’s no justification. The pain this will cause to his children, Nicole’s sister, her family, the family of the man who was murdered, is unconscionable. The damage this will do to women is unconscionable: “Oh, yes! A grisly story about the murder of a beautiful blonde!” Well, she wasn’t a beautiful blonde. She was a flesh and blood woman, a daughter, a granddaughter, a sister, a mother, my sister, a member of my tribe, the People of Women.

    Nicole’s sister is outraged, as she should be. OJ has never paid the civil judgments against him for these murders. He cannot be tried again for murder in a criminal proceeding. Lawyers can protect the proceeds of this book, so that they cannot be used to pay the civil judgments against him.

    It’s all over the news. I can’t bear to go back and find the links.

    I just beg of you: please. Don’t buy this book. Write to Fox and this publisher and tell them to what they can do with their atrocity.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | November 17, 2006, 4:46 am
  9. And Freedom Rider blogged about it. I love Freedom Rider.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | November 17, 2006, 5:14 am
  10. It goes without saying, OJ has no shame. It is hard enough to believe that he is a free man, due to legal loopholes his lawyers knew how to exploit, but that his conviction in the civil case has cost him nothing is incredible. How is it the law allows him to shield income from a book? What kind of legal system is this anyway? Is there no recourse at all?

    Posted by Aletha | November 17, 2006, 6:39 am
  11. Heart said: “Here’s my enraged question: why isn’t this being blogged by feminist bloggers?”

    Actually, I did within the hour of hearing about the book on the news. (I hadn’t realised you had already blogged it, haven’t had the chance to look at all my favourite blogs in the last few days).

    The Court of Stormy in 1994 found him “very fucking guilty” and stands by that verdict to this day.
    http://stormcloud.wordpress.com/2006/11/17/if-i-did-it-if/

    I too, thought it extremely sick for the father of Nicole’s children to write even a hypothetical on the subject. It just proves his guilt beyond any doubt. Unfortunately, The Court of Stormy does not have a category of guilt beyond the “very fuckin guilty”, so it will have to suffice.

    Posted by stormcloud | November 17, 2006, 11:27 am
  12. Good for you, stormy, I will check out your blog.

    Aletha, although Simpson received an advance, there is no contract between Regan Books and Simpson directly. Evidently the money is set up to go to some third person. Although Simpson was ordered to pay 33 million to the families, he’s vowed to pay nothing and has only paid a few thousand dollars. All anybody can do is boycott the show and the book. As I understand it, one of the major networks, ABC or NBC, declined the interview, but Bill O’Reilly is as sleazy as it comes.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | November 17, 2006, 1:35 pm
  13. It’s yet another act of terrorism against women. Men who murder women not only get away with it but are allowed to boast about what they did on TV. It’s a strong message to women about exactly how much our lives matter in this society.

    It’s good to hear at least some TV producers wanted nothing to do with it.

    Posted by delphyne | November 17, 2006, 1:42 pm
  14. “Men who murder women not only get away with it but are allowed to boast about what they did on TV.”
    Exactly.

    I am sure that some shady 3rd person deal has been set up so that Simpson can receive money from the book, it’s probably Kato!

    Posted by stormcloud | November 17, 2006, 2:08 pm
  15. ***The perpetrator is the problem, stupid.***

    I love this line. Too bad those who need to hear it won’t read far enough in Dworkin to get to it. It should be a headline or a title, unmissable.

    Posted by Branjor | November 17, 2006, 2:36 pm
  16. You’re right – the involvement of a third part is exactly what Judith Regan, his publisher, who also interviewed him for the book is claiming. Apparently that person owns the rights to the story. Imagine owning the rights to a brutal murder.

    She’s made a statement as to why she did this. According to her it was to extract his confession, which I might think of believing if she and OJ weren’t making a ton of money off this –
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/business/mutfund/17cnd-regan-text.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Posted by delphyne | November 17, 2006, 4:56 pm
  17. Here’s where you can voice your outrage to Fox and Regan Books (thanks to Global Sisterhood Network:

    You can contact Fox at: feedback@foxinc.com
    or call Fox at 310/369-3553 or its Viewer Comment Line at 310/369-3066,
    or its Entertainment President Peter Liguori at 310/369-1000.

    Regan Books can be contacted at (212) 207-7000.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | November 17, 2006, 5:32 pm
  18. From Regan’s text:

    “What I do know is I didn’t pay him. I contracted through a third party who owns the rights, and I was told the money would go to his children. That much I could live with.

    What I wanted was closure, not money.”

    “The men who lied and cheated and beat me—they were all there in the room. And the people who denied it, they were there too. And though it might sound a little strange, Nicole and Ron were in my heart. And for them I wanted him to confess his sins, to do penance and to amend his life. Amen.”

    Posted by Le Chat Noir | November 17, 2006, 8:06 pm
  19. Is there any way we can find out what commercials will air during that time — without watching the show — so that we can also write to the sponsors and say that we will not be using their products if they support this travesty?
    .

    Posted by StarWatcher | November 17, 2006, 9:37 pm
  20. Regan Publishing is a subsidiary of HarperCollins which is owned by Rupert Murdoch as is Fox. Regan has already published Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh and Jenna Jameson. I think her claims about why she published the book are humbug.

    Posted by delphyne | November 17, 2006, 11:55 pm
  21. Delphyne, I kind of bought it (her story), but perhaps I’m easily duped!
    Ultimately, we need to see the money trail.

    I do think OJ is a narcissist. Narcissists do like to ‘brag’ about (particularly famous) things, to get the credit. It can be easy to manipulate them into doing things like this (tell all).

    I was married to a narcissist (NPD). Mine was an idiot (with a hugely inflated sense of self). The idiot tipped his hand way too early, and I was able to stay one step ahead.

    Posted by stormcloud | November 18, 2006, 2:22 am
  22. I won’t be watching or buying or reading it but…I believe Regan. Her motives and personal account of her own experience ring true to every battered woman I have ever spoken with. I think she tried to out him, I do. I just don’t like it, don’t think this was helpful at all in the end. Allowing a malignant, sociopathological narcissist continued attention and the soapbox on which to brag and boast about himself at the expense of his victims is, I’m sorry, not enlightening. Confession might be good for his soul, but what about Nicole’s? What about her children’s? Confession is not justice and no confession can substitute for what should have happened at that trial. No, this doesn’t help. It may have helped Regan put some old demons to rest, but it doesn’t help anyone else.

    Posted by Ginny | November 18, 2006, 11:21 pm
  23. Oh, and by the way, flea blogged about it in her Nov 15th entry on “One Good Thing”

    http://buggydoo.blogspot.com/

    Posted by Ginny | November 18, 2006, 11:36 pm
  24. I once heard pro-football player Jim Brown exclaim that O.J. Simpson made a fool of the justice system Not true. What he did was make fools of the 12 jurors. To the majority of the people, the proscecution more than proved their case. Yet these 12 people were so star-struck by Simpson that they ignored the evidence. One juror in particular gleefully said that she wanted the jurors to throw a party for O.J. because this poor man had been put through so much. The same juror astonishingly later belittled the prosecution for bringing forth evidence that Simpson had committed domestic violence against Nicole in the past, spouting that “this case wasn’t about domestic violence, it’s about a murder” Excuese Me, but I would think that murdering a spouse is the ULTIMATE domestic abuse! If she wasn’t intelligent enough to understand that, she never should have been on that jury.

    Who could ever forget the look on Simpsons buddy, the late attorney Robert Kardashian when the not guilty verdict was read. Clearly he wasn’t thrilled with the verdict. It took a while for him to finally smile and try to act pleased with the verdict. He was standing next to Simpson. I can only guess that he was also a friend of Nicole. Later, after his death, family members revealed that he was always convinced of Simpsons guilt.

    Another thing that was always obvious to me was the scene of Simpson trying on the gloves in court. Remember the clever little jingle, “If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit?” What I found interesting was that an innocent man would have been apprehensive about trying on the gloves. After all, there was a pretty good chance that they would fit. Most gloves would fit the average guy. But if you watch the video, Simpson couldn’t wait to try them on! He was almost excited about it. But then it struck me. The only way you could be happy about trying them on, was if you positively knew they wouldn’t fit. Because they were his gloves, and he knew that Nicole had bought him a pair of gloves that was too small. He had worn them before! He knew they wouldn’t fit properly. But because they were $300.00 gloves bought 3000 miles away in New York, he just kept them anyway since they only fit a little too tight. Save them for a murder.

    But I have mixed feelings about the book. Certainly I don’t have any objection to Simpson finally giving a way overdue confession. Especially if the graphic detail reveals evidence that may lead to an investigation into the possibility of an accomplice that’s so far escaped prosecution. Or even secondary charges, such as obstruction of justice. But my only objection is that he may profit financially.

    Posted by Jack | November 19, 2006, 5:56 am
  25. I too, thought it extremely sick for the father of Nicole’s children to write even a hypothetical on the subject. It just proves his guilt beyond any doubt.

    Yes. And now he’s going to make money on it.

    Posted by profacero | November 19, 2006, 7:44 am
  26. Actually, I wish to revise my last comment. I am halfway through re-reading Robert Hare’s “Without Conscience” (a book Regan also published apparently), and am fairly certain that Simpson is a psychopath.

    I agree with Jack. The jurors were fools, falling for Cochran’s showboating stunts “if it don’t fit..”.

    I see that Cochran is now dead as well.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cochran

    Hopefully he is now being constantly jabbed by little pitchforks “must NOT acquit, must NOT acquit”.

    Posted by stormcloud | November 19, 2006, 1:09 pm
  27. The glove was an Aris Isotoner, bought for OJ at Bloomindale’s by Nicole for $55. The fit was supposed to be tight and snug. The prosecution was supposed to get an exact duplicate glove to have OJ try on in the courtroom, but when the time came Richard Rubin, the glove expert, said it was not an exact duplicate of the gloves Nicole had bought and which were found at the crime scene and in back of OJ’s house. So that meant that either the actual evidence glove had to be used in the demonstration or they would not do the demonstration that day. Marcia Clark begged Chris Darden not to do the demonstration, but Darden insisted. The problem was, with the actual evidence glove in use, OJ would be required to wear a latex glove on his hand under the evidence glove. The latex screwed up the fit of the glove. Even without the latex, the fit of the glove was *supposed* to be tight and snug, so *with* the latex the fit was impossible.

    This information comes from pp. 404-406 of Marcia Clark’s book “Without a Doubt”.

    Posted by Branjor | November 19, 2006, 3:06 pm
  28. I’ve read Without Conscience and it’s actually a really good layman’s book on psychopaths and the range of continuum of psychopathology. You don’t have to be a serial killer to be a psychopath. In fact, you don’t have to be violent at all. It’s really a book worth reading.

    Posted by Ginny | November 19, 2006, 8:05 pm
  29. also, leather shrinks when it’s been soaked. I used to wear these tiny leather gloves that I got from my grandmother. they were a bit too small, and when I wore them out in the rain, they shrank to some degree, because they were even tighter when I would try them on again. after a bit of wearing, they would stretch out and fit better. and latex isn’t exactly non-sticky.

    psychopath is right.

    that this guy is going to be on tv talking about how he “would have” killed this woman and her friend… god. I have no words.

    Posted by Cinder | November 19, 2006, 8:44 pm
  30. I heard this morning that they’ve canceled the TV program.

    Posted by Ginny | November 20, 2006, 9:05 pm
  31. I heard the book is being pulped as well because of public outrage.

    Posted by delphyne | November 20, 2006, 9:47 pm
  32. Well, Borders said if the book is sold, they will donate all profits to the victim charity funds. They at least don’t want blood on their hands. Thing about the book is, if they pull it now, after it’s been printed, it is likely to become a cult collector item and fetch a lot more money per copy than otherwise. Maybe that way, though, OJ won’t see a dime. One can only hope.

    Posted by Ginny | November 21, 2006, 12:53 am
  33. I finally got a post up about this OJ story.

    I waited until I could make a local link with Rocky Mountain News reporter Charlie Brennan, the man who has written a book and over 400 stories about JonBenet Ramsey. The Rocky Mountain News capitalized on the pedophile murder of JonBenet via its own feeding frenzy on John Mark Karr. The Rocky Mountain News helps the mainstremaing of kiddie porn by publishing at its online site Karr’s child rapist fantasies.

    Here’s the link to the post:

    http://tinyurl.com/vgym2

    Posted by Fire Witch | November 21, 2006, 1:48 am
  34. Was the book really stopped? I was outraged when I heard the scumbag was writing a book about how he would have killed his exwife. Why is he still alive? Why hasn’t some mobster knocked him off? Surely to god some criminal element could pull it off and do the whole world a favor……

    Posted by carolyn | February 11, 2007, 5:13 pm
  35. Judge Puts Freeze on O.J. Funds
    by Gina Serpe
    Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:01:00 AM PST

    A Los Angeles judge Wednesday extended an injunction first issued last month prohibiting the former football star from spending any of the reported $1 million advance he received for his ill-fated book and TV special If I Did It, a hypothetical confessional about the slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

    Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg broadened his Jan. 4 ruling, which originally only precluded Simpson from spending money from past book, movie or sports deals. It did not include keeping tabs on his If I Did It payout because the Goldman family had filed a separate federal lawsuit concerning the allocation of that money.

    However, the Goldmans’ federal suit was rejected late last month over issues of jurisdiction, thereby clearing the way for the new order.

    The extended ruling bars Simpson from “transferring, conveying, expending, liquidating, encumbering, hiding, concealing or otherwise disposing” of the $1.1 million he purportedly pocketed for If I Did It, though he is allowed to access money for “ordinary living expenses.”

    Ron Goldman’s father, Fred, made the injunction request as part of a state lawsuit filed in December, accusing Simpson of fraudulent conveyance—namely, setting up a bogus corporation, Lorraine Brooke Associates, to funnel the advance he received from would-be publisher ReganBooks. The Goldmans claim that the fake account was set up so that Simpson would not be forced to relinquish any money to make good on the $33.5 million wrongful-death judgment the Goldman and Brown families won against the sports star in 1997.

    The Goldmans are seeking to recoup all of Simpson’s If I Did It earnings.

    News Corp., which owned ReganBooks and which ultimately pulled the plug on the book, interview and imprint, has admitted to spending $880,000 for the rights; however, the company says the payment was made to a third party, not Simpson. Of that six-figure sum, $125,000 of it went to the book’s ghostwriter.

    The spending ban will be in effect until Feb. 20, at which point a hearing has been scheduled to reassess the situation. Should Simpson wish to be exempted from the judge’s order, he will have to submit his financial records to the court.

    As it is, he claims he already submitted them to the public.

    Last fall, before the new lawsuits were filed, Simpson said that he had already spent his payout on bills and taxes.

    Posted by womensspace | February 11, 2007, 6:31 pm
  36. O.J. You are a sick man and you are guilty, a psychopath who has no remorse of what you have done. You thrive off this publicity and entertainment. You also must be guilty when your intentions were to disturb and try to (as you say) horrify other women and children. What a disgusting peace of disease you are. You did it and you will pay in the end because believe it or not this will stay with you for the rest of your life and then after death! You have no friends so don’t act like you do! You are a cold blooded murderer and psychopath!

    Posted by Starr | August 1, 2007, 10:32 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Pooh’s Think » Blog Archive » The Woman Who Sued the Christian Right? - November 16, 2006

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,563,201 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos