Sure there was some doubt. There always is. That's why they have to quantify the amount of doubt as being "reasonable" or not. But I remember the jury foreperson all over TV saying there was no evidence. That was the reason the did not convict him; "NO EVIDENCE." Do any of you think there was no (zero ) evidence?
I guess it remains to be learned how OJ would have committed the murders had he actually committed them. Perhaps, rather than sneaking up on the victims, ambushing from behind, and slashing their throats, OJ might have elected to slip them a little poison for instance.
Story Highlights
• NEW: Sister says publisher tried to buy family's silence
• NEW: News Corp. says offer came with "no strings attached"
• O.J. Simpson: Things have been "mischaracterized."
• News Corp. cancels book, interview on double killing
NEW YORK (AP) -- The O.J. Simpson book saga took another twist Tuesday when his former sister-in-law, Denise Brown, accused the media company behind the project of trying to buy her family's silence for "millions of dollars."
Simpson's book, "If I did it," was a sequel few had dared conceive, with Simpson -- acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend but later found liable in civil court -- describing how he would have killed them.
A spokesman for News Corp., owner of Fox Broadcasting and publisher HarperCollins, confirmed that the company had conversations with representatives of Nicole Brown Simpson's and Ron Goldman's families over the past week and that the families were offered all profits from the planned Simpson book and television show, but he denied that it was hush money.
"There were no strings attached," News Corp. spokesman Andrew Butcher said.
Denise Brown told NBC's "Today" show Tuesday that her family's response was "Absolutely not."
"They wanted to offer us millions of dollars. Millions of dollars for, like, 'Oh, I'm sorry' money. But they were still going to air the show," Brown said. "We just thought, 'oh my god.' What they're trying to do is trying to keep us quiet, trying to make this like hush money, trying to go around the civil verdict, giving us this money to keep our mouths shut."
Any fascination with Simpson's shocking return to public life was overcome by revulsion and disbelief from the public.
Even News Corp's Rupert Murdoch, a media king with a famous taste for scandal, couldn't stand it anymore. On Monday, he canceled the whole thing, less than a week after it was announced.
"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," Murdoch said. "We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."
"If I Did It" had been scheduled to air as a two-part interview November 27 and November 29 on Fox, with the book to follow on November 30. HarperCollins spokeswoman Erin Crum said some copies had already been shipped to stores but would be recalled, and all copies would be destroyed.
Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, told The Associated Press: "We had known for three or four days that this was a possibility."
"There are only three possible reactions: anger, happiness or indifference. He's totally indifferent about the fact that it's been canceled," Galanter said.
He said he didn't know if Simpson was paid upfront.
Simpson was acquitted of murder in 1995 but was later found liable for the deaths in a wrongful-death suit filed by the Goldman family. Simpson has failed to pay the $33.5 million judgment against him in the civil case. His NFL pension and his Florida home cannot legally be seized. He and the families of the victims have wrangled over the money in court for years.
Ron Goldman's sister, Kim Goldman, said on CBS' "The Early Show" Tuesday that the family would take legal action to collect any money Simpson received from the deal. Denise Brown went farther, saying that money was being hidden for Simpson so he didn't have to pay the civil judgment. "The courts one day will find out who that person is," Brown said.
Simpson told the AP in a phone interview late Monday he could not comment on the situation "until I know legally where I stand."
"I would like nothing better than to straighten out some things that have been mischaracterized," he said. "But I think I'm legally muzzled at this point."
Sensation has long been in News Corp's game, but the Simpson book drew almost universal anger -- from those who knew Goldman and Brown, from booksellers and advertisers, even from Fox News Channel personality Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly urged a boycott of any company that advertised on the special.
A dozen Fox network affiliates said they would not air the two-part special, and numerous stores had either declined to sell the book or had promised to donate any profits to charity.
"I really don't think there would have been very many advertisers who would have been willing to participate in this show," said Brad Adgate of the ad buying firm Horizon Media.
With little advertising, Fox would miss the chance to profit from the show. If there were no advertisers, the show wouldn't even be rated by Nielsen Media Research -- so the number of people watching would have done nothing to help Fox's season average, he said.
The cancellation was a stunning rebuke to ReganBooks -- a high-profile imprint of HarperCollins -- and Judith Regan, who had labeled the book and interview Simpson's "confession." She insisted that she had done it not for money, but as a victim of domestic violence anxious to face down a man she believed got away, literally, with murder.
ReganBooks is known for gossipy best-sellers such as Jose Canseco's "Juiced" and Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star." Regan, one of publishing's most driven and forceful personalities, did not immediately respond to requests for an interview.
The TV special was to air on two of the final three nights of the November sweeps, when ratings are watched closely to set local advertising rates. It has been a particularly tough fall for Fox, which has seen none of its new shows catch on and is waiting for the January appearances of "American Idol" and "24."
The closest precedent for such an about-face came when CBS yanked a miniseries about Ronald Reagan from its schedule in 2003 when complaints were raised about its accuracy. It was seen on CBS' sister premium-cable channel, Showtime, instead.
One Fox affiliate station manager said he wasn't going to air the special because he was concerned that, whether or not Simpson was guilty, he'd still be profiting from murders.
"I have my own moral compass and this was easy," said Bill Lamb, general manager of WDRB in Louisville.
During an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live," Fred Goldman, Ron's father, expressed appreciation to anyone who opposed the book.
"We want to say thank you, thank you for everyone in this country who raised their voice and stood up for the right thing," Goldman said.
Numerous books have been withdrawn over the years because of possible plagiarism, most recently Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," but removal simply for objectionable content is exceptionally rare. In the early 1990s, Simon & Schuster canceled Bret Easton Ellis' "American Pyscho," a graphic account of a serial killer. The novel was released by Random House Inc., and later made into a feature film, an improbable fate for Simpson's book.
Sales for "If I Did It," had been strong, but not sensational. It cracked the top 20 of Amazon.com last weekend, but by Monday afternoon, at the time its cancellation was announced, the book had fallen to No. 51.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
The OJ case was lost due to an incompetent prosecution that allowed reasonable doubt to come up, it's not the jury's fault, there was reasonable doubt. The glove didn't fit, and Cochran made a great case with if something doesn't fit, then the prosecution's case is doubtful. Let's not forget that they turned the case into domestic violence, they never once brought up the fact that Simpson was found with a disguise, money, and a passport when he was arrested after the Bronco chase.
There was evidence, but there was reasonable doubt the defense did a good job of showing, so you must acquit.
However, great job Fox, Rupert Murdoch does it again, exploit the dead for gain.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Heck wrote
It was painfully obvious is that the LAPD tried to plant evidence? How so?
Well I just named a few reasons why I believe they did. Here’s what didn’t jibe with me along with some unanswered questions I think should have been properly addressed by the prosecution.
1st dilemma
The blood left on the gate at the scene had lab additives in it. Coincidently, there was blood missing from the tube in which the lab tech had taken blood from OJ. Blood at the scene linked to OJ happened to be within the parameter of this missing blood.
2nd dilemma
Why would that glove be behind OJ’s house just sitting there all by its lonesome? Plenty of leaves around but are undisturbed “leaves” me questions. The other glove was left at the scene so he just took one and left the other?
3rd dilemma
If OJ had just butchered 2 people and jumped in his truck and sped off, how come they only found specks of blood on the rug only? And how did they notice a tiny spec of blood on the Bronco door handle and leading up to his house completely in the dark? He bled on and in the truck and up to the house, why not in the house?
4th dilemma
I would like to know where any clothing went that would definitely be blood soaked.
5th dilemma
How did OJ manage to travel from home, in a limo, on a plane, to the hotel and get blood on nothing else but a towel in his hotel room without anyone noticing he was bleeding along the way?
6th dilemma
If OJ cut himself at the scene, how? He supposedly had on gloves but the gloves bare no cuts. Neither was their blood inside the gloves that matched OJ’s type or DNA.
7th dilemma
Last but not least, the timeline seems to be awfully suspect and although not totally impossible, it was impractical.
These questions were left unanswered to any degree of reason in my opinion. One way I think he could have done this was to have someone do it for him. He may have even been at the scene but that wasn’t presented at trial. To say he did the deed, then these questions, at least in criminal court, should have been answered adequately. In civil court, the bar is much lower.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
Well I just named a few reasons why I believe they did. Here’s what didn’t jibe with me along with some unanswered questions I think should have been properly addressed by the prosecution.
1st dilemma
The blood left on the gate at the scene had lab additives in it. Coincidently, there was blood missing from the tube in which the lab tech had taken blood from OJ. Blood at the scene linked to OJ happened to be within the parameter of this missing blood.
You are talking about EDTA...and if you study analytical chem, you wil know that everyone has an amount of EDTA already in their blood. Most people do not realize this. People just assume (as you are doing now) that it only exists in blood that is preserved, but that would be a bad assumption. Also the ETDA that was determined to be in that blood was at lower levels than one would find in actual preserved blood, so it stands to say that it was from actual unpreserved blood.
Of course when the prosecution tried to tell the jury this they just couldnt grasp it because people just assume that it is ONLY found in preserved blood...but again, this is just plain false.
2nd dilemma
Why would that glove be behind OJ’s house just sitting there all by its lonesome? Plenty of leaves around but are undisturbed “leaves” me questions. The other glove was left at the scene so he just took one and left the other?
You are assuming that criminals are smart?? If this was the case, our prisons would be completely empty.
3rd dilemma
If OJ had just butchered 2 people and jumped in his truck and sped off, how come they only found specks of blood on the rug only? And how did they notice a tiny spec of blood on the Bronco door handle and leading up to his house completely in the dark? He bled on and in the truck and up to the house, why not in the house?
Some people carry changes of clothes in their car....is it not possible that he didnt do the same? He could have easily taken off his clothes and put them in change of clothes bag before leaving and then pitch the clothes he was wearing, which would make sense.
In what you are presuming in all your dilemma's is that the ENTIRE PD plus the lab plus numerous amounts of other people were involved in some major conspiracy...and that is MUCH harder to sallow than OJ doing this.
4th dilemma
I would like to know where any clothing went that would definitely be blood soaked.
Trash...burned them...there are tons of ways to get rid of bloody clothes...after all, people have done it before.
5th dilemma
How did OJ manage to travel from home, in a limo, on a plane, to the hotel and get blood on nothing else but a towel in his hotel room without anyone noticing he was bleeding along the way?
How did Jeffrey Dahmer cut up a ton of bodies and have a stench rising from his place with no one calling the police?? You act as if OJ was bleeding profusely.
6th dilemma
If OJ cut himself at the scene, how? He supposedly had on gloves but the gloves bare no cuts. Neither was their blood inside the gloves that matched OJ’s type or DNA.
After the gloves came off??? One was found at the scene...they evidently didnt stay on.
7th dilemma
Last but not least, the timeline seems to be awfully suspect and although not totally impossible, it was impractical.
Like you said...not impossible...which leads to doubt. Anyhow..the timeline isnt perfect...its what they think. Probably wasnt right...but they do what they can to make it the best way. Only the killer knows the real timeline...and its one that OJ knows all to well.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
But mystic, that's the point, there are all these dilemmas with no explanation or evidence to point the finger at OJ and that's why there is reasonable doubt. This is why Cochran was so effective, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit, and that statement didn't apply to the glove alone.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
For starts, there is reasonable doubt in anything. Cochran and company played every little dirty trick they could including the race card. Period.
Let's not forget about, what is this, motive!
For funs sake, I'll tackle these dilemmas. Not to be a dick, but your information or recall of this trial isn't entirely accurate.
The blood in the Bronco:
#30 - Blood found on the center console matched to OJ Simpson
#31 - Blood found on the center console - proven to be a mixture of Simpson & Goldman.
#23 - Blood found on Bronco Driver Door Interior - matched to Simpson.
#21 -- Bronco driver door
#22 -- Bronco driver door
#24 -- Swatch on Bronco instrument panel - matched to Simpson.
#25 -- Driver side carpet fiber - blood matched to Simpson.
#26 -- Bronco driver floor
#27 -- Plaid cap found on driver floor of Bronco
#28 -- Swatch from Bronco driver seat
#29 -- Swatch from Bronco steering wheel - a mixture of Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson.
Drivers side bloody shoe print. The print was made from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe with a Silga sole. This print also matched the prints at the murder scene. There is no denying the fact that Simpson's Bronco was the means of transportation to and from the murder scene.
#1-- Blood on exterior of Bronco door
#34 - No Photo - Blood found on driver's side wall matched to Simpson.
#293 - No Photo - Blood found on Bronco Carpet matched to Nicole Brown Simpson.
#303 - No Photo - Blood found on the Bronco center console - matched to Simpson, Goldman, and Nicole Brown Simpson.
#304 - No Photo - Blood found on the Bronco center console matched to Simpson, Goldman, & Nicole Brown Simpson.
#305 - No Photo - Blood found on the center console matched to Simpson, Goldman, & Nicole Brown Simpson.
So, in order for OJ to be set up, somehow Goldman's and Brown Simpson had to have their blood collected prior, mixed with OJ's and planted. Right.
The gloves: who cares where or how it was left. You think a rational explination could be offered after someone brutally murdered two people.
The fact is OJ said he never owned a pair. However, pairs of this hard to come by glove were bought by Nicole. Not to mention OJ is photographed wearing them. Even though he never owned them.
The shoes: bloody shoe prints of his 12 Bruno Magli found at the crime scene.
Hair: Hair in a dark knit cap found at the murder scene would prove to belong to OJ Simpson. Simpson's hair was found on Ronald Goldman's shirt.
The knife: OJ bought a knife from Ross Cutlery about 6 weeks before the murders. The exact type of knife Simpson bought was proven to be the weapon with which Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered with. Oddly enough, the knife Simpson bought has disappeared and has never been found.
The escape: OJ packs a bag with loads of money, clothing, his passport and a disguise. During the low speed chase given by LAPD, Simpson states over and over "I'm sorry, I'm sorry." Drastic for an innocent man.
Domestic abuse: OJ beat the crap out of Nicole before.
The cuts: Simpson was examined by Dr. Huizenga. The good doctor pointed out that Simpson had not only one cut, a deep cut at that, but that he had seven (7) abrasions on his hands along with three (3) cuts.
The clothing: blood soaked glove, sock.
OJ's house: Blood drops found between the Bronco and the Simpson gate. Blood found on the Rockingham driveway and the sidewalk.
Exact matching footprint as those found at the Bundy crime scene were found in drivers side floorboard of Simpson's Bronco.
Blood found in the foyer of Simpson's home.
About a week before the murders Nicole realizes that someone has stolen a set of her keys. She tells family members over and over that OJ stole the keys. The keys are later found in Simpson's Bronco.
To sum up...
I'd like to go on but I feel like it's 1996 all over again. I had hoped I was long past showcasing the obvious when it comes to this travesty of justice. If you can read that and still want to set him free, well, hopefully your name doesn't come up for the next "trial of the century."
Dude was found not guilty by a jury of peers but that doesn't make him innocent. He was found liable for the crimes in a civil court.
Either way, I could give two licks. Court of popular opinion will carry on.
Thank you for that post, Heck!!! And it's very true. There was a TON of evidence, pointing at this guy... the murderer. But, the defense put enough doubt in the jury's mind, and that's all it takes. The prosecution fumbled the football, too many times... and had Marcia Clark not been so caught up in making a name for herself, and TRYING to look good on camera, then she would have won this case, hands down.
Cochrane through out the "race" card, one too many times. And it went in OJ's favor. But, he knows, as well as we know... he did it.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
Inner City Blues said this in post #60 : But mystic, that's the point, there are all these dilemmas with no explanation or evidence to point the finger at OJ and that's why there is reasonable doubt. This is why Cochran was so effective, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit, and that statement didn't apply to the glove alone.
The blood evidence alone made him guilty. There was no doubt there....the only problem was that the jury didnt understand it.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I simply don’t have the energy for this. I not here to defend OJ but no way was this case as cut n dry as Heck posted above. There are many points of contention in this case and anyone who knows the history of the LAPD would understand that something shady definitely went on there.
However OJ simply isn’t worth my energy in trying to highlight the discrepancies.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
11-21-2006 03:57 AM
