1
   

O.J. tells how he did it.

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 01:59 pm
The black people I've talked to don't think he's innocent.

A few talked as if he was innocent during the trial--but afterwards, every one of the ten or so people I regularly discussed the trial with were gleeful about the fact that he was guilty and that he got off.

They thought it was about time a guilty black guy got off like all the guilty white people do. My opinion of the US judicial system changed significantly in the aftermath of the OJ trial. I learned a lot about black culture (or an aspect of it) in the US during that time.

I was furious for a while, but I understand now.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 02:30 pm
Interesting somewhat related article in LA Times back in September by Patt Morrison -

Owning OJ

Patt Morrison: Owning O.J.
How do you squeeze a dime out of a celebrity? Sue to own one.
September 7, 2006



SWEAR TO DeMille, this is going to be the most frightening story that Hollywood has come across since the news burst upon El Mundo de Movies that a private eye named Tony Pellicano was supposedly eavesdropping on some quite glamorous and private telephones.

Oh wait, hang on ?- maybe the second most frightening story. I forgot about the shocking news that the fabulous, dazzling contents of those awards-night goodie bags will henceforth be regarded as taxable income by the Internal Revenue Service.

In what looks like one truly inspired piece of lawyering, Fred Goldman ?- the father of Ron Goldman, murdered a dozen years ago along with O.J. Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole ?- is going after O.J. Simpson, again. Make that, still.

Goldman has pursued his son's justice a lot more tenaciously than Simpson has pursued the "real killer." And Goldman means to squeeze Simpson, using as his "juicer" his share of the $33.5-million judgment that a Santa Monica jury assessed in 1997 when it found Simpson civilly liable for the murders.

But consider: Simpson says he'll never hand over Dime One to the Goldmans. He moved to Florida, where the law protects his half-million-dollar-plus house from court rulings. Even the $25,000 NFL pension check he gets every month is untouchable. Simpson is pretty much non grata here in what the rest of the world insists on calling La La Land, so he's not making movies. (He tried a comeback with a pay-per-view reality show called "Juiced," but the pilot went nowhere.)

So how can Goldman lay a finger on him?

That's the beauty part: Goldman wants the court to award him Simpson's publicity rights: Simpson's name, his image, his likeness ?- anything that cashes in on O.J. Inc.

Simpson is no golden goose ?- not any more. But when it comes to residuals, his movies and TV work are still around (what kind of dough are "Circus of the Stars" reruns pulling down, anyway?). His autographs were fetching $100 a pop in Chicago last year, I read.

I said the idea for the Goldmans to get Simpson's publicity rights was an inspired piece of lawyering, but it wasn't a lawyer who dreamed it up. Karl Manders did. He's the head of Continental Enterprises, an Indianapolis intellectual property consulting company.

When I talked to Manders on Wednesday, he told me, "I would give anything to see O.J. Simpson's face" when he heard about this. "It does strike at the heart of what's important to him. Our opinion is: The only thing that's important to Mr. Simpson is Mr. Simpson." If the court grants this request, "every time he signs his autograph, that name is the property of the Goldmans. The moment it comes off the pen, it's no longer his."

Years ago, Manders says, he worked out the deal that let John Wayne give his publicity rights to his children before he died, "so the concept of a person walking around who doesn't own his own likeness is not so strange."

And intellectual property "is property like any other property. It's bought and sold and transferred every day, especially in Los Angeles ?- that's what the city's built on."

A judge's blessing on Goldman's request might be the scariest sound to come out of Hollywood since the shower music in "Psycho." Whatever Le tout Hollywood might think of O.J., this precedent might make allies out of all the Simpsons ?- O.J., Jessica and Homer.

Severing a performer from publicity rights is like severing him from himself. The publicity rights, the face, the talent, the investment, that other, eternal self ?- in the universe of celebrity, it's as much a part of the performer as the soul. That's why Manders calls it "poetic justice."

Imagine it was the other driver who had been killed by James Dean's car on that road near Cholame on Sept. 30, 1955 ?- and that the money from every James Dean film, every commercial, every product endorsement and Halloween mask and action figure went to pay a judgment for the dead man's estate.

Or, speed ahead half a century. Let's say Paris Hilton's small, tormented pet of the moment happens to take a bite out of you while you're stuck alongside her behind the rope at the MTV Video Music Awards after-party. You sue. She ignores you like the peon you are. Her lawyers ignore you. You go to court for redress and suddenly you own Paris Hilton. Her name, her image, her perfume profits, her CD royalties, such as they are ?- all yours, until the million bucks she owes you for the coatimundi bite is paid off.

Manders isn't anybody's idea of athletic ?- a shade under six feet, a shade and then some over 200 pounds. He says he looks like a red-haired Jerry Garcia. His sport in school was chess. But maybe, just maybe, this guy is the one tackler that O.J. Simpson can't outrun.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:05 pm
Miller wrote:
Bella Dea wrote:
Everyone already knows he's guilty...


What you really mean is that 99.9% of white people think he is guilty, while 99.9% of black people think he is innocent.

Now, is that "everyone"? Sad


I don't know anyone white or black who thinks he's really innocent.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:11 pm
There are many people who believe that he's innocent.
Many.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:23 pm
eoe wrote:
There are many people who believe that he's innocent.
Many.



I'm listening....go on.....
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:41 pm
Me too. I'd like to know who thinks this guy didn't do it.
0 Replies
 
Tai Chi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:45 pm
Miller wrote:
Tai Chi wrote:


O.J. has no moral compass, obviously.


OJ was found innocent by a jury of his peers.

End of story! Confused


Oh please, I don't see anybody suggesting this is a piece of fiction. What kind of person wants to profit from a crime after the fact (and after getting away with it)? A person with no moral compass. End of story? I wish.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:51 pm
Yeah, I have to agree with that. If he did it, obviously horrible. But even if he didn't do it, this is still a pretty despicable thing to participate in. As in, something that someone with a strong moral compass would stay well away from.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:54 pm
I'm going to listen to what eoe says with an open mind.

I was watching a documentary about the case, sorry if the who said what is a little sketchy....but one of the things I got out of it was the feeling of "now you know" (my words). As in, my loved ones and family have been getting lynched and unfairly tried for generations, as finally one of ours did it completely within the white mans system, and was declared innocent.

Honestly, if I was black, I would feel the same way. I would feel like we finally had a small victory after and during everything else goes on. In my heart, would be saying....good....

However, and I'll be the first to admit I was not glued to the TV for every nuance of the case....but from the large amount I saw, the evidence convinced me he was guilty.

I'm not saying that as a white, black or brown person, that's just what the evidence showed to me personally.

I can understand why this became a race case, but in my heart of hearts to me it was purely a murder trial.

That's why I'd be interested in hearing more from eoe, as far as what happened during the trial that convinced many that he was innocent. Meaning, taking his color out of the equation, that is, and looking at the evidence. Good opportunity.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 03:55 pm
Wait a minute...what if OJ IS innocent! What if some evil drug lord DID commit those crimes !!! What if...NAH!!!
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 04:02 pm
NickFun wrote:
Wait a minute...what if OJ IS innocent! What if some evil drug lord DID commit those crimes !!! What if...NAH!!!


Then all is well with the world. The drug lord AND OJ both got off.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 04:07 pm
Course, if you frame it as a class thing instead of a race thing -- another rich celebrity lives above the law while poor kids do time for petty crimes and crimes they didn't do -- it should be hard for anyone to feel vindicated.

Whatever.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 04:38 pm
patiodog wrote:
The National Enquirer appears to be the source of the story. I'd venture that the New York Post is only slightly more reputable...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15066202/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2415493,00.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/76556/did_oj_simpson_get_35_million_for_book.html

And here's where the story apparently broke...
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63698



http://www.fox.com/OJ
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 04:51 pm
Yeah, I just saw something about this on the tube.

I'm shocked. Doesn't happen very often, but I am actually shocked.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 05:11 pm
What OJ is doing amounts to bragging. He is a reprehensible human being.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 05:15 pm
Don't wait for me to say anything more about it. It's all been said and nothing has changed since the trial. Just like there were people who believed he did it and people who believed he was innocent five, seven, ten years ago, the same hold true today.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 05:32 pm
I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought he was innocent, I guess they exist somewhere. At the time of the trial I worked with a large, diverse group of people and we discussed the trial at great length around the water cooler. Everyone thought he was guilty, but he got off because he was a celebrity, he had good lawyers and the prosecution did a terrible job.

Does anyone know if the money from the book and interview will go to paying the civil case conviction? I know the families of the victims were awarded millions, but never saw any of it.

Has anyone seen what OJ's daughter looks like today? It's really sad, she went from a pretty little girl to an obese giant.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 05:44 pm
See my link earlier about the LA Times article..
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 05:56 pm
eoe wrote:
Don't wait for me to say anything more about it. It's all been said and nothing has changed since the trial. Just like there were people who believed he did it and people who believed he was innocent five, seven, ten years ago, the same hold true today.


Nonetheless, profiting from the death of someone he either loved and didn't kill, or brutally murdered, is utterly gross whichever way you choose to look at it.

As are the companies allowing him to do so.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 06:00 pm
I agree with you completely.
My heart breaks for those kids.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2026 at 11:03:15