CA - O.J. Simpson & the murders of Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman, 1994 *not guilty*
- Thread starter Levi
- Start date
PaperDoll
When I'm Silent, I make the most sense
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- Messages
- 25,799
- Reaction score
- 168
Hi BoyzBoyz_Mum said:
It's been awhile since I saw the OJ trial but if I recall correctly, he never took the stand. So I'm not sure what lie they could get him on.. Doesn't one have to take the stand, under oath, in order to be slapped with perjury? I don't know all the ins and outs of the law.. heheDang it! You are probably right! Allright then, back to the grasping at straws for me! He'll screw up somewhere along the line and hopefully this time the trial won't end up relying on a dang glove. (His smugness really does irk the heck out of me!)PaperDoll said:Hi Boyz
azwriter
Sister Mary Wanna
He did however, take the stand in the civil trial. And even though it wasn't televised, news reports say he continued to lie throughout his testimony.PaperDoll said:Hi Boyz
Especially in the part about how he never hit Nichole while he was sitting under a large photo of her with a bruised and swollen face.
And, don't forget the SHOES. Proof, from of all places the National Equirer, was show that he did own a pair of the "Ugly *advertiser censored* shoes." (His words).
Wish he would just get back into that white Bronco and go away.
PaperDoll said:Hi Boyz
He stood up at his pre trial and said he was 100 percent not guilty. There was even more than that but I can't think of it now. He talked a lot about how he could never have done such a thing.
The lawyers for Fred Goldman, father of Ron Goldman, say any compensation the former football star earns for his book "If I Did It" is subject to collection under the civil judgment won by the Goldman family in its wrongful death suit against Simpson in 1997. Simpson has always maintained his innocence and was acquitted of criminal charges in the case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601896.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601896.html
Didn't the Brown family also win a judgement? On LKL last night, someone said that any money earned from the proceeds of the book would also go to the estate of Nicole. There are only 2 beneficiaries of Nicoles's estate, and they are Sydney and Justin. So, it's conceivable that any money OJ has to pay to Nicoles estate could end up right back in his own pocket.Meduza said:
azwriter
Sister Mary Wanna
Yes, he blabbed on about he couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't have committed the crimes. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.BeeBee said:
But OJ was not under oath when he made that plea at the start of his trial. I would assume perjury applies only on testimony given under oath.
Malapoo
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 782
- Reaction score
- 27
They were talking about the show & book on a talk radio program I listened to the other day on the way home. They had folks calling in saying yes or no they'd watch the show and why or why not. Seems women mostly won't, more men will or at least might if they stumble over it flipping channels. Arguments in both directions were interesting to me. Like one man said, he considers this A CONFESSION and he wants to know WHAT HAPPENED. I think the money issue was the big stumbling block for everyone. If the families (Browns/Goldmans) profited from it, then it wouldn't be such a major moral issue. Several even said if it went to trust for the kids they'd be ok with that as well.
It has made me read up again about the whole thing and some of the alternative theories are at least interesting though I've believed he did it from pretty early on despite originally being a football & OJ fan. I'd say what they found in the get away Bronco made me say "He did it" because why would an innocent man with no criminal history (other then abuse) run?
But I also remember early on thinking Marcia Clark was going to hurt the prosecution. She just rubbed me wrong almost from the start and they say she DID NOT go over well with the jurors either. I just kept wanting to smack her.
And with Cochran playing the race card hot & heavy, I agree with Bugliosi that the prosecution should have pointed out that OJ had really lived as a white man more then a black man and really hadn't reached back to help once he "made it". And he's not done anything since that I see to further the cause of African Americans.
And I still think a lot about all the coverage of the public hearing the verdict. We really haven't made the progress we thought we might have with race relations. It starts with the primary tragedy of the deaths, but the whole thing became about so much more. A indictment of our society.
It has made me read up again about the whole thing and some of the alternative theories are at least interesting though I've believed he did it from pretty early on despite originally being a football & OJ fan. I'd say what they found in the get away Bronco made me say "He did it" because why would an innocent man with no criminal history (other then abuse) run?
But I also remember early on thinking Marcia Clark was going to hurt the prosecution. She just rubbed me wrong almost from the start and they say she DID NOT go over well with the jurors either. I just kept wanting to smack her.
And with Cochran playing the race card hot & heavy, I agree with Bugliosi that the prosecution should have pointed out that OJ had really lived as a white man more then a black man and really hadn't reached back to help once he "made it". And he's not done anything since that I see to further the cause of African Americans.
And I still think a lot about all the coverage of the public hearing the verdict. We really haven't made the progress we thought we might have with race relations. It starts with the primary tragedy of the deaths, but the whole thing became about so much more. A indictment of our society.
Frankly (and I admit I may be predicting what I hope will happen vs. what will happen) I think the ratings and book sales will be far below what those behind this imagine they will be. And, no not because some kind of misplaced faith in the American people rising up in righteous anger to reject this, but, among other reasons, I don't see how it's in any way compelling viewing or reading.
It's not as if anyone thinks he was acquitted because he's some criminal mastermind and will be revealing some secrets. People who think he's guilty think he got away not least because he could afford the best legal team money could buy. He's not even (unlike the superficially, in some respects similar, Mike Tyson) bright or interesting or funny or has any self-awareness that might make a interview worth watching.
It's also, IMHO, past its shelf-life. Y'know, the 90's were fun. The Cold War was over, Clinton was playing his sax and playing around, we all could immerse ourselves in something like the trial of an ex-football star/bit actor for months on end. The world we live in is very, very different these days and the country's mood has changed.
I'd also posit that cases (like, say JonBenet) that people can't get enough of, are in large part because the victim, not the (alleged) perpetrator was the dominant factor in the 'interest-level equation'. Everyone watched the trial because of OJ, but at this point, twelve years later, who the [blank] really wants to see some surly, sociopathic smirk for two hours or pay $25 to read what he has some ghostwriter say.
I may very well be wrong, I often am, but I think both network and publisher have grossly miscalculated the potential audience for this. My $.02, anyway.
It's not as if anyone thinks he was acquitted because he's some criminal mastermind and will be revealing some secrets. People who think he's guilty think he got away not least because he could afford the best legal team money could buy. He's not even (unlike the superficially, in some respects similar, Mike Tyson) bright or interesting or funny or has any self-awareness that might make a interview worth watching.
It's also, IMHO, past its shelf-life. Y'know, the 90's were fun. The Cold War was over, Clinton was playing his sax and playing around, we all could immerse ourselves in something like the trial of an ex-football star/bit actor for months on end. The world we live in is very, very different these days and the country's mood has changed.
I'd also posit that cases (like, say JonBenet) that people can't get enough of, are in large part because the victim, not the (alleged) perpetrator was the dominant factor in the 'interest-level equation'. Everyone watched the trial because of OJ, but at this point, twelve years later, who the [blank] really wants to see some surly, sociopathic smirk for two hours or pay $25 to read what he has some ghostwriter say.
I may very well be wrong, I often am, but I think both network and publisher have grossly miscalculated the potential audience for this. My $.02, anyway.
BloodshotEye
Member
The Goldman's lawyer needs to find out who/what entity Fox and the publisher is paying. My guess, is that OJ is laundering money through a trust or an LLC, that was set up for his children.
They need to do a forensic audit of the bank transactions in/out of this trust and/or LLC. Bet you box of donuts, the money trail will take you out of the country, and back into OJ's pocket.
Hey Fox, exactly what color of stupid do you think I am? I will not patronize your advertisers, from this day forward.
They need to do a forensic audit of the bank transactions in/out of this trust and/or LLC. Bet you box of donuts, the money trail will take you out of the country, and back into OJ's pocket.
Hey Fox, exactly what color of stupid do you think I am? I will not patronize your advertisers, from this day forward.
Buzz Mills
New Member
askfox@foxinc.com
Dear Fox Network,
Fox is choosing to disregard common decency and morality by airing an OJ Special.
How difficult is it for the Fox Network to understand that OJ is someone that an overwhelming majority of Americans are totally reviled by. For Fox to totally regard this deep sentiment is indeed an affront to us all.
I, for one, will be boycotting, not only this airing, but everything else on all channels affiliated with Fox, and I will be encouraging many others, on the internet discussion forums I participate in, to do the same .
GENERAL FOX NEWS CHANNEL E-MAIL ADDRESSES:
The Beltway Boys Beltway@foxnews.com
The Big Story w/ John Gibson Myword@foxnews.com
The Big Story Weekend Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
The Big Story Primetime Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
Bulls & Bears Bullsandbears@foxnews.com
Cashin' In Cash@foxnews.com
Cavuto on Business Cavuto@foxnews.com
DaySide Dayside@foxnews.com
Forbes on FOX Forbes@foxnews.com
FOX & Friends Friends@foxnews.com
FOX News Live Feedback@foxnews.com
FOX News Live w/ Jamie Colby Jamie@foxnews.com
FOX News Live Weekend Feedback@foxnews.com
FOX News Specials Viewerservices@foxnews.com
FOX News Sunday FNS@foxnews.com
FOX News Watch Newswatch@foxnews.com
FOX Report w/ Shepard Smith Foxreport@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes Hannity@foxnews.com or Colmes@foxnews.com
Heartland w/ John Kasich Heartland@foxnews.com
The Journal Editorial Report JER@foxnews.com
The Lineup Lineup@foxnews.com
On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren Ontherecord@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor Oreilly@foxnews.com
Special Report w/ Brit Hume Special@foxnews.com
Studio B w/ Shepard Smith Studiob@foxnews.com
War Stories w/ Oliver North Warstories@foxnews.com
Your World w/ Neil Cavuto Cavuto@foxnews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER SEGMENTS ON FNC:
Because You Asked (Bill Hemmer) Hemmer@foxnews.com
Father Jonathan Morris Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com
FOX News Live w/ Martha MacCallum Martha@foxnews.com
Harrigan on the Hunt (Steve Harrigan) Harrigan@foxnews.com
HealthBeat (Dr. Manny Alverez) Drmanny@foxnews.com
Rick's Rambles (Rick Leventhal) RicksRambles@foxnews.com
Sunday Housecall (Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld) Housecall@foxnews.com
,
Dear Fox Network,
Fox is choosing to disregard common decency and morality by airing an OJ Special.
How difficult is it for the Fox Network to understand that OJ is someone that an overwhelming majority of Americans are totally reviled by. For Fox to totally regard this deep sentiment is indeed an affront to us all.
I, for one, will be boycotting, not only this airing, but everything else on all channels affiliated with Fox, and I will be encouraging many others, on the internet discussion forums I participate in, to do the same .
GENERAL FOX NEWS CHANNEL E-MAIL ADDRESSES:
The Beltway Boys Beltway@foxnews.com
The Big Story w/ John Gibson Myword@foxnews.com
The Big Story Weekend Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
The Big Story Primetime Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
Bulls & Bears Bullsandbears@foxnews.com
Cashin' In Cash@foxnews.com
Cavuto on Business Cavuto@foxnews.com
DaySide Dayside@foxnews.com
Forbes on FOX Forbes@foxnews.com
FOX & Friends Friends@foxnews.com
FOX News Live Feedback@foxnews.com
FOX News Live w/ Jamie Colby Jamie@foxnews.com
FOX News Live Weekend Feedback@foxnews.com
FOX News Specials Viewerservices@foxnews.com
FOX News Sunday FNS@foxnews.com
FOX News Watch Newswatch@foxnews.com
FOX Report w/ Shepard Smith Foxreport@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes Hannity@foxnews.com or Colmes@foxnews.com
Heartland w/ John Kasich Heartland@foxnews.com
The Journal Editorial Report JER@foxnews.com
The Lineup Lineup@foxnews.com
On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren Ontherecord@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor Oreilly@foxnews.com
Special Report w/ Brit Hume Special@foxnews.com
Studio B w/ Shepard Smith Studiob@foxnews.com
War Stories w/ Oliver North Warstories@foxnews.com
Your World w/ Neil Cavuto Cavuto@foxnews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER SEGMENTS ON FNC:
Because You Asked (Bill Hemmer) Hemmer@foxnews.com
Father Jonathan Morris Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com
FOX News Live w/ Martha MacCallum Martha@foxnews.com
Harrigan on the Hunt (Steve Harrigan) Harrigan@foxnews.com
HealthBeat (Dr. Manny Alverez) Drmanny@foxnews.com
Rick's Rambles (Rick Leventhal) RicksRambles@foxnews.com
Sunday Housecall (Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld) Housecall@foxnews.com
,
I rhought, that if a person cannot be re-tried in the state court, but the Federal Court can step in and press charges and hold a trial.
Now I am Canadian, so this is what I am under the impression of. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also is there not "civil" rights in play here, and that is the Federal Court.
I put money on this that what he is doing with the "fee" if tanamount to Fraud, avoiding his creditors(Brown/Goldman) and avoiding paying them.
Also I would like to know what companies are advertising during this show, and may I suggest, that a "public" boycott" of these companies be "well known" to the general public and a letter sent by all to these companies that everyone associated with them "never" buy any product or service because this company is "advocating" a criminal and violence, especially violence against murder and is "enabling" a murderer to "profit" from his crime and "mock" his victims and their families. This is an affront to human kind, which OJ is not a part of.
Now I am Canadian, so this is what I am under the impression of. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also is there not "civil" rights in play here, and that is the Federal Court.
I put money on this that what he is doing with the "fee" if tanamount to Fraud, avoiding his creditors(Brown/Goldman) and avoiding paying them.
Also I would like to know what companies are advertising during this show, and may I suggest, that a "public" boycott" of these companies be "well known" to the general public and a letter sent by all to these companies that everyone associated with them "never" buy any product or service because this company is "advocating" a criminal and violence, especially violence against murder and is "enabling" a murderer to "profit" from his crime and "mock" his victims and their families. This is an affront to human kind, which OJ is not a part of.
Lisahas2cats
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 30
As far as boycotting all Fox programming....I'd feel bad boycotting Bill O'Reilly, because he's actually begging viewers not to watch the Simpson program. I thought that was pretty damned ballsy (in a good way), given the big fat FOX logo in the bottom left corner of the screen when O'Reilly was saying this.
And I'm not even an O'Reilly fan!
Lisa
And I'm not even an O'Reilly fan!
Lisa
I will not be watching this OJ interview. I refuse. I'm so disgusted with him (and any TV channel that is willing to air this bunch of crappola) that I don't even know what more to say.
Saw on the MSN home page that some FOX affiliates are nixing showing this interview. :clap:
Saw on the MSN home page that some FOX affiliates are nixing showing this interview. :clap: