« Metaphor Storytime | Main | Coming Soon: Blogging Rehab Centers »

You Can Add 'Death Profiteer' to OJ's Resume

So, what's OJ doing to mark the tenth anniversary of the murder at his hands of Nicole Kidman Simpson*?
Can't this man be stopped?: Apparently taking a break from his continuing search for the real killers, O.J. Simpson is hoping to mark the 10th anniversary of wife Nicole's savage murder June 12 - along with the fatal knifing of unlucky waiter Ron Goldman - by cashing in big-time. Star Magazine reports that Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, has been shopping his client around for paid interviews. "It will be expensive," the mag quotes Galanter. "TV rights are going for $100,000. For print rights, between $20,000 and $25,000." Nothing if not classy, Galanter adds that O.J. might even be willing to do a photo shoot at the Brentwood crime scene and at Nicole's grave site - if the price is right. "It would have to be a multimillion-type deal," Galanter says. A grave site photo would be "worth $500,000 ... Our preference is a standard interview ... but it's just money."
Would it really be so bad if someone put a bounty on this guy's head? Can't we get Ashcroft to add him to some "wanted, dead or alive" list? I mean, who would miss him? Is there a soul alive who still thinks this scumbag is a good man? Oh, gosh. There I go again wishing harm or death to someone. Damn me and my vision of a world without murdering thugs.
*This is a lesson: Never, ever blog before two cups of coffee have been finished.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You Can Add 'Death Profiteer' to OJ's Resume:

» OJ the killer is now offically also "money grubbing scum." from Ramblings' Journal
According to Star Magazine, OJ Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, is shopping around paid interview and photo ops for his client, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the brutal murders of Simpson's wife Nicole and her friend, Ron Goldman."It will... [Read More]

» Maybe He Should Look in the Mirror from The Dead Pool
OJ Simpson continues to search for the killer of his ex-wife Nicole, and her "friend" Ron Goldman. To help fund his insatiable quest, OJ will make himself available for interviews, at a price. Can't this man be stopped?: Apparently taking... [Read More]

» Simpson, eh? from The Dead Pool
I saw this one over at ASV... NY Daily News has word of OJ celebrating an anniversary in a rather disgusting way: Can't this man be stopped?: Apparently taking a break from his continuing search for the real killers, O.J.... [Read More]

Comments

Yeah, but didn't Rumsfeld shake hands with him? The trial is a Quagmire! It was just ONE knife, not a stockpile!

/sarcasm

Michele,

OJ didn't kill Nicole Kidman. He killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Err, I mean some-mysterious-person-who-hasn't-been-found-yet killed them. Everyone knows the Church of Scientology killed Nicole Kidman. Or at least, her choice of rolls killed her career.

I think Nicole Kidman would be disapointed that you have confused her with OJ's wife. You know she has six movies coming out in 2005 alone. And we haven't even seen the Stepford Wives yet... Michelle may need a nap.

It's ok, maybe someone will pay him to do an interview, no one believes him now, and when people see the interview, he will be even more reviled, and hopefully even spit upon.
One of my hero's is the guy who bought his Heismann trophy and smashed it with a sledgehammer...

A photo of Simpson at the crime scene? Ten years ago, at the trial, that photo would have been worth real money.

Now? Not so much.

If the glove don't fit you must acquit.

He was found not guilty, so he obviously didn't do it, right?

perhaps this is all a lead-up to an OJ themed reality show: "Who killed Nicole" where teams of hand-picked OJ fans will try to prove that it was some shadowy druglord type figure and even bring him to justice.

sort of like a very, very twisted version of America's Most Wanted, but with OJ instead of John Walsh.

I still think OJ is innocent and no I am not kidding.

Jason, I watched practically the entire trial. Had I been on the jury I would not have budged from a guilty verdict. Regardless of the 'technical blunders' of the prosecution, the man was guilty.

When the police and prosecution try to frame a guilty man, that man deserves to go free. That trial was a sham, but justice was served better by a not-guilty verdict than a guilty one.

And yes, I did hold my nose while typing that. But yes, I still believe it.

Isn't there still an outstanding judgment from the civil case? Wouldn't that mean that any money he makes would automatically be siezed by the Goldmans and the Browns?

At least one would hope.

ROFLMAO at the nimrods who think OJ was framed.

Dana Carvey has a stand-up routine where he makes fun of this contention, with 28 people, virtually strangers to one another, getting together within a 1/2 hour, to concoct a conspiracy to "frame OJ"..a guy who was admired by most and had been given in the past several passes on his treatment of Nicole.

BTW.. "not guilty" in a criminal proceeding is NOT "innocent." Y'll understand that OJ never went back to court for a finding of "innocent"? And in the civil proceeding which deals with preponderance of evidence, rather than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, that OJ was held responsible for the death of his wife and Goldman and ordered to pay restitution? (even though his NFL pension is judgement proof)

The OJ jury was a study in jury nullification.

One can rarely figure out the mind of a jury. Last week we had a case that looked solid. The jury brought back a "not guilty". Interviews with the jurors later..everyone thought the evidence was solid and that the perp REALLY WAS guilty, but they didn't want to convict him when all the DA had was ONE witness. Yeppers, for THAT jury, one eye witness (direct evidence) plus circumstantial evidence was not enough.

Sheesh

jon

I suggest you volunteer sometime at your local court house..the DA or victim/witness or whatever, and learn that real courtrooms are not LA Law, Ally McBeal or Law & Order, and it takes a tad bit more than 60 minutes to try a case.

I'm trying to refrain from making rude statements... and it is not easy at this point.

Say what you will about OJ, but even if he did kill his wife and Goldman, we all know that it isn't a tenth as bad as the abuses that took place in (cue scary music)---- Abu Ghraib.

(And don't ya just know that Johnnie would have played the "terrorist card," along with the "race" and "drug dealer" cards if terrorism was on the front burner back then?)

Say what you will about OJ, but even if he did kill his wife and Goldman, we all know that it isn't a tenth as bad as the abuses that took place in (cue scary music)---- Abu Ghraib.

(And don't ya just know that Johnnie would have played the "terrorist card," along with the "race" and "drug dealer" cards if terrorism was on the front burner back then?)

I merely repeat what I said as the verdicts were announced: Isn't it nice what money can buy in this country?

Ten million dollars will buy you out of a murder rap, even if you are as guilty as sin. The police didn't try to frame OJ, they just behaved as they always do. The DA never has to work that hard to convict someone, because most murderers are 1) really dumb and 2) not rich. OJ wasn't terribly smart, but he had lawyers who had investigators, and they proceeded to show up the laziness and sloppiness of law enforcement.

Why were we surprised? Creating a reasonable doubt is what you pay a lawyer for. And, as we have all discovered at some point, we get what we pay for.

Remind me to buy a lottery ticket.

Dianna

You don't think DDAs and cops "work hard enough"?

Based on what?

Let me give you a clue...the DDA's and police didn't hand the excuse to the jury to nullify..it was their own bigotry plus Judge Ito. The judge stopped being one early on.

Since this article is a gossip columnist quoting from The Star, I'm taking this story with a grain of salt.

The "OJ was framed" comments remind me of the deeply vicious recent "South Park" where the cops were portrayed as spending most of their time looking for rich black people to frame--and one cop had a crisis of conscience when he saw (a thinly veiled) Michael Jackson through binoculars and screamed at the cop next to him: "MY GOD! We've been framing a white man--what have we done?" Deeply nasty, and appropriately contemptuous of those who take this conspiracy crap seriously.

In fairness, Darleen--the OJ trial did feature a lot of bungling by the DA's office, most notably:

--letting the trial be moved downtown instead of fighting to keep it in Santa Monica;

--insisting on keeping Marcia Clark (a damned good lawyer) on the team when their jury consultant was telling them that she was not going to be a sympathetic figure to the black women who were to make up most of the jury;

--having OJ try on the gloves. Never count on the defendant to help you make your case--and Darden should have realized that the gloves might have shrunk;

--not doing a better job of vetting Mark Fuhrman;

--(IMO) deciding to include some questionable evidence in their case that might have led the jury to think the prosecution was BSing them (the "dream" testimony and the taped testimony with no cross examination where a prosecution witness "explained" something he had previously said that clearly hurt the prosecution's case).

That being said, they might not have won anyway (Vincent Bugliosi's arrogant claim that he would have won with no trouble aside), but the prosecution definitely could have done a better job.

Do you think Michael Moore will take the bait? There's a barf-fest for ya...

M. Scott

I do agree with some of your points. Somehow I've always figured the Darden thing "off the cuff" (and he should have been summarily removed from the case then).

However, Ito let in stuff and totally lost control of his courtroom. The "Columbian necktie?" Drug Dealers gone wild? Even the Mark Furhman talked dirty to a screenwriter stuff should never been allowed! The defense teams mugging for the jury should have brought immediate cease and desist orders from the bench.

It's tragic, but I've seen a judge at my courthouse that's almost as bad. They so don't want to be reversed on appeal they will bend over backwards for defense lawyers to engage in the most egregious courtroom behavior while tieing the hands of the prosecution.

Yes, I agree about the change of venue, but the memory of the Simi Valley acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney King case caused Garcetti to make a political decision to move it downtown. Polling of the jurors after the decision, and their vicious statements goes to show how bad that single decision was. One could have had a videotape of OJ slitting Nicole's throat and they would have acquitted him, because Nicole, the white b*tch who had the nerve to marry a black man deserved it.

The continuing tragedy in this is Nicole's children. IMHO (and something I said at the time of the acquittal) that Sydney and/or Justin will either destroy themselves or kill OJ at some time. What a huge psychological burden they must be bearing.

"... I watched practically the entire trial. Had I been on the jury I would not have budged from a guilty verdict. Regardless of the 'technical blunders' of the prosecution, the man was guilty."

Sadly, it's your duty to start on the "not guilty" verdict and be moved from that by the prosecution's case. You seem to have it backwards, starting at "guilty" and wanting a proof of innocence.

I paid entirely too much attention to the trial, or rather to the prosecution's case; I can see how OJ was charged, but there wasn't enough there for a conviction, imao, at the end of the prosecution case, and that ended the case for me. That doesn't mean that he didn't do it, just that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this country, juries are not allowed to return verdicts of "innocent" (implying that the accused should not have been charged at all) or "not proven" (the latter perhaps being appropriate in this case, having a flavor of "we're sure that you did it, but they didn't prove it, so you get away".)

Reminds me of the last actually amusing "Doonesbury" (after the criminal trial and while the lawsuit by the victims' families is in trial):

OJ is searching for the "real killers", going door to door and knocks on a random house. Went something like this:

OJ: Have you seen the real killers?

Man: No

OJ: Well, I'm also looking for donations to finance the search and my legal bills

Man: Have you tried Nicole's parents? I hear they're coming into some money soon.

htom

Whatever personal opinion you concluded from watching the trial from the gallery position rather than the jury position, I hope you realize that this jury did not deliberate as they were duty bound to do. Good Lord, they didn't even take the time to read the jury instructions and verdict forms!

IMHO, the forensic evidence was conclusive. Add to that OJ's history with Nicole, plus motive and opportunity and there is no reasonable doubt of his guilt.

The ugly truth about murder is it is rarely "stranger" murder.

A world without murdering thugs.

Better murder the thugs, they're getting in the way of your vision.

"unfriendly"

Usually the Bushiephobes trolling at least make an attempt to appear coherent.

Glad you're not in the US bringing down the average IQ.

Based on his track record with paying for access to bloody-handed murderers lying about their evil deeds, CNN's Eason Jordan has probably already gotten his checkbook out for the exclusive.

Or does OJ want a briefcase full of cash?

Sure he's guilty of the crime, but the prosecution really screwed up. The tape where Furman said "nigger" wasn't heard by the jury, but the jury did get to know that the man was a liar (perjury is a big deal, especially when it's a cop). That killed the case, since one liar (who handled much of the evidence) destroyed all the credibility for the prosecution. And yes, the story of what was found where and when was fishy. Not necessarily wrong, but coming from a liar, it was fishy. Reasonable doubt? Only because he's a liar.

I think they tried to frame a guilty man. It's counterintuitive to think a DA's office would work that way, but that's the way I see it. I don't trust the police or prosecutors. I've seen too much to do so. I am glad they do what they do, but I'll be damned if I will trust them without some serious evidence.

And no, I don't get picked for juries.

Jon

What have you been sniffing? Any brain cells left?

And I don't give a good god damn if you don't trust the police or the DA...they'll still end up saving your sorry ass when you become a victim. It's just the way we've dedicated ourselves to our jobs.

How can they save you when you are a victim? They've already let you down once. Explain to me how the best investigative and forensic team in the world could have saved Nicole? They couldn't she was already dead so it doesn't matter.

morph

Didn't you just contradict yourself? Yes, the cops and the DA are not Carnack the Magnificent, so they can't show up before you're victimized, but they can

--do gang abatement
--vigorously prosecute spousal abuse, child abuse, fraud, etc...keeping others from being victimized
--offer victim/witness advocate services that help one through the court process and provide, if necessary, shelter and transportation, and help in recovering losses
--work to keep dangerous people in jail or hospitals

If the cops err'd in OJ's case, it wasn't that they "framed" or had something against him, but that they had always been dazzled by his celebrity status and gave him way too much leeway and deference. They were more than willing to not arrest and prosecute him for spousal abuse; no wonder Nicole secreted away pictures of that abuse. Yes, in someways the cops/DA let Nicole down, in not intervening much earlier; and Judge Ito let her and Ron Goldman down in not taking his reponsibilities seriously enough.

Darleen, I seem to have hit a nerve with you (probably professional, sorry). All I am saying is that the police and prosecutors are not magically endowed with morals and standards above the common man. There is corruption, there is evil, and there is the much more common thing known as fudging the facts to fit into a predetermined opinion. In OJ's case, I saw some fudging. That's all. And what happened is the defense was able to use that fudging to make a not-guilty verdict.

Not all cops and DA's are afflicted with bad behavior, but some are. Tell me Jasper, Texas' drug investigations were good police and prosecutorial work, and I'll tell you to stop sniffing substances. Tell me that no one has gone to death row and then gone off it following the amazing discovery of some evidence the prosecution had all along that the murderer wasn't the murderer (and show me an instance where an apology was given for such an instance). Tell me that the police always behave as they should.

The people who want to be policemen are often similar to those who want to join the military. I don't have to tell you that there are some absolutely corrupt people in both institutions, do I? Luckily, in both instances, they are a very small minority. But somehow, their asses are covered by systems that pretend that they aren't as big a problem as they actually are.