Has anyone read If I Did It?

[Canadian Cutie]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here has read the book and could give a mini book report.Also,I am wondering why the book is sold sealed?

[martin II]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here has read the book and could give a mini book report.Also,I am wondering why the book is sold sealed?

it is my opinion that the book is not that interesting as all but one chaptrer is a story of oj's and nicoles 17 year relationship.Most or some of this was testified to in the trials.
I think the book is sold sealed because the publisher did not want people looking, before purchase, for the 'MURDER' details in chapter 6 and finding NONE.
imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

it is my opinion that the book is not that interesting as all but one chaptrer is a story of oj's and nicoles 17 year relationship.Most or some of this was testified to in the trials.
I think the book is sold sealed because the publisher did not want people looking, before purchase, for the 'MURDER' details in chapter 6 and finding NONE.
imo
martin II

martin, didn't you post that the book was free on the web? maybe you can direct the poster to that free site and she won't have to wait. Greta Van Susteran (sp) said on her show last night that she found the book fascinating and recommended it.

I'm also waiting on my copy.

[fbgweezer]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here has read the book and could give a mini book report.Also,I am wondering why the book is sold sealed?

Here's a link to Vanity Fair's review -- interesting reading. what it doesn't have are the pages written by the Goldmans in the just released book.

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/01/ojsimpson200701?currentPage=1

[martin II]

martin, didn't you post that the book was free on the web? maybe you can direct the poster to that free site and she won't have to wait. Greta Van Susteran (sp) said on her show last night that she found the book fascinating and recommended it.

I'm also waiting on my copy.

weezer
the poster did not ask for any free copy of the book so why would you think it would be a good idea to offer it to her/him? Obviously Oprah and Gretta has different opinions of the book.
I found nothing fascinating about the book. Some may find oj's rendition of the 17 years with nicole interesting as i did but not fascinating.
What i know is there is no detail account of how the murders took place in what is supposed to be the hypothetical murder chapter which may be why the published put the book under plastic seal.
the other thing i believe is fred got beat when he was only left with .17.
imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*". . .the other thing i believe is fred got beat when he was only left with .17.

Mr. Goldman didn't act like he 'got beat' on the book deal; in fact, he seemed quite pleased.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped* ". . .Obviously Oprah and Gretta has different opinions of the book.

the poster asked about a review and since Greta has read the book and Oprah hasn't. . . :shrug:

[fbgweezer]

Snipped* ". . .I found nothing fascinating about the book. Some may find oj's rendition of the 17 years with nicole interesting as i did but not fascinating.

so you've read the whole book? riiiiiight

[martin II]

martin, didn't you post that the book was free on the web? maybe you can direct the poster to that free site and she won't have to wait. Greta Van Susteran (sp) said on her show last night that she found the book fascinating and recommended it.

I'm also waiting on my copy.

anyone looking for a FREE copy of OJ's book can find it on line . it is not difficult to find at all.
martin II

[martin II]

so you've read the whole book? riiiiiight

i read the book by oj simpson
i have not read the book by fred and his daughter.
martin II

[martin II]

the poster asked about a review and since Greta has read the book and Oprah hasn't. . . :shrug:

oprah said her people read the book. But she made it clear to fred and everyone that she thought the book was *&^%^&^* and wouild not read it.
martin II

[martin II]

Mr. Goldman didn't act like he 'got beat' on the book deal; in fact, he seemed quite pleased.

what can he say? nothing. he has to take the hand they gave him as he was not in charge. The lawyers, agent and the publisher were.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

oprah said her people read the book. But she made it clear to fred and everyone that she thought the book was *&^%^&^* and wouild not read it.
martin II

I don't know about anyone else but I usually want to hear the opinion of someone who has actually been there, done that.

[fbgweezer]

what can he say? nothing. he has to take the hand they gave him as he was not in charge. The lawyers, agent and the publisher were.
martin II

so you believe he didn't have any input into how it went down? LOL

[martin II]

the book is retailing for $14.00 to $17.00 if you or fred believes that him getting only .17 a book was a fair deal then he may need to talk to some other authors and ask them what a normal fair split should have been for him.imo
martin II

[martin II]

so you believe he didn't have any input into how it went down? LOL

to end up with .17 per book NO
The IRS may take half of that as Oprah told him. I believe Oprah has some
experience in selling books and she told fred .17 PER BOOK FOR HIM WAS A BAD BOOK DEAL.

martin II

[martin II]

I don't know about anyone else but I usually want to hear the opinion of someone who has actually been there, done that.

maby that would be you
martinII

[tvdinner]

to end up with .17 per book NO
The IRS may take half of that as Oprah told him. I believe Oprah has some
experience in selling books and she told fred .17 PER BOOK FOR HIM WAS A BAD BOOK DEAL.

martin IIThat's Oprah's opinion. She can't speak for Fred Goldman. If the book deal satisfies him then it's not a bad book deal. Not everything is about money.

[martin II]

That's Oprah's opinion. She can't speak for Fred Goldman. If the book deal satisfies him then it's not a bad book deal. Not everything is about money.

tv

I think it was Oprah's expert opinion that .17 was a bad deal for fred. For fred this book deal was about money. The irs will reduce his take to less than .17. I don't think she as speaking for fred. Just surprised that he got such a little amount.

imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

tv

I think it was Oprah's expert opinion that .17 was a bad deal for fred. For fred this book deal was about money. The irs will reduce his take to less than .17. I don't think she as speaking for fred. Just surprised that he got such a little amount.

imo
martin II

just makes the judgement loom larger and longer. . . .

[Athena]

to end up with .17 per book NO
The IRS may take half of that as Oprah told him. I believe Oprah has some
experience in selling books and she told fred .17 PER BOOK FOR HIM WAS A BAD BOOK DEAL.

martin II

I don't recall Oprah saying it was a bad book deal. OJ Simpson was also advanced $630,000 which has to be covered since the book was stopped from being published. I know she did say she had a moral dilemma about it being released but did say she respected their reasons. Denise Brown also did not want to have it released and does not want any of the money that she considers "blood money".

Apparently Nicole is depicted in the book in poor taste and both Oprah and Denise had "moral" issues with it. Goldman claims that it will benefit battered women but Denise says anyone that knows a battered woman would know they would not learn anything from this book.

"Fred and Kim say that publishing the book and taking 90 percent of the profits—which will amount to 17 cents per book—is a form of restitution. "We have a judgment, the only form of justice that we were able to attain through the civil court," Fred says. "And that piece of paper is meaningless unless we pursue that judgment. We took away the opportunity from him to earn additional money, and that money is the only form of justice.""

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200709/20070913/slide_20070913_284_102.jhtml

"The less people that read this garbage, the better our society will be. I think people in our society and what we watch on TV and the things that people portray, there's so much negative out there. And I truly believe that this book is a negative."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200709/20070913/slide_20070913_284_106.jhtml

"Oprah says she also has felt a moral dilemma about If I Did It. "I had given my word to you two that I would do the show with Denise [Brown]. And then when Denise backed out, I felt that you had kept your word and so that I should keep my word," Oprah says to Fred and Kim. "But it's a moral dilemma for me because I would not have agreed to have done it had the two families not agreed to come on to discuss and debate it. … I am not pretending that this forum, this television show, doesn't sell books. That's what we do, you know? I promote people's books. I don't want to be in the position to promote this book because I, too, think it's despicable. And I feel that we live in a country where people have the right to do whatever they want. I'm not for censorship in any way. I'm all for it being published, but I personally wouldn't want to be in a position to encourage people to buy this book."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200709/20070913/slide_20070913_284_104.jhtml

[fbgweezer]

There was a post that showed the original judgement and also the petition by the Browns to be included in the Goldman suit on the book deal. Am I reading it wrong or does the original just have the Estate of Nicole but the book deal suit has the Estate and the Browns?

[martin II]

I don't recall Oprah saying it was a bad book deal. OJ Simpson was also advanced $630,000 which has to be covered since the book was stopped from being published. I know she did say she had a moral dilemma about it being released but did say she respected their reasons. Denise Brown also did not want to have it released and does not want any of the money that she considers "blood money".

Apparently Nicole is depicted in the book in poor taste and both Oprah and Denise had "moral" issues with it. Goldman claims that it will benefit battered women but Denise says anyone that knows a battered woman would know they would not learn anything from this book.

"Fred and Kim say that publishing the book and taking 90 percent of the profits—which will amount to 17 cents per book—is a form of restitution. "We have a judgment, the only form of justice that we were able to attain through the civil court," Fred says. "And that piece of paper is meaningless unless we pursue that judgment. We took away the opportunity from him to earn additional money, and that money is the only form of justice.""

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200709/20070913/slide_20070913_284_102.jhtml

"The less people that read this garbage, the better our society will be. I think people in our society and what we watch on TV and the things that people portray, there's so much negative out there. And I truly believe that this book is a negative."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200709/20070913/slide_20070913_284_106.jhtml

"Oprah says she also has felt a moral dilemma about If I Did It. "I had given my word to you two that I would do the show with Denise [Brown]. And then when Denise backed out, I felt that you had kept your word and so that I should keep my word," Oprah says to Fred and Kim. "But it's a moral dilemma for me because I would not have agreed to have done it had the two families not agreed to come on to discuss and debate it. … I am not pretending that this forum, this television show, doesn't sell books. That's what we do, you know? I promote people's books. I don't want to be in the position to promote this book because I, too, think it's despicable. And I feel that we live in a country where people have the right to do whatever they want. I'm not for censorship in any way. I'm all for it being published, but I personally wouldn't want to be in a position to encourage people to buy this book."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200709/20070913/slide_20070913_284_104.jhtml


Oprah mentioned that fred was only getting .17 and i remember her saying that is a BAD BOOK DEAL.She went on to say that the IRS will want money and there will be little left after that.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

"One thing mentioned on Winfrey’s show — that the Goldmans would see only 17 cents per book from sales. Winfrey was skeptical and asked what kind of book deal they had gotten.

In fact, sources tell me that if the Goldmans have figured out their profits to 17 cents, it’s because over 13 years they’ve accrued mounting legal fees and debts for which they were not prepared.

“Fred Goldman was never rich,” says the source. “He works for Nordstrom.”

Winfrey, on the other hand, accepted at face value many of Denise Brown’s ridiculous statements. She didn’t ask her where all the money has gone from the charity that was set up in her sister’s name. She also didn’t bat an eyelash when Denise described Nicole as a good mother because she let her kids mess up her brand new Ferrari."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html

[Athena]

There was a post that showed the original judgement and also the petition by the Browns to be included in the Goldman suit on the book deal. Am I reading it wrong or does the original just have the Estate of Nicole but the book deal suit has the Estate and the Browns?

I have not read what you are referring to. On this board?

I do know they both were involved in suing to stop the publication of the book originally, but as far as I know this suit was just brought by the Goldmans to have it published and the Browns refused. I'd like to read it if you know where I can find it.

This is a recent MSNBC article that says it was only the Goldmans bringing the lawsuit and agrees with what Denise said on Oprah as well:

The Goldmans' decision to publish the book has caused a rift between them and the family of Nicole Brown Simpson.

In August, Denise Brown, Nicole’s sister, appeared on TODAY to talk about the rift and to urge people to boycott the book.

From the time of the murders 13 years ago, she said the Browns and the Goldmans had presented a united front. But when the Goldmans decided to publish the book themselves, she felt outraged and betrayed.

“It’s the Goldmans who have changed their tune,” Brown had said. “It’s all about money. How much money is it going to take to make you guys happy? It’s not going to bring Nicole back.”

“It’s very sad,” Fred Goldman said of the rift in his and Kim’s relationship with Brown.

“Our focus for 13 years has been against the killer. Our focus for the past 11 years has been pursuing the killer for some measure of justice. I wish Denise’s anger could be focused on the man who butchered her sister and murdered Ron,” Fred Goldman said. “He wrote this book. He created this.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20773910/

[fbgweezer]

I have not read what you are referring to. On this board?

I do know they both were involved in suing to stop the publication of the book originally, but as far as I know this suit was just brought by the Goldmans to have it published and the Browns refused. I'd like to read it if you know where I can find it.

I'm looking -- it was posted in just the last few days but dadgumit, I can't remember who the poster was. :(

[Athena]

Oprah mentioned that fred was only getting .17 and i remember her saying that is a BAD BOOK DEAL.She went on to say that the IRS will want money and there will be little left after that.
martin II

OK -- I could have missed it. I tend to listen to this stuff with 1/2 ear and what you say makes sense. :)

[martin II]

I have not read what you are referring to. On this board?

I do know they both were involved in suing to stop the publication of the book originally, but as far as I know this suit was just brought by the Goldmans to have it published and the Browns refused. I'd like to read it if you know where I can find it.

Denise has tried to make it clear that the Brown family is not involved in the book deal. That it is nicoles estate that in listed in the bankruptcy case.

She stated this again on Oprah
martin II

[martin II]

There was a post that showed the original judgement and also the petition by the Browns to be included in the Goldman suit on the book deal. Am I reading it wrong or does the original just have the Estate of Nicole but the book deal suit has the Estate and the Browns?

in some media reports the estate of nicole is referred to as the Browns since the Brown family is so well own. i believe court doccuments would be a better referance.
martin II

[Athena]

Denise has tried to make it clear that the Brown family is not involved in the book deal. That it is nicoles estate that in listed in the bankruptcy case.

She stated this again on Oprah
martin II

Oh OK. In that case though it would be just the kids then, correct? Sydney and Justin?

[martin II]

OK -- I could have missed it. I tend to listen to this stuff with 1/2 ear and what you say makes sense. :)

Hi Athena
Good to see you posting here. Last time we posted togeatrher was, i believe on the mississippi kkk issue.
martin II

[martin II]

Oh OK. In that case though it would be just the kids then, correct? Sydney and Justin?

That is my understanding as she has said that Mr Brown, the executor of nicoles estate had a responsibility to go after money for the kids after it was known that Goldman was going to publish the book. But the Brown family does not want anything and will not get anything from the book.imo
martin II

[Athena]

Martin -- I do remember that case -- my goodness that WAS a while ago. :)
I don't usually post on the OJ thread. I do read there occasionally. Because of the book and his latest "suspect" status in Las Vegas, I just kind of popped in. :)

Here's the complaint from The Smoking Gun and it appears it was just the Goldmans who sued unless there's a separate case for Nicole's estate which I could not find?

DECEMBER 19--The father of Ron Goldman today sued O.J. Simpson, claiming that the disgraced athlete fraudulently profited from "If I Did It," the canceled book that reportedly contained Simpson's fictionalized account of how he could have killed Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html

[martin II]

"One thing mentioned on Winfrey’s show — that the Goldmans would see only 17 cents per book from sales. Winfrey was skeptical and asked what kind of book deal they had gotten.

In fact, sources tell me that if the Goldmans have figured out their profits to 17 cents, it’s because over 13 years they’ve accrued mounting legal fees and debts for which they were not prepared.

“Fred Goldman was never rich,” says the source. “He works for Nordstrom.”

Winfrey, on the other hand, accepted at face value many of Denise Brown’s ridiculous statements. She didn’t ask her where all the money has gone from the charity that was set up in her sister’s name. She also didn’t bat an eyelash when Denise described Nicole as a good mother because she let her kids mess up her brand new Ferrari."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html

It could not have been a surprised to fred what his legal bills were from all the lawyers he has hired over the years. What may have been a surprise is that they were not working pro bono and would want to be paid when this first real money would be available. The other issue was there was some problem getting a first line publishing house to agree to publish the book and he setteled on a smaller one that did agree.So his cost may have been high as he is the one that fronted the money.

Denise had some problem with the nicole foundatrion initially but it is my opinion that the organization has good accountability now.

I thought the interview with Denise went well and i see no reason to attack Oprah for it.:no:

martin II

[tvdinner]

It could not have been a surprised to fred what his legal bills were from all the lawyers he has hired over the years. What may have been a surprise is that they were not working pro bono and would want to be paid when this first real money would be available. The other issue was there was some problem getting a first line publishing house to agree to publish the book and he setteled on a smaller one that did agree.So his cost may have been high as he is the one that fronted the money.

Denise had some problem with the nicole foundatrion initially but it is my opinion that the organization has good accountability now.

I thought the interview with Denise went well and i see no reason to attack Oprah for it.:no:

martin IIWas it attacking Oprah the other day when you said she would only ask the Goldmans softball questions? :no:

[fbgweezer]

Martin -- I do remember that case -- my goodness that WAS a while ago. :)
I don't usually post on the OJ thread. I do read there occasionally. Because of the book and his latest "suspect" status in Las Vegas, I just kind of popped in. :)

Here's the complaint from The Smoking Gun and it appears it was just the Goldmans who sued unless there's a separate case for Nicole's estate which I could not find?

DECEMBER 19--The father of Ron Goldman today sued O.J. Simpson, claiming that the disgraced athlete fraudulently profited from "If I Did It," the canceled book that reportedly contained Simpson's fictionalized account of how he could have killed Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html

it's the suit/petition (?) filed for the Estate to be included in the book deal. I'm still looking.

[martin II]

Martin -- I do remember that case -- my goodness that WAS a while ago. :)
I don't usually post on the OJ thread. I do read there occasionally. Because of the book and his latest "suspect" status in Las Vegas, I just kind of popped in. :)

Here's the complaint from The Smoking Gun and it appears it was just the Goldmans who sued unless there's a separate case for Nicole's estate which I could not find?

DECEMBER 19--The father of Ron Goldman today sued O.J. Simpson, claiming that the disgraced athlete fraudulently profited from "If I Did It," the canceled book that reportedly contained Simpson's fictionalized account of how he could have killed Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html

Your link is correct. It is my understanding that the estate made a request to the judge in the ca action filed by fred to give the estate 40% of all money comming from what was then a planned aution of the rights. the judge rejected the estates request.

Lbs filed banrkuptcy in florida and the auction was cancelled and the action moved to Florida.

martin II

[martin II]

Was it attacking Oprah the other day when you said she would only ask the Goldmans softball questions? :no:

no and that is what she did. My point is there was no reason for Oprah to dig into Denises past problems with the nicole foundation as it had nothing to do with the issues being disscussed on the program about the book.Therefore it is unfair to critize Oprah for not doing so.imo
martin II

[tvdinner]

no and that is what she did. My point is there was no reason for Oprah to dig into Denises past problems with the nicole foundation as it had nothing to do with the issues being disscussed on the program about the book.Therefore it is unfair to critize Oprah for not doing so.imo
martin IIBaloney, martin. It's okay for you to criticize the way Oprah conducts an interview but not anyone else. You wanted her to ask Fred and Kim Goldman hard questions but you're okay with the fact that she didn't do that with Denise Brown. Once again, you're trying to have it both ways.

[socaldiva]

Baloney, martin. It's okay for you to criticize the way Oprah conducts an interview but not anyone else. You wanted her to ask Fred and Kim Goldman hard questions but you're okay with the fact that she didn't do that with Denise Brown. Once again, you're trying to have it both ways.

I guess Martin watched a different version of Oprah than I did. The one I saw asked the very "hard ball" question Martin mentioned he wished she would ask before he viewed the show, yet after he watched it, he is still characterizing the show as her asking soft ball questions. Oprah had no reason to pamper the Goldmans & she didn't.

[tvdinner]

I guess Martin watched a different version of Oprah than I did. The one I saw asked the very "hard ball" question Martin mentioned he wished she would ask before he viewed the show, yet after he watched it, he is still characterizing the show as her asking soft ball questions. Oprah had no reason to pamper the Goldmans & she didn't.jAs I said before, I didn't see the whole show but did see some excerpts. I think she did a good job with the Goldmans from what I saw. She was up front with them about what she thought about the book.

[socaldiva]

jAs I said before, I didn't see the whole show but did see some excerpts. I think she did a good job with the Goldmans from what I saw. She was up front with them about what she thought about the book.

Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post. I'm behind :o I watched the whole show & just as you do, I think she was up front with what she thought & didn't hesitate to ask them uncomfortable questions.

[martin II]

Baloney, martin. It's okay for you to criticize the way Oprah conducts an interview but not anyone else. You wanted her to ask Fred and Kim Goldman hard questions but you're okay with the fact that she didn't do that with Denise Brown. Once again, you're trying to have it both ways.

TV
I have not criticized Oprah for the way she questioned Fred or Denise.
I thought that she would give BOTH soft questIons and that is what she did.I did not expect her to dig into either of them as it was not that kind of program.
Fred and his daughter are the central people in this issue.He and his daughter
had the rights to the book and they are the ones that are selling the book so it stands that they would be questioned in more detail than Denise.

As it turned out they were the ones that had more to say about the book
than Denise as she was focused mostly on the issue that the book should not be sold.

The program was about the book and Oprah confined her questions to that issue.The past issues of the Nicole foundation had nothing to do with the issues of the program.
Any attack on Oprah for not ripping into Denise about the Nicole foundation is not warranted and just plain silly.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I have not criticized Oprah for the way she questioned Fred or Denise.
I thought that she would give BOTH soft questIons and that is what she did.

She asked the "hard ball" question you claimed she wouldn't. Just what other "hard ball" questions do you think were lacking from the interview?

[martin II]

jAs I said before, I didn't see the whole show but did see some excerpts. I think she did a good job with the Goldmans from what I saw. She was up front with them about what she thought about the book.

Believe me if her intent was to expose fred she could have. she asked a few questions of both and allowed them to do themselves in or not.

She did however make her opinion known that the .17 was a bad book deal
and the audiance responded.
martin II

[tvdinner]

Believe me if her intent was to expose fred she could have. she asked a few questions of both and allowed them to do themselves in or not.

She did however make her opinion known that the .17 was a bad book deal
and the audiance responded.
martin IIExpose Fred in what way?

[martin II]

Expose Fred in what way?

Oprah could have easily asked fred more detailed questions about his actions/comments on this book since HC first announced it until now. but it was not that kind of show so she didn't.

which is why i assume she did not speak about Denise and nicloles foundation
or what ever the poster here though should have been said about some potato chips in a car.
imo
martin II

[tvdinner]

Oprah could have easily asked fred more detailed questions about his actions/comments on this book since HC first announced it until now. but it was not that kind of show so she didn't.

which is why i assume she did not speak about Denise and nicloles foundation
or what ever the poster here though should have been said about some potato chips in a car.
imo
martin III'm wondering why you used the word 'exposed' as if Fred Goldman has been involved in some wrong-doing that needs to be brought to light.

[martin II]

I'm wondering why you used the word 'exposed' as if Fred Goldman has been involved in some wrong-doing that needs to be brought to light.

tv
i think that fred has tried to construct some kind of reason/excuse to combat the attack denise and others have launched against him for his flip flop on the book and the money issue. Not all believe his excuses.
I think that Oprah left it to the audiance to decide if his comments/reason made sense to them and did not make it a issue.But she did ask him if the money would bring him peace.Not sure if i remember what his response was.
imo
martin II

[tvdinner]

tv
i think that fred has tried to construct some kind of reason/excuse to combat the attack denise and others have launched against him for his flip flop on the book and the money issue. Not all believe his excuses.
I think that Oprah left it to the audiance to decide if his comments/reason made sense to them and did not make it a issue.But she did ask him if the money would bring him peace.Not sure if i remember what his response was.
imo
martin IIYou say flip-flopped, I say changed his mind. Either way, I don't think Fred Goldman has done anything dishonorable that needs to be exposed.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
She did however make her opinion known that the .17 was a bad book deal
and the audiance responded.
martin II

I think you need to watch it again, I believe Oprah was repeating someone else's remark, not her own.

[socaldiva]

tv
i think that fred has tried to construct some kind of reason/excuse to combat the attack denise and others have launched against him for his flip flop on the book and the money issue. Not all believe his excuses.
I think that Oprah left it to the audiance to decide if his comments/reason made sense to them and did not make it a issue.But she did ask him if the money would bring him peace.Not sure if i remember what his response was.
imo
martin II

"Some kind of reason/excuse"? I guess that means that you either didn't listen to what he said, or you didn't understand what he said.

[Heyes]

oprah said her people read the book. But she made it clear to fred and everyone that she thought the book was *&^%^&^* and wouild not read it.
martin II
The very same oprah that wondered why, when in her opinion that most everyone else had gone on with their lives after thirteen years , wouldn't this book give the Goldmans peace? What an ignorant thing to say! Like the Goldmans will ever have peace after Ron was slaughtered and the killer walked free. :rolleyes: I was actually appalled at oprahs insult. I had always thought she had more class and smarts than her comment revealed.

[socaldiva]

The very same oprah that wondered why, when in her opinion that most everyone else had gone on with their lives after thirteen years , wouldn't this book give the Goldmans peace? What an ignorant thing to say! Like the Goldmans will ever have peace after Ron was slaughtered and the killer walked free. :rolleyes: I was actually appalled at oprahs insult. I had always thought she had more class and smarts than her comment revealed.

Since Martin seems to be real attentive to Oprah words, I wonder what he thinks about her saying she believes Orenthal to be the murderer? Also, I wonder if Martin understands that it's Orenthal that created the garbage of a book, not Fred.

[fbgweezer]

Since Martin seems to be real attentive to Oprah words, I wonder what he thinks about her saying she believes Orenthal to be the murderer? Also, I wonder if Martin understands that it's Orenthal that created the garbage of a book, not Fred.

great point!

[Canadian Cutie]

weezer
the poster did not ask for any free copy of the book so why would you think it would be a good idea to offer it to her/him? Obviously Oprah and Gretta has different opinions of the book.
I found nothing fascinating about the book. Some may find oj's rendition of the 17 years with nicole interesting as i did but not fascinating.
What i know is there is no detail account of how the murders took place in what is supposed to be the hypothetical murder chapter which may be why the published put the book under plastic seal.
the other thing i believe is fred got beat when he was only left with .17.
imo
martin II

I did go and look for the free copy of the book on the web and found the website but they have removed it per the request of Fred Goldman.
I am really anxious to read this book and was hoping to have it by the time I go back into the hospital but it is sold out everywhere:mad:

[socaldiva]

great point!

Thanks. Martin also seems to be support Denise Brown. Is he also forgetting the Denise fully believes Orenthal to be a double murderer? It sounds like Martin is picking & choosing only very certain things Oprah & Denise have to say. I'd say the issue of him being a killer is a mighty big one. lol.

[socaldiva]

I did go and look for the free copy of the book on the web and found the website but they have removed it per the request of Fred Goldman.
I am really anxious to read this book and was hoping to have it by the time I go back into the hospital but it is sold out everywhere:mad:

I've tried to buy it also & it's sold out. Bad news for us, but good news for Fred & Kim :D

[martin II]

You say flip-flopped, I say changed his mind. Either way, I don't think Fred Goldman has done anything dishonorable that needs to be exposed.

tv
i am not sure i dissagree with 'CHANGE OF MIND' my point is that imo it was the idea of the possiobility of free money comming to him is what motivated tha change of mind.iomo
martin II

[socaldiva]

tv
i am not sure i dissagree with 'CHANGE OF MIND' my point is that imo it was the idea of the possiobility of free money comming to him is what motivated tha change of mind.iomo
martin II

Yesterday you were quoting Oprah. Did you not hear her say she didn't think it was about money? Did you not hear Fred say that he would have much rather had a guilty verdict in the criminal trial, rather than a civil judgement?

[sassylassy]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here has read the book and could give a mini book report.Also,I am wondering why the book is sold sealed?

umm I didnt know they sold the book sealed, has anyone confirmed if there are pictures inside?

I read the book on line & I wasnt to impressed, there was nothing printed that we already heard, except of course the chapter of the murders that was written by the ghost writter.

sassy

[martin II]

umm I didnt know they sold the book sealed, has anyone confirmed if there are pictures inside?

I read the book on line & I wasnt to impressed, there was nothing printed that we already heard, except of course the chapter of the murders that was written by the ghost writter.

sassy

i wonder what the laws in Nevada are about a person making a secrete tape of others without their knowkledge.
In some states it is illegal.
anyone know?

martin II

[fbgweezer]

i wonder what the laws in Nevada are about a person making a secrete tape of others without their knowkledge.
In some states it is illegal.
anyone know?

martin II

LOL -- IIRC, in Texas only one of the parties has to know.

[martin II]

LOL -- IIRC, in Texas only one of the parties has to know.

well the person doing the taping always knows. so who is the one of the parties that has to know in texas
martin II

[martin II]

LOL -- IIRC, in Texas only one of the parties has to know.

i posted the law in nevada on another thread, i think it is illegal there
martin II

[fbgweezer]

i posted the law in nevada on another thread, i think it is illegal there
martin II

I read the link -- thank you for posting it. I thought it was very clear as it pertained to telephone conversations but not so clear as to face-to-face conversations. imo

[martin II]

I read the link -- thank you for posting it. I thought it was very clear as it pertained to telephone conversations but not so clear as to face-to-face conversations. imo

Nevada LAW ON TAPING CONVERSATIONS

maby you missed this part."although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations"
Look at what it says about Nevada specifically and lwet me know what you think.

martin II


Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

[fbgweezer]

Nevada LAW ON TAPING CONVERSATIONS

maby you missed this part."although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations"
Look at what it says about Nevada specifically and lwet me know what you think.

martin II


Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

wonder if anyone else can interpret for us? does the Nevada consent statute include face-to-face conversations or is is confined to electronic/telephone?

[fbgweezer]

Taping constitutes þinterception' of call, court finds
01/11/99


NEVADA--In early December, a divided state Supreme Court in Carson City held that Nevada's wiretapping statute requires that an individual obtain the consent of all parties before taping a telephone conversation. The controversy in the 3-2 ruling turned on whether individuals who tape their own telephone calls are "intercepting" those calls.

Two high court justices joined Justice Bill Maupin in concluding that the language and the history of the statute expressed a clear legislative intent to outlaw the recording of a telephone conversation when only one participant has consented.

Justices Robert Rose and Charles Springer dissented. Each wrote separately to voice differing opinions on the meaning of the law. Springer asserted that because the statute outlaws the "interception" and recording of certain conversations, illegal wiretapping involves a third party's intrusion into a communication. A person cannot illegally tape a conversation to which he is a party, and the court's decision that such taping is an "interception" creates an "absurd result," Springer argued.

The controversy over the meaning of the wiretapping law -- which provides both civil and criminal penalties for illegal recording of conversations -- arose in a case involving a former insurance company employee who sued the company over employment-related contract claims. The employee, Randy Lane, had offered tape recordings of more than 700 telephone conversations between himself and other persons in support of his claims.

A trial court in Reno concluded that the law required all-party consent for telephone conversation taping, thus making Lane's tape recordings inadmissible as evidence. The court dismissed Lane's claim against his former employer.

The majority reasoned that the absence of explicit wording in the statute allowing one-party consent, which appears in a separate Nevada statute covering the recording of in-person conversations as well as in the federal wiretapping statute that served as the model for Nevada's wiretapping law, showed the legislature intended to require all parties to consent to telephone conversation tapings.

Springer, however, argued that "only a third person can intercept a communication, just as only a third person can intercept an attempted forward pass between a passer and a receiver. Where there are only two persons, there cannot be an interception no matter how hard we try to stretch the law and the facts."

"I cannot believe that the legislature intended a meaning of the word þintercept' that was entirely inconsistent with the word's dictionary meaning or that would produce the absurd result of making all telephone conversations illegal," Springer added.

Rose wrote separately to argue that "Nevada did indeed enact the single-party consent rule," but concluded that because the court could not agree on the meaning of the wiretapping statute, it had to be considered ambiguous. Rose determined that based on the definition of "person" that appears in the statute, the law should only apply to public officials and law enforcement personnel, not to private citizens like Lane. As a result, Rose found "Lane did not violate any law in recording telephone conversations to which he was a party."

The court allowed Lane's claim to proceed but ordered that all evidence obtained via the recordings be excluded at trial. (Lane v. Allstate)

http://www.rcfp.org/news/1999/0111b.html

[WarmNCozy]

I did go and look for the free copy of the book on the web and found the website but they have removed it per the request of Fred Goldman.
I am really anxious to read this book and was hoping to have it by the time I go back into the hospital but it is sold out everywhere:mad:

I finished reading it last night. It's a love story from OJ's point of view and their 17 year relationship. The hypothetical was very short and not the least bit enlightening. Actually the book was a quick read -- one night.

I would not spend the money on it.

[fbgweezer]

I finished reading it last night. It's a love story from OJ's point of view and their 17 year relationship. The hypothetical was very short and not the least bit enlightening. Actually the book was a quick read -- one night.

I would not spend the money on it.

LOL -- OMG -- a love story -- geez louise!!!!!! :eek:

[tvdinner]

I finished reading it last night. It's a love story from OJ's point of view and their 17 year relationship. The hypothetical was very short and not the least bit enlightening. Actually the book was a quick read -- one night.

I would not spend the money on it.As I recall, you were going to buy it until you decided you didn't want the money going to Fred Goldman. The murder chapter isn't enlightening because we already know Simpson killed Ron and Nicole.

[martin II]

As I recall, you were going to buy it until you decided you didn't want the money going to Fred Goldman. The murder chapter isn't enlightening because we already know Simpson killed Ron and Nicole.

I think many will buy the book looking for details in the murder chapter. They will find none. But the book is a account of their relationship for 17 years.

martin II

[martin II]

wonder if anyone else can interpret for us? does the Nevada consent statute include face-to-face conversations or is is confined to electronic/telephone?

this has been answered already.
martin II

[tvdinner]

I think many will buy the book looking for details in the murder chapter. They will find none. But the book is a account of their relationship for 17 years.

martin IINo one is interested in the relationship story. We all know it was a dysfunctional relationship with Nicole being abused and ultimately killed by Simpson. Not much of a love story.

[martin II]

No one is interested in the relationship story. We all know it was a dysfunctional relationship with Nicole being abused and ultimately killed by Simpson. Not much of a love story.

tv
I am not sure your statement is correct. People have read/heard various accounts about the contents of the book and are buying it for their own reasons. How would you know what these buyers reasons are?

imo
martin II

[martin II]

As I recall, you were going to buy it until you decided you didn't want the money going to Fred Goldman. The murder chapter isn't enlightening because we already know Simpson killed Ron and Nicole.

Everyone that read the book did not have to pay for it.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

I think the success of the book is due in very large part to folks finally having a viable avenue to express support for the families and distain for orenthal. imo

[fbgweezer]

this has been answered already.
martin II

yep -- no problem in using the tape.

[tvdinner]

tv
I am not sure your statement is correct. People have read/heard various accounts about the contents of the book and are buying it for their own reasons. How would you know what these buyers reasons are?

imo
martin III'm psychic...or maybe I realize that the relationship story is of no interest. Also, many people are buying the book to read the added commentary and to show support for the Goldman family.

[martin II]

yep -- no problem in using the tape.

it is illegal to tape conversations in Navada without the consent of all in the room.
i have already post a link to this.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

it is illegal to tape conversations in Navada without the consent of all in the room.
i have already post a link to this.

martin II

nope -- you are wrong

[martin II]

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.620: The Nevada wiretapping statute provides that it is a crime for anyone to "intercept" or disclose the contents of any wire communication, but that no illegal activity occurs when the interception is made "with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication" and "an emergency situation exists."

In December 1998, the state's highest court stated in a 3-2 decision that the wiretapping statutes require that an individual obtain the consent of all parties before taping a telephone conversation, and thus, that an individual who tapes his own telephone calls without the consent of all participants unlawfully "intercepts" those calls. Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).

In addition, it is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation." Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

Nevada statutory provisions also make it a crime to disclose the existence or contents of any wire or radio communication without permission from the sender or receiver. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.630. Violations of the statutes can be punished as felonies and carry civil liability for actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is greater. In civil cases, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees also can be recovered. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.690.


Published Winter 2003. © The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22209. (703) 807-2100

[fbgweezer]

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.620: The Nevada wiretapping statute provides that it is a crime for anyone to "intercept" or disclose the contents of any wire communication, but that no illegal activity occurs when the interception is made "with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication" and "an emergency situation exists."

In December 1998, the state's highest court stated in a 3-2 decision that the wiretapping statutes require that an individual obtain the consent of all parties before taping a telephone conversation, and thus, that an individual who tapes his own telephone calls without the consent of all participants unlawfully "intercepts" those calls. Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).

In addition, it is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation." Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

Nevada statutory provisions also make it a crime to disclose the existence or contents of any wire or radio communication without permission from the sender or receiver. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.630. Violations of the statutes can be punished as felonies and carry civil liability for actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is greater. In civil cases, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees also can be recovered. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.690.


Published Winter 2003. © The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22209. (703) 807-2100

riccio was a part of the conversation --

[martin II]

riccio was a part of the conversation --


I understand how you may come to that conclusion
That may be true your eyes but not the eyes of the law.
he was the recorder.

martin II

[martin II]

weezer
i know you would like to ignore this but believe me it will not go away.

(Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)


martin II

[socaldiva]

I'm psychic...or maybe I realize that the relationship story is of no interest. Also, many people are buying the book to read the added commentary and to show support for the Goldman family.

I agree that the relationship story is of no interest. IIRC, Orenthal covered that in his first book "I want to tell you". I didn't see people snatching that book off the shelves. :tongue:

[fbgweezer]

I agree that the relationship story is of no interest. IIRC, Orenthal covered that in his first book "I want to tell you". I didn't see people snatching that book off the shelves. :tongue:

who wants to read him bash the reputation of his victim?

[martin II]

who wants to read him bash the reputation of his victim?

I think oj decided in that book not to bash Nicole and he didn't imo
martin II

[martin II]

who wants to read him bash the reputation of his victim?

Have you ever thought that some people(book customers) would like to know more about that relationship especially since not much came out about nicole in the trials?

It may be difficult for some to belive that Nicole had no warts and no responsibility for the problems in the relationship.

martin II

[tvdinner]

Have you ever thought that some people(book customers) would like to know more about that relationship especially since not much came out about nicole in the trials?

It may be difficult for some to belive that Nicole had no warts and no responsibility for the problems in the relationship.

martin IINot much came out about Nicole in the trials? Quite a bit came out about Nicole, a lot of it negative. It might be hard for some people to believe she had a good side to her at all.

We don't have to wonder if Nicole had warts; her murdering ex-husband made it clear she had pimples.

[martin II]

Not much came out about Nicole in the trials? Quite a bit came out about Nicole, a lot of it negative. It might be hard for some people to believe she had a good side to her at all.

We don't have to wonder if Nicole had warts; her murdering ex-husband made it clear she had pimples.

I doubt the average american paid attention to the testimony as you did.
They just went with the media sound bites. Oh. she had warts alright.
She did a good job of manipulating oj for a while.

martin II

[tvdinner]

I doubt the average american paid attention to the testimony as you did.
They just went with the media sound bites. Oh. she had warts alright.
She did a good job of manipulating oj for a while.

martin IIWhat makes you think I paid more attention to it than the average american? I consider myself an average american.

How did she manipulate him? He must have liked all that manipulating because he kept wanting her back. I don't think she was the horrible person you make her out to be but even if she had been it didn't give him the right to kill her.

[WarmNCozy]

We all have good sides and bad! Some people have more/less conflicts in their personalities that make a compatible relationship possible!

Love is romantic, sexy, and a commitment to each other on an equal basis not part of romance! Love takes work!

Nicole was a waitress, young and pretty, but not accomplished, confident, a good baby maker, but obviously knew she was a "trophy wife" because of her looks! But so insecure, she got a "boob" job in her early thirties! And she saw a "gravy train" being involved with OJ! They dated and got engaged after 10 years, married for 7.

He had a life! She hopped on his, became famous because of being married to him, and that was that! She did not become her own person ever! Even though she hated living in OJ's shadow! The life style he provided was too tempting to leave!

You can't have it both ways! She wanted to be someone on her own and divorced OJ. And then, realized he was her rock and foundation! OJ moved on!

Sorry, but if she had not met and eventually married OJ, would she have just been a waitress and married a busboy?

[tvdinner]

We all have good sides and bad! Some people have more/less conflicts in their personalities that make a compatible relationship possible!

Love is romantic, sexy, and a commitment to each other on an equal basis not part of romance! Love takes work!

Nicole was a waitress, young and pretty, but not accomplished, confident, a good baby maker, but obviously knew she was a "trophy wife" because of her looks! But so insecure, she got a "boob" job in her early thirties! And she saw a "gravy train" being involved with OJ! They dated and got engaged after 10 years, married for 7.

He had a life! She hopped on his, became famous because of being married to him, and that was that! She did not become her own person ever! Even though she hated living in OJ's shadow! The life style he provided was too tempting to leave!

You can't have it both ways! She wanted to be someone on her own and divorced OJ. And then, realized he was her rock and foundation! OJ moved on!

Sorry, but if she had not met and eventually married OJ, would she have just been a waitress and married a busboy?There's nothing wrong with being "just" a waitress or a busboy. Both are honest ways to make a living. Ron Goldman was a waiter. Are we trashing the victims again?

[tvdinner]

We all have good sides and bad! Some people have more/less conflicts in their personalities that make a compatible relationship possible!

Love is romantic, sexy, and a commitment to each other on an equal basis not part of romance! Love takes work!

Nicole was a waitress, young and pretty, but not accomplished, confident, a good baby maker, but obviously knew she was a "trophy wife" because of her looks! But so insecure, she got a "boob" job in her early thirties! And she saw a "gravy train" being involved with OJ! They dated and got engaged after 10 years, married for 7.

He had a life! She hopped on his, became famous because of being married to him, and that was that! She did not become her own person ever! Even though she hated living in OJ's shadow! The life style he provided was too tempting to leave!

You can't have it both ways! She wanted to be someone on her own and divorced OJ. And then, realized he was her rock and foundation! OJ moved on!

Sorry, but if she had not met and eventually married OJ, would she have just been a waitress and married a busboy?You really have your facts twisted. She didn't divorce Simpson because she just wanted to be her own person. She divorced him because he was abusive and controlling. He didn't move on; she did. She was the one who finally broke it off completely with him.

Where is the good side you say everyone has? Other than saying she was young and pretty you didn't say anything postitive about Nicole. A 'good baby maker'...how insulting. :mad: She 'hopped' onto his life? You make her sound like a parasite. :no:

[socaldiva]

Nicole was a teenager when she met Orenthal, yet some expected her to be confident & accomplished at that point? As for the breast augmentation, have you seen a picture of Christine Prody? Looks to me like that how Orenthal likes his women.

[martin II]

We all have good sides and bad! Some people have more/less conflicts in their personalities that make a compatible relationship possible!

Love is romantic, sexy, and a commitment to each other on an equal basis not part of romance! Love takes work!

Nicole was a waitress, young and pretty, but not accomplished, confident, a good baby maker, but obviously knew she was a "trophy wife" because of her looks! But so insecure, she got a "boob" job in her early thirties! And she saw a "gravy train" being involved with OJ! They dated and got engaged after 10 years, married for 7.

He had a life! She hopped on his, became famous because of being married to him, and that was that! She did not become her own person ever! Even though she hated living in OJ's shadow! The life style he provided was too tempting to leave!

You can't have it both ways! She wanted to be someone on her own and divorced OJ. And then, realized he was her rock and foundation! OJ moved on!

Sorry, but if she had not met and eventually married OJ, would she have just been a waitress and married a busboy?

WARMNCOZY

Now your post is the first post that has ever told the truth about Nicole. Some have tried as best as they could to make this girl a saint. She brought very little to that relationship. She may have ended up with the busboy as it does not seem that she had ever lived or had been exposed to the kind of life style she saw with oj. She was a taker. imo

martin II

[martin II]

There's nothing wrong with being "just" a waitress or a busboy. Both are honest ways to make a living. Ron Goldman was a waiter. Are we trashing the victims again?

TELLING THE TRUTH IS NOT BASHING.
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

What makes you think I paid more attention to it than the average american? I consider myself an average american.

How did she manipulate him? He must have liked all that manipulating because he kept wanting her back. I don't think she was the horrible person you make her out to be but even if she had been it didn't give him the right to kill her.

TV
With all due respect you do not know who killed nicole as you were not there. You have just decided to accept the prosecutions version and ignore the jury's. And the defense for that matter.

Most americans did not review the details of the testimony. imo

imo
martin II

[martin II]

There's nothing wrong with being "just" a waitress or a busboy. Both are honest ways to make a living. Ron Goldman was a waiter. Are we trashing the victims again?

so why didn't nicole go with the busboy instead of oj? Oj had dollar signs on his forehead.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*She brought very little to that relationship. She may have ended up with the busboy as it does not seem that she had ever lived or had been exposed to the kind of life style she saw with oj. She was a taker. imo


You should be ashamed of these types of posts. Don't you get tired of bashing murder victims? :no: :no: :punch:

[socaldiva]

TELLING THE TRUTH IS NOT BASHING.
MARTIN ii

Problem is, we aren't talking about posting "the truth", we are talking about ugly commentary, opinion & speculation being posted. :punch:

[tvdinner]

TV
With all due respect you do not know who killed nicole as you were not there. You have just decided to accept the prosecutions version and ignore the jury's. And the defense for that matter.

Most americans did not review the details of the testimony. imo

imo
martin IINo, I didn't just decide to accept the prosecution's version. I've read and listened to both sides. I don't agree with the prosecution on every detail but I do agree OJ Simpson is a double murderer. The civil jury found him liable for her battery. Don't you think she died as a result of that battery?

[tvdinner]

so why didn't nicole go with the busboy instead of oj? Oj had dollar signs on his forehead.

martin II
How much do you know about Nicole's lifestyle before she met OJ Simpson? The Browns seem like sophisticated people to me. You make it sound like she was living barefoot in the back woods.

Too bad she didn't end up with the busboy. Not only would she probably have been happier but she'd be alive today.

[martin II]

No, I didn't just decide to accept the prosecution's version. I've read and listened to both sides. I don't agree with the prosecution on every detail but I do agree OJ Simpson is a double murderer. The civil jury found him liable for her battery. Don't you think she died as a result of that battery?

As i said before in Santa Monica he had no chance. It was my opinion and the opinion of others that they would get oj in that court. William has already
presented those jury words that indicated what they had in mind when the trial started. This may be hard for some to understand but so what.
If you call Wagners work not important and just made up stuff then it is my opinion that you were not open to anything but the prosecution case.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

How much do you know about Nicole's lifestyle before she met OJ Simpson? The Browns seem like sophisticated people to me. You make it sound like she was living barefoot in the back woods.

Too bad she didn't end up with the busboy. Not only would she probably have been happier but she'd be alive today.

What i know about the browns is that OJ had to make a $300,000 loan to lou brown to pay his mortage (which fred tried to force lou to pay to him rather than oj) and that oj used his influence at Hertz to get LOU that Hertz franchise rental car business and paid for Nicoles sisters collage education. So i don't know what kind of lifestyle nicole lived before oj but i know oj was giving big time financial support to that family to keep it floating.

Nicole had no college education and did not seem to be interested in one. She made no effort at any kind of training that would have allowed her to gain some form of employment in 17 years.
Oj set her up to do interior design for himself and marcus allen and his girl friend/wife and what did she do. Decorated his house and then started a relationship with him. One of oj's best friends as if there were not enough other men in brentwood that she could have caught.
Gees.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Nicole had no college education and did not seem to be interested in one.

Orenthal attended USC, but I don't think I would say that he has a college education.

As for Nicole, don't you understand that Orenthal wanted her home? Abusers isolate their victims & typically don't like them to better themselves. If they did, chances are they would be more inclined to leave their abusers. IMO

[martin II]

How much do you know about Nicole's lifestyle before she met OJ Simpson? The Browns seem like sophisticated people to me. You make it sound like she was living barefoot in the back woods.

Too bad she didn't end up with the busboy. Not only would she probably have been happier but she'd be alive today.

What i know about the browns is that OJ had to make a $300,000 loan to lou brown to pay his mortage (which fred tried to force lou to pay to him rather than oj) and that oj used his influence at Hertz to get LOU that Hertz franchise rental car business and paid for Nicoles sisters collage education. So i don't know what kind of lifestyle nicole lived before oj but i know oj was giving big time financial support to that family to keep it floating.

Nicole had no college education and did not seem to be interested in one. She made no effort at any kind of training that would have allowed her to gain some form of employment in 17 years.
Oj set her up to do interior design for himself and marcus allen and his girl friend/wife and what did she do. Decorated his house and then started a relationship with him. One of oj's best friends as if there were not enough other men in brentwood that she could have caught.
Gees.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*What i know about the browns is that OJ had to make a $300,000 loan to lou brown to pay his mortage martin II

Why are you posting this TWICE? You just posted this 10 minutes ago (or so) :confused:

BTW: I think the posts have drifted OT ;)

[tvdinner]

What i know about the browns is that OJ had to make a $300,000 loan to lou brown to pay his mortage (which fred tried to force lou to pay to him rather than oj) and that oj used his influence at Hertz to get LOU that Hertz franchise rental car business and paid for Nicoles sisters collage education. So i don't know what kind of lifestyle nicole lived before oj but i know oj was giving big time financial support to that family to keep it floating.

Nicole had no college education and did not seem to be interested in one. She made no effort at any kind of training that would have allowed her to gain some form of employment in 17 years.
Oj set her up to do interior design for himself and marcus allen and his girl friend/wife and what did she do. Decorated his house and then started a relationship with him. One of oj's best friends as if there were not enough other men in brentwood that she could have caught.
Gees.

martin IIOnce again, Nicole gets all the blame. Weren't there other women besides Nicole for Marcus Allen to have an affair with? I'm sure this is the kind of propaganda that OJ Simpson is peddling in the wonderful story that you say is the Nicole/OJ love story. I suppose I'll find out for myself when I buy the book to support the Goldman family.

[socaldiva]

I read that Christine Prody is 31 yrs old & has been with Orenthal for 12 yrs. That makes her 19 (to his 48) when they hook up. I also read that she's a former cocktail waitress. Anyone sense a pattern?

I'm still trying to buy the book, but every time I go to the bookstore, it's not available.

[tvdinner]

I read that Christine Prody is 31 yrs old & has been with Orenthal for 12 yrs. That makes her 19 (to his 48) when they hook up. I also read that she's a former cocktail waitress. Anyone sense a pattern?

I'm still trying to buy the book, but every time I go to the bookstore, it's not available.I definitely see a pattern. I'm sure it's not OJ Simpson's fault. These teenage girls just 'hop onto his life'. Poor guy. :(

I haven't tried to get the book. I thought I'd try this weekend but I don't think I'm going to have any luck.

[socaldiva]

I definitely see a pattern. I'm sure it's not OJ Simpson's fault. These teenage girls just 'hop onto his life'. Poor guy. :(

I haven't tried to get the book. I thought I'd try this weekend but I don't think I'm going to have any luck.


If my math is correct, Christine Prody must have "hopped into his life" during the criminal trial? If so, yikes!

I can't find the book at the bookstores, only online. :shrug:

[tvdinner]

If my math is correct, Christine Prody must have "hopped into his life" during the criminal trial? If so, yikes!

I can't find the book at the bookstores, only online. :shrug:I think your math is correct. He's quite a guy!

Thanks, diva, you saved me a lot of walking. I'll just look online. :)

[martin II]

Once again, Nicole gets all the blame. Weren't there other women besides Nicole for Marcus Allen to have an affair with? I'm sure this is the kind of propaganda that OJ Simpson is peddling in the wonderful story that you say is the Nicole/OJ love story. I suppose I'll find out for myself when I buy the book to support the Goldman family.


tv
This is not about the choices Marcus made. This is about Nicoles choices.
Cora fishman testified that she warned Nicole that the relationship with Marcus, oj's best friend, could cause some kind of problem.But she continued.

There was criminal and civil trial testimony about the decorating of the Marcus house and to this Marcus and Nicole relationship that lasted up uintil
some days/weeks before her death. So to say it is propoganda that oj put out is not true. The defense tried force Marcus Allen to testify but he refused to come and gave some kind of deposition as he was out of state. i think.

Some person one gave information that made the claim that the car seen in front of nicoles house on 6/12 may have been Marcus Allen. this was never proved.

martinII

[martin II]

I think your math is correct. He's quite a guy!

Thanks, diva, you saved me a lot of walking. I'll just look online. :)

PAULA returned to oj when the trial started and remained by his side until some time after after oj was found not guilty. It is reported that her dad was responsible for the relationship ending.

Purdy met oj after he moved to Florida as far as i know.
martin II

[martin II]

tv
This article by MR WOODS is in todays NY POST.

Nicole Simpson.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09222007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

[Levi]

This is pure blood money. Whoever gets the money is getting blood money. Period.

We all know he did it. This book is worth nothing. But the fact is there‘s some sick people out there who would buy this just because they wonder what he did say? Because they might find O.J. interesting. Just strikes me as weird.

[Levi]

Have you ever thought that some people(book customers) would like to know more about that relationship especially since not much came out about nicole in the trials?

It may be difficult for some to belive that Nicole had no warts and no responsibility for the problems in the relationship.

martin II
One reason I will not buy the book is because of the way O.J. describes Nicole Brown. He describes her as a **** and ***** and tramp. And what is O.J.? I know what he is! a sociopath, double murdering, THUG.

If I hear one more time that this is going to be good for victims, I'm going to vomit. this is TERRIBLE for victims, exploiting the murders he committed, making money off the brutal, disgusting double murders! How do you say to Cidney and Justin? Nicoles children. Do you say? "dearie, there is a book out there about how your Daddy murdered your mother and her friend, because a lot of sick people want to read about your daddy's "hypothetical" account of how he MURDERED your mother."

I don‘t think O.J. is even capable of telling the truth. He is lying scum. I've heard reports that there was somebody else complicit with him, which means he is a sissy, cowardly, wimp. He can‘t even take full responsibility!

[William Anthony]

We all know he did it. Just strikes me as weird.

The comment that we all know he did it strikes me as weird.

[Levi]

Let me rephrase then. We WITH COMMON SENSE know he did it.

[fbgweezer]

One reason I will not buy the book is because of the way O.J. describes Nicole Brown. He describes her as a **** and ***** and tramp. And what is O.J.? I know what he is! a sociopath, double murdering, THUG.

If I hear one more time that this is going to be good for victims, I'm going to vomit. this is TERRIBLE for victims, exploiting the murders he committed, making money off the brutal, disgusting double murders! How do you say to Cidney and Justin? Nicoles children. Do you say? "dearie, there is a book out there about how your Daddy murdered your mother and her friend, because a lot of sick people want to read about your daddy's "hypothetical" account of how he MURDERED your mother."

I don‘t think O.J. is even capable of telling the truth. He is lying scum. I've heard reports that there was somebody else complicit with him, which means he is a sissy, cowardly, wimp. He can‘t even take full responsibility!

I think I understand your point and I'm hoping you are open to accepting mine. Most logical, reasonable people understand that orenthal is not capable of telling the truth. Most logical, reasonable people understand that orenthal is a sociopath and double murderer.

I have ordered the book -- not because I have any interest in reading it, but because this is the first viable way to support the families. It is my belief that it will make orenthal NUTS to know that the Goldmans/Browns are getting money that he considers HIS. We know how he feels about anything HE considers HIS.

Nicole's and orenthal's children signed off on the book when orenthal and arnelle made the deal. I don't think they are surprised that a book is out there where daddy is describing murdering their mom. They may be surprised at the assassination of their mother's character and reputation.

imo

[Heyes]

I think I understand your point and I'm hoping you are open to accepting mine. Most logical, reasonable people understand that orenthal is not capable of telling the truth. Most logical, reasonable people understand that orenthal is a sociopath and double murderer.

I have ordered the book -- not because I have any interest in reading it, but because this is the first viable way to support the families. It is my belief that it will make orenthal NUTS to know that the Goldmans/Browns are getting money that he considers HIS. We know how he feels about anything HE considers HIS.

Nicole's and orenthal's children signed off on the book when orenthal and arnelle made the deal. I don't think they are surprised that a book is out there where daddy is describing murdering their mom. They may be surprised at the assassination of their mother's character and reputation.

imo


Great post!
The truth was needed here, thanks
This book is flying off the shelves for mainly one reason. Support for the Goldmans. It's not the killers words any of us are interested in, it's like you say fbgweezer, its the "first viable way to support the Goldmans".

[William Anthony]

Let me rephrase then. We WITH COMMON SENSE know he did it.

Thank you for your correction and others with more than common sense and an appreciation for truth rather than opinion or statements made to satisfy their own preconceived notions may say that they do not know, who the murder was but either believe or do not believe it was Simpson.

[tvdinner]

tv
This is not about the choices Marcus made. This is about Nicoles choices.
Cora fishman testified that she warned Nicole that the relationship with Marcus, oj's best friend, could cause some kind of problem.But she continued.

There was criminal and civil trial testimony about the decorating of the Marcus house and to this Marcus and Nicole relationship that lasted up uintil
some days/weeks before her death. So to say it is propoganda that oj put out is not true. The defense tried force Marcus Allen to testify but he refused to come and gave some kind of deposition as he was out of state. i think.

Some person one gave information that made the claim that the car seen in front of nicoles house on 6/12 may have been Marcus Allen. this was never proved.

martinIIIt caused a problem all right. She was murdered by Simpson.

[Levi]

I think I understand your point and I'm hoping you are open to accepting mine. Most logical, reasonable people understand that orenthal is not capable of telling the truth. Most logical, reasonable people understand that orenthal is a sociopath and double murderer.

I have ordered the book -- not because I have any interest in reading it, but because this is the first viable way to support the families. It is my belief that it will make orenthal NUTS to know that the Goldmans/Browns are getting money that he considers HIS. We know how he feels about anything HE considers HIS.

Nicole's and orenthal's children signed off on the book when orenthal and arnelle made the deal. I don't think they are surprised that a book is out there where daddy is describing murdering their mom. They may be surprised at the assassination of their mother's character and reputation.

imo
Well I'm not lumping you in with the O.J. supporters, I've read enough of your posts to know you have logical and reasoned opinions on the case and you make very good points.

But I just don't agree with the decision of purchasing this book. I agree with Denise Brown she REALLY loves Cidney and Justice, this isn't about money for her.

I also do not disrespect the Goldman family, if this helps them in some way. God bless them, I just see this is blood money and I could never walk out of a book store with the book in my hands. With that being said Fred Goldman is a victims advocate and he does care about crime victims. He has traveled all across the country in support of tough laws for criminals and I think that is great work.

But I just don't agree with him publishing the book and I do not agree with people purchasing the book.

[Levi]

Thank you for your correction and others with more than common sense and an appreciation for truth rather than opinion or statements made to satisfy their own preconceived notions may say that they do not know, who the murder was but either believe or do not believe it was Simpson.
We have his blood at the scene of the crime. The victims blood in his bronco. We have a history of O.J. beating the crap of Nicole Brown. O.J. lost power and control of her, like many domestic abuse cases after that loss of power, he murdered her. Nicole wrote in her diary that she was afraid for her life, she was afraid O.J. would kill her.

I know who committed this murder and it sure as hell wasn't anyone named "Charlie." :rolleyes:

That is common sense. 1+1=2, O.J.'s blood at the crime scene (1) + victims blood in his bronco (1) = O.J. Guilty (2)

[fbgweezer]

Well I'm not lumping you in with the O.J. supporters, I've read enough of your posts to know you have logical and reasoned opinions on the case and you make very good points.

But I just don't agree with the decision of purchasing this book. I agree with Denise Brown she REALLY loves Cidney and Justice, this isn't about money for her.

I also do not disrespect the Goldman family, if this helps them in some way. God bless them, I just see this is blood money and I could never walk out of a book store with the book in my hands. With that being said Fred Goldman is a victims advocate and he does care about crime victims. He has traveled all across the country in support of tough laws for criminals and I think that is great work.

But I just don't agree with him publishing the book and I do not agree with people purchasing the book.

Fair enough. :)

I do wish Denise had done more when Sydney made the 911 call -- it made me look at her motives a little differently than I had in the past. imoo

[tvdinner]

Fair enough. :)

I do wish Denise had done more when Sydney made the 911 call -- it made me look at her motives a little differently than I had in the past. imooYou know, I really hadn't thought about that. It's a great point.

[William Anthony]

We have his blood at the scene of the crime. The victims blood in his bronco. We have a history of O.J. beating the crap of Nicole Brown. O.J. lost power and control of her, like many domestic abuse cases after that loss of power, he murdered her. Nicole wrote in her diary that she was afraid for her life, she was afraid O.J. would kill her.

I know who committed this murder and it sure as hell wasn't anyone named "Charlie." :rolleyes:

That is common sense. 1+1=2, O.J.'s blood at the crime scene (1) + victims blood in his bronco (1) = O.J. Guilty (2)

While your math may be a statement of the generalities of additon, others with more than common sense may question the specific and true values of the digits you used in your equation. If I might, I respectfully suggest that you stop rolling your eyes and try looking at the evidence with vision focused toward how the evidence in the Bronco got there and at Bundy. I do not mean to imply that Simpson was not the murderer, only that the evidence does not allow me to say I know he is the murderer.

[Levi]

Well I am going to once again roll my eyes at that CONSPIRACY THEORY. :rolleyes: (That tinfoil hat fits you PERFECTLY)

Everyone is out to get O.J.!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Everyone is out to get O.J.!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Yep, it sounds like they set him up with that porn video too! :tongue:

[TobyTiger]

Yep, it sounds like they set him up with that porn video too! :tongue:

Yes, poor OJ....everyone out to get him by setting him up in criminal activity.