New York company to publish O.J. Simpson book: "If I Did It,"

[SicC]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - O.J. Simpson's hypothetical account of killing
his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson will be printed by a New York
publisher, a spokesman for literary agent Sharlene Martin said on
Monday.

Martin struck a deal on the controversial book -- a previous print of
it was scrapped last year -- on behalf of the family of Ron Goldman,
who was murdered along with Brown Simpson at her Los Angeles home in
1994, according to a spokesman.

A federal judge last month gave the rights to the book, entitled "If I
Did It," to Goldman's family, who are owed $33.5 million in damages by
Simpson.

Simpson was acquitted of criminal murder charges in 1995 but was found
liable for the deaths two years later in a civil case brought by the
victims' families. The former U.S. football star has vowed to never
voluntarily pay damages to the families.

The identity of the publisher is due to be announced on Tuesday,
Martin's spokesman said.

"The (Goldman) family and publisher have pledged to leave Simpson's
manuscript entirely intact, but they will also add key commentary,"
Michael Wright, the spokesman for Los Angeles-based Martin, said in a
statement. The nature of the commentary was not disclosed.

The Goldman family, the publisher and Martin will contribute portions
of the proceeds to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice, Wright
said.

Under the court agreement, the Goldman's obtained all rights to the
book, and to Simpson's name and likeness in connection with it.
Simpson will not receive any money.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.-owned publishing house, HarperCollins,
printed 400,000 copies of the book but scrapped it in November amid
public outrage shortly before its release. Murdoch apologized, and all
copies were recalled and destroyed.

Relatives of Simpson's ex-wife had not previously pursued a claim to
the book but made an 11th-hour request for up to 40 percent of the
proceeds. The claim was denied the court.

But last month's agreement requires the Goldmans to give a
court-appointed trustee 10 percent of the first $4 million in gross
proceeds and a percentage of all proceeds beyond that. The Brown
family will get most of that money.

In an interview last month with Dallas-based Web site Market News
First (www.MN1.com), Simpson said the book was composed by a ghost
author and that he reluctantly agreed to include a
"night-of-the-crime" account as told by him only after it was agreed
to clearly label it as hypothetical.

 

[Casey]

I read it. It's the world's stupidest book. You really have to be dumb to write that.

It makes me even more sure he's innocent though. I mean, if you were guilty of a crime, you were found not guilty but you knew that lot of people still think you did it.....you wouldn't write a fucking fictional book explaining that if you did do it you would have done it in xyz way.

If you were guilty and did that you would either be a complete retard or the world's most twisted sick fuck.

 

[Devious]

I read it. It's the world's stupidest book. You really have to be dumb to write that.

It makes me even more sure he's innocent though. I mean, if you were guilty of a crime, you were found not guilty but you knew that lot of people still think you did it.....you wouldn't write a fucking fictional book explaining that if you did do it you would have done it in xyz way.

If you were guilty and did that you would either be a complete retard or the world's most twisted sick fuck.

not really tho, because there's this thing called double jeopardy. since he was found innocent, he could confess and no one could do anything about it since you can't be tried for the same crime twice. is it sick and twisted to write a book about how you murdered 2 people and got away with it? yeah, but when you need the money...

but how is it less sick and twisted to write a book talking about how he COULD have killed these 2 people if he actually is innocent? in fact, imo that would be even worse.

 

[Casey]

not really tho, because there's this thing called double jeopardy. since he was found innocent, he could confess and no one could do anything about it since you can't be tried for the same crime twice. is it sick and twisted to write a book about how you murdered 2 people and got away with it? yeah, but when you need the money...

but how is it less sick and twisted to write a book talking about how he COULD have killed these 2 people if he actually is innocent? in fact, imo that would be even worse.

i thought about the double jeopardy thing. but he aint hannibal lecter. dude played american football. he's not that smart.

it is less sick and twisted to speculate on something because assuming he didn't do it he has no idea what went down and it crosses the line into fantasy and doesn't seem real. it takes a lot to murder someone and even a lot of dark twisted people have trouble thinking about what they've done and reflecting on it.

if he did do it, and remembers cutting up the woman he once loved and seeing all that blood, being covered in it as tends to happen when you kill someone, and knows damn well he did it but was found innocent.....it's sick as fuck to write that book not to mention stupid and dangerous because he would again have to be pretty damn intelligent to come up with a whole different story to what actually happened. if he had done it, there's a strong possibility that some of things he described in this fictional story would have matched some of the things that really did happen without him realizing it. and things that only the cops, doctors and morticians who saw the bodies would know about. if that was the case, somebody would have said something by now given that thousands have people have read it since it leaked online.

 

[Devious]

i thought about the double jeopardy thing. but he aint hannibal lecter. dude played american football. he's not that smart.

it is less sick and twisted to speculate on something because assuming he didn't do it he has no idea what went down and it crosses the line into fantasy and doesn't seem real. it takes a lot to murder someone and even a lot of dark twisted people have trouble thinking about what they've done and reflecting on it.

if he did do it, and remembers cutting up the woman he once loved and seeing all that blood, being covered in it as tends to happen when you kill someone, and knows damn well he did it but was found innocent.....it's sick as fuck to write that book not to mention stupid and dangerous because he would again have to be pretty damn intelligent to come up with a whole different story to what actually happened. if he had done it, there's a strong possibility that some of things he described in this fictional story would have matched some of the things that really did happen without him realizing it. and things that only the cops, doctors and morticians who saw the bodies would know about. if that was the case, somebody would have said something by now given that thousands have people have read it since it leaked online.

well to me it would be pretty sick and twisted to write a book talking about how you would have murdered someone if you didn't do it. i mean if i wrote a book about how i would have murdered, say, JonBenet Ramsey if i had been the killer, yet everyone knows i didn't do it, you don't think that would be pretty sick? to imagine yourself killing someone who was murdered and making a profit off of their death is just as sick and twisted as writing a book about how you killed 2 people and got away with it. the bottom line is that he was trying to make a profit off the lives of these 2 murder victims (which he may or may not have killed himself).

as for why no one has mentioned things that only cops, doctors, etc. would know about, have you forgotten that this was probably the most publicized criminal trial in history? every detail that could have been used was presented in court to a worldwide audience. i seriously doubt that there are any facts in this case that would only be known to those people. police don't make all their info public when they are investigating the crime, but in trial all that info is detailed. and it just so happens that this trial was witnessed by half the fuckin world as it played out. and that is ignoring one fact: what would be the point? it's not like anything could be used against him, they can't put him back on trial, so what difference would it make?

 

[Casey]

well to me it would be pretty sick and twisted to write a book talking about how you would have murdered someone if you didn't do it. i mean if i wrote a book about how i would have murdered, say, JonBenet Ramsey if i had been the killer, yet everyone knows i didn't do it, you don't think that would be pretty sick? to imagine yourself killing someone who was murdered and making a profit off of their death is just as sick and twisted as writing a book about how you killed 2 people and got away with it. the bottom line is that he was trying to make a profit off the lives of these 2 murder victims (which he may or may not have killed himself).

as for why no one has mentioned things that only cops, doctors, etc. would know about, have you forgotten that this was probably the most publicized criminal trial in history? every detail that could have been used was presented in court to a worldwide audience. i seriously doubt that there are any facts in this case that would only be known to those people. police don't make all their info public when they are investigating the crime, but in trial all that info is detailed. and it just so happens that this trial was witnessed by half the fuckin world as it played out. and that is ignoring one fact: what would be the point? it's not like anything could be used against him, they can't put him back on trial, so what difference would it make?

oh its sick either way for sure.

of course all details were publicized but nobody can fully describe the exact nature of the injuries the way the doctors etc could.

i just dont think dude is smart enough to invent a whole fictional scenario that doesnt match up in any way to what happened.it wouldnt make a difference, no but if it did match in some ways which it would do had he done it, people would bee able to see that and be talkin bout it.

 

[Devious]

i just dont think dude is smart enough to invent a whole fictional scenario that doesnt match up in any way to what happened.

In an interview last month with Dallas-based Web site Market News
First (www.MN1.com), Simpson said the book was composed by a ghost
author and that he reluctantly agreed to include a
"night-of-the-crime" account as told by him only after it was agreed
to clearly label it as hypothetical.

he didn't write it, someone else wrote it for him.

 

[S O F I]

Double Jeopardy does not require smarts, at all. It has been used so widely in the media that almost everybody knows it.

Now, don't forget, he lost the civil case against him. He had his precious Heisman trophy taken away.

 

[Casey]

In an interview last month with Dallas-based Web site Market News
First (www.MN1.com), Simpson said the book was composed by a ghost
author and that he reluctantly agreed to include a
"night-of-the-crime" account as told by him only after it was agreed
to clearly label it as hypothetical.

I don't understand. So OJ only wrote the night of the crime account but was told to label it as hypothetical? Surely that's a given, if he did it he ain't gonna tell someone what happened, is he? Strange.

 

[Snowman]

damm i gotta sit down and read this. i dl it a week ago i havent read it yet.

 

[S. Fourteen]

man, he lives the life of being innocent, and this book is a part of that life. that is the picture I get. the first thing he promised was to look for the real killer. waw

 

[Rahim]

nothing new. you wouldve known this a lot quicker if you were a member of the OJ Simpson fan club.