Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 2, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Sicko of the Week: O.J. Simpson

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 15, 2006
O.J. Simpson

Truthdig is sickened by the former football star and actor, whose new book has a working title of “If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened.”

For shame, O.J.: If you’re innocent, that title constitutes the apotheosis of poor taste. And if you’re guilty, it shows unbridled malice. Either way, do the world a favor and disappear again.


AP:

Fox said Tuesday it will air a two-part interview with O.J. Simpson at month’s end in which he describes the 1994 murders of his ex-wife and her friend that he says he didn’t commit.

The interview will be conducted by editor and book publisher Judith Regan. On Nov. 30, her Regan Books will publish a book Simpson wrote with the working title, “If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Fox said Simpson’s book “hypothetically describes” how he would have committed the murders. The special will air at 9 p.m. Nov. 27 and 29 on Fox.

Link


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Alan Martine, November 24, 2006 at 11:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Daddy:

You say that O.J. is “making a…mockery of our legal system - one of the fundamental aspects of our society.”  Yet you then say, “So if he got out of killing two people…”

I note your word “if.”  No matter how strongly you may (and many others) may feel that O.J. is guilty, you at least admit that it is POSSIBLE that he is not.  In this regard, your “hypothetical” wish for his summary execution is anathema to the very legal system you say is a “fundamental aspect” of our society.

A 12-person jury found O.J. not guilty based on the evidence and testimony provided.  If that is not good enough for you - if you believe that our legal system is “broken” in some way that allowed a “caught red-handed” killer to go free - then you can (i) move somewhere else, (ii) protest the system in various legitimate ways, or (iii) accept the verdict, whether or not you agree with it.

But the kind of vigilantism you “hypothetically” suggest does not show much respect for the legal system you seem to feel so strongly about.

All of this is, of course, setting aside the fact that if O.J. really IS innocent of the murders (which remains a possibility, however slim), then whoever kills him will be even more guilty of murder than he is.

Report this

By RS Janes, November 24, 2006 at 5:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reply to Daddy:

That’s funny stuff, Daddy—‘If I Did It, Here’s How I’d Off O.J.’

Report this

By Daddy, November 23, 2006 at 6:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Speaking hypothetically of course, somebody needs to take action on this mother fucker. Where are the extremists when we actually need one. This mother fucker is making a fuckin’ mockery of our legal system. One of the fundamental aspects of our society. He’s a fuckin’ killer, everybody knows it, and he’s walking around free. If that’s not enough, now he’s shovin’ that shit into the faces of the victim’s families and the rest of the nation.

It is damn well time a vigilante steps up and takes care of this shit. All we need is one good crazy mother fuckin ex-marine style mother fucker.

In my opinion the best way to hypothetically do it would be public execution style assassination. Find out where this fucker plays golf. Find a clear line of site to one of the driving areas. Wait for him to tee up. And take his fuck ass out with a high powered sniper rifle. It will take the police at least twenty minutes to figure what direction the shot came from. And that’s if our ex-marine isn’t using a silencer. Plenty of time to escape.

And as far as prosecution goes. I think the entire country has a motive for killing his ass right now. So if he got out of killing two people when he was basically caught red handed, I think our man could get off as well, if he’s caught.

I am hypothetically begging for someone to stand up and take action on this man. I think it would be a patriotic act. Don’t let this man continue to mock our society so openly.

I’d stand up and do it myself, but I have neither the proper training nor the nerve for this sort of job. But someone out there does.

And I hypothetically hope that someone does.

Daddy

Report this

By RS Janes, November 20, 2006 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

AP reported today that Murdoch caved in and is refusing to run O.J.‘s demented TV show or publish his book.

“O.J. Book, TV Special Are Canceled”
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=242559&GT1=7703

I guess his kids are going to have to forego that $3.5 million, or else it’ll be back in Pay-Per-View.

Report this

By Gordy Coolman, November 20, 2006 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Has anyone noticed how far-out FOX TV is, or all the TV media generally?  Years ago there was entertainment performed by talented people sans
filth and profanity. There’s none to be had now, just filth on news and nonnews shows.  FOX is always somehow coming up with more degenerative schemes just to sell ad time and to get ratings.  This OJ thing is just another nasty lump added to FOX’s pile of crap.  The FCC needs to take a closer look.

Report this

By Sue, November 20, 2006 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HOORAY for Lin Broadcasting and Pappas Broadcasting for choosing not to air Simpson’s interview on nine of their Fox affiliated owned stations!

Let’s hope all the rest will follow suit!

Report this

By RS Janes, November 17, 2006 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reply to Mr. Martine:

“You say that drug dealers wouldn’t kill someone even for a lot of money, and that even if they did, they would simply shoot them, not stab them multiple times.  I beg to differ.”

I have a friend who was a narcotics officer for a few years in a large Midwestern city; he was later transferred to homicide. As he has told me, yes, you can find isolated cases where drug dealers used knives and mutilated their victims; you can find many more where guns were used—they are the quickest and most efficient murder weapon. Looking at the crime scene in the Simpson case, why would a drug dealertake a chance of being caught with a prolonged stabbing? That doesn’t make sense, as it doesn’t make sense that they would kill Nicole Simpson in order to get their money. (In your example, you mentioned that “They took his money and coke”; there is no evidence that whoever killed Nicole Simpson got either.)

Referring back to my friend, when he worked in homicide the number of murders committed with a knife by jealous husbands and boyfriends was staggering compared to those committed with a knife in drug-connected killings. His comment on the O.J. case was that all the evidence was consistent with Simpson’s guilt, not the least of which is his, Nicole’s and Ron Goldman’s blood found on and in his white Bronco and at the crime scene, the bloody Bruno Magli shoe print, and the DNA evidence. That the jury was intentionally confused on the nature of DNA evidence by the defense, and the prosecution did such a terrible job, does not remove that damning evidence which, if O.J. Simpson had been a janitor instead of a wealthy celebrity, would have been enough to put him on death row..

“Re hiring a detective to find the real killers, I reiterate that, even had he done so, it would have been a moot gesture; if he knew who did it, and they threatened either him or his children, he was certainly not going to allow any investigation to go very far.”

Sorry, I can’t subscribe to the theory that O.J. Simpson knew who did it and would rather risk conviction for a double murder than reveal the true killers. Obviously, if the real killers were convicted and jailed, they would be no future threat to his family, unless you’re implying some vast conspiracy to murder Nicole Simpson because she owed some money on a drug deal—if that’s the case, I think you’ll need much more proof than you’ve presented so far.

BTW, I stand corrected—as you point out, ‘Regan’ not ‘Regent’ is publishing Simpson’s deplorable new book.

Report this

By Anchorite, November 17, 2006 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is precious new meme in the making. To wit, “If I (blah-blah), Here’s How it Happened.”

Look at the repetition of the I’s, of the aspirated H’s. And the running through the vowels.  Sense through sound.  It’s a keeper!

Oh, and the situation is both tragic and morally bewildering, too.

Report this

By MarioGeorgeNitrini111, November 17, 2006 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi Eric,

OJ Simpson CAN be tried again (Not double Jeopardy) for a number of Crimes that he has committed that are connected to his cases and saga.

Both sides (Prosecution and Defense) broke the law in The OJ Simpson Cases and Saga. The Defense and OJ Simpson Started it (The Illegal Dirty War), and The Prosecution “STEPPED” into it with them…......I know, I lived some of it, from both sides.

When I met with The F.B.I. in June of 1997, they were VERY interested in what I had in evidence and Information (Rocky Bateman and “The Missing Bag,” and More). There also was an on-going investigation of a murder-for-hire plot that OJ Simpson was involved in with Robert Kardashian and Bill Wasz. The Feds decided to forget me (Chased me away) and pursue the Wasz/Kardashian/Simpson Situation. That situation got Too STICKEY, even for The Feds.

The BIG problem is, is that TOO MANY OJ Simpson Case Prosecution people broke the law during and after both cases, and Simpson knows this, and has/is snubbing his nose at them, DARING them…........

It’s a white-wash and a chess game.

BUT, can I Legally nail OJ Simpson for some crimes he committed?  YES, YES, and YES…......

MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
__________
The OJ Simpson Case

Report this

By MarioGeorgeNitrini111, November 17, 2006 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi Alan Martine,

I have lived The OJ Simpson Case every day for over 12 years.

I was “CHASED” away by MANY of OJ Simpson’s friends, lawyers, acquiantences, ECT, so many times.  WHY?  ROCKY BATEMAN.  I can tell you and others stories that were/are beyond my comprehension….........while I investigated this case on my own.

I tell you this.  The 3 MOST covered-up people in The OJ Simpson Case and Saga are Rocky Bateman, Myself, and Bill Wasz.  Speaking of Bill Wasz,

Bill Wasz was found dead in his apartment in Mid-March, 2005. Here’s his website. I conversed quite a bit with Bill:

Bill Wasz - Official Website
We regret to inform that Mr. Bill Wasz tragically died in March of 2005 in Los
... This site is entirely dedicated to Mr. Bill Wasz, his work, his passion, ...
http://patriotsmovie.com/BW/ - Cached

Please click on FORUM, and you can read some of my correspondence with Bill.

One week before he was found dead (I believe he was murdered), Bill sent me this E-Mail:


“From: “BILL WASZ”
To:
Sent Sunday, March 06, 2005 12:01 AM
Subject: Be nice

Mario,

No reason to be mean or disrespectful…

You live in the Valley.

I will buy you lunch in the Galleria…

We will talk…and maybe you will ease up on me.

Bill Wasz”


One week later Bill Wasz was dead.

I’ll start with this Alan.  Rocky Bateman drove (Limo) OJ Simpson regularly approximately from August of 1993 thru June of 1994.  I “SMOKED” Bateman out (it took me 4 1/2 momths) and he went on CNN in Mid-June of 1995 with Art Harris for an Interview special were He said he was OJ Simpson’s regular Limo Driver for over 3 years.  THAT’S AN ALL-OUT LIE, one of Rocky’s MANY LIES.

I can go on and on.  I know this case and testimony and a whole lot more inside and out. 

Question:

Why would Rocky Batman go on national television and Lie about how long he was OJ Simpson’s regular Limousine driver?

MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
__________
The OJ Simpson Case

Report this

By Sue, November 17, 2006 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Mr. Martine’s 11/16 post:

Are you kidding me? This post is almost as ridiculous as the first. Does OJ Simpson look like he’s the type that would take threats to his person or his children’s lightly? With all his money he certainly could have bought his children’s safety easy enough. (He bought his freedom.)

I’m sorry, but he didn’t look to frightened while out playing golf, or signing autographs, even right after the murders and trial. And for someone who “loved and cherished his wife dearly”, to just sit back all these years without showing actively pursuing the killer or killers and trying to prove his innocence, or to bring justice and closure for his wife’s murder is incomprehensible!

Just take a look at his face, with that smug arrogant smirk that he wears all the time. That tells the whole story. He’s got money, powerful friends behind him. And for him to write a book explaining “How I Did It” 12 years later? For what purpose? I just consider the source. He’s a certified nut case and should be taken away by people in little white coats or maybe taken OUT would be a better visual.

Report this

By Alan Martine, November 17, 2006 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To RS Janes:

You say that drug dealers wouldn’t kill someone even for a lot of money, and that even if they did, they would simply shoot them, not stab them multiple times.  I beg to differ.

I knew someone who was dealing coke, and changed suppliers to people of a certain country (which will remain unnamed).  When he fell behind on payments, they threatened him, but he did not take it seriously because it was only a few thousand dollars.  Two weeks later, while he was in his apartment with a 16-year-old girl, three men showed up, tied both of them up, stabbed them multiple times, threw them on the coach, and set the couch on fire.  They took his money and coke, and left.  Both he and the girl were DOA.  So don’t tell me that drug dealers won’t kill for small sums, or that they will simply shoot people.  Some drug dealers “get off” on the kind of killing these thugs did.

Re hiring a detective to find the real killers, I reiterate that, even had he done so, it would have been a moot gesture; if he knew who did it, and they threatened either him or his children, he was certainly not going to allow any investigation to go very far.

To Mr. Pepper:

OJ still owes about $33 million in the civil suit.  However, he will not profit from the book, as explained by publisher Judith Regan in an article today in The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/books/17ojbook.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&pagewanted=print

Report this

By John, November 17, 2006 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The quote…..I have always wondered why OJ is given so much attention by the media while Robert Blake [another celebrity] is hardly mentioned,eventhough both were acquitted, but many consider both to be guilty ?!
Any thaughts ?? Come on now,this the “TRUTH DIG”!

First “Truth Dig” is a contradiction in terms as far as this web site.  This is first last and always a liberal web site or a truth AS WE SEE IT site.  I have come to accept that.

OJ set the bar and Blake didn’t come close to resembling OJ in terms of noterity and interest.  Blake has never been held in as high esteem as OJ.  OJ or who we thought OJ was, was loved by the American public because he was a football hero, a Madison Ave. ad pitchman and somewhat of a comedic actor.  We didn’t want to believe that OJ could batter his wife much less murder her.
Of course OJ did murder his wife and yet others still think he didn’t.  As others have said, why has he NOT tired to find the true killers of the mother of his children if he didn’t kill her.
Quite honestly I am surprized that OJ hasn’t been murdered by now.

Report this

By Eric, November 17, 2006 at 9:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

just a few points

1. OJ is as deplorable a human being as any NAZI, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.  He’s an utter waste of DNA

2. Even if he confesses, he can’t be tried for murder again, double jeopardy, it’s in the Constitution kids (one wonders though why not go for Manslaughter then?!!)

3. If he was there at the scene, and had others actually commit the murders, he’d not ‘narc’ them out because then he could be tried for Conspiracy to Commit Murder

4. Some change in the law should be exacted to seize any and all assets criminals with judgments have against them, additionally he should not be able to work within US borders or to earn or receive any form of “compensation” until such judgments are satisfied.  This would prevent OJ from selling a book, earning speaking fees, etc.  Sure he could have 3rd parties do this but it would make it much more difficult.  In short, people like OJ should be treated the same way we treat terrorist nations by making it illegal to engage in any form of commerce with them.

Eric

Report this

By RS Janes, November 17, 2006 at 6:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To respond to Mr. Martine’s points alleging that there were two killers and O.J. wasn’t one of them:

“First, in the original coroner’s report - as described in both television and print news reports - Ron and Nicole were killed by two different knives. ...”

This is easily explained, if true: O.J. had an accomplice, infamous white Bronco driver and long-time friend A.C. Cowlings, who also may have helped dispose of the knives.

“Second, the prosecution was mostly successful in suppressing any evidence regarding the fact that Nicole and her friend Faye Resnick were both dealing coke, and that the people they were dealing for were not exactly nice people.  Indeed, there was evidence that Nicole and Faye owed money to their ‘connection,’ possibly ALOT of money.  This would certainly have given other people motive to kill Nicole…”

I don’t recall any firm evidence of Nicole Simpson owing ‘a lot of money,’ or any, to drug dealers presented at the trial. These allegations were made by O.J. Simpson and others outside of the courtroom and not subject to the rules of evidence. However, even if true that she owed a large amount of money to drug dealers, it would seem that killing her would not be a good way to collect on the debt. Scaring her or threatening her, yes, but not brutally murdering her. Aside from that, drug dealers would simply shoot her, not stab her repeatedly; repeated stabbings are the personal crime of a jealous and enraged husband, not a drug dealer.

“Finally, as for the infamous 9/11 call, if one listens to it without all the dramatics and tension that courtrooms tend to foment, one will find that it was NOT as purported by the prosecution.  Nicole did NOT sound threatened - she simply sounded annoyed.  Indeed, neither Nicole not OJ ever raised their voices during that call (OJ can be heard in the background).  Thus, the call hardly proves that Nicole had any reason to feel physically threatened by OJ. ‘

This is entirely a subjective interpretation and certainly O.J., had he been planning on killing her, would not want her to know that. On the other hand, were it an unplanned and impromptu ‘crime of passion,’ as I think it was, he would not have betrayed any murderous rages in that phone call—he hadn’t had any murderous rages yet.

Incidentally, Mr. Simpson has not spent one dime pursuing the ‘real killers’ that I’m aware of, apparently preferring to confine his search to the golf courses of Florida. If he were innocent of these crimes, you’d think he’d at least hire a private detective to try and find out who really did it.

I agree with you on one thing, though: “I can only say that it seems highly ill-advised for OJ to be undertaking such a foolish venture.”

Ill-advised and foolish, but the high-living O.J. no doubt needs the $3.5 million he’s receiving from Fox and Regent for his efforts. He’s not used to living on a paltry couple of hundred thousand a year. To his mind, apparently, there’s no reason his sumptuous lifestyle should suffer for a few lousy murders he committed over a decade ago.

Report this

By ian pepper, November 17, 2006 at 3:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Has OJ paid the judgement on the civil suit that held him fully respüonsible for 2 murders and ordered him to pay monetary damages?

If not, the funds from this FOX program should be immediately frozen and seized by the plaintiffs.

If he has paid in full, he should nonetheless be prevented from profiting from the murders.

Let him put himself on display in this revolting manner, but don’t let him profit from it.

Report this

By Alan Martine, November 16, 2006 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I want to thank everyone for their comments to my post - particularly that they were made in a reasonable manner, and not “emotionally.”

Re the DNA match, there are at least two possibilities for this, excluding OJ’s guilt.  One is that the DNA was planted at the scene by those who committed the murders.  This is not without precedent, and his DNA could have been obtained in numerous ways, even his blood. Second, the DNA would also match for any child of the alleged murderer.  I am not suggesting that one of OJ’s children committed the murders (though his son was questioned early on).  I am simply noting that a DNA match need not ALWAYS be that of the actual person.  As an aside, OJ’s DNA would have been in and around various parts of the house anyway, since he was an occasional visitor, so it is not that strange that his DNA was found at the scene.

Why, if OJ knows who the killers are, does he not simply “out” them?  I can think of at least one reason: because they told him that if he did, they would kill one of his children next, or similar threat - in any case, a threat that OJ would not be willing to ignore.  This, too, is not without precedent.

Re polygraph tests, Mr. Earl asks how a court could force his attorney to produce a polygraph test (other than the court ordering the test itself).  The actual fact is that polygraph tests are rarely allowed as evidence, particularly in a murder trial, because they are not nearly as accurate as most people think, and the courts know that.  So courts rarely order polygraph tests anymore, and even more rarely force an attorney to produce one already taken.

As an aside, my roommate at the time of the trial was a black man about my age (30s at the time).  He was a product of the streets, though well-educated and insightful.  During the first couple of weeks of the trial, we did not see very much of each other; our schedules simply did not jibe.  During the third week, we met in the kitchen one night, and I asked him what he thought about the trial.  Without any prompting or solicitation from me (i.e., I did not share my own thoughts first), he had come to almost all of the same conclusions that I had; i.e., that there was something VERY fishy going on, and that OJ was almost certainly innocent of the murders - though he, too, felt that OJ probably knew who did it.  In fact, his theory included the possibility that OJ was actually “there” when it happened, but that he did not “participate,” but was rather “forced to watch.”  He spun quite an interesting theory that I must say had me intrigued.  Ultimately, as the trial played out, both of us were able to take all of the evidence being presented, and come to completely different conclusions from the court as to what occurred - all of which led to OJ’s innocence of the actual act of the murders.

I don’t claim to know what happened.  But as a person trained in the legal field, I know how evidence gets “spun,” and could take all of the available evidence and prove OJ innocent to an even greater degree than he was originally found.

And then again, I could very well be wrong about everything.

Report this

By PBR, November 16, 2006 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I for one will be contacting all advertisers on my local FOX station, and letting them know that I will not be using their products or services,if FOX runs this crap.

Report this

By Jill, November 16, 2006 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why would we *NOT* want to allow a murderer to confess?????  What are we trying to prevent?  His confession?  Why?  *LET* him confess.  I *WANT* to hear him admit it.  Print it.  Publish it.  Fully allow it.

Are you also hoping to prevent other murder-cases from being confessed to?  Why?

Report this

By rachelle, November 16, 2006 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Guilty as charged! He must be undergoing a sort of guilt trip. He did it. Why else would he raise the topic again? Can he possibly be thinking of…$$$?

Report this

By R. A. Earl, November 16, 2006 at 11:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A quick response to Alan Martine who offered…

“First, a quick comment to Mr. Earl: there is no attorney-client privilege where polygraph tests are concerned.  The only thing that matters is whether the court of jurisdiction accepts polygraph tests as evidence.  If it does, the defense (or prosecutor) would be in contempt for withholding the results of any polygraph test.”

I will bow to your superior knowledge of the American system of justice. Two points - (1) the “point that matters” to ME is what the polygraph test concluded. Whether that is or is not admissable doesn’t change the result of the test. And (2), it does seem puzzling to me that my defense attorney could be required to stand up in court and offer evidence gathered in confidence that would surely convict me if revealed (ie a polygraph test bought and paid for by the defendant). Since when would I be required to submit any evidence to the court that would prove my guilt? I thought that was the prosecution’s job!

If the COURT orders a polygraph test, then fine, the results of course must be revealed.

All of which is almost a waste of breath in this case. There are apparently only three people who actually know what occurred, and two of them are dead. Everyone else’s offerings can be nothing more that unsubstantiated assumptions or glib opinions… neither of which are admissable as evidence in any credible court.

Report this

By www.chasbass.blog.com, November 16, 2006 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

FOX aka Rupert Murdoch are airing O’J's interview at the end of the month/Sweeps week=Ratings=More Money=Murdoch=Fox Friends= Ted Turner’s point about Murdoch=Fact.

Report this

By Sue, November 16, 2006 at 11:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Alan Martine:

I found your post interesting, but cannot figure why if OJ possibly knew of the actual killers, why would he not nark them out? He said his #1 priority was to find the real killers and bring them to justice. I don’t see where this ever happened. It dosen’t make any sense why a person would let the whole world think that they are a cold blooded killer that got away with it when they can prove otherwise.

His ridiculous selfish actions over the years to bring attention to himself tells a different
story.

And for this publishing agency and Fox network (which by the way are both owned by Rupert Murdock and his News Corp.)are exploiting this sick person by helping him sell this “How I Did It” book is a sin. Shame on them! And Shame on anyone who wastes their time in watching, and their hard earned money buying and reading the book.

What a joke. Unfortunately, there will be a lot of people doing just that which is what they are counting on. It’s all about the MONEY.

What a sad sad world we live in. I wish I had the power to hold a worldwide boycott on this and help give some much needed peace to the victims families including OJ’s children who he don’t seem to care how it’s affecting them .

I take solace in the fact that I for one won’t be watching or reading and I hope most others will follow suit.

Report this

By MarioGeorgeNitrini111, November 16, 2006 at 10:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Alan Martine,

You better believe for a FACT that Information, MY Information, that I gave to LAPD RHD Detective Ronald Y. Ito, and several others on the prosecutions side in The OJ Simpson Case Criminal trial, was ILLEGALLY SUPPRESSED from The defense, and I can legally prove it with Audio Tapes, documentation, and MORE…........

Your information that a “NAMED” player in this case told you that he/she knew that information was suppressed from the defense, is CRITCALLY Important for me, and thank you.

Here is one of the bottom line’s though for me.  How come NO ONE on the defense side, including OJ Simpson, ever “JUMPED” on my information and evidence to prove OJ Simpson Innocent?  They Can’t, because of one man.  ROCKY BATEMAN.

Here’s what’s going on:

The BIG problem is, is that TOO MANY OJ Simpson Case Prosecution people broke the law during and after both cases, and Simpson knows this, and snubbing his nose at them, DARING them…........

It’s a white-wash and a chess game.

MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
__________
The OJ Simpson Case

Report this

By Amigo, November 16, 2006 at 9:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have always wondered why OJ is given so much attention by the media while Robert Blake [another celebrity] is hardly mentioned,eventhough both were acquitted, but many consider both to be guilty ?!
Any thaughts ?? Come on now,this the “TRUTH DIG”!

Report this

By Alan Martine, November 15, 2006 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First, a quick comment to Mr. Earl: there is no attorney-client privilege where polygraph tests are concerned.  The only thing that matters is whether the court of jurisdiction accepts polygraph tests as evidence.  If it does, the defense (or prosecutor) would be in contempt for withholding the results of any polygraph test.

Second, and although I am aware that I will start a firestorm, I have never, from day 1, been convinced of OJ’s guilt; although I believe it is likely that he knows who did it, I do not believe that HE did.

There are numerous reasons for this, but I will give only three.  Note for the record that I was one of those “trial junkies” who followed the trial from the first day.  Based on this, two things jumped out.

First, in the original coroner’s report - as described in both television and print news reports - Ron and Nicole were killed by two different knives.  Yet that report “disappeared” within a couple of weeks.  Where did it go, and why?  Because it would have been highly unlikely (though certainly not impossible) for OJ to have had time or opportunity to use two different knives to kill them (and note that OJ was likely unaware that Ron was there until OJ got there), both because the time frame was so short (as admitted by the prosecution) and because, if he did it, it was a crime of passion and he would not have been thinking clearly enough to “make it look” like more than one person was responsible.  Instead, the use of two knives points to two - or more - persons.

Second, the prosecution was mostly successful in suppressing any evidence regarding the fact that Nicole and her friend Faye Resnick were both dealing coke, and that the people they were dealing for were not exactly nice people.  Indeed, there was evidence that Nicole and Faye owed money to their “connection,” possibly ALOT of money.  This would certainly have given other people motive to kill Nicole (keeping in mind that they would not have expected Ron to be there at the time).

Finally, as for the infamous 9/11 call, if one listens to it without all the dramatics and tension that courtrooms tend to foment, one will find that it was NOT as purported by the prosecution.  Nicole did NOT sound threatened - she simply sounded annoyed.  Indeed, neither Nicole not OJ ever raised their voices during that call (OJ can be heard in the background).  Thus, the call hardly proves that Nicole had any reason to feel physically threatened by OJ.

Re Mr. Nitrini’s comment that his ex-in-law drove for OJ and “unloaded murder evidence” for him, I will state just as categorically that, at a dinner with one of the “named” players in the OJ case in 1998, he stated that he knew OJ was innocent of the murders, but his evidence was successfully suppressed by the prosecution.

However, all of that said, I can only say that it seems highly ill-advised for OJ to be undertaking such a foolish venture.  Better he should put the whole thing behind him and try to get back whatever semblance of a normal life he may ever be able to have.

Report this

By N Hoffmann, November 15, 2006 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So If OJ can put out such a disgusting book perhaps we can look foward to some sort of book from Bush in 12 years called “If I Stole the 2000 Election, Here’s How It Happened.”  or “If I Killed the Constitution, Here’s How It Happended.”

Report this

By Beamis, November 15, 2006 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just another sign of the decline and fall of us all, spiraling downward towards Hell. Fox will surely be on hand to televise us roasting in Hades as well.

Report this

By Richard, November 15, 2006 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just a reminder to all those who cheer the release of convicted murderers who have been freed due to DNA testing: OJ’s DNA was all over the murder scene but the jury, when told that it was a 10 million to one shot that the match wasn’t his, chose the one in 10 million. THE DNA MATCH PROVED BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT HE WAS THE MURDERER.

Report this

By BW, November 15, 2006 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow! Even if OJ is just plain nuts and wants some attention, surely someone between the book publisher and the tv people should have some sense. Then again if Leno, Letterman, or someone like them makes an OJ joke, it’s no big deal. Why should OJ take any of this seriously? Can’t believe it.

Report this

By befuddled1, November 15, 2006 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How has someone not clocked this #@^@#!! in public? He MUST have a security team.

Report this

By penny, November 15, 2006 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Beyond disgusting…. I’m speechless.

And Fox will carry it - if that doesn’t tell us something - it should.
Again - I’m speechless.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, November 15, 2006 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I heard on Coast-To-Coast-AM last night a man being interviewed on the topic of polygraph testing.

He stated, flat out, that O.J. Simpson’s own lawyer had him take a polygraph test and that that test clearly indicated O.J.‘s guilt. The test results, of course, were never provided to the court… lawyer/client priviledge.

Report this

By C Quil, November 15, 2006 at 11:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This guy is laughing because he can’t be tried twice for the same crime.

Whenever this ugly waste of space shows up in the news, I remember that he was the first nude male centrefold in Playgirl magazine (in England, anyway). The magazine flopped spectacularly. I guess old O.J. has been craving the publicity ever since.

If I had that magazine now (I bought it on a dare), it would probably be worth a fortune.

Report this

By Bruce, November 15, 2006 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree totally! Simpson is beyond disgusting. But Fox is every bit as loathsome for trumpeting this travesty as some not-to-be-missed, crime-of-the-century epilogue. I will ALWAYS have something better to do where indulging that murdering liar is concerned.

Report this

By MarioGeorgeNitrini111, November 15, 2006 at 11:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Truthdig,

If someone, ANYONE in The Mainstream Media will talk with me, IN PUBLIC, about OJ Simpson and Simpson’s Regular Limousine driver, my ex-in-law Rocky Bateman, who drove Simpson regularly from Approximately August of 1993 to June of 1994, and quit BELLY-ACHING about Simpson, and covering-up for so many others, I can PROVE that Rocky Bateman unloaded murder evidence for OJ Simpson.

Here are my website’s if anyone wants to contact me.
http://www.myspace.com/mariognitrini111

http://blog.myspace.com/mariognitrini111

http://tinseltowncoldcase.blogspot.com

MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
__________
The OJ Simpson Case

Report this

By mutterhals, November 15, 2006 at 10:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree that he is deplorable, but let’s not give this man the publicity that he so desperately craves…

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook