Unfit

oh, yeah—and the whole book/interview deal?
That made a mockery of those things as well, on a much filthier and creepier level.
Not to mention the whole issue of beating and killing women has been trivialized by the kid glove (sorry, but there it is) treatment of this man. If he had killed somebody “important” (cough, cough), do you think he would be out golfing?
I still, to this day, hear more about Ron Goldman than Nicole, maybe just because Goldman’s family has been more vocal as per the media. But maybe it’s because we’re more horrified by the boyfriend’s death than the wife’s?

Law enforcement should impound OJ’s manuscript and video interview as a possible confession. Double Jeopardy protects OJ from prosecution, but at least it would close the case.

I don’t understand this post. How is this a “big non-event”? I can think of ways it is a big event, reported sloppily.
One story angle that accidentally slipped into a Washington Post article about it:
“For the publishing industry, the cancellation of ‘If I Did It’ was an astonishing end to a story like no other. Numerous books have been withdrawn over the years because of possible plagiarism, most recently Kaavya Viswanathan’s ‘How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,’ but a book’s removal simply for objectionable content is virtually unheard of.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000665.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/entertainmentnews
Having worked in book publishing, I am stunned by this book’s withdrawal from the marketplace. From a business perspective alone, the amount of expected profit that was just *lost* is so staggering, it doesn’t make sense to me that they canceled both the book (already printed, bound, jacketed, and shipped) and the TV special. It’s not about how many people objected — that story does not compute. In publishing, the more people who object, the BETTER.
I don’t even know how many books I’ve worked on; more than I care to count. Probably a couple hundred. Only one was ever canceled — for unmistakable cut-and-paste plagiarism. Its cancellation blew a hole in the budget so huge it had everyone hiding under their desks, expecting the building to cave in from the publisher’s wrath. And that was nothing close to *this* magnitude: it hadn’t even been printed yet. But the editor was ultimately canceled too.
Check out the magnitude on Murdoch’s face on page 2 of the Times article.

GeorgeF: Do househusbands know this too?

I remember that day OJ tried on the gloves. Some savvy news research person found a sports video of OJ doing a TV interview on the football field. OJ was wearing a pair of leather gloves that same color and the gloves were about two sizes too small for him. It is like someone bought him those gloves as a gift but he kept them and wore them anyway to show appreciation for the gift. I wish I could find that video now. I wish the jury would have seen that video.

@ KansasKowboy: Useless to shed tears for that – in the USA. Here (germany) such evidence would open the chance to reviw the case.

GeorgeF > today is the day the Center for Constitutional Rights, files criminal charges against Donald Rumsfelt in Germany for alleged abuses in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.
Although dropped in 2004, with former Brigadier General Janice Karpinski now Colonel Janice Kapinski willing to testify and with additional unclassified evidence, lets hope Germany is able to do what Spain did for Chile. (Pinochet)

@ jt: Heard of that, but don’t have too much hope. Vice versa the US-jurisdiction too often has neglected the rights of Germans, accused in the US. If a case on US-citizens because of war crimes would be opened, what would be the stance of the US to that? At the best the German jurisdiction might forward the case to the International Court in The Hague and in case of that the US has formulated a law, which allows to retain any US-citizen, held by the International Court even by force – a minor invasion into the Netherlends inclusive.

[For some reason, my computer wouldn't let me send this for the last 3 days. Sorry to be late.]
I have spent days inuring myself to the onslaught of constant babble about OJ on every possible program. Suddenly it’s ditched. I almost feel cheated out of my own bile. I’ll bet Faux’s legal bimbo is just beside herself with anger. But I’ll also bet that the person who’s most sorry that it got canceled is Michael Richards. I hear O’Reilly is taking credit for having it canceled, apparently not realizing that his boss was responsible for setting it up in the first place.
I spent a few years cheering OJ on when he was at USC. He and Mike Battle led USC on to the championship at the Rose Bowl. When I first heard about the murders, the stories were so gruesome that you couldn’t imagine that anyone could have done it. Certainly not anyone you know. Gradually over the next few days we all came to the realization that it was somebody we all knew. He has since proven himself to be a narcissist of the first order. But for tina, you will have to console yourself that he didn’t get off because he just killed a woman (even a white one). He got off because he was famous and rich. Famous and/or rich white men get off all the time, it’s just not as noticeable.
But I’m not sure I can answer The Bag’s question about DerStern’s intent. Mainly because my German is limited to a couple of phrases that probably wouldn’t appear in the paper. But the photo is the money shot from the trial where-in OJ pretends to put on the gloves OVER the rubber gloves he was wearing so as not to ‘contaminate’ the evidence. Was that as famous in Europe as it was here?…..”If it the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.”
Finally, I want to say a goodbye to Robert Altman, a brilliant director and one of my favorites (if that counts for anything). He was a genius at collecting bits and making them in to very interesting films.

GeorgeF said: “How dumb was the jury????”
Oy. How dumb is that statement????
Here’s how jury selection works in this country and in the OJ case specifically:
“During the voir dire process, each potential juror took a seat at a conference table.  Also seated at the table were lawyers for both sides and *Simpson* — sitting not more than six feet from the people that might soon judge him.  The object of voir dire, from each side’s perspective, is not to get a fair jury, but rather a prejudiced one — one prejudiced in their favor.  In theory, what results is a fair jury, one from which both sides have excluded potential jurors that are least likely to be sympathetic to their cause.  Jurors who give answers that indicate that they have prejudged the case can be challenged for cause, others can be excluded using a limited number of peremptory challenges.  Attorneys can exercise their peremptory challenges for almost any reason — body language, appearance, dissatisfaction with answers — but not for reasons of race or sex.  Every challenge by the prosecution of a potential black juror caused Cochran to approach the bench and suggest that the challenge may have been racially motivated.  This tactic may have worked to dissuade the prosecution from challenging some black jurors.  It was no secret that the prosecution wanted white jurors and the defense wanted black jurors.  Despite defense survey data suggesting that women generally made better defense jurors than men, Prosecutor Clark willingly accepted a disproportionate number of women jurors.  She reportedly believed — wrongly, as it turned out — that female jurors responded well to her courtroom style.  The defense’s simulated jury tests had indicated that black females disliked Nicole Simpson — believing that she was irresponsibly milking money from a famous black man — and that they would also likely be hostile to a hard-edged female prosecutor such as Marcia Clark.
The defense poured great effort into the jury selection process.  Consultant Dmitrius coordinated massive data on each of the jury finalists, including their answers to the questionaire, responses and body language during voir dire, and other data the defense had managed to collect.  This data was put into a computer and each juror ranked according to their likely sympathy to the defense.”
Read more about the jury:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html
If you follow all the links in this article below, you can get an *informed* idea about how OJ was acquitted. Some reasons for the verdict *may* have to do with courtroom theatrics, but ultimately, it was an accruing of mistakes in the prosecution of the case. That combined with the simple but *overriding* fact that we as a society refuse to acknowledge that domestic abuse actually happens. Read up about the statistics yourself, and then contemplate adding the star power of an American sports IDOL to the mix. If the LAPD typically refused to jail OJ after 9-1-1 calls from Nicole Brown, why would a jury convict him?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials10.htm
If you want to claim that Europe does a better job with *anything,* GeorgeF, then back up your *opinions* with data. Please keep in mind, however, that Europe does not *collect* statistics of violence against women to the extent that the United States does.
So, I’ll get you started with your research:
“Studies conducted in a number of EU member states found that one in five women in Ireland, one in four in the UK and one in three in Portugal and Germany had been exposed to domestic violence.”
http://www.unece.org/stats/gender/genpols/keyinds/crime/violence.htm
http://www.bmfsfj.de/Publikationen/women-in-germany/a-9.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed

@ readytoblow..: Agreed, they had taken extensive labour to find a jury, which found at least the acceptance of OJ’s attorneys …… ? What has “body-language” to do with logical thinking? Is there anyone in the world without a background noise of pre-justice? To me all this theatre of selecting an unprejusticed jury is nothing bt a joke, a game of the defenders to demonstrate their power and influence (which may also be called a camouflaged threat) even before the beginning of the case.
Agreed, in Europe violence at home is not less than in the USA. Agreed, excellent attorneys cost a lot of money and therefore those, who are better off, have a better chance at court.
But again, in a case like that one of OJ Simpson – if brought to court here – he wouldn’t have had a chance to get away. European courts are not in the same way dependent of the public opinion than in the USA, they are not elected by public votes. It is that simple.

It’s constantly repeated ad nauseam that the reason the gloves didn’t fit is
that they were “soaked in blood” and shrank as a result. The trial transcript is readily available and shows that one glove had no blood at all and the other had half a teaspoonful–”no effect whatsoever”–according to the glove expert.
To proclaim OJ’s guilt based on baldfaced lies is beneath contempt.The jury begged to differ.