O.J. Simpson's Book + TV Special Cancelled [Archive]

amacgenius

Nov 21, 2006, 06:09 AM

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000665.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/entertainmentnews)

After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and TV special "If I Did It."

What do you all think of this, granted what he did/didn't do was heinous, it kind of makes you want to read part if not all of the book to see how the hell he pulled it off.

Discuss.

MacBoobsPro

Nov 21, 2006, 06:11 AM

I think they have finally realised he did do it :rolleyes: and that now makes the book redundant.

danidoll521

Nov 21, 2006, 07:36 AM

While double jeopardy is necessary, it's a shame we have such a provision in this case. I think is seems pretty clear that he did it and I'm sure many would like to see justice served. He should never have gotten away with it in the first place.

Sdashiki

Nov 21, 2006, 08:27 AM

this should be merged with the other thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252736

DavidLeblond

Nov 21, 2006, 08:45 AM

I think it is sad that the only reason Fox pulled it was the threat of a boycott. Something like this should not be agreed to in the first place. Plus OJ still walks away with $3.5mil. Whether he did or didn't do it, profiting off of your wife's murder makes you a sick sick man.

amacgenius

Nov 21, 2006, 08:50 AM

this should be merged with the other thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252736

I see your point but I have to disagree, due to the fact that this (in my opinion) is it's own seperate discussion, seeing as the other thread is the announcement of the book, etc - this is the announcement of the cancellation of the book, etc.

MacBoobsPro

Nov 21, 2006, 08:52 AM

So have they actually caught the person that 'did it?'

benthewraith

Nov 21, 2006, 09:30 AM

I think they realized no one was going to watch it and so therefore decided not to show it.

I had planned on not watching it.

Sdashiki

Nov 21, 2006, 09:50 AM

Swarmlord

Nov 21, 2006, 09:51 AM

It's done. No one is going to show his interview and the book probably won't be published. Despite normal curiousity, I wouldn't pay one cent to read it for fear that he might profit from it.

MacRumorUser

Nov 21, 2006, 10:19 AM

So have they actually caught the person that 'did it?'

caught him, tried him and then let him go by all accounts ;)

sushi

Nov 21, 2006, 10:22 AM

Glad to see it cancelled.

MongoTheGeek

Nov 21, 2006, 11:59 AM

Its a sad day really. Imagine being able to suppress something by exhibiting moral outrage. All of the haters have silenced free speech.

Who all have been punished.
1) Judith Regan who was looking for some personal closure and had the daring speak freely.
2) OJ Simpson's kids who were going to get the money.
3) People who like salacious details. (not that they don't deserve it but included for completeness)
4) People who just want to hear the truth/want it to get out.
5) People who value their liberty.

Who is being rewarded.
1) Rupert Murdoch and Fox get to look like they care by shutting down an inhouse rogue.
2) OJ Simpson. He got to give his confession and get absolution without people seeing it.
3) People who have an agenda in stifling free speech. Including several left and right wing extremist groups. (pick your favorite enemies and add in the usual suspects)

Buschmaster

Nov 21, 2006, 12:03 PM

Thank God...

Something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. ;)

MacNut

Nov 21, 2006, 01:43 PM

The problem isn't that people would not watch, I think a lot of people would of watched it but the problem is that most of the affiliates were not going to air it.

killr_b

Nov 21, 2006, 01:51 PM

I think Fox gave the project a green light just so they could pull the plug later.
"Ooh, Fox is so full of family values and respect that they didn't air OJ's evil. Blah Blah Blah."
Don't be fooled. In this world the one who benefits most is the one who caused the problems. Without creating an evil monster there can be no great hero.

DavidLeblond

Nov 21, 2006, 03:37 PM

MacBoobsPro

Nov 21, 2006, 03:44 PM

Who in their right mind would spend time thinking about how he would of killed someone and then publicise it? Someone who clearly thinks killing someone is not a big deal.

Ive read loads of accounts of what went down and the guy is so obviously guilty it is actually scary that he is allowed to roam free.

The book should be called. "Ive had a think about it and I wish I had done it like this"

Are retrials allowed in the US?

DavidLeblond

Nov 21, 2006, 03:48 PM

Are retrials allowed in the US?

No. Its called Double Jeopardy. He can be sued into oblivion, but the only way he can be charged criminally is if he killed again.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened either.

MacBoobsPro

Nov 21, 2006, 03:51 PM

No. Its called Double Jeopardy. He can be sued into oblivion, but the only way he can be charged criminally is if he killed again.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened either.

Yeh Rupert Murdoch is a real ******* hey OJ?

Edit: Just realised what you said: "He can be charged criminally if he kills AGAIN" :D

First time doesnt count then? Right wheres my boss?

*sound of gun being cocked*

MongoTheGeek

Nov 21, 2006, 03:53 PM

Gahhh if I hear one more person say OJs rights were violated or someone's free speech was violated in this matter I'm going to SCREAM.

Okay. No free speech rights were violated. My point is that this is one step towards the committee for the preservation of virtue and prevention of vice.

Are retrials allowed in the US?

No. Expressly forbidden in the constitution along with passing laws to specifically punish a person, and punishing people for things that were outlawed after the fact and executing children of traitors.

There were revolutionaries in the colonies who were tried for sedition until convicted.

MongoTheGeek

Nov 21, 2006, 03:56 PM

No. Its called Double Jeopardy. He can be sued into oblivion, but the only way he can be charged criminally is if he killed again.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened either.

He can be tried for other things though. c.f. Rodney King trial...

He violated their civil rights and tried to keep them from voting...

/yeah, that's the ticket...
//no, I'm not bitter...
///well maybe a bit

j26

Nov 21, 2006, 03:59 PM

Gahhh if I hear one more person say OJs rights were violated or someone's free speech was violated in this matter I'm going to SCREAM.

No one's free speech was violated! Fox is a business. If they decide they don't want to publish a book, guess what? They won't publish it! Nothing is going to stop OJ from going elsewhere or even publishing that crap on the web for free. NOTHING.

Lets say I decide I want to write a story about my belly button fuzz and have it published by O'Reily. O'Reily turns around and says "we don't want to publish your belly button fuzz book!" Are my rights violated? Should O'Reily have to publish EVERYTHING that comes their way? NO.

The only thing this is "stifling" is OJ's ability to make a crapload of money off of his wife's death that he may or may not have been the direct cause of. Please don't make a mockery of our first amendment.

What he said. There's no violation of his right to free speech, merely a decision (on economic grounds) that it would not be aired on Fox. He's still free to say it, it just won't get the publicity (or money) he wants.

Incidentally double jeopardy is vital in a liberal democratic state to prevent opression. Sometimes it's effects are unwelcome, but we all profit by its existence, so please don't start demandng new trials. Accept that this is the one that got away.

DavidLeblond

Nov 21, 2006, 04:00 PM

He can be tried for other things though. c.f. Rodney King trial...

He violated their civil rights and tried to keep them from voting...

Ah, but based on the previous trial he DIDN'T keep them from voting, someone else did. So it would probably get thrown out.

Besides, this is LA we're talking about. He could probably be filmed while blowing up the state capital and get off.

DavidLeblond

Nov 21, 2006, 04:01 PM

Incidentally double jeopardy is vital in a liberal democratic state to prevent opression. Sometimes it's effects are unwelcome, but we all profit by its existence, so please don't start demandng new trials. Accept that this is the one that got away.

They should have been granted a mistrial the first time. Did they even request one? If not, then they're idiots. There is no way that trial was fair.

MongoTheGeek

Nov 21, 2006, 04:59 PM

Ah, but based on the previous trial he DIDN'T keep them from voting, someone else did. So it would probably get thrown out.

Besides, this is LA we're talking about. He could probably be filmed while blowing up the state capital and get off.

The cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted of beating him, the jury decided that their actions were justified by his. After the acquittal they were tried again in a federal court of interfering with his civil rights which required them to prove everything that was needed in the state trial, plus that they did it for racially motivated reasons and that they did it to intimidate him. They were convicted on that. Yet another miscarriage of justice.

They should have been granted a mistrial the first time. Did they even request one? If not, then they're idiots. There is no way that trial was fair.

On what grounds? The jury wasn't tainted, there were no procedural abnormalities. There were a few close calls that went for the defense but nothing that was outrageous enough to warrant a retrial, especially overriding an acquittal.

MacRumorUser

Nov 21, 2006, 05:45 PM

2) OJ Simpson's kids who were going to get the money.

I'm sure they would have prefered a mother.

Besides he still has been paid 3.5 million or thereabout the reports are saying.

The fact remains it's morally dubious he should be profiteering at all. Yes he was found innocent of the criminal trial, but he was found guilty at the civil.

Profiteering from criminal actions is prohibited under US law.
This case balances very close to the line of being illegal, and it wouldnt surprise me if it did go ahead, there may have been another court case in relation to his payment...

DavidLeblond

Nov 21, 2006, 05:57 PM

On what grounds? The jury wasn't tainted, there were no procedural abnormalities. There were a few close calls that went for the defense but nothing that was outrageous enough to warrant a retrial, especially overriding an acquittal.

For one that whole glove fiasco. He should have not been allowed to be in control of that situation. There are other ways of determining glove fit then by giving it to the offender and saying "here, try this on." I can make a perfectly fitting pair of pants seem not to fit if I really wanted to.

decksnap

Nov 21, 2006, 07:04 PM

A thought:

who is to blame for this? WHO is the truly guilty person? Besides the obvious.

who pays for this to happen?

who has the money that eventually would end up in OJs pocket?

Is it Rupert Murdoc and Fox?

Nope.

Its the advertisers who are the most morally bereft of the entire lot.

Advertising PAYS for television. And every single advertiser that had bid to be run during this interview on Fox, is truly the scum in this pit. They knew where their money was going and their commercials, and vicariously their products were advocating this atrocious mans grasp for more fame and money.

I don't know about that. Were any actual advertisers announced? It's quite possible that FOX could have filled the advertising slots with ads for other 'under the Fox umbrella' companies. What this means is that when advertisers look at the this year's Neilson ratings next year when they make their buys, they will be paying Fox a higher rate to advertise. It's a moneymaker for FOX, with or without independent advertisers.

connorhays

Nov 23, 2006, 12:47 AM

Is there anyway to find this? i have to get a copy just so I can laugh all day

MongoTheGeek

Nov 23, 2006, 04:42 PM

Profiteering from criminal actions is prohibited under US law.
This case balances very close to the line of being illegal, and it wouldnt surprise me if it did go ahead, there may have been another court case in relation to his payment...

He was acquitted so he can profit.

For one that whole glove fiasco. He should have not been allowed to be in control of that situation. There are other ways of determining glove fit then by giving it to the offender and saying "here, try this on." I can make a perfectly fitting pair of pants seem not to fit if I really wanted to.

That was the prosecutions blunder. No rewards for incompetence.

pinto32

Nov 24, 2006, 04:48 AM

The best part of this for me was when Bill Orally (O'Reilly) called into his own show to brag about how he was responsible for killing this deal. He then said that they are winning the culture war against the "bad people." So, apperantly Rupert Murdock is evil according to Fox News? Go figure, I guess they really ARE fair and balanced! :eek:

<<<My opinion is obviously anti-Fox/Murdock..but at least we can all agree that Juice is a lying sack of ****

apb3

Nov 24, 2006, 11:25 AM

No. Its called Double Jeopardy. He can be sued into oblivion, but the only way he can be charged criminally is if he killed again.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happened either.

Not exactly. A creative Fed prosecutor could use the idea of "Dual Sovereignty" to make a case against OJ. Double Jeopardy isn't as absolute as we like to think. Basically the idea is if you commit an offense that is a crime against two (or more) authorities - usually Federal and State - then you have, in effect, commited TWO (or more) crimes and can be tried for each separately. Done all the time in drug/forfeiture cases but can be creatively applied to many crimes. And the fact that OJ is basically rubbing the public's nose in his - as yet unpunished - criminal acts, is so egregious that I could see some Fed getting creative just to finally get justice (or for the more cynical among us, to make a name for themselves...)

A quick Google search found this one example of the Dual Sovereignty theory:

http://www.fear.org/gpsau32.html

There are others but I need to get out of bed and gets me some gadgets on sale today... It sure is great to be back in the US where one need not trade porn or booze for necessities like iPods, laptops and other electronic gear:D

benthewraith

Nov 24, 2006, 01:16 PM

Not exactly. A creative Fed prosecutor could use the idea of "Dual Sovereignty" to make a case against OJ. Double Jeopardy isn't as absolute as we like to think. Basically the idea is if you commit an offense that is a crime against two (or more) authorities - usually Federal and State - then you have, in effect, commited TWO (or more) crimes and can be tried for each separately. Done all the time in drug/forfeiture cases but can be creatively applied to many crimes. And the fact that OJ is basically rubbing the public's nose in his - as yet unpunished - criminal acts, is so egregious that I could see some Fed getting creative just to finally get justice (or for the more cynical among us, to make a name for themselves...)

A quick Google search found this one example of the Dual Sovereignty theory:

http://www.fear.org/gpsau32.html

There are others but I need to get out of bed and gets me some gadgets on sale today... It sure is great to be back in the US where one need not trade porn or booze for necessities like iPods, laptops and other electronic gear:D

Still, it'd be pretty hard. Now if OJ killed someone that fell under Federal jurisdiction, say a Federal Employee (anyone, even your mailman), then yes. But I don't think either his wife or the other person involved were Fed. Employees. Therefore, it'd be a bit difficult.

apb3

Nov 24, 2006, 02:11 PM

Still, it'd be pretty hard. Now if OJ killed someone that fell under Federal jurisdiction, say a Federal Employee (anyone, even your mailman), then yes. But I don't think either his wife or the other person involved were Fed. Employees. Therefore, it'd be a bit difficult.

Not saying it'd be easy but it could be something as simple/creative as tying the body of the crime to a multi-state criminal enterprise as in he kills them or arranges for them to be killed in CA, allegedly takes a flight to Chicago, IL during that timeframe either to create an alibi, hide evidence, both, etc... Later he moves to FL. Maybe there's some evidence in FL?? That's another state as well... hmmm...

Just the ongoing criminal enterprise aspect/conspiracy could be enough to kick to the fed courts even without the crossing of state lines.

Anyways, one can hope.;)

pinto32

Nov 25, 2006, 12:39 AM

It actually isn't that hard at all for a murder to come under federal jurisdiction. This is how the deferal government fought for justice during the civil rights movement:
Klan members would murder someone, and an all-white KKK-affiliated jury would aquite instantly. So, Bobby Kennedy's Department of Justice would have a federal prosecuter charge the recently-aquitted defendant with a Civil Rights Violation.
Unless the law has changed, this is a maximum 10-year sentence. However, it is a way to make amends for errors and corruption in state courts.