• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

O.J. Simpson's First "If I had Killed My Wife" Novel

The jury DID find him innocent..but I find it hard to believe thatan innocent man who doens't need the income would want to dredge it all up again. His children certainly don't need even more publicity and he has to know that the world us watching for him to show his hand..It all smacks of headlines from the National Enquirer and I just don't want any part of it.

Just because a jury found him innocent doesn't make him so. I haven't paid much attention to him or his plight but I do believe with legal fees and the money he had to pay the family of Nicole Brown he isn't exactly rich by celebrity standards anymore. Thus, a book entrenched in sensationalism pandering to those with no taste and disposable income.
 
Just because a jury found him innocent doesn't make him so. I haven't paid much attention to him or his plight but I do believe with legal fees and the money he had to pay the family of Nicole Brown he isn't exactly rich by celebrity standards anymore. Thus, a book entrenched in sensationalism pandering to those with no taste and disposable income.


He has more money than I do, and he wouldn't read my book if I 'might have' killed my hubby and kids and wrote a book about it...so I don't feel obligated to donate to his cause;)

Besides, my hard-earned dimes are for books that have more lasting value..ones we might want to read again..
 
Jennifer - why do you want to support a murderer?

I don't want to "support a murderer"....I want to read what he has to say. If this was a special on E, you would all watch it. If it were a live interview, or story telling hour, you'd listen. Stop denying that you don't have interest in hearing what BS he has to say.

I know this is completely irrelevant, but you all read about Hitler, right? Did he not murder people? You were still interested in learning of him, right?
 
I don't want to "support a murderer"....I want to read what he has to say. If this was a special on E, you would all watch it. If it were a live interview, or story telling hour, you'd listen. Stop denying that you don't have interest in hearing what BS he has to say.

No. I haven't and I wouldn't.

I know this is completely irrelevant, but you all read about Hitler, right? Did he not murder people? You were still interested in learning of him, right?

The books on Hitler that people read don't profit the Nazi organizations around the world now do they? And even if I did buy Hitler's very own book, Mein Kampf, it's public domain and would only profit the publisher.
 
The jury DID find him innocent..but I find it hard to believe thatan innocent man who doens't need the income would want to dredge it all up again. His children certainly don't need even more publicity and he has to know that the world us watching for him to show his hand..It all smacks of headlines from the National Enquirer and I just don't want any part of it.

First of all, no jury found him innocent. They found him not guilty without reasonable doubt. Being found innocent and or not guilty are two different things, in a court of law.

Secondly, it was the judge, not the jury, who gave the sentence. I believe.
 
It has nothing to do with supporting a murderer.
It has to do with curiosity.
The Hitler analogy was pretty good - I thought. I was thinking it myself, as a matter of fact. Of course the Nazi party benefits when we buy and read such books - the books propogate the ideology of the party.
I heard David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) has written a book. Chares Manson as well. You may refuse to read these books - I haven't read them myself, but not out of any moral outrage that they wrote them. We can all learn something by reading what deranged minds have to say.

Furthermore, the fact that a jury aquitted him does indeed make him not guilty of murder, in the eyes of the law. That's the system. If you don't prove your case, the defendant walks. There was no proof, so he walked.
 
Ions like to start s*t. Ignore him.

ions likes to start stuff? Yeah that's right, ions you really got to stop the stirring, I mean actually reading books and then discussing them in a thoughtful manner is just wrong dude. Posting coherent thoughts and explaining why you think something is right/wrong is also just not done man. Yep we should ignore him :rolleyes: .

Libre said:
It has to do with curiosity.
I agree with you to a certain extent Libre. Personally I think the OJ book is a bit distasteful, but that of course doesn't mean it should be banned or that people shouldn't read it if they choose. I'm just surprised they would choose to.
 
It has nothing to do with supporting a murderer.
It has to do with curiosity.
The Hitler analogy was pretty good - I thought. I was thinking it myself, as a matter of fact. Of course the Nazi party benefits when we buy and read such books - the books propogate the ideology of the party.
I heard David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) has written a book. Chares Manson as well. You may refuse to read these books - I haven't read them myself, but not out of any moral outrage that they wrote them. We can all learn something by reading what deranged minds have to say.

Furthermore, the fact that a jury aquitted him does indeed make him not guilty of murder, in the eyes of the law. That's the system. If you don't prove your case, the defendant walks. There was no proof, so he walked.


Oh, they had proof. They had bootprints, DNA, every circumstantial evidence you could make up.

It was the race card, and the fear of another riot, that got him acquitted.
 
ions likes to start stuff? Yeah that's right, ions you really got to stop the stirring, I mean actually reading books and then discussing them in a thoughtful manner is just wrong dude. Posting coherent thoughts and explaining why you think something is right/wrong is also just not done man. Yep we should ignore him :rolleyes: .

Gem, Ion does the same tirade I do.

I don't call that good.
 
From the publisher...

Full Statement From Publisher Judith Regan:

Why I Did It

I was sitting with Howard Stern, of all people, when the verdict came down. Many of you probably remember where you were at that moment. It was a moment I, like so many others, was dreading.

Because, I knew that the “killer,” as Kim Goldman so eloquently named him, would be acquitted. I knew it from my own experience.

Conviction is what I wanted—and not just in the legal sense.

I wanted it because I had once been that young woman who loved with all of her heart and believed in the goodness of man, the trusting girl who fell for the guy, who believed in the beauty of romance, the power of love, the joy of family and the miracle of motherhood. Like Nicole Brown, I believed with all my heart . . . and then got punched in the face.

Literally.

On that day, October 3, 1995, as Howard and I sat watching the television with a conference room full of people, I said, “He’ll be acquitted.” I said it out loud, and the others in the room looked at me in a way I’d been looked at before: “Oh, God. She’s crazy.”

But I knew it, because I’d been there. I’d listened to the lies (“She hit herself’), watched him charm the police (“Sir, I don’t know why she’s saying this”), endured the ignorance of one cop who looked at me with disdain and said “You must like it,” and couldn’t understand why they didn’t believe me.

That man was tall, dark, and handsome. A great athlete. A brilliant mind. He was even a doctor, with an M.D. after his name and a degree that came with an oath: “First, do no harm.” He was one of the brightest men I’d ever met. And he could charm anyone. He charmed me. We had a child. And then he knocked me out, with a blow to my head, and sent me to the hospital.

He manipulated, lied, and broke my heart.

And then, after all but leaving me for dead in a hospital, where his daughter died a few days later, he left for good.

So as I watched this new scene play itself out, I knew that this man—the killer, as Kim calls him—would be acquitted. I’d seen it before: The men in court, dressed in their designer suits, blaming the women they attacked. I’d seen, firsthand, the “criminal injustice system,” as I called it in my twenties—the system that let him go one night after assaulting me so he could come right back and do it again.

I had my witnesses, thank God, or no one would have believed me. But he, too, had his fans, the ones who could not believe that a man that smart, that good-looking, and that successful “would ever do anything like that.”

“Why,” one of my own family members said in one of the many denials I’d heard, “would someone like him do that to you? Why? And if he did, you must have done something to provoke him.” I’d heard it all.

So when the verdict came down, I watched the faces in the room freeze in shock.

“I told you,” I said, and left the room.

The Trial of the Century, as it was called, was not just a moment for me, it was a seminal moment in American history. The curtain was pulled back on the issues of domestic violence, police corruption, and racism—on both sides. And when the final curtain fell, it fell on the killer, as he is known, providing a protective shield from the consequences of his grievous act.

Conviction, or lack thereof, is the story of the trial of the century. Where was that sense of conviction when racist police officers abused and battered their victims? Where was that sense of conviction when Nicole Brown was being battered and people stood by and let him get away with it time and time again? Where was it when NBC kept him on the air when they were sure to know? Where was it when the Browns lost custody of the children, who were sent to be raised by the narcissist who killed their mother? Where was it when Fred Goldman, who lost his beautiful son, won a civil judgment, but was unable to collect it?

Where was it?

I never lost my desire for his conviction. And if Marcia Clark couldn’t do it. I sure wanted to try.

In the past few days, since the announcement of the forthcoming book and televised interview If I Did It, it has been strange watching the media spin the story. They have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him. A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood, nor when she conducted her celebrated interviews with dictator Fidel Castro or Muammar al-Gaddafi; not called for when 60 Minutes interviewed Timothy McVeigh who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City, not called for when the U.S. government released tapes of Osama bin Laden; not called for when Geraldo Rivera interviewed his dozens of murderers, miscreants, and deviants.

Nor should it be.

“To publish” does not mean “to endorse”; it means “to make public.” If you doubt that, ask the mainstream publishers who keep Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf in print to this day. They are likely to say that there is a historical value in publishing such material, so that the public can read, and judge for themselves, the thoughts and attempted defenses of an indefensible man. There is historical value in such work; there is value for law enforcement, for students of psychology, for anyone who wants to gain insight into the mind of a sociopath.

But that is not why I did it. That is not why I wanted to face the killer. That is not why I wanted to publish his story.

I didn’t know what to expect when I got the call that the killer wanted to confess. I didn’t know what would happen. But I knew one thing. I wanted the confession for my own selfish reasons and for the symbolism of that act.

For me, it was personal.

My son is now twenty-five years old, my daughter fifteen. I wanted them, and everyone else, to have a chance to see that there are consequences to grievous acts. That the consequences of pain and suffering will ultimately be brought upon its perpetrators. And I wanted, as so many victims do, to hear him say “I did it and I am sorry.”

I didn’t know if he would. But I wanted to try. I wanted his confession.

I wanted the acknowledgment, not for me but for my son, so I could turn to him and say, “I’m sorry that he was not a father to you. I’m sorry that he could not teach you what it means to be a man. And, finally, he’s sorry too.”

When I was a girl, a young, innocent, and believing girl, my parents made me go to confession. I didn’t always like to go. It was spooky going into the dark confessional booths, where I was told to say my penance for my sins and to recite The Act of Contrition.

Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee. And I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all because I offend thee my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life, amen.

To confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life, amen.

I was seven or eight years old at the time, and I had no idea what I was saying or doing. But I do now.

I made the decision to publish this book, and to sit face to face with the killer, because I wanted him, and the men who broke my heart and your hearts, to tell the truth, to confess their sins, to do penance and to amend their lives.

Amen.


hahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahah!!!
 
Continued...

We live in a world right now where hatred and vengeance is a way of life.

And as the killer sat before me I was not filled with vengeance or hatred. I thought of the man who had beaten me so many years ago, who left me in a hospital, the man who broke my child’s heart. And I listened carefully.

And what went through my mind surprised me. Mental illness. Thought process disorder. No empathy. Malignant narcissism.

In the years to come, I hope we will have a better understanding of this type of disordered personality. Are certain people simply born that way? If not, what goes wrong that changes them? How does this happen? And why?

I took on this project with the belief that his life must be a constant torture, a kind of hell. And I wondered: In his confession, however he chose to state it, would he do his penance, could he amend his life? Could he say he was sorry?

I thought back to Christmas Eve, a few years ago. The man who broke my heart was now standing on my doorstep, shaking. He talked about my son, now in his twenties, and told me I’d done a great job raising him alone.

During the years that I was running from work to homework, from my office to every school play, assembly, swim meet or parent conference, he never showed up for a single thing. While I was raising my son, he had lived a high life and then lost everything. He ended up in prison, lost his medical license, lost many of his worldly possessions, lost his looks and now, most of the women who once cared had gone, too.

And he was losing his mind. His hand was shaking violently. He had Parkinson’s disease, and was a broken man. He looked at me. The girl he’d left in the gutter had raised two children alone, had built a successful company, and was now a happy woman.

“I guess you think I’m getting my comeuppance,” he said.

And strangely I didn’t. That a man who had so much could throw it all away and fall so low—it gave me no pleasure.

I was sad for my son, sad for the women he’d left behind, sad for the mother and siblings he’d disappointed and I was sad for him that he’d missed the opportunity to live a beautiful life.

When I sat face to face with the killer, I wanted him to confess, to release us all from the wound of the conviction that was lost on that fall day in October of 1995.

For the girl who was left in the gutter, I wanted to make it right.

Nice excuse, Judith, in order to get the benjamins.

Let me stick out two middle in the air for you, Mrs. Regan.
 
O.J. Simpson simply does not exist in my world. I really don’t care what he has to say, and I’m frankly astonished that there are still people who do. He's a very sick and disturbed person, and deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life. But apparently cheating justice isn't enough for him. He needs to make a buck off of the gruesome details, and rub it in the face of his victims' families. What a guy. :mad:
 
It has nothing to do with supporting a murderer.

If you buy a book written by an author you support that author. If the author is a murderer you are supporting that murderer. Unless OJ is donating all proceeds from his book to a charity? Cancer Research? Find The Real Murderer(s) Fund? Yeah, thought so. Purchase of OJ's book supports OJ. A murderer.

It has to do with curiosity.

Sure you can be curious about events but you should be curious intelligently. Are there no accounts of this crime in the true crime section of the bookstore? I don't know I haven't actually looked. A skill that used to be taught in university was to learn from trusted resources. Is that still taught?

The Hitler analogy was pretty good - I thought. I was thinking it myself, as a matter of fact. Of course the Nazi party benefits when we buy and read such books - the books propogate the ideology of the party.
I heard David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) has written a book. Chares Manson as well. You may refuse to read these books - I haven't read them myself, but not out of any moral outrage that they wrote them. We can all learn something by reading what deranged minds have to say.

No. The Hitler comparison is poor. The historical accounts of WWII I am thinking of don't shed the nicest light on Adolf or the Nazis. Nowhere in this conversation was it mentioned that we were talking about pro-nazi propaganda. Unless you contend Libre that the majority of WWII history books have a pro-nazi agenda? I don't, and wouldn't read any books propogated by the Nazi party. I also don't deny the right to publish them but freedom of speech should not be free of taste nor intelligence. Charles Manson has written a book, maybe even more than one, for some reason I think more than one, but will I pick up his book for insight into the Sharon Tate murders or Helter Skelter? Again, this goes back to getting your information from reliable sources.

We can learn what deranged minds have to say. Can we learn from sensationalized nonsense groomed for duping philistines from their money? No.

eyez0nme said:
Gem, Ion does the same tirade I do.

I don't call that good.

This is the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me. Sorry to break it to you Hulk but you're nothing like me.
 
i agree monkey catcher. i am appalled that the publishers were willing to give him $ to write it and are willing to make $ off this crap.
 
i know how he killed her - he butchered her! we saw the damn trial for a year! not that i wanted to watch, but every time you turned on a TV there it was on every freaking channel - even before the trial watching that stupid Bronco driving down the road for hours. I could not believe the obsession people had with the whole friggin case! what is the obsession with it?

i agree that it is time for someone to tell OJ he is no longer relevant and this just feeds his ego and sense of self-importance.
 
good to see you again, Chris! so glad you are still participating! we'll get you to read a book yet - just don't start with this one! ;)

try harry potter - even the other adults here, for the most part, enjoy it! so don't think it is just for kids. it is a quick and fun read that may get you into reading again and wanting something bigger and better! ;)
 
Back
Top