Is "O.J" really good for you, Judith Regan?
Today’s question: “Who’s right, who’s wrong, and should O.J. be allowed to make decisions of any kind?”
Seriously – what’s up with his actions?
I have no plans to watch his interview. I think I’ll be plucking my eyebrows or getting a root canal of some sort. (Then again, if I watch this farce of an interview, I might be able to gain absolution for many sins. Hmmm…what to do, what to do.)
OK…let me recap for those of you who have been living under a rock for the past few years.
1. O.J. was found not guilty of murder involving his ex-wife and an innocent bystander in a criminal trial (1995), but was found liable for their deaths (1997). $33.5 million dollars was supposed to be awarded to the victims’ families for pain and suffering, but OF COURSE they didn’t get it. That would require the judicial system to work smoothly, and also must allow for O.J. to do the right thing.
2. O.J. wants to write a book.
Is it a picture book about barnyard animals that play football for the NFL? Nope.
Is it a tell-all book about his experiences on the set of the “Naked Gun” movies? Nope.
No – not even close. His book is a book that describes – hypothetically, mind you – how he would have killed Nicole Brown Simpson, THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN, if he’d done it.
3. ReganBooks (a sub-publishing house under HarperCollins) agrees to take on this behemoth of a project.
Judith Regan (publisher) stated the following about the necessity of this project (and by the way, you can click here to read the statement in context):
In her statement, titled "Why I Did It," Regan said there was "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."
She said she was mystified why Simpson decided to write such a book, suggesting it stemmed from "a disturbed need for attention."
"What I do know is I didn't pay him," Regan said. "I contracted through a third party who owns the rights, and I was told the money would go his children. That much I could live with. What I wanted was closure, not money."
Another statement (from this article) from Regan reads thusly:
Uh – what?
Needless to say, this decision has some folks pissed. Consider O.J.’s lawyer, Yale Galanter. Here’s what this article had to say:
The latest issue of Newsweek quotes Yale Galanter as saying he's "pissed" about Simpson's deal for the upcoming book "If I Did It," adding, "I definitely would not have approved this ... I wouldn't have done it for a gazillion dollars."
Simpson's book deal was such a closely guarded secret that Galanter had no idea about it before the news broke last week, he told the magazine. He said Simpson's four grown children -- two from a previous marriage, and two he had with Nicole Brown Simpson -- approved of the deal.
Galanter told Newsweek that only one of the seven chapters deals with the murder, and nowhere does Simpson admit to killing anyone
The book deal and TV interview drew a firestorm of criticism from members of the publishing community as well as media commentators and relatives of the victims. Lawyers for Ron Goldman's father, Fred Goldman, have said they plan to seize any money Simpson is being paid. Regan said she had hoped Simpson would confess to the killings.
OK…questions galore here:
(1) If you were one of OJ’s kids, would you approve of this deal? I don’t think I would
for one of two reasons:
(a) I want to get on with my life
(b) I wouldn’t want my dad to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny if I really
believed in his innocence.
(2) Galanter is obviously intelligent enough to get through law school. If I were a lawyer,
and my client pulled a stunt like this, I’d say, “See ya.” I’d resign as their lawyer. After all,
what’s the point of defending someone’s best interests if they aren’t going to concern
themselves with it? Yes, the statute of limitations is up on this as far as a criminal case is
concerned, but good lawyers are going to care about their client’s total well-being. That’s
what they’re paid the big bucks for, right?
(3) Judith, Judith, Judith…where are you coming from on this? I understand wanting to
confront your own demons as far as domestic abuse is concerned, but to be honest,
how will this help you in the long run? I know several people who have gone through
domestic abuse, and I don’t think offering up “the Juice” as a sacrificial lamb is going
to make things better for you or anyone else beyond a momentary rush. Sorry, but
true…if feminists want to hang me by my lips with rusty fish-hooks, so be it.
So I guess I’m probably going to be like most everyone else – O.J. is so old hat…who cares now?
Any opportunity a court of criminal law had of proving it is over and done with. O.J. had a good lawyer in that situation, and for reasons known/unknown, he is free. I don’t like it either, but that’s how it is.
He hasn’t paid up on his civil settlement, and thanks to tabloid media, we know he’s (supposedly) abused women since Nicole.
I guess I just don’t see where a two-part interview with a faded NFL star really makes a difference. It won’t bring back the victims. It won’t heal the broken hearts and psyches that abound in this situation.
I’ll be watching “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” during this, thank you. At least I know that Charles Schultz didn't have a shady wife-beating past.
PS: Just so you know, the book and TV special about OJ has officially been cancelled by Fox. Click here to read the short and sweet article.
Good thinkin', Mr. Murdoch!
/div>
|