<p>Yes, one can underestimate the taste of the American public!</p>
<p>"NEW YORK - After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and television special If I Did It.</p>
<p>I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project, said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman. We are sorry for any pain that his has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.</p>
<p>A dozen Fox affiliates had already said they would not air the two-part sweeps month special, planned for next week before the Nov. 30 publication of the book by ReganBooks. The publishing house is a HarperCollins imprint owned like the Fox network by News Corp"</p>
<p>Yup. See how men unanimously adjudged “not guilty” by a jury of their peers get punished a decade later. (So much for “innocent until proven guilty”.)</p>
<p>(Whether he “did it” or not, I frankly haven’t a clue - I never followed it particularly closely, but whether he “did it” or not, he was “not guilty”.)</p>
<p>Eh. Faux Gnus now has another puff story about the morality of its owner. And my alma mater Worcester College gets another big contribution! ;)</p>
<p>Actually, Mini, while OJ was found to be not guilty in his criminal trial under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard he was found liable in the subsequent civil action under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. So I think it’s fair to apply the latter standard in civil matters such as book irghts. ;)</p>
<p>Well, 51% is an awfully low standard. (Wish we could use that one against Rummy as a war criminal, who will now profit handsomely from the experience.)</p>
<p>Actually, pretty much anything OJ earns goes to Nicole’s and Goldman’s heirs under the multi-million $$ civil case judgment. He lives off his football pension, which is exempt. So the financial losers will actually be the families of the victims…</p>
<p>I saw Fred Goldman being interviewed on the news last week and he said that none of the judgment has been paid so O.J. has obviously been able to keep not only his house and pension but also all the proceeds he’s received over the years from memorabilia sales and public appearances. He’s made it clear to the families that he never intends to satisfy the judgment.</p>
<p>I believe that retirement funds and one’s home are protected from judgement in FL and the rest he is using all sorts of means to hide; I would imagine he would do so, even if the legal advice and tricks cost more than the monies he makes and hides!</p>
<p>…but book royalties, paid by a corporate publisher, on a regular payment basis, would be really hard to hide and keep from collection. Honest. If I were Goldman’s lawyer, and if collecting the judgment were all I cared about, I’d *want *the book to be published. (A big “if”, I realize.)</p>
<p>There was some kind of shell company set up. Supposedly the proceeds were all going to “a third party who owns the rights” and not OJ, which would have made it hard for the Goldman’s to collect. The publishers didn’t intend for the Goldmans to get any of the money; they’ve said that by using the “third party set up” they “thought” the money would go to OJs kids.</p>
<p>I hope they were smart enough to put a clause in the contract that said if the work wasn’t published, they don’t have to pay.</p>
<p>I doubt they would even want that money. Money does not bring back loved ones. I think the main purpose of the civil suit was to make him take some responsibility. If the money is not coming out of OJ’s pocket than what is the point?</p>
<p>Sweetney, good point. I think that after the fiasco of the criminal trial, they also wanted someone in power to say, “You did it, and it was wrong.”</p>
<p>But I think we all want him to have to give the Goldman’s money because we want to see him punished, and that’s the only way that’s left, in this lifetime at least.</p>