OJ Simpson's book, If I Did It (does anyone have a shred of doubt), will NOT be published, thanks to the huge public outcry against it.

The problem now is what to do with the 400,000 copies already printed. Some have suggested turning the books into compost.

Stuart Campbell, author of compost-advice book, [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Let-Rot-Composting-Down-Earth/dp/1580170234/sr=8-1/qid=1164751702/ref=sr_1_1/002-0831729-8976013?ie=UTF8&s=books]Let It Rot[/ame], offered this advice: "I would suggest, in all seriousness (sweet irony of the whole OJ scenario notwithstanding), the use of manure. If thoroughly mixed with the paper and given enough time, it should produce wonderful, odorless yet fertile mulch. Any and all kinds of animal manure (other than human) would work well. The 'hottest' manure, in terms of its ability to decompose adjacent materials quickly would be chicken shit."

Now...wouldn't that be just perfect? From chicken shit to chicken shit in just a few easy steps.

Toliet paper is too good for that murder! Give him all his stinking books and let him wipe his butt with the pages...thats all they contain anyway! Ya think I have an opinion about that scum bucket? No ...Not Me!

LOL...good one Carlene! I love the "chicken Shit" comment.

If published I wouldn't have given OJ or his book a nanosecond of my time. However, I'm interested in knowing if anyone had just a few seconds of curiousity as to what is written on those pages. I confess....I was curious because I just couldn't believe his audacity. (sp)

Carol

I have no interest in any murders book O.J or otherwise

I think they should sell the books on Ebay and let the families of the victims get every dime made off of them, since they never got the settlement that they won from OJ. There were some listed that were already over $100,000 Ebay made them pull the listings. Supposedly the books were in the hands of someone working at the publishing plant.

I would have watched it. I would have bought the book.

The courts found him not guilty. I don't understand why everyone is out to villify this man. He's not a hero or a saint, but he was found NOT GUILTY in the cases of murdering those people.

He was found not guilty in the system that was designed to free the innocent and jail the guilty. So why are so many people still calling him murderer? I think it's all based on the issue of race, personally.

I would have watched it. I would have bought the book.

The courts found him not guilty. I don't understand why everyone is out to villify this man. He's not a hero or a saint, but he was found NOT GUILTY in the cases of murdering those people.

He was found not guilty in the system that was designed to free the innocent and jail the guilty. So why are so many people still calling him murderer? I think it's all based on the issue of race, personally.

Please tell me you aren't serious.

First of all, being found not guilty has nothing to do with whether he committed the crime or not. If it did, the victims' families could not have sued (and won) in civil court. If you believe that everyone in jail is guilty and everyone on the outside is innocent, then you might be interested in a bridge I have for sale in NY.

Secondly, the whole "If I did it" thing is the most tastless idea anyone ever came up with. This was the mother of his children....and his book evidently details how he would have killed her, "If I Did It". Tacky, tacky, tacky.

Finally, people are still calling him a murderer because a lot of us think the evidence overwhelmingly proved that he was the killer. Money is what freed OJ, not justice.

As for the race card, give me a break. OJ Simpson isn't black except in the broadest sense - the color of his skin. If I were a member of the black race, I would be ashamed to claim him. "Issue of race" my happy ass....unless you're saying that all black people are insensitive, no class, publicity-seeking, do-anything-for-money, celebrity whores. Wait....that would make Paris Hilton black, wouldn't it? Oh, well....if the shoe fits...

....another layer of confusion, is the question of 'how can someone be found guilty in a civil violation, of the same charge as innocent in a criminal violation'?

There is a nuance I seem to have missed here...."NOT guilty" of murder so DON'T go to prison; "GUILTY" of murder so pay $31,000,000 to the victim's family....

He hasn't paid the victims' families a dime. And, in fact, arranged to have the blood money from his book paid to a "representative" in order to avoid giving any of it to his creditors.

He wasn't found "guilty" in civil court. He was found "liable". There is a difference. I can be responsible for someone's death, thru negligence, for example, without being criminally guilty of anything.

Money was not what the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were after. They wanted OJ punished and the only punishment they could extract under the law was a monetary judgment in civil court. I don't blame them one bit. I just wish they could collect it.

Are you aware that OJ's pension is $400,000 per year and it is judgment proof? But he claims he needed to write the shameful If I Did It book for the money....because he has children to raise. Oh, bless your heart, OJ....it sucks to be poor.

OMG....Nhatalie....I have never read such a black and white opinion in my life....you can't be serious.

I "DITTO" everything Carlene just said.

Carol

You Go Carlene!!!! Well said!

The American justice system is split up into two categories -

1. Offenses against the state - crimes

2. Offenses against the person - torts

The purpose of the criminal justice system is NOT to compensate victims, it is to punish the convicted person for his crime against the state. The civil justice system IS intended for victim compensation.

Sometimes there is overlap between civil and criminal offenses, such as when someone dies. Other times, a civil offense is NOT criminally punishable, like a breach of contract (which is why we no longer have debtors' prisons).

A civil and criminal court may come to different conclusions regarding the same event because of the different rules of procedure and evidence involved in the two trials. Everyone has heard of the two different standards imposed in the two different courts. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because we do not want to send someone to prison or death row based on "probably" evidence. In a civil trial, the standard is that the defendant is liable by a preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not. 100% certainty is not as important when we're just talking money vs. someone's life.

Here's a good example for you, Jack. This story was in my local paper yesterday.

A Baptist church in Waco,TX had a heater installed in their babtistry. Unfortunately someone was negligent (not prosecutable), or stupid (also not against the law) and left some bare wires exposed, causing a short in the system. A 33 year old minister waded into the tank and in front of his congregation (including his wife, who was sitting in the front row), was fatally electrocuted.

The minister's wife and parents sued the electrical contractor in civil court for gross negligence. They settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is that since he was found NOT GUILTY he is free to do whatever he pleases as a free man. He shouldn't pay those people a thing. The criminal courts found him not guilty. A jury of our peers had reasonable doubts. It seems unfair that since the family was pissed at the outcome, they were able to take a 2nd shot the only way they could to punify the man. It's the system, but it's not fair. He's not culpable for the crime, but he STILL has to pay them millions of dollars? I'm not saying OJ is a hero, or that he is someone I'd want to be around. But like it or not, the courts found him NOT GUILTY.

And the fact that the crimes happened over 10 years ago and people are still polarized by the case, typically down racial lines, says a lot about what the case turned into. I didn't make it about race, but the race card is there. Blame Johnny Cochran or Mark Fuhrman - but "the N word" has crossed many a lip when referring to OJ.

Carlene, I don't know what you mean by "OJ Simpson isn't black except in the broadest sense - the color of his skin. If I were a member of the black race, I would be ashamed to claim him. "Issue of race" my happy ass....unless you're saying that all black people are insensitive, no class, publicity-seeking, do-anything-for-money, celebrity whores. Wait....that would make Paris Hilton black, wouldn't it? Oh, well....if the shoe fits..."

You'll have to explain that one to me. I don't want to draw any conclusions about you based on that description of what you apparently think black people are. Or what you yourself have called OJ in the past. But your description is really close to being offensive, as far as I'm concerned. You probably didn't see anything wrong with Kramer's little rant in the nightclub either, did you.

And speaking of money, Nicole's family had their hands out the whole time OJ and Nicole were together. They spent up his money and bought themselves a whole new lifestyle. They never said a word about what a terrible person OJ was then. All of a sudden he's the worst person in the world when she turns up dead. Don't get me wrong, I'm sorry she's dead. It's a shame that the Goldman boy got caught in the crossfire. But as much as we rely on the court system to fairly do their job, it is counterintuitive to me that this one instance has people so convinced that he is guilty of murder. If it was so apparent, he'd be rotting in prison right now.

Maybe he did it, maybe he was involved, maybe it was her drug dealer - but the bottom line and end result is he is not guilty according to our judicial system and is a free man with the ability to do whatever he wants.

Here's a good example for you, Jack. This story was in my local paper yesterday.

A Baptist church in Waco,TX had a heater installed in their babtistry. Unfortunately someone was negligent (not prosecutable), or stupid (also not against the law) and left some bare wires exposed, causing a short in the system. A 33 year old minister waded into the tank and in front of his congregation (including his wife, who was sitting in the front row), was fatally electrocuted.

The minister's wife and parents sued the electrical contractor in civil court for gross negligence. They settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

That's actually a poor example. Guilt or innocence infers INTENT. Unless the people who installed the heater intended to electrocute the person who got into the pool, there is no reason to speak in those terms. That's why they were sued for negligence. That's also why people in service industries have insurance - to protect them from mistakes such as the one you just described.

I just amazed that O.J. can wander out in the world daily without anyone taking care of him themselves. I surprised he hasn't been oft, already. If that is the correct word.

I hate to say it, but I am with Nathalie on this one. Should he have been convicted? Probably, but he wasn't. It doesn't seem right to for people to be able to go after someone twice for the same crime after being aquitted, and to me that is what happened. Go after someone in the criminal courts or in the civil courts, but not both.

And Carlene, I also found your comment to be offensive. Do you have to act a certain way to be "black?" I am hoping you just misphrased what you were trying to say. If not, it makes me reconsider the respect I have for you.