I think the question a lot of people have is that we thought any income like this goes to the plaintiffs.

For some reason, the media coverage (that I've seen, I skip most of it) doesn't seem to answer that.

I love that perverse "IF" in the title. What would you call this kind of book: a counterfeit counterfactual?

Irony is not dead, it's just achieved a whole new level of insult: what you already knew was true… "might" have been true. Once again capitalist culture blithely outstrips even the most nihilistic contortions of post-modern theory.

I fail to understand how the rule of double jeopardy can be applied in the face of a subsequent admission (albeit a coy one) of guilt. If someone later confesses to a crime they were previously acquitted of, how can the double jeopardy clause still hold (i.e., take precedent)? Additionally, in this instance, if O.J. earlier professed innocence or a lack of knowledge regarding the crime and its perpetrator(s) doesn't that simply amount to perjury? Perjury and/or a subsequent confession should trump the double jeopardy clause any day.

From what I've read, it will all go to his children. That said, it's very easy to setup the book sale in a manner where none of the proceeds are attachable by judgment.

I thought, at the time, that the O.J. trial was the saddest, sickest travesty I'd ever seen. I had no idea to what lengths he'd succeed in topping that.

I can't wait to see the rest of the series:

"If I Shot My Wife In The Head" by Robert Blake,

"If I Touched Those Little Boys" by Michael Jackson,

"If I Lied Our Way Into War With Iraq" by George Wilson Bush..

Hi, kids, guess what? I did kill mommy brutally with a knife, and her friend to boot. And I got off, too. What would you like for dinner?

...this would probably be one of the only times when someone could carry out vigilante justice and be nationally applauded.

And between this interview and the sleazy DVD he made:

http://www.deadspin.com/sports/oj-simpson/oj-simpson-unplugged-173428.php

I doubt that anyone can even consider him to be anything but a soulless monster anymore.

There has been no trial that I've ever followed that had more evidence to the guilt of the defendant as there was against OJ Simpson. OJ knows that every person who has a brain knows he's guilty, but of course a sociopath doesn't care. His jury should have been sent to prison as accomplices of the crime. His children must know that he killed their mother. I suspect at least one of them has confronted him about it; OJ probably said something like "yes and I will kill you too if you don't shut up." It wouldn't surprise me if he put something like that in the book. In his own tasteless way he is showing us that an acquitted guilty murderer is probably the freest person on earth.

google her name and you'll see how Regan has incredibly strong ties to the rat prick bastard party we just tossed out of office

and you people thought hillary was crazy when she spoke of a vast right-wing conspiracy

Book 'Em, Dan-O, asks: "If someone later confesses to a crime they were previously acquitted of, how can the double jeopardy clause still hold (i.e., take precedent)? Additionally, in this instance, if O.J. earlier professed innocence or a lack of knowledge regarding the crime and its perpetrator(s) doesn't that simply amount to perjury?" I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed some of the discussion about the case already. First of all, a person who was acquitted cannot be retried even if they later confess -- that's exactly what the rule against double jeopardy means. A trial for perjury is not an option, because Simpson never testified in his own trial. Prosecutions for perjury even for someone who got on the stand to say "I didn't do it" and was convicted anyway are rare(although not unknown). Possibly they could prosecute him for hindering prosecution by misleading the police, or some such, but don't hold your breath.

But forget Simpson's future for a moment. To me the more interesting question is how this will all play out in the African-American community. Apart from the ghastly double murders, the most disturbing part of the original trial was how differently it was viewed by white and black America. According to polls at the time, white Americans overwhelmingly believed Simpson was guilty; African Americans overwhelmingly believed he was innocent. Of course, the black community had valid reasons to be deeply suspicious of the American justice system. My impression -- only an impression -- is that over time most African Americans have come to the conclusion that Simpson committed the crime after all. I'll be interested to see how this non-confession confession is received.

Just

"STAY THE COURSE"

Don't buy into the hype...don't give it any attention...it is a dark force that will suck you in, chew you up, take your money (attention), and spit you out. STOP NOW.

My impression -- only an impression -- is that over time most African Americans have come to the conclusion that Simpson committed the crime after all.

I don't know about the people who were adults at the time, but the black teenagers now think he is innocent. At least those who I have talked to. They have absolutely no knowledge of the case, but they feel justified in their insistance of his innocence.

And I have to agree with previous others who see this sick self-aggrandizement as just a way to stay "relevant." As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than be talked about is not being talked about.

I have never participated in a boycott before, but this is really repulsive. Alex, you would do this country a great service if you could find out the advertisers for the Fox drama on this. Also, if there are any national book chains which are refusing to carry this book, I will use them exclusively this year and avoid the others