Murdoch pulls plug on OJ Book
 

Good for the slime ball, he should rot in hell.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ory?id=2668120

Definately a smart move to pull it. With over 400,000 books already printed, and the interview already taped, don't expect it to lie dormant forever :rolleyes:

The sad part is they are only caving to pressure. Nothing is sacred. If they think it will sell, they print it. Whatever the reason, I'm glad it got pulled.

They pulled it in good taste.. Ethics over ratings... GOOD JOB !

I am sure it will probably surface on the internet eventually though..
B

Ironically, some of the biggest pressure came from their own news staff

What ever the reason.. I'm just glad it's off the air. I couldn't even imagine being the parents of Ron Goldman or the Family of Nicole Brown Simpson.. Having to re-live the media frenzy around the death of their family members.
-- How about they rebroadcast that HBO special about the jury member from the murder trial. I think it was called Juror #7 or something like that.

The whole documentary was hear saying, "HE DID IT.." "We all knew he did it, we just couldn't convict him because of the evidence tampering."

B

Sad thing is the books will probably increase in value because of this. If someone put up a copy of the book on ebay right now it would sell for $$$$. Sick world we live in. :rolleyes:

You know what? It was a sick arrangement i agree. But i can't help wondering what was behind all of this? He certinally didn't write it. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-397608c.html. The Ghost writer was a witness in the trial. Somehow i just wonder if it wasn't a plot to further bury OJ. So many unanswered questions. Still It just dosen't make any sense.

I followed his trail years ago. I still can't believe how he got to walk away. The evidence was overwhelming, besides a couple of 'uncertententies'. It seems, the jury ONLY looked at these few uncertenties to come to a decision...

That's the thing.........in order to get convicted, it has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. If there is any doubt that he isn't the killer and someone else is, however small, they can't convict him. He may have been 99.9% guilty, but those uncertainties may have cast that .1% that he didn't do it, which is why he walked. That's why he lost the civil case, because in that type of trial, it only has to be beyond a preponderance of a doubt, where he only needs to be 51% guilty or liable to get convicted.