Y'know, I used to think that he was innocent, and just rail roaded by the general public's opinion on the case, but now, I don't know what to think..

I mean, if he was innocent of the charges against him, then why would he write a book titled "If I did it?"

One would think, that if he were innocent, that he'd be trying to look for ways to prove it, or rather use his notoreity to get his side of the story out there, to clear his name, or at the very least, do everything he could to put it behind him.

But it seems that he has chosen to do the exact opposite..

Does that make any sense to you?

If the glove fits. To be honest, I agree with you. O.J. was loaded back in the day and what does good money get you? Good lawyers. The whole glove thing you think would clinch it but it still makes me wonder.

The thing is, everybody is coming down on him for making money off of the trial, when everybody else involved excluding Simpson, who was losing money, was doing the same thing. Ron Goldman's dad was estranged from him, until after he found out that he was murdered. Nicole Brown's sister, as well as [Goldman's, and Brown's] parents made money, as did the defense and the prosecuting teams.

I haven't read the book, and so the only reason I have an issue with his book, is because of the title. If the point of his book is to put his side of the story out there, then I respect that, but there is a right way, and a wrong way of doing things, and that is why I object to the book's title. I do not think that he should have to pay the families money, if he has done nothing wrong. But, if the point of his book was to add fuel to the fire that has been burning since 1994, then I am sorry but he deserves to pay.

With the way the general public is treating him, you'd think that they were using their personal opinions about what happened in the case to try him twice for the same crime.. it is like they are commiting double jeopardy, except outside of the courtroom.

Recently, Simpson was tossed from a steakhouse, when he didn't do anything wrong. A patron, who was excited, went to the owner and giddily told him. The owner tossed Simpson out without so much as an explanation. He was a complete asshole about it, especially, afterwards when he said, “I didn’t want to serve him because of my convictions of what he’s done to those families.”

While, I respect that he, as an owner, has every right to do as he chooses, that was completely unnacceptable, on his part. In the eyes of the law, Simpson is innocent. He may have been found guilty of negligence, and liabilty, (which the reason for that lies with the fact that he could not afford the same good lawyers he had in the CRIMINAL case, for he CIVIL case and well, if you don't have the money then you are screwed) but he did not do it. In the eyes of the law, that is the ONLY say that counts. Anything beside this is nothing short of discrimination, and vigilantism, which are equally wrong, and against the law.

It really begs the question, is anybody really innocent until they're proven guilty?

hey in my book if he didn't do it he more than knows who did that all i got to say on that.