O.J. Update!
 

Simpson pretends to sell the Bronco at a used car lot

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- In a scene from his new candid-camera program "Juiced," O.J. Simpson pulls a prank involving the infamous white Bronco, drawing criticism from the family of a man he was accused of killing.

Would you buy a car from this man? O.J. Simpson tries to sell a white Bronco.

As part of the pay-per-view show, Simpson pretends to sell the Bronco at a used car lot and boasts to a prospective buyer that he made the vehicle famous, according to a segment aired Thursday on "Inside Edition."

"It was good for me -- it helped me get away," Simpson said, referring to the slow-speed, televised police chase that preceded his 1994 arrest on charges of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

Goldman's father, Fred, told "Inside Edition" he found Simpson's comment "morally reprehensible."

Simpson was acquitted of murder. A civil jury later held him liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay $33.5 million to the Brown and Goldman families.

Much of that judgment remains unpaid.

"Any money that he makes, I hope, will go to satisfy the multimillion dollar judgment made against him in the civil case," said Brown family attorney Gloria Allred.

The hour-long program is airing on pay-per-view this month, and a DVD offering uncensored material will be made available soon, "Juiced" executive producer Rick Mahr told The Associated Press.

Other practical jokes include Simpson disguised as an Elvis impersonator, a vagabond selling oranges for money and an elderly man leading a Bingo game.

Simpson was not paid for the program, Mahr said.

"Basically O.J. Simpson has decided to do this because he wants to do it, and he wanted to have fun with it," Mahr said.

If there is a thing called Karma, OJ doesn't have much longer.. This is nutz..

that OJ, he's so cooky.

So...OJ does this and isn't even paid for it?! wtf?

He'll be shoveling shit in hell someday.

Not to defend O.J., but if you were him, wtf would you do now? Any money you make you have to give up. Everyone hates you. Your only friends have to be insane.

He probably deserves it, but truthfully, I'm not sure what I'd do if I was in his shoes. Probably leave the country - but then again, who would take him?

He should've left the country, I mean, why live here and go through that.

how could anyone possibly think this is a good idea?

Silly murderers

It's not like he did a Ginsu commercial or anything.

Think he'll be able to prank the real killers?

No, because they're already bought and paid for and probably out on an island somewhere in brutal killer retirement.

Orenthal and James?

Why hasn't he just declared Bankruptcy already? Don't businesses do this all the time to get out of paying their civil law suits?

I think it has something to do with his retirement. None of that (or a really small %) has to go to Goldman and I think bankruptcy would screw it all up. Of course I have no foundation for that except that I think I heard it somewhere. (i.e. I am sort of taking out of my ass)

I thought he wasn't paying, because of some head of household law in Florida.

Dola,

what a douchebag.

I say since he broke the law...just change the law. Make killing legal! Oh, sorry, thought this was the immigration thread.

Umm..despite most of the developed world thinking he's guilty, he actually wasn't convicted of anything.

Unless convicitions in the court of opinion are now legally binding.

Be a man, admit what you've done, and face the consequences?

And your proof that he hasn't? Note, I said proof, not your opinion. I've always wanted irrefutable proof before I start a witchhunt. I wouldn't have cut it in Salem let me tell you. I'm made of more honorable stuff.

We don't count civil trials?

Nope, not as proof of a criminal count we don't. It's tipped off in the word "civil" actually.

That's not the way I understand it, actually. A civil judgement doesn't count as "proof" in terms of how our state governs crime and punishment. But it does mean that I can call OJ a murderer with a clear conscience and not have to worry about libel/slander. In that sense, it is more than adequate "proof."

Just because you can rationalize your lack of knowledge and speak as if you know what you clearly cannot doesn't make it proof. I mean, really. You expect that your conscience is going to sway someone looking for proof? I don't know, I guess I think scientifically and opinions are cool but they are never proof of anything but the honesty of the expressor.

FWIW, I feel you're right in your opinion ( Bugliosi convinced me with his book Outrage which was a stunning read ) but you nor he has proven a thing though he's come a lot closer than simply saying that 12 random citizens agreeing to a non murder charge proved murder. I mean, come on, they weren't voting on a murder but you call it proof. Whatever dude.

I don't expect my conscience or my opinion or anything I say to convince anybody in this matter. All I meant was that a judgement has been rendered by the state - that it is not attached to jail time does not make it meaningless in terms of it's truth.

It's not a judgement of murder though. That's what I'm saying. It simply isn't and can't be since murder is a criminal not a civil charge. If you say he is a murderer based on the civil case you can't really do that with a clear conscience. If you say in your opinion he's a murderer and that's reinforced by a judgement of a different crime that would be fine and a defensible opinion IMHO.

I'm not using "murder" in the legal, technical sense of the word - I'm using it as a commonplace description of what our state has decreed. So what is it a judgement of, if not murder?

It stated that he was liable for the death of his ex wife, not that he murdered her. Liability is a civil crime, murder isn't.

My point is that technically you're stating something that wasn't proven but as an opinion and in the common vernacular I understand where you're coming from. I don't like a technical word proof be used when you don't mean a technical definition at all. See what I mean?

Personally, I think the law should be changed. You shouldn't be able to sue someone for a crime when you were found not-guilty of that crime.

Although I know it's not (being the that civil case isn't a criminal charge), it's congruent to double jeopardy, since you're being punished for the same crime.

If you're found not guilty (or especially if you're found innocent), no one should be able to sue you for damages.

I agree with this IMHO and while I can understand that it's not for this reason I always feel that it becomes about money and it tarnishes the family of the victim even though I try real hard not to let it.

Hiring a mouthpiece who says
doesn't help much. I feel sorry for Ron either way though. :(