Has anyone read If I Did It?

[Canadian Cutie]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here has read the book and could give a mini book report.Also,I am wondering why the book is sold sealed?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Canadian Cutie

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here has read the book and could give a mini book report.Also,I am wondering why the book is sold sealed?

it is my opinion that the book is not that interesting as all but one chaptrer is a story of oj's and nicoles 17 year relationship.Most or some of this was testified to in the trials.
I think the book is sold sealed because the publisher did not want people looking, before purchase, for the 'MURDER' details in chapter 6 and finding NONE.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

it is my opinion that the book is not that interesting as all but one chaptrer is a story of oj's and nicoles 17 year relationship.Most or some of this was testified to in the trials.
I think the book is sold sealed because the publisher did not want people looking, before purchase, for the 'MURDER' details in chapter 6 and finding NONE.
imo
martin II

martin, didn't you post that the book was free on the web? maybe you can direct the poster to that free site and she won't have to wait. Greta Van Susteran (sp) said on her show last night that she found the book fascinating and recommended it.

I'm also waiting on my copy.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by Canadian Cutie

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here has read the book and could give a mini book report.Also,I am wondering why the book is sold sealed?

Here's a link to Vanity Fair's review -- interesting reading. what it doesn't have are the pages written by the Goldmans in the just released book.

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/featu...?currentPage=1

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

martin, didn't you post that the book was free on the web? maybe you can direct the poster to that free site and she won't have to wait. Greta Van Susteran (sp) said on her show last night that she found the book fascinating and recommended it.

I'm also waiting on my copy.

weezer
the poster did not ask for any free copy of the book so why would you think it would be a good idea to offer it to her/him? Obviously Oprah and Gretta has different opinions of the book.
I found nothing fascinating about the book. Some may find oj's rendition of the 17 years with nicole interesting as i did but not fascinating.
What i know is there is no detail account of how the murders took place in what is supposed to be the hypothetical murder chapter which may be why the published put the book under plastic seal.
the other thing i believe is fred got beat when he was only left with .17.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

*Snipped*". . .the other thing i believe is fred got beat when he was only left with .17.

Mr. Goldman didn't act like he 'got beat' on the book deal; in fact, he seemed quite pleased.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

*Snipped* ". . .Obviously Oprah and Gretta has different opinions of the book.

the poster asked about a review and since Greta has read the book and Oprah hasn't. . .

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

Snipped* ". . .I found nothing fascinating about the book. Some may find oj's rendition of the 17 years with nicole interesting as i did but not fascinating.

so you've read the whole book? riiiiiight

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

martin, didn't you post that the book was free on the web? maybe you can direct the poster to that free site and she won't have to wait. Greta Van Susteran (sp) said on her show last night that she found the book fascinating and recommended it.

I'm also waiting on my copy.

anyone looking for a FREE copy of OJ's book can find it on line . it is not difficult to find at all.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

so you've read the whole book? riiiiiight

i read the book by oj simpson
i have not read the book by fred and his daughter.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

the poster asked about a review and since Greta has read the book and Oprah hasn't. . .

oprah said her people read the book. But she made it clear to fred and everyone that she thought the book was *&^%^&^* and wouild not read it.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

Mr. Goldman didn't act like he 'got beat' on the book deal; in fact, he seemed quite pleased.

what can he say? nothing. he has to take the hand they gave him as he was not in charge. The lawyers, agent and the publisher were.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

oprah said her people read the book. But she made it clear to fred and everyone that she thought the book was *&^%^&^* and wouild not read it.
martin II

I don't know about anyone else but I usually want to hear the opinion of someone who has actually been there, done that.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

what can he say? nothing. he has to take the hand they gave him as he was not in charge. The lawyers, agent and the publisher were.
martin II

so you believe he didn't have any input into how it went down? LOL

[martin II]

the book is retailing for $14.00 to $17.00 if you or fred believes that him getting only .17 a book was a fair deal then he may need to talk to some other authors and ask them what a normal fair split should have been for him.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

so you believe he didn't have any input into how it went down? LOL

to end up with .17 per book NO
The IRS may take half of that as Oprah told him. I believe Oprah has some
experience in selling books and she told fred .17 PER BOOK FOR HIM WAS A BAD BOOK DEAL.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

I don't know about anyone else but I usually want to hear the opinion of someone who has actually been there, done that.

maby that would be you
martinII

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

to end up with .17 per book NO
The IRS may take half of that as Oprah told him. I believe Oprah has some
experience in selling books and she told fred .17 PER BOOK FOR HIM WAS A BAD BOOK DEAL.

martin II

That's Oprah's opinion. She can't speak for Fred Goldman. If the book deal satisfies him then it's not a bad book deal. Not everything is about money.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

That's Oprah's opinion. She can't speak for Fred Goldman. If the book deal satisfies him then it's not a bad book deal. Not everything is about money.

tv

I think it was Oprah's expert opinion that .17 was a bad deal for fred. For fred this book deal was about money. The irs will reduce his take to less than .17. I don't think she as speaking for fred. Just surprised that he got such a little amount.

imo
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

tv

I think it was Oprah's expert opinion that .17 was a bad deal for fred. For fred this book deal was about money. The irs will reduce his take to less than .17. I don't think she as speaking for fred. Just surprised that he got such a little amount.

imo
martin II

just makes the judgement loom larger and longer. . . .

[Athena]

Originally Posted by martin II

to end up with .17 per book NO
The IRS may take half of that as Oprah told him. I believe Oprah has some
experience in selling books and she told fred .17 PER BOOK FOR HIM WAS A BAD BOOK DEAL.

martin II

I don't recall Oprah saying it was a bad book deal. OJ Simpson was also advanced $630,000 which has to be covered since the book was stopped from being published. I know she did say she had a moral dilemma about it being released but did say she respected their reasons. Denise Brown also did not want to have it released and does not want any of the money that she considers "blood money".

Apparently Nicole is depicted in the book in poor taste and both Oprah and Denise had "moral" issues with it. Goldman claims that it will benefit battered women but Denise says anyone that knows a battered woman would know they would not learn anything from this book.

"Fred and Kim say that publishing the book and taking 90 percent of the profits—which will amount to 17 cents per book—is a form of restitution. "We have a judgment, the only form of justice that we were able to attain through the civil court," Fred says. "And that piece of paper is meaningless unless we pursue that judgment. We took away the opportunity from him to earn additional money, and that money is the only form of justice.""

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200..._284_102.jhtml

"The less people that read this garbage, the better our society will be. I think people in our society and what we watch on TV and the things that people portray, there's so much negative out there. And I truly believe that this book is a negative."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200..._284_106.jhtml

"Oprah says she also has felt a moral dilemma about If I Did It. "I had given my word to you two that I would do the show with Denise [Brown]. And then when Denise backed out, I felt that you had kept your word and so that I should keep my word," Oprah says to Fred and Kim. "But it's a moral dilemma for me because I would not have agreed to have done it had the two families not agreed to come on to discuss and debate it. … I am not pretending that this forum, this television show, doesn't sell books. That's what we do, you know? I promote people's books. I don't want to be in the position to promote this book because I, too, think it's despicable. And I feel that we live in a country where people have the right to do whatever they want. I'm not for censorship in any way. I'm all for it being published, but I personally wouldn't want to be in a position to encourage people to buy this book."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200..._284_104.jhtml

[weezer]

There was a post that showed the original judgement and also the petition by the Browns to be included in the Goldman suit on the book deal. Am I reading it wrong or does the original just have the Estate of Nicole but the book deal suit has the Estate and the Browns?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Athena

I don't recall Oprah saying it was a bad book deal. OJ Simpson was also advanced $630,000 which has to be covered since the book was stopped from being published. I know she did say she had a moral dilemma about it being released but did say she respected their reasons. Denise Brown also did not want to have it released and does not want any of the money that she considers "blood money".

Apparently Nicole is depicted in the book in poor taste and both Oprah and Denise had "moral" issues with it. Goldman claims that it will benefit battered women but Denise says anyone that knows a battered woman would know they would not learn anything from this book.

"Fred and Kim say that publishing the book and taking 90 percent of the profits—which will amount to 17 cents per book—is a form of restitution. "We have a judgment, the only form of justice that we were able to attain through the civil court," Fred says. "And that piece of paper is meaningless unless we pursue that judgment. We took away the opportunity from him to earn additional money, and that money is the only form of justice.""

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200..._284_102.jhtml

"The less people that read this garbage, the better our society will be. I think people in our society and what we watch on TV and the things that people portray, there's so much negative out there. And I truly believe that this book is a negative."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200..._284_106.jhtml

"Oprah says she also has felt a moral dilemma about If I Did It. "I had given my word to you two that I would do the show with Denise [Brown]. And then when Denise backed out, I felt that you had kept your word and so that I should keep my word," Oprah says to Fred and Kim. "But it's a moral dilemma for me because I would not have agreed to have done it had the two families not agreed to come on to discuss and debate it. … I am not pretending that this forum, this television show, doesn't sell books. That's what we do, you know? I promote people's books. I don't want to be in the position to promote this book because I, too, think it's despicable. And I feel that we live in a country where people have the right to do whatever they want. I'm not for censorship in any way. I'm all for it being published, but I personally wouldn't want to be in a position to encourage people to buy this book."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200..._284_104.jhtml

Oprah mentioned that fred was only getting .17 and i remember her saying that is a BAD BOOK DEAL.She went on to say that the IRS will want money and there will be little left after that.
martin II

[weezer]

"One thing mentioned on Winfrey’s show — that the Goldmans would see only 17 cents per book from sales. Winfrey was skeptical and asked what kind of book deal they had gotten.

In fact, sources tell me that if the Goldmans have figured out their profits to 17 cents, it’s because over 13 years they’ve accrued mounting legal fees and debts for which they were not prepared.

“Fred Goldman was never rich,” says the source. “He works for Nordstrom.”

Winfrey, on the other hand, accepted at face value many of Denise Brown’s ridiculous statements. She didn’t ask her where all the money has gone from the charity that was set up in her sister’s name. She also didn’t bat an eyelash when Denise described Nicole as a good mother because she let her kids mess up her brand new Ferrari."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html

[Athena]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

There was a post that showed the original judgement and also the petition by the Browns to be included in the Goldman suit on the book deal. Am I reading it wrong or does the original just have the Estate of Nicole but the book deal suit has the Estate and the Browns?

I have not read what you are referring to. On this board?

I do know they both were involved in suing to stop the publication of the book originally, but as far as I know this suit was just brought by the Goldmans to have it published and the Browns refused. I'd like to read it if you know where I can find it.

This is a recent MSNBC article that says it was only the Goldmans bringing the lawsuit and agrees with what Denise said on Oprah as well:

The Goldmans' decision to publish the book has caused a rift between them and the family of Nicole Brown Simpson.

In August, Denise Brown, Nicole’s sister, appeared on TODAY to talk about the rift and to urge people to boycott the book.

From the time of the murders 13 years ago, she said the Browns and the Goldmans had presented a united front. But when the Goldmans decided to publish the book themselves, she felt outraged and betrayed.

“It’s the Goldmans who have changed their tune,” Brown had said. “It’s all about money. How much money is it going to take to make you guys happy? It’s not going to bring Nicole back.”

“It’s very sad,” Fred Goldman said of the rift in his and Kim’s relationship with Brown.

“Our focus for 13 years has been against the killer. Our focus for the past 11 years has been pursuing the killer for some measure of justice. I wish Denise’s anger could be focused on the man who butchered her sister and murdered Ron,” Fred Goldman said. “He wrote this book. He created this.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20773910/

[weezer]

Originally Posted by Athena

I have not read what you are referring to. On this board?

I do know they both were involved in suing to stop the publication of the book originally, but as far as I know this suit was just brought by the Goldmans to have it published and the Browns refused. I'd like to read it if you know where I can find it.

I'm looking -- it was posted in just the last few days but dadgumit, I can't remember who the poster was.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by martin II

Oprah mentioned that fred was only getting .17 and i remember her saying that is a BAD BOOK DEAL.She went on to say that the IRS will want money and there will be little left after that.
martin II

OK -- I could have missed it. I tend to listen to this stuff with 1/2 ear and what you say makes sense.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Athena

I have not read what you are referring to. On this board?

I do know they both were involved in suing to stop the publication of the book originally, but as far as I know this suit was just brought by the Goldmans to have it published and the Browns refused. I'd like to read it if you know where I can find it.

Denise has tried to make it clear that the Brown family is not involved in the book deal. That it is nicoles estate that in listed in the bankruptcy case.

She stated this again on Oprah
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

There was a post that showed the original judgement and also the petition by the Browns to be included in the Goldman suit on the book deal. Am I reading it wrong or does the original just have the Estate of Nicole but the book deal suit has the Estate and the Browns?

in some media reports the estate of nicole is referred to as the Browns since the Brown family is so well own. i believe court doccuments would be a better referance.
martin II

[Athena]

Originally Posted by martin II

Denise has tried to make it clear that the Brown family is not involved in the book deal. That it is nicoles estate that in listed in the bankruptcy case.

She stated this again on Oprah
martin II

Oh OK. In that case though it would be just the kids then, correct? Sydney and Justin?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Athena

OK -- I could have missed it. I tend to listen to this stuff with 1/2 ear and what you say makes sense.

Hi Athena
Good to see you posting here. Last time we posted togeatrher was, i believe on the mississippi kkk issue.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Athena

Oh OK. In that case though it would be just the kids then, correct? Sydney and Justin?

That is my understanding as she has said that Mr Brown, the executor of nicoles estate had a responsibility to go after money for the kids after it was known that Goldman was going to publish the book. But the Brown family does not want anything and will not get anything from the book.imo
martin II

[Athena]

Martin -- I do remember that case -- my goodness that WAS a while ago.
I don't usually post on the OJ thread. I do read there occasionally. Because of the book and his latest "suspect" status in Las Vegas, I just kind of popped in.

Here's the complaint from The Smoking Gun and it appears it was just the Goldmans who sued unless there's a separate case for Nicole's estate which I could not find?

DECEMBER 19--The father of Ron Goldman today sued O.J. Simpson, claiming that the disgraced athlete fraudulently profited from "If I Did It," the canceled book that reportedly contained Simpson's fictionalized account of how he could have killed Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

"One thing mentioned on Winfrey’s show — that the Goldmans would see only 17 cents per book from sales. Winfrey was skeptical and asked what kind of book deal they had gotten.

In fact, sources tell me that if the Goldmans have figured out their profits to 17 cents, it’s because over 13 years they’ve accrued mounting legal fees and debts for which they were not prepared.

“Fred Goldman was never rich,” says the source. “He works for Nordstrom.”

Winfrey, on the other hand, accepted at face value many of Denise Brown’s ridiculous statements. She didn’t ask her where all the money has gone from the charity that was set up in her sister’s name. She also didn’t bat an eyelash when Denise described Nicole as a good mother because she let her kids mess up her brand new Ferrari."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296746,00.html

It could not have been a surprised to fred what his legal bills were from all the lawyers he has hired over the years. What may have been a surprise is that they were not working pro bono and would want to be paid when this first real money would be available. The other issue was there was some problem getting a first line publishing house to agree to publish the book and he setteled on a smaller one that did agree.So his cost may have been high as he is the one that fronted the money.

Denise had some problem with the nicole foundatrion initially but it is my opinion that the organization has good accountability now.

I thought the interview with Denise went well and i see no reason to attack Oprah for it.

martin II

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

It could not have been a surprised to fred what his legal bills were from all the lawyers he has hired over the years. What may have been a surprise is that they were not working pro bono and would want to be paid when this first real money would be available. The other issue was there was some problem getting a first line publishing house to agree to publish the book and he setteled on a smaller one that did agree.So his cost may have been high as he is the one that fronted the money.

Denise had some problem with the nicole foundatrion initially but it is my opinion that the organization has good accountability now.

I thought the interview with Denise went well and i see no reason to attack Oprah for it.

martin II

Was it attacking Oprah the other day when you said she would only ask the Goldmans softball questions?

[weezer]

Originally Posted by Athena

Martin -- I do remember that case -- my goodness that WAS a while ago.
I don't usually post on the OJ thread. I do read there occasionally. Because of the book and his latest "suspect" status in Las Vegas, I just kind of popped in.

Here's the complaint from The Smoking Gun and it appears it was just the Goldmans who sued unless there's a separate case for Nicole's estate which I could not find?

DECEMBER 19--The father of Ron Goldman today sued O.J. Simpson, claiming that the disgraced athlete fraudulently profited from "If I Did It," the canceled book that reportedly contained Simpson's fictionalized account of how he could have killed Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html

it's the suit/petition (?) filed for the Estate to be included in the book deal. I'm still looking.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Athena

Martin -- I do remember that case -- my goodness that WAS a while ago.
I don't usually post on the OJ thread. I do read there occasionally. Because of the book and his latest "suspect" status in Las Vegas, I just kind of popped in.

Here's the complaint from The Smoking Gun and it appears it was just the Goldmans who sued unless there's a separate case for Nicole's estate which I could not find?

DECEMBER 19--The father of Ron Goldman today sued O.J. Simpson, claiming that the disgraced athlete fraudulently profited from "If I Did It," the canceled book that reportedly contained Simpson's fictionalized account of how he could have killed Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html

Your link is correct. It is my understanding that the estate made a request to the judge in the ca action filed by fred to give the estate 40% of all money comming from what was then a planned aution of the rights. the judge rejected the estates request.

Lbs filed banrkuptcy in florida and the auction was cancelled and the action moved to Florida.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

Was it attacking Oprah the other day when you said she would only ask the Goldmans softball questions?

no and that is what she did. My point is there was no reason for Oprah to dig into Denises past problems with the nicole foundation as it had nothing to do with the issues being disscussed on the program about the book.Therefore it is unfair to critize Oprah for not doing so.imo
martin II

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

no and that is what she did. My point is there was no reason for Oprah to dig into Denises past problems with the nicole foundation as it had nothing to do with the issues being disscussed on the program about the book.Therefore it is unfair to critize Oprah for not doing so.imo
martin II

Baloney, martin. It's okay for you to criticize the way Oprah conducts an interview but not anyone else. You wanted her to ask Fred and Kim Goldman hard questions but you're okay with the fact that she didn't do that with Denise Brown. Once again, you're trying to have it both ways.

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

Baloney, martin. It's okay for you to criticize the way Oprah conducts an interview but not anyone else. You wanted her to ask Fred and Kim Goldman hard questions but you're okay with the fact that she didn't do that with Denise Brown. Once again, you're trying to have it both ways.

I guess Martin watched a different version of Oprah than I did. The one I saw asked the very "hard ball" question Martin mentioned he wished she would ask before he viewed the show, yet after he watched it, he is still characterizing the show as her asking soft ball questions. Oprah had no reason to pamper the Goldmans & she didn't.