The Revised Cover Of OJ Simpson's Memoir Is Not Subtle

All this talk about OJ Simpson being arrested and charged with a felony reminded us that his memoir went on sale Sep. 13. After the book and tv special were canceled following unprecedented consumer backlash, the rights to the manuscript were transferred to the Goldman family by a Florida bankruptcy court.

As you can see, the cover has been redesigned a little.

If I Did It [Wikipedia](Thanks, Urb!)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. TheBigLewinski says:

    Poor OJ, no one wants to cut him a break, they steal his memorabilia, get huge legal judgements, it’s just not fair… (tongue-in-cheek of course)

    OJ is scum of the earth, I hope someday he gets the same treatment he dished out to Ron and Nicole. In the meantime, I hope the judge in Las Vegas locks him up for 10 years.

  2. IRSistherootofallevil says:

    I don’t think the case is going to go that far. The owner of the memorabilia has no intention or desire of pressing charges.

  3. SkyeBlue says:

    Hopefully the Police, Prosecutors and Judge in Las Vegas will not be jokes like the ones in Los Angeles were and justice will actually be served this time and he will not “O.J. his way out of it”
    (using Nicole’s phrase for how he would weasel his way out of being punished).

  4. Buran says:

    Yes, it was redesigned. Deliberately. The rightsholder has the ability to do that, and the rightsholder (along with many, many other people) believe that he did, so a statement is being made with this cover.

    I thought it was hilarious, myself. It was a huge mistake of Simpson’s to try this in the first place.

    C’mon, dude. Stop trying to weasel out of the fine and just pay the damn thing already. You’ve got millions, you can afford it.

  5. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

    I always liked the title “If I Did It”, I found it funny…but having below that “Confessions of the Killer” just takes away from that. I was hoping the whole book would maintain that, “I didn’t do it, but if I did…” vibe.

  6. enm4r says:

    The Goldman’s are no better than OJ. I have no sympathy for the guy. I’m just tired of hearing about it. Ron, no one cares. Go away. Quit trying to squeeze every cent you can off your daughters murder, you are a completely unsympathetic individual, and I couldn’t care less about your (mis)fortune, or lack there of. Seriously, stop.

  7. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas… Dislike him, love the comedy that surrounds him.

  8. peggynature says:

    Uhm, ENM4R, wasn’t Ron Goldman one of the victims? Not the father of one of the victims?

  9. CurbRunner says:

    If there ever was a time for a public book burning this would be it.

    I’d bet that one of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 crews would love to burn every copy of this rag.

  10. skittlbrau says:

    @enm4r: The Brown family (Nicole, OJ’s ex wife) has come out and condemned this book repeatedly, to the point that they will no longer speak with the Goldman family. They are not trying to profit off of the death of a loved one.

  11. cryrevolution says:

    @enm4r: Yeah Ron Goldman was one of the victims. I think you mean Fred Goldman, he’s Ron’s father.

  12. lincolnparadox says:

    I’m no expert in publishing law, but isn’t this libel? I mean, regardless of public opinion, OJ was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Just because the Goldman’s have the right to publish this tragedy, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to even suggest anything other than what the Jury has decided.

  13. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

    @baa: I heard this mornign an audio clip from Larry King where Nicole’s sister was discussing the book, and that she will be getting a profit from it.

  14. harshmellow says:

    WOW. OJ’s name is nowhere on the cover. In fact, it doesn’t even say who wrote it on the cover. Only prologue, afterword and commentary. I wonder if they changed any of the content of the book from OJ’s original manuscript…. Not that I care either way because I never had intentions to read it no matter who put it out…

  15. msthe8r says:

    @lincolnparadox:
    I’m no expert either, but it would seem to me that OJ’s initial contention that it was a “work of fiction” would negate any argument that it was libelous.

  16. bohemian says:

    The ironic humor of what they did to the book once they obtained the rights to it is good.

    OJ is just one long slow train wreck.

  17. cryrevolution says:

    @msthe8r: Ha! Work of fiction. Thaaaats funny. I think if they did indeed take out OJ’s name and just made it following the events of that day and the facts of the murder, it wouldn’t be so bad. If its just OJ’s manuscript with a new cover, thats just stupid.

  18. cryrevolution says:

    @cryrevolution: Ayy they already released it, according to this post, on Sept. 13th. I wonder what they changed in the book.

  19. msthe8r says:

    @cryrevolution:
    Oh, I wasn’t saying it WAS a work of fiction. It’s just that OJ contended it was when *he* was the one trying to get it published. I think that gets the Goldman family off the hook, if sued for libel.

  20. cde says:

    @msthe8r: Well, I can call myself an asshole all I want, but if you do it, it’s still libel/slander.

    And I still don’t get how someone can be found not guilty of a crime but guilty in a civil case for the same. Just imagine it in the case of a dog being run over.

    OJ: “But I didn’t run over the dog, the criminal case proved that”

    Judge: “Oh well, I just don’t like you”

  21. UpsetPanda says:

    The sad part is that this might just end up being a bestseller bccause people are curious. I am curious myself to see what kind of wreck this ends up being, but I’ll get my copy from the library.

  22. Hreshfull says:

    @cde: Then you simply don’t understand the standard of proof requirements for courts of law.

    Most criminal courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt under the assumption that it’s better to let free a criminal than to imprison an innocent.

    Civil courts require a preponderance of the evidence. Basically, if you throw all the evidence of each side on a scale, whichever weighs more wins.

    So his criminal jury found a reasonable doubt to acquit him of murder, but the civil jury (or was it a bench trial? I can’t remember) did not determine that the doubt was enough to counter the evidence against him.

  23. cryrevolution says:

    @MSTHE8R: Oh I know. It’s just funny that OJ said it was a work of fiction. Like ANYONE would believe that.

  24. Chicago7 says:

    OJ is NOT a really bright man.

  25. msthe8r says:

    @msthe8r:
    True enough. (More or less. Name-calling isn’t slander or libel. But I take your point.)
    However, I believe that I *am* allowed to say, “CDE says that he/she is an asshole.”

  26. cde says:

    @Hreshfull: No, I do understand the legal requirements that need to be met in both criminal and civil cases, but logic/reason/commonsense should be placed somewhere. Or atleast a law saying you can’t be sued for the same thing you have been aquitted from.

  27. enm4r says:

    @cryrevolution: I did mean Fred, obvious slip up.

    And I realize the Brown family wants nothing to do with this, I respect that. Who in their right mind would want this published if it were a book written by the supposed killer of your child? His continued excuse that every dime he makes is one less that OJ makes never cut it, and every time something like this comes up it gets more and more ridiculous.

  28. cde says:

    @msthe8r: In that case, it wouldn’t be either because it’s true. If i called you a pedophille, it would be considered slander, until I provide proof. Then it’s called inciting a mob :P

  29. @msthe8r: They probably don’t want the proof requirements for civil cases to vary, which would happen if they pass a law like that. It would lead to the argument that all civil cases should have the same standard of proof as criminal cases. After all, would it be fair for Defendant A to be found guilty of rape in a civil case, where the requirements are lower, but Defendant B to be safe from civil damages of the judgement of a criminal court, where the requirements are higher?

  30. vanilla-fro says:

    Nicole’s family tried at first to get in on the book from what I’ve heard. of course after they were unable to get in there….it is now morally reprehensible to them that the goldmans would do this.

    Money will not make the dead come back, make it worth it, or even really hurt O.J.. Hell he hasn’t had to pay much yet has he?

  31. Trai_Dep says:

    But if OJ is jailed in LV, who will continue the search for The Real Killers?

  32. BensAngel says:

    @RECTILINEAR PROPAGATION

    “It would lead to the argument that all civil cases should have the same standard of proof as criminal cases.”

    That would seem sensible, logical, rational and fair. From afar the current system seems completely unreasonable and doesn’t reconcile with common sense.