He had thirteen years out of jail after being acquited. Be thankful, Juice.
No, they were offered it but turned it down.
Oh, please. Goldman didn’t cause anything to happen.
See post #6
Aquittal suit went to the Newseum in DC after the Smithsonian turned it down
I know that Goldman can’t touch O.J.'s pension. If and when O.J. dies can the Goldmans go after anything left in the estate? Will O.J.'s kids be able to establish that the money is from the pension and be able to claim it?
Well, it’s not like Simpson’s legal troubles got a lot of media coverage.
But but but, whatever happened to, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas”?
Both OJ and David Hasselhof have a certain bone to pick.
Well, OK, just a sec…
Goldman may have put pressure on O.J. but he didn’t cause a robbery. O.J. caused a robbery. The robbery may have been the result of a sequence of events that started with Goldman but he didn’t cause it, and certainly didn’t plan for that to happen.
I know that you’re being facetious, but regarding how the Goldmans acted after the murders, something never sat right with me.
When Ron Goldman was murdered, he had been estranged from his parents for several years (presumably over religious differences, or possibly being gay…nobody knows the exact reason.) It wasn’t until their son’s untimely death that Fred & Sharon swooped in to file the wrongful death lawsuit. Yes, it’s difficult not to feel sympathy for someone who lost their child in such a horrible manner…but throughout the whole media circus, Fred Goldman’s sorrowful demeanor always appeared to be covering up for his real motive, a means to cash in for several million dollars – at least, it always seemed that way to me.
What if Ron had been murdered by some homeless crack addict? Would Fred still be campaigning for justice, setting up foundations, appearing on Larry King Live, etc.?
Somehow, I doubt it.
I can’t look into Goldman’s heart but I suspect that if that crack addict had an expensive team of lawyers and had been acquitted in the face of damning evidence that, yes, he would still be campaigning for justice.
But the point is that he is *claiming *to have caused the robbery. You may not agree with the claim, but that is what he is saying. And he seems proud of the claim that armed robbery and kidnapping happened because of him.
He probably didn’t do anything illegal, but he’s still an arsehole.
If? I know I’m outa the loop, but has it been reported that Simpson may be immortal?
I’m sure Fred Goldman will eventually finish him off with a wooden stake through the heart.
I don’t think that Goldman is actually claiming anything of the sort. I think that he is proud of the fact that he has been able to put such financial pressure on O.J. (a man who got away with the murder of his son–in criminal court, anyway) that he was forced into desperate circumstances. Now “desperate circumstances” to a normal person might involve selling his opulent house or actually seeking gainful employment, but to a lowlife “celebrity” like O.J., it ended up being armed robbery. I get the impression that Goldman is pleased with the fact that O.J.'s true character has been exposed, that of a lowlife thug. Goldman is NOT proud that “armed robbery and kidnapping happened because of him.” He is proud that he has exposed O.J.'s true character.
A normal, law-abiding person would have simply sued if he thought someone had appropriated property he believed was his. It was O.J.'s decision to break into a hotel room with a gun.
But if you are a murder with a valid judgement to turn over any assets of value… and a lawsuit over such hidden assets would expose them to be turned over…
He did the only logical thing a murderer with hidden assets could do.
A while back I read that OJ would make money and then quickly buy stuff with it to hide it from Goldman.
Not only that - Amazon has “Goldman Family” listed in the “author” field. Which seems to go a bit too far, actually - I mean, OJ (with his ghostwriter) did write the wretched thing. I’ve no problem with denying Simpson the profits from this thing, but denying him the right to claim partial authorship seems a bit much.
I read a story about Goldman seeing a tabloid picture of OJ wearing a Rolex and Goldman demanding that it be turned over so he could sell it against the judgment. OJ gave it up and, of course, it ended up being a knockoff.
Goldman’s goal is for Simpson to be punished for murdering his son. With Simpson’s acquittal, his only recourse was to sue him in civil court. He subsequently won a judgement against Simpson for the the wrongful death of and battery against his son. The purpose of this judgement is to compensate Goldman for the loss of his son with money, which is the only thing that a civil case can do.
A law-abiding person who felt remorse for his actions would, IMHO, try to satisfy this judgment.
Simpson, on the other hand, has done everything possible to avoid satisfying this judgement, including hiding assets.
Were Goldman to allow Simpson to do this with impunity would be to allow Simpson to escape consequences for his actions once again. I applaud Goldman’s efforts. The fact that his efforts indirectly led to Simpson’s current incarceration is, as I stated previously, poetic justice. Nevertheless, Goldman did not force Simpson to commit armed robbery and kidnapping–Simpson did this on his own volition.
The manuscript was seized from Simpson to partially satisfy the judgment against him. As the new owner of the manuscript, Goldman can do whatever he wants with it.
And I don’t think anything is “a bit much” for the scumbag that is O.J. Simpson. I can’t believe people are defending him and castigating Goldman.
True, dat.
I don’t think anybody here is defending O.J.