Are the Goldmans Trying to Profit of off O.J. Simpson's Book If I Did It?

O.J. Simpson is a name that history would do well to obliterate from its annals. Regardless of where one stands on the guilt or innocence pendulum that hasn't swung toward the latter since his acquittal, his very existence has wreaked havoc from the day the white Bronco sped down the highway.

The entire country has been victimized by this case and the fall-out. Television was corrupted with the abysmal court proceedings, the Goldmans and the Browns have waged war with the American public as well as O.J., defying anyone to attempt to achieve peace while they drudge on in their misery, and O.J. himself has the audacity to show his face, heckle the survivors of the dead and perpetrate such garbage as releasing a book explaining how he might have done it if he had been so inclined.

Although the families of the victims fought the release of the book entitled If I Did It, the Goldmans, who were awarded the book rights, decided to publish it. What on earth, or below it, would possess the Goldman family to release the asinine book touted by some as a confession, but that amounts to nothing more than a debauched game? That is simple: money.

The Goldmans argue that publishing O.J.'s book allows them to turn Simpson's own words against him. It is impossible that publishing virtually the same words could have any such affect. Although the Goldmans are adamant that the manuscript is his confession, the truth is that the book is not and will never be a confession in the mind of anyone who has not already determined that he is guilty. The inescapable conjecture that Simpson asserts is the wrench in their spoke that will not disappear just because the Goldmans disregard it. Rather than turning O.J.'s words on him, they do nothing different from what Simpson himself did, except alter the book title and add their own chapters, perhaps confessing on O.J.'s behalf.

According to the Goldmans, O.J. has already profited from the book advance he received prior to the awarding of the rights to the Goldmans. So they failed in stopping him from profiting, although he clearly made much less than he stood to earn before the Goldmans and the Browns campaigned against its release. Indeed, they also failed to truly take anything away from Simpson. The several million dollar prospective earnings was as tenuous as any book writer's hope and was not guaranteed. Readers were as likely to have rejected the novel as they are now. Again, once the Goldmans obtained the rights to the book, they could easily and by any means destroyed it but nevertheless determined to unleash it upon the public. In the absence of doing any actual damage to O.J. Simpson, financially or to his image (which one would be hard-pressed to degrade further), what other motivation could there be?

The Goldmans passionately defended their claim to monetary restitution from O.J. Simpson. Startlingly, Kim Goldman in one breath referred to the sleaziness of Simpson's children profiting from a book detailing their mother's murder and revealed that a percentage of the book's revenue would go into a fund for the same children. The two explained that only seventeen cents would go directly to the Goldman family, and the rest would contribute to lawyer feeds, literary agent fees (which, incidentally, would be unnecessary had they chosen to leave the book unpublished), and a foundation in memory of the deceased, Ron Goldman. Adamant though they were, the Goldmans were unable to draw any substantive division between any benefits and/or consequences O.J. Simpson versus the Goldman family stood to gain and/or suffer.

Seventeen cents is not a lot of money, Oprah Winfrey commented on her show, giving the Goldmans the opportunity to prove that releasing the book was not about the money. Yet the Goldmans pounded the point over and over again that their only venue for justice is to create a hole in O.J.'s pocket. Lurking below the surface is the fact that they don't just want O.J. to lose money. They want to gain from his loss. Denise Brown, sister of the deceased Nicole Brown Simpson, pronounced any money made in connection with the death of her sister or Ron Goldman blood money. Brown pledged with unmistakable disdain that she would not profit from their deaths and unabashedly called the Goldmans hypocrites. The two families appeared to be co-captains in the campaign against O.J. to side-line his literary work until the Goldmans won the book rights and decided to publish it. Is it that the Goldmans have simply racked up more bills than the Browns? Or do they subscribe to the idea that a bad deed becomes good when co-opted for a purportedly good purpose?

The Goldmans stated that if one woman reading the book determined to end an abusive relationship, its release would be justified. Marcia Clark supported this idea. Since when did reading a book cause anyone to get out of a dangerous, destructive situation? If I Did It will do little to mitigate the three things Denise Brown advised keeps battered women from leaving -- fear, shame and hope -- because by the time a woman sees any resemblance between her situation and the Simpsons', she is likely to already be caught in the vortex of dependence, denial, and low self-esteem. How many bettered women can anyone expect to read this book? Several of Oprah's audience members said they would burn the book if they bought it. One woman stated she would turn the books over as she passed them. It isn't impossible that a woman would be jogged into taking action against abuse as a result of reading this work, but it is far-fetched and sadly ineffective.

The Goldmans made several other laughable statements there were nevertheless un-amusing. The two railed against the injustice of the judicial system as if no one has ever been a victim before or since. It would be remiss to ignore the fears of the African-American community at the time of the trial that a Black man had no hope of fairness in a case of murder involving a white woman. Injustice in the court is perhaps as old as the judicial system itself, with an overwhelming number of minorities falling prey. Finding an innocent verdict for a guilty minority hardly balances the scales. Instead, it draws even sharper attention to the inadequacies of the system, especially when even those who stand to gain the most -- the rich, the privileged, the famous, those with access to superior legal representation -- have to face this demoralizing fact about our social systems. Nonetheless, a man is innocent until proven guilty and perpetually innocent legally of the relevant charges once acquitted. (In addition, Denise Brown and the Goldmans are terrific politicians and should consider running for office.)

The Goldmans won their civil case against O.J. Simpson and were thus awarded a civil judgment which he has never paid. Like a depraved canker, Simpson mocked the court by vowing not to work so long as his earnings would go to the Goldmans. It is their goal to fight Simpson to the death. Oprah asked the Goldmans on her show if they could foresee any peace in their lives with respect to the death of Ron Goldman and to the trial of O.J. Simpson. Kim Goldman was offended by the idea; Fred Goldman flippantly replied their would be no peace, stating they had only satisfaction that they succeeded in getting something from O.J. All parties seem cursed never to move on from the horror and tragedy of these murders. For all their hate of the evil O.J. Simpson, Denise Brown and, to a larger extent, the Goldmans have inextricably wound their fates with his, and should never expect any freedom or rest for the dead or themselves. Will the Goldmans continue to seek monetary restitution from O.J. Simpson? Like some raven of Edgar Allen Poe proportions, quoth the Goldmans, "Forevermore."