This OJ deal is beyond parody. I have no desire to read/watch the thing, though obviously it has "guilty pleasure" (the multiple "you slimeballs" pieces in today's paper notwithstanding) written all over it. Appropriately, while flipping through the channels, I noticed a docudrama on the case. And, some people who have seen advances copies apparently have noted that it is uncanny -- it actually sounds like he did it! Very realistic. How about a spin-off? We have various people, both good and bad, explain how they would have killed the two people, leaving two children without a mother, and so forth? The publisher can justify it as an insightful look at human nature, or something, not just a way to make a buck.
From what I understand, the deal was made through a third party, which might be a way around the money I'm sure he still owes the victims' families pursuant to his civil suit. By means of various dodges, he was able to live fairly well without certain moneys being touched. Considering the point, it sends one back to the events themselves. I still remember when the verdict was let out -- I was in a mail room with two people (both blacks, let's say in their 30s). The phones were not answered as the "not guilty" was released, and the two gave each other high fives. The verdict did surprise me some, though looking back, I guess it was not a shock. I don't quite buy Alan D.'s book, but as a "beyond a reasonable doubt" deal (colored by police misconduct), it probably was a defensible decision. Likewise, the civil verdict was sound imho -- I do think he is guilty. And, police misconduct was less an issue there.*
What annoyed me -- and was not focused upon enough in my opinion -- was the change of venue. A jury is supposed to be the conscience of the community. Not his. Talk about a shift -- that jury made Bronx juries look like one from some conservative white suburb. The fact he benefited from police tactics people from the area would not find too offensive is also a bit ironic. The prosecution, among their various questionable decisions, probably tried to rely too much on the domestic violence issue. This very well looked like a good angle -- up to a point -- but honestly, the jury probably was not too sympathetic. The white wife deal probably was a factor; anyway, remarks after the verdict suggested that they did not think the issue too relevant. I think it was, but such is how it played out.
Mark Fuhrman came out of this pretty well. Racist cops are not exactly a rarity in this country, and this particular black person doesn't come off rather well either. Anyway, the general sentiment was that OJ is guilty, so it is not like his police judgment was off by that much. So, it is not surprising that he had some success as an author of true crime books and as a commentator of such subjects. Another racist sort that was given a second chance is Trent Lott, who won the minority leader slot by one vote. At the time, I (basically) seriously wondered if him losing his position to a Bush suck-up sort was really a good thing for my side. Anyway, he is back, McCain providing the edge.
And, pragmatically, it might be a good thing that is back. He is willing to deal, plus provides good fodder by have made the mistake of expressing what many others in the caucus probably believe, but are a bit more circumspect about. [And, they lost Virginia by a hair, which is a bit depressing, when you think about it.] Best of both worlds. BTW, isn't it amusing that Sen. Allen lost his re-election bid by votes coming from the more "blue" (at least purple) northern part of the state? As a Civil War buff, he surely knows about the Army of Northern Virginia, head by one of his idols, Robert E. Lee. How the pendulum swings. But, then, one of Lee's lieutenants did become a Republican.
James Longstreet, the 19th Century Jim Webb?
---
* Such is life. The police made various mistakes and rich people have the money to take advantage of such things. All the same, I did not find this some sort of justice deal -- the high five was a common sentiment, but something of a misguided one. Do you think a poor black would have received similar benefits? It is akin to poor whites voting for Republicans who cut taxes for the rich -- the "what's the matter with Kansas" false consciousness syndrome.