About O.J Simpson Trail

O.J. Simpson’s book If I Did It written in 2006 was almost 12 years after the murders. In this book, he explains how the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson would have happened if he did it. There is some who believe this to be his confession to the murders and there is no way he can be so accurate if he was not there. Before the interview could air Fox canceled the special due to the fact it was revealed Simpson received a $3.5 million paycheck for the sit-down. While the book was later released, the special was not aired until March 2018.

OJ Simpson If I Did It Nicole Brown Simpson, famous football player O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, and her friend Ron Goldman were brutally stabbed to death outside Nicole’s home in Brentwood, California, in what quickly becomes one of the most highly publicized trials of the century. With overwhelming evidence against him, including a prior record of domestic violence towards Brown, O.J. Simpson became the chief suspect.

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

 The evidence against Simpson was extensive: His blood was found at the murder scene; blood, hair, and fibers from Brown and Goldman were found in Simpson’s car and at his home; one of his gloves was also found in Brown’s home, the other outside his own house; and bloody shoeprints found at the scene matched those of shoes owned by Simpson. (Editors, 2009) However, Simpson’s so-called “Dream Team” of defense lawyers, including Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey, claimed before a national television audience that Simpson had been framed by racist police officers such as Detective Mark Fuhrman. After deliberating for three hours, the jury acquitted Simpson.

He vowed to find the “real killers,” but has yet to turn up any new leads. (Editors, 2009) Then in 2006, the announcement of a book by OJ Simpson in which he would give an allegedly hypothetical account of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and Ronald Goldman made waves. (Oswalt, 2016) Originally titled “O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened,” the book was to be published by Regan Books, a division of HarperCollins. Shortly after the announcement, the book was canceled following outrage over Simpson profiting from the deaths.

Even though he was acquitted of the murders in 1995, he was found liable for the wrongful deaths of Brown and Goldman in a 1997 civil suit. (Oswalt, 2016) However, in 2007, the Goldman family was awarded rights to the book by a Florida bankruptcy court and went through with the publication, changing the title to “If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.” (Oswald, 2016) After more than a decade on ice, a controversial 2006 interview with O.J. Simpson aired Sunday, March 12, 2018, and left a lot of viewers believing that Simpson might have confessed the June 1994 murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

In the interview, which Fox billed as “O.J. Simpson: The Lost Confession,” Simpson talks about the murders for the first time on camera. In the interview, O.J. “hypothetically” describes how he would have committed the murders if he had been the one who pulled them off. (Breech, 2018) The woman who conducted the original interview in 2006, Judith Regan, explained during Sunday’s show that the interview was pitched to her as O.J.’s confession, but he wanted to use the word “hypothetical” so that he had plausible deniability with his kids. “I received a phone call from an attorney who said, ‘O.J. is ready to confess,’” Regan said in Sunday’s show when asked how the interview came together.

“The only condition that he had was that he didn’t want to call the book I Did It. He wanted to put an ‘if’ in front of it so that he would once again have deniability with his children. He couldn’t face his children and he couldn’t tell them that he had done it. That was the way it was portrayed to me.” (Breech, 2018) “From my point of view, who would even do this, even as a hypothetical, unless they had committed the murders,” Regan said during Sunday’s show. For one, he started out by clearly stating that the entire scenario being presented was hypothetical.

“This is very difficult for me to do this,” Simpson said of recounting the night of June 12, 1994. “It was very difficult for mebecause it’s hypothetical. I know, and I accept the fact that people are going to feel whatever way they’re going to.” (Breech, 2018) Simpson then hypothetically describes the beginning of the night when he met up with a friend named “Charlie.” “In the book, the hypothetical is, this guy Charlie shows up, this guy I used to be friends with and I don’t know why he had been by Nicole’s house, but he told me,”You won’t believe what’s going on over there.”

And I remember thinking, “Whatever’s going on over there, that has got to stop,” Simpson said. (Breech, 2018) At that point, Regan asks Simpson where he parked at Nicole’s and what he was wearing when he went over there. “In the hypothetical, in the alley [is where I parked],” Simpson said. “In the hypothetical, I put on the cap and gloves.”Simpson also noted that he usually kept a knife in his car.

“I always kept a knife in the car for the crazies and stuff because you can’t travel with a gun, and I remember Charlie saying, “You ain’t bringing that [to Nicole’s]’ and I didn’t, but I believe he took it,” Simpson said. “In the book.” (Breech, 2018) After describing that scene, things got kind of weird, because Simpson went from describing everything hypothetically to describing everything in the first person. “I go to the front and I’m looking to see what’s going on,” Simpson said. “While I was there, a guy [Goldman] shows up. A guy I really didn’t recognize. I may have seen him around, but I really didn’t recognize him to be anyone. In the mood I was in, I started having words with him.”

Nicole heard the argument and went outside. At that point, a verbal argument started, according to Simpson’s account. “Nicole had come out and we started having words about ‘Who is this guy? Why is he here? What’s going on?’” Simpson said. “As things got heated, I just remember that Nicole fell and hurt herself and this guy kind of got into a karate thing, and I said,”Well, you think you can kick my ass?” And then I remember I grabbed the knife, I do remember that portion, taking the knife from Charlie.” (Breech, 2018) From there, Simpson told Regan that he blacked out.

“To be honest, after that I don’t remember, except, I’m standing there and there are all kinds of stuff around … blood and stuff around,” Simpson said. When asked if he was covered in blood, Simpson said: “everything was covered.” “It’s hard for me to describe it. I don’t think any two people could be murdered the way they were without everyone being covered in blood,” Simpson said. “Of course, I think we’ve all seen the grisly pictures after. I think everything was covered, would have been covered in blood.” Regan then mentions that, in the book, Simpson says he removed a glove at that point.

“I have no conscious memory of doing that, but obviously I must have because they found the glove there,” Simpson said. (Breech, 2018) Regan then asked Simpson if he had ever blacked out before. “Not to my knowledge,” Simpson said. “Of course, if something like this were to take place in anybody’s life, if it were to happen, I would imagine it would be something you would probably have trouble wrapping your mind around. It was horrible. It was absolutely horrible.” (Breech, 2018) Simpson then described leaving the scene. “I go back, parked a block away because I knew the limo would be there. Came across the backyard through the two tennis courts and came through the house,” Simpson said.

The former NFL star was about to catch a flight to Chicago, which is why there was a limo at his place that night. Once in his house, Simpson says he “ran upstairs to take a shower.” (Breech, 2018) After describing the night of June 12, in a first person, Simpson went back to defending himself when it came to key details after the murder. The Pro Football Hall of Famer even explained why he had a passport during the Bronco chase and said that he didn’t have $10,000 with him in the car, as police have long claimed. “There wasn’t a lot of conversation [in the Bronco],” Simpson said. “I always had my passport [on me]. I think I had three dollars and something in change [not $10,000].”

After Simpson described the hypothetical details of the crime, viewers at home were shocked. (Breech, 2018) Although Simpson was acquitted of the murders in October 1995, he was later found liable for the deaths in civil court. The former Buffalo Bills running back was ordered to pay $33.5 million after a judge ruled against him in wrongful death lawsuits filed by the families of the victims. The interview with Simpson in 2006 never aired because Fox decided to pull it after facing serious backlash from the public. On November 2006, Fox was going to air the interview in a two-part special before Rupert Murdoch personally announced that it was going to be axed. Not only did Fox shelve the TV special, but it also dumped the book.

Most of the first-print copies were destroyed in 2006, and the ones that didn’t get destroyed became collector’s items. An original printing of the book sold for $4,555 at an auction on October 2017. (Breech, 2018)Although the book was axed by publisher Harper Collins, which was owned by Fox, another version of it eventually did get released. After a judge gave the rights of the book to the Goldman’s, the family released the book on August 2007 as a way to collect on the $33.5 million court ruling against Simpson. The family believed that the book was Simpson’s way of confessing to the crime, so when they released it, they retitled the book, If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.

Fourteen months after the book was released, Simpson was sent to jail after being found guilty of kidnapping and robbery in Nevada. Simpson spent roughly nine years in prison before being released on Oct. 1, 2017. Simpson hasn’t yet commented on the Sunday airing of his 12-year-old interview. Although, the Goldman family was on board with the interview airing, because, as mentioned before, they viewed it as Simpson’s way of confessing to the murder. (Breech, 2018) Simpson has repeatedly maintained his innocence.

Last year, there appeared to be a possible break in the case when a knife was reportedly discovered on the property Simpson once owned. But the tip led nowhere, leaving the case largely where it was in the 1990s. “OJ Simpson cannot be tried again because of double jeopardy, but he certainly can be questioned,” Levinson said. “In fact, he doesn’t have Fifth Amendment protection anymore.” The LAPD wouldn’t provide any additional details in the case. Legal experts say there are plenty of challenges that go with investigating a crime that is more than 20 years old. Among them, the fact that prosecutors are dealing with decades-old evidence and memories. (NEWS, 2017)

The Environment In Henry David Thoreau’s Walden


Henry David Thoreau was a master of the land around him. He knew every turn, tree, and every little thing about the forest and wilderness. He knew so much that “in his journal he says that he helped fugitive slaves get across Canada.” He was called the conductor of the underground railroads. Only because he knew the country side so well, could he get these slaves across the wilderness and terrain of Concord and Fitchburg. Thoreau loved the wilderness so much that he wanted to keep it preserved all around. “He made it his business to maintain the forest paths”, with this you can see that Thoreau loved didn’t take the job of protecting wildlife and the wilderness lightly.

There was a comparison between Jefferson & Thoreau. Some could say that the two was similar in many ways, others could say that they were the complete opposite. Jefferson was more of a laid-back worker. He owned farm land but did absolutely no work, all of his slaves did everything on the farm for him. On the other hand, Thoreau owned land as well but he did his work by himself. This could be a reason some could say Jefferson and Thoreau were different. Another way you could see the difference between Thoreau and Jefferson was their perception of the government. Thoreau believed that the government is at its best when “it governs least”, but Jefferson believes that the government was at its best when it governed “not at all”.

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

Love of the Wild

In the book Walden, Thoreau explains his love for the wilderness and how the wilderness is truly beautiful in his eyes. Thoreau explains that when people usually viewed the wilderness that it was “viewed with hostility for the perfect good reason”. When someone pictures the wilderness, they picture it as a dangerous pace. A place where there are no laws, no safety no mercy. The animals, terrain, temperature and the native all made the wilderness seem like this. Thoreau wanted to show that none of this was true. He calls is “God’s System”, what he means by this is that the nature and wilderness is all a work of God’s business. That is was created to all work in harmony together. Not one thing was out of place, the cycle of life, the different habitats, and the animals. He said to escape “Satan’s system”, the town and cities were all a part of the devil’s system. That is broke down the wilderness and took away from the beauty of the earth.  Edward Johnson is also included in this to make paint a picture of how truly beautiful the wilderness in in its natural form. The “untamed forest”, he explains its nothing like the world has ever seen.

Thoreau wanted to escape Walden.  He wanted to escape the “Devil’s system” and wanted to go to “nature chief value”. The world was changing around him, he watched as people cut down trees, destroyed homes, and even built museums to show the land that they just cut down. The “Social corruption” ruined the beauty of God’s system and people stopped going out to look at the forest for what it actually was and just watched it from a television screen or phone.

A Divided Attitude

Thoreau was a hunter, he thought about hunting as a bad thing as for killing. He soon changed his mind on his thoughts. Thoreau described hunting as “a stage to becoming a man and expression yourself.” Hunting was once a rich man’s sport and was popular all around. People enjoyed the view of hunting and the dogs running, even some presidents hunted. When most people think of hunting they think of the killing, nothing more nothing less. They see an animal being shot down and killed, Thoreau begged to differ. He saw attraction to hunting, he described it as a sport. It’s not just to shoot anything at sight but to study how the animal moves, how to get the kill shot, how to know the land. You have to take in many factors to hunt. It’s a thrill riding experience to be out there in the wilderness to see the animal and to feel the energy flowing through you as you line up the shot and strike the animal down. Thoreau didn’t want to be seeing as someone who kills for the fun, or for being a carnivorous monster, as some would call hunters. He wanted people to see how hunting feeds the soul and helps people connect with the wilderness. Giving them a reason to want to preserve the forest for future generation and to be home to many.

Thoreau believed that it was no too late to save the environment. He agreed that things had gotten bad with the environment and the socialism. He said it would take the communities and the towns to help preserve and help the forest around them. The Government and federal government would have to pitch in the help balance out the fight between saving the environment and cutting it down to make houses and towns. Thoreau believes that no one will hear the cry of the forest until its too late. The animals will be gone, the jungle, tropical forest, it will all be gone. Nothing would be left for future generation to look upon or to experience. Everyone hears it, but no one is listening. The ones who do hear the environmentalist, are not strong enough to change the whole process. Thoreau explains the humanity has become selfish in its ways. Not thinking anything of the future but only for now, and leaves future generation to deal with the problem. Thoreau thought it was important to know about everything, greenhouses glasses, neurotoxins and etc.

Works Cited

  • Thoreau Henry, The Environment in henry David Thoreau’s Walden, Detroit, ed. Gary Wiener Detroit: Gale learning

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?