Sunday, January 14, 2007

OJ, still vindictive wife abuser

Some new information has come out today about what was in OJ Simpson's ill-fated book, If I Did It. In a chapter that Newsweek managed to obtain, Mr. Simpson now says that "if" he did it, there was an accomplice that he names "Charlie" -- which is interesting, since the Los Angeles District Attorney at the time totally dismissed out of hand that there was any second suspect in the case. According to Simpson, Charlie was actually an unwilling aide to the fact and begged OJ to stop. There are also some interesting details about the bloody socks and why there were no other clothes, the racket that woke up Brian "Kato" Kaelin, and something else significant -- that Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown's pal (and who was actually returning the glasses of Nicole's mother, not Nicole's as has always been reported), tried to save her life and even threatened to use karate on OJ.

What's more alarming is that Simpson uses the language of a classic wife abuser, always denying responsibility, always blaming his victim -- Nicole -- for being responsible for provoking the attacks. He's especially angry with her repeatedly committing adultery, although if even half of what is said about his treatment of her is true, her dalliances would have been completely justifiable. I think all of us remember that 911 call where OJ broke into Nicole's home and was shouting at her in violation of a court order (and how it took nearly a minute for the dispatcher to realize that "OJ" was the same one as the football player / broadcaster / actor / comedian, wasting precious moments for the police to break it up). I also remember one piece of evidence introduced where OJ complained to Nicole about filing a joint income tax return when their divorce had long been finalized -- dated less than a week before the murder.

Was that the motive for the murder, financial irregularities? Or the fact that she was at the wrong end of a drug deal gone terribly wrong (there was evidence she was experimenting with hard drugs)? Or the fact that he directly accused Ron Goldman of being there for the specific purpose of having an affair with Nicole? And, if what OJ is saying about Goldman standing up for both himself and Nicole is in fact true, then Goldman comes out as a true hero. Further, if the account is true, Goldman and Kato were at least acquaintances because Kato waved at the former before leaving the scene -- and immediately before the murders.

It's not just that OJ wrote the book that bothers me (why that is I explained here). What bothers me is his overall attitude towards women in general. I don't think it's the football that conditioned him to hate women, rather his sense that he was entitled to his entitlements. He felt he had paid his dues to society (or rather, society owed him because of his multiple talents) and here was this woman who wanted to expose him for the creep he really was. So what if she wanted to sleep with Goldman? Nicole and OJ were no longer married, therefore it was no longer OJ's business even if she was the mother of their children.

The scary part? Now that the publishing rights have been returned to Simpson, he's free to publish the book again -- even self-publish it if he chooses (and it's not that expensive anymore, hasn't been for sometime with a good office suite). He set up a trust for his kids specifically so the Brown and Goldman families don't get a penny. And all the while, he's free to pontificate his repulsive attitudes about the female half.

No doubt he's a very talented guy in every other respect. He had a major role in the seminal miniseries Roots, and is such a good actor he was actually considered for the title role in The Terminator. Not to mention his broad knowledge of the game that made him famous.

That's no excuse, however, for his revolting behaviour off the field. It's irrelevant if he "did it" or not. The fact is he has a rap sheet for his abuse. For that reason, and that reason alone, he should be avoided like the plague.

UPDATE (7:09 PM EST, 0009 Monday GMT): You're absolutely right, Justin. It was Ron, not Brian. I've edited accordingly.

To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Wasn't his name Ron Goldman?