You've probably heard about O.J. Simpson's book,
If I Did It. When I learned the Goldman family had rights to it and planned to publish it, I put it on hold at the library. A few weeks ago, I was notified that the book was available. I had mixed feelings about it then, and I have mixed feelings even after reading the book.
Nevertheless, here are my thoughts about it.
The book starts with a chapter from the Goldman family. It affirms their belief that Simpson killed their son. The new subtitle of this book is
Confessions of the Killer. It doesn't get much plainer than that. This chapter also explains the reason they decided to publish the book.
The options are still the same--do nothing or fight. Our attempts to enforce this judgment have never been about lining our pockets or "cashing in," or exploited Ron's death: it is our legal right. But from an emotional standpoint, it is about taking from him, it's about making him feel the impact of what he did. It's about hitting him where it hurts--his pockets, his livelihood. Some people have accused us of having vengeful motives but it is not about revenge, and we are not going to apologize for wanting him to fee a tenth of what we feel every day. We have suffered a great deal and want to see some measure of justice, in whatever form it must take.
The part of the book I found most interesting is the prologue, written by ghostwriter Pablo Fenjves. Here's his first meeting with Simpson.
I kept waiting for the attorney to ask me about my history with O.J., but he never did. Ten years, earlier, during the criminal trial, I testified for the prosecution. I had described the "plaintive wail" of Nicole's dog, and Marcia Clark used the information to try to establish a timeline for the murders.
He gestured toward the empty chair beside him, and before I'd even settled in he said, "Tell me something. What is this 'wailing dog' bullshit? You ever hear of anyone putting a man away based on the testimony of a wailing dog?"
Okay. I got the message. He remembered me from the trial, and he wanted me to know he remembered. Or maybe he didn't remember, but someone in his camp had the sense to Google me before I flew down.
I thought it was fascinating that Fenjves was part of the case. Now he would write Simpson's story. The book was written based on several taped interviews.
At one point, he said, "You know what kills me? All the goddamn people who assumed I was guilty before they'd even heard my side." He looked dead at me, waiting for a comment. We were alone in the hotel suite, and I looked at his hands. They were bigger than my head.
With six words, Fenjves get a sense of Simpson's size--and physical threat--that stays in the mind as the book continues. Along with this.
O.J. looked suddenly upset. "I don't know what the hell you want from me," he said. "I'm not going to tell you that I sliced my ex-wife's neck and watched her eyes roll up into her head."
Then there are subtler moments like this one:
Now that we were done with the worst of it, or as done as we were going to be, O.J. became suddenly more voluble. He provided details about the drive home, for example, and actually corrected me when I said I thought he'd driven through the red light at Bundy and Montana. "I didn't go to the light at Montana. Why would I have gone there? I took a left at the end of the alley and went up Gretna Green to San Vincente, and from there to Sunset."
He must have seen the look on my face. "Or that's the way I woulda gone."
And here are the final words of the prologue: "You've read the story. This is the book. Judge for yourself."
I've read the book. I believe Simpson is guilty of both murders, and my opinion didn't change as I read. It's a well-written story. Nevertheless, I wish I hadn't written it, and I'll try to explain why.
In one respect, the story told here is a familiar one. It's familiar because it was splashed in the news at the time, but it's also familiar to someone who has read a lot of true-crime books. Boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy refuses to let girl go. Simpson's contention, of course, is that he wasn't obsessed. In fact, he knew it wasn't going to work out with Nicole a few months into their latest reconciliation. Which, of course, she initiated.
There's a chapter in the book called The Two Nicoles. If you've read any true-crime, you'll know where this is going. There were two Nicoles--one was good and kind and loving. The other Nicole was the opposite. His thinking: if only she could have stayed the one Nicole, everything would have been great. I believe that perpetrators often use the two personality metaphor because that is, in effect, what they are. They have a public face, the one people see and think, "How could that person do this?" Then there's the other side, the one their victims see.
A chapter called The Night in Question is the one this book was written for. It descripes the night of the murder. "Now picture this--and keep in mind, this is hypothetical." Simpson was driven to the edge by an acquaintance named Charlie, who came to his house and told him about some party Nicole had apparently attended a few months before.
"O.J., man--I'm not the enemy here."
I turned round, fuming, and tried to count to ten. I didn't make it. By the time I got to three I realized that Charlie was right. He wasn't the enemy. Nicole was the enemy.
If you're expecting details, you don't get them. One moment, Simpson is confronting Ron Goldman, who is trying to diffuse the situation. The next, Simpson realizes he is covered in blood and makes his getaway. Charlie disappears soon thereafter.
The rest of the book takes us through the accusations, the Bronco chase, and the arrest. And that's where it ends.
I suppose I was hoping for more enlightenment, though since the book is from Simpson's POV, it's no surprise that the enlightenment just isn't there. Nor is there really indirect enlightenment, anything to be learned by reading. He doesn't provide anything new here, except negative comments about Nicole, his ex-wife and the mother of his children.
A woman who isn't alive to share her point of view.
And that's why I wish I hadn't read his story and why I wish it hadn't been published. I understand the Goldman's desire to take something away from Simpson after what he did. Ron is shown very, very briefly in this book. He plays the role of hero--someone who steps in to try and help someone else and was cut down for it.
Nicole was also a victim, and Simpson's descriptions of her in this book victimize her again.
Labels: true crime reviews
