Paris Hilton held a press conference to unveil her new video game on Thursday, and greeted fans and photographers with this opening statement:
Sorry Im late, the heiress said. Im really excited to have my new video game, Diamondquest. Thank you all for coming, and you can download the game, she said.
Actually, the name of the game is Paris Hiltons Jewel Jam, not Diamondquest. Good try, though. "Diamondquest", we'd imagine, is the title of her yet-to-be-filmed first foray into narrative pornographic cinema...and slated for, say, a 2009 release?
OJ Simpson took a break from his grueling ten-year search for the real killer of his wife to make a little cash. Simpson recently promoted a prank-filled DVD called Juice, featuring the famous murder making tasteless jokes and performing odd skits.
Simpson pretends to sell his infamous white Ford Bronco in his hidden-camera prank DVD, "Juiced," a rip-off of Ashton Kutcher's MTV mainstay "Punk'd." Simpson pretends to sell the Bronco at a used car lot, telling the prospective buyer, "It was good for me - it helped me get away. It's a car that I personally made famous. The car has escapability, if you ever get into some trouble."
Naturally, the Goldman family found the DVD distasteful.
While cash-strapped Simpson is eager to hawk the DVD, it's unclear whether any profits will go directly to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, whom Simpson was ordered to pay $33.5 million after being found liable for their deaths in a civil suit. Goldman's father, Fred, tells "Inside Edition" that any profits Simpson makes from "Juiced" will be "blood money."
"It's one of the most hysterical things I've ever seen in my life," the singer told the U.K. version of Glamour for the magazine's June cover story. "Me and my assistant Felicia were totally dumbfounded when we saw it. We couldn't believe somebody actually did this." So does that mean Spears would buy it? "No thanks," she said. "They can display it somewhere, but not in my beautiful home."
Why do I think shes just joshing us and that it would totally fit in right in the front sitting parlor?
George Clooney is growing concerned with the start of production on Oceans 13. One of the main stars and Clooneys close friend, Brad Pitt, is only attached to the project and may not commit and sign a contract even with production dates looming in the near future.
A source told Britain's The Sun newspaper: "Brad has not been able to confirm 100 per cent that he will be available - and that's making George very anxious.
"His best friend is out of the country and looking forward to being a dad for the first time. But the movie is only weeks away now."
The source added: "Instead of being there to work on the project, Brad is in the middle of Africa. People are worried that he will prefer to carry on being a dad rather than go back to work."
Why is anyone shocked by this? Its not like hes playing house with Dom DeLuise or something. Hes having his first child with Angelina Jolie in Africa. How often does that happen?
Jennifer Lopez fueled pregnancy rumors by showing up at a party with a *gasp* visible gray hair; hair coloring is supposedly a no-no for chicks in a family way. Lopez arrived at the Time magazine bash for their 100 most influential people list, and looked absolutely stunning, but the party-goers ignored her dress and fabulous makeup; they instead focused on the gray hair and curves.
An onlooker said: "People could barely believe their eyes. She looked stunning in every other way but everyone was distracted by the inch-thick gray-white root."
The actress, 36, has made no secret of her desire to have children with her husband, Marc Anthony, but declined to give a time frame.
The nerve! Using Clairol's "Nice n' Easy n' Private" Non-Hair Color like this...
I'm kind of conflicted about OJ Simpson. I mean, he was found not guilty. If you're going to have any faith in the American criminal justice system, shouldn't he be allowed to do whatever he wants, occupation-wise? If he's retarded enough to make jokes about the topic, shouldn't he be allowed to be? Is it a bit rude that everyone assumes he is guilty when twelve jurors found he wasn't? (Well, twelve jurors thought he wasn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and twelve jurors thought he was on the balance of probabilities, but whatever)
I can't remember the details all that much - I was only eleven or twelve when the case was going. Was it that obvious he did it?
Anton said:
I can't remember the details all that much - I was only eleven or twelve when the case was going. Was it that obvious he did it?
Yes.
If the same trial were held today, he would probably be convicted. But that was when DNA evidence was kind of new and not really that accepted by the general public.
Oh, so it came down to that? I thought it was largely circumstantial. And based on the fact that he had a pretty big motive. And that he hopped in a Bronco and zoomed down the highway at the first sign of trouble. All of which kind of imply guilt, but don't prove it.
Is it possible for me to feel embarrassed over this? I think that's what I was feeling when I read that bit about OJ Simpson's DVD. It's like the horrible part in a film about a has been that nobody likes trying to pretend he's still somebody.
Not only was it obvious that Simpson did it, but, as the story above says, he WAS "found liable for their deaths in a civil suit."
But let's pretend he didn't do it for a second: It's still not exactly in good taste to make fun of the situation surrounding the murder of your wife, which you are supposedly supposed to, you know, care about.
Yes, it is a free country and you can say what you want (duh), but bad taste is bad taste.
Anton said:
Oh, so it came down to that? I thought it was largely circumstantial. And based on the fact that he had a pretty big motive. And that he hopped in a Bronco and zoomed down the highway at the first sign of trouble. All of which kind of imply guilt, but don't prove it.
45 matches of either his, Nicole Brown Smith, or Ron Goldman's DNA at the scene, in the Bronco, or on the clothing OJ Simpson was wearing.
As noted above, if you presented this evidence now, there's no way he'd get off. But Barry Shreck (who is, perhaps ironically, one of the leading advocates for using DNA to exonerate the wrongfully convicted: trying to get the karma balance back in your favor, Barry?) used some pretty shady semantic games to "disprove" it, because DNA testing was fairly new at the time.
Anton said:
Oh, so it came down to that? I thought it was largely circumstantial. And based on the fact that he had a pretty big motive. And that he hopped in a Bronco and zoomed down the highway at the first sign of trouble. All of which kind of imply guilt, but don't prove it.
But there was blood or something? DNA-y stuff?
There was literally a trail of blood at the house, in his car, at his house, and a bloody glove in each location. All of the DNA was his, Nicole Brown's or Ron Goldman's. Then there was also circumstantial evidence besides all that.
but for those of you who dont believe in karma, his entire counsel team is dead, disbarred, lost everything to divorce or under some sort of legal scruitny since the event...
_panda_ said:
but for those of you who dont believe in karma, his entire counsel team is dead, disbarred, lost everything to divorce or under some sort of legal scruitny since the event...
Yeah the odds of that happening are astronomical.
OR:
Over a decade has passed in the lives of a handful of rich, agressive, ambitious middle aged male lawyers in LA. Who would have seen anything except good times ahead for guys like that?
Man those chickenheads at the job tell us we cant read any of the gossip rags without buying them first so i count on you guys for the info now a days.
I think the Juice could care less....he killed his cheating wife and the dude she was fucking. Now hes making money off it and the guys family is pissed! How else do they expect him to pay them back? Good ole Juice. What a silly bitch he is. I think secretly if he could he'd really love to go back so he could change the events of that day and hire someone else to do the dirty work. Then he would still have the American Public's love and could make more Naked Gun movies without getting hated on.
As one of the few Paris defenders left around these parts Id like to offically announce that i give up. Shes awful. What was i thinking all these years?
Anton said:
Oh, so it came down to that? I thought it was largely circumstantial. And based on the fact that he had a pretty big motive. And that he hopped in a Bronco and zoomed down the highway at the first sign of trouble. All of which kind of imply guilt, but don't prove it.
Anton said:
I'm kind of conflicted about OJ Simpson. I mean, he was found not guilty. If you're going to have any faith in the American criminal justice system, shouldn't he be allowed to do whatever he wants, occupation-wise? If he's retarded enough to make jokes about the topic, shouldn't he be allowed to be? Is it a bit rude that everyone assumes he is guilty when twelve jurors found he wasn't? (Well, twelve jurors thought he wasn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and twelve jurors thought he was on the balance of probabilities, but whatever)
I can't remember the details all that much - I was only eleven or twelve when the case was going. Was it that obvious he did it?
I myself was a young-un too, but the impression I've gotten over the past years is that no one really believed he was innocent. The issue was that the LAPD fucked up the case and essentially framed a guilty man.
A lot went over my head at the time, me being young and nowhere near California, but that was an interesting time in California criminal history. The way each case in turn affected others is just fascinating.
Anyway, yeah, it was totally obvious that he was guilty. But the case was mishandled, and if the jurors had the responsibility to decide based on the evidence presented--well, some of that evidence was kinda sketchy, so it complicated things. A lot. A lot went wrong in that case.
I remember seeing on the news here in Australia (when OJ was found not guilty) they showed footage of hundreds of African Americans celebrating and hundreds of white people shaking their heads.
What the hell was that about? I have always wondered.
kimberleyfantasy said:
I remember seeing on the news here in Australia (when OJ was found not guilty) they showed footage of hundreds of African Americans celebrating and hundreds of white people shaking their heads.
What the hell was that about? I have always wondered.
Race relations in LA were not especially harmonious at the time. Hell, they still aren't. But, that was a few scant years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial, where four white cops brutalized a black man with nightsticks. Despite the fact that it was caught on camera, all four were cleared of police brutality charges, which prompted huge race riots throughout the city. This on top of the general media hysteria at that time about black gang violence and gangsta rap and whatnot.
Right, wrong or indifferent, a lot of people in the african american community felt that the OJ verdict was a payback for the Rodney King verdict. And a lot of people in the white community probably felt like he was automatically guilty because he was black.
kimberleyfantasy said:
I remember seeing on the news here in Australia (when OJ was found not guilty) they showed footage of hundreds of African Americans celebrating and hundreds of white people shaking their heads.
What the hell was that about? I have always wondered.
Race relations in LA were not especially harmonious at the time. Hell, they still aren't. But, that was a few scant years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial, where four white cops brutalized a black man with nightsticks. Despite the fact that it was caught on camera, all four were cleared of police brutality charges, which prompted huge race riots throughout the city. This on top of the general media hysteria at that time about black gang violence and gangsta rap and whatnot.
Right, wrong or indifferent, a lot of people in the african american community felt that the OJ verdict was a payback for the Rodney King verdict. And a lot of people in the white community probably felt like he was automatically guilty because he was black.
Oh god, I remember that. That would explain a fair bit. How the hell did those cops get off? That was so ridiculous! They were convicted eventually weren't they after a retrial or something? Is that why police cars in the US are fitted with cameras now?
Do you think maybe that is why OJ got off? People were worried about a repeat of the LA riots?
kimberleyfantasy said:
I remember seeing on the news here in Australia (when OJ was found not guilty) they showed footage of hundreds of African Americans celebrating and hundreds of white people shaking their heads.
What the hell was that about? I have always wondered.
Race relations in LA were not especially harmonious at the time. Hell, they still aren't. But, that was a few scant years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial, where four white cops brutalized a black man with nightsticks. Despite the fact that it was caught on camera, all four were cleared of police brutality charges, which prompted huge race riots throughout the city. This on top of the general media hysteria at that time about black gang violence and gangsta rap and whatnot.
Right, wrong or indifferent, a lot of people in the african american community felt that the OJ verdict was a payback for the Rodney King verdict. And a lot of people in the white community probably felt like he was automatically guilty because he was black.
Oh god, I remember that. That would explain a fair bit. How the hell did those cops get off? That was so ridiculous! They were convicted eventually weren't they after a retrial or something? Is that why police cars in the US are fitted with cameras now?
Do you think maybe that is why OJ got off? People were worried about a repeat of the LA riots?
(Sorry, so many questions, I know.)
There's some decent information about that case in the wikipedia entry, but I never studied that case specifically so I don't know why they got off. I believe there was some dispute as to whether the force was truly excessive under the police regulations at the time, but that could be way off. The wikipedia entry doesn't mention the officers being convicted after a re-trial (which would be a violation of their constitutional rights anyway), but if memory serves I believe that a couple of the cops were found liable in civil court for violating King's civil rights. Again, that could be wrong.
I don't know why all police cars have cameras now, but I'm sure that played a part. And your theory as to why OJ got off got some lip service at the time, but most people pretty much universally believe now that OJ got off because:
A) The police fucked up a lot
B) The prosecution fucked up a lot, and
C) Juries at the time were unsophisticated about DNA evidence.
kimberleyfantasy said:
I remember seeing on the news here in Australia (when OJ was found not guilty) they showed footage of hundreds of African Americans celebrating and hundreds of white people shaking their heads.
What the hell was that about? I have always wondered.
Race relations in LA were not especially harmonious at the time. Hell, they still aren't. But, that was a few scant years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial, where four white cops brutalized a black man with nightsticks. Despite the fact that it was caught on camera, all four were cleared of police brutality charges, which prompted huge race riots throughout the city. This on top of the general media hysteria at that time about black gang violence and gangsta rap and whatnot.
Right, wrong or indifferent, a lot of people in the african american community felt that the OJ verdict was a payback for the Rodney King verdict. And a lot of people in the white community probably felt like he was automatically guilty because he was black.
Oh god, I remember that. That would explain a fair bit. How the hell did those cops get off? That was so ridiculous! They were convicted eventually weren't they after a retrial or something? Is that why police cars in the US are fitted with cameras now?
Do you think maybe that is why OJ got off? People were worried about a repeat of the LA riots?
(Sorry, so many questions, I know.)
There's some decent information about that case in the wikipedia entry, but I never studied that case specifically so I don't know why they got off. I believe there was some dispute as to whether the force was truly excessive under the police regulations at the time, but that could be way off. The wikipedia entry doesn't mention the officers being convicted after a re-trial (which would be a violation of their constitutional rights anyway), but if memory serves I believe that a couple of the cops were found liable in civil court for violating King's civil rights. Again, that could be wrong.
I don't know why all police cars have cameras now, but I'm sure that played a part. And your theory as to why OJ got off got some lip service at the time, but most people pretty much universally believe now that OJ got off because:
A) The police fucked up a lot
B) The prosecution fucked up a lot, and
C) Juries at the time were unsophisticated about DNA evidence.
Actually the 2nd trial of the cops was a federal case where they were charged for violating King's civil rights.
Alyk
Boston, MA
February 2005
MAY 13, 2006 11:15 AM