Simpson Ex-Agent Accomplice After Fact?

The New York Observer reports that O.J. Simpson's former sports agent, Mike Gilbert, is coming out with a book called How I Helped O. J. Get Away With Murder:

According to a brief announcement published this afternoon on industry Web site Publisher's Lunch, the book will "detail O.J.'s late-night confession" and offer new evidence showing that Simpson did kill his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her boyfriend Ron Goldman. The book also promises "information on Gilbert's crucial role in obtaining the not guilty verdict and why he stayed silent for so long."

I have a dozen words: What a pig. Murder accomplice after the fact. Don't buy his book. Oh, and then there's this:

Some of the proceeds from the book have been pledged to the Make-a-Wish foundation, according to the posting on Publisher's Lunch-- a commitment most likely motivated by the public outcry sparked back in November 2006 when HarperCollins announced plans to publish O. J. Simpson's kinda-sorta confession, If I Did It.

Let's add two more: blood money.

Judge Bans Use of Word Rape in Trial

When I first heard about the Salon art ice about a Nebraska judge granted the motion of defense attorneys to ban from a trial the use of the words and terms rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, and sexual assault kit, I was frothing at the mouth. (OK, flecks of foam.) But when I actually got to the article itself, I started having some sympathy for the judge.

Language is the stuff of thought. As George Orwell noted in his novel 1984, if you control the meaning of words, you control what thoughts someone can think. The situation under trial is complex. Two people had drinks. The woman apparently blacked out and, awaking the next morning, found the man having intercourse with her. She asked him to stop and he did.

Did the woman consent when drunk? Did either of them know what they were doing? Clearly the woman's experience was bad. Someone having an indifferent intimate evening with another doesn't charge rape out of ennui. But is the situation somewhere between rape and consent? Does calling the act sex or intercourse alone provide an assumption of legitimacy?

It's complex, and finding the truth is at least difficult, if even possible. But either the state has charged the man with rape or it hasn't. How can people address a criminal charge when the system dares not allow attorneys to speak the name of the crime?