Here’s a Simpson Pay-Per-View Idea Worth Some Money

Because this is America in the ‘90s, we must hear from O.J. Simpson.

We just hafta.

We’re besieged daily by every numskull nonentity and half-baked pseudo-celebrity that comes down the pike, spilling their guts here and there, confessing to real or imagined failings and purging their souls of their darkest secrets (“I Make Obscene Phone Calls to My Pastor on Company Time”).

If Hugh Grant feels compelled to explain why he solicited a hooker (talk about your brain-teasers), certainly O.J. will feel the urge to set the record straight. If basketball player Dennis Rodman catches people’s fancy, try to quantify the interest level in O.J.

Simpson already has done big business with his jailhouse book, “I Want to Kill You”--oops, I mean, “I Want to Tell You.” Now that he’s out of jail, that book demands a sequel--perhaps, “Don’t Make Me Tell You Again.”

Forget a book. Most of the buzz so far surrounds a pay-per-view event, in which someone--please, God, not Larry King--would interview Simpson. In the PPV milieu, an O.J. tell-all would fit somewhere on the spectrum between a Streisand concert and World’s Toughest Man competition. As a testament to Simpson’s drawing power, it would probably attract both audiences.

The price bandied about on talk radio the other day was $29.95. That immediately forged the great moral question of the day: Would you spend $30 to hear O.J.’s story?

If the price were $100, the decision would be easy. Or if it were $2.95. But if those rats put it at $29.95, it’s just high enough and just low enough that they’ll force us to make a value judgment.

For that price, I’d demand my money’s worth. I got burned on Tyson-Spinks a few years ago, and I’m not going to make that mistake again.

My suspicion is that a one-sided O.J. interview wouldn’t give me the bang for my buck.

Consider an alternative suggestion:

Why not a pay-per-view event pairing Simpson and Marcia Clark, in which he would sit on a mock witness stand and she would cross-examine him as she would have during the trial? They could get a real judge and a defense lawyer, whose roles would be confined to preserving Simpson’s rights as a defendant.

The lawyer could pose legitimate objections, and the judge would rule according to law. But, for the most part, it would be the Simpson-Clark courtroom duel that we always wanted.

It’s a natural. Simpson claimed that he was dying to testify, but his lawyers fretted over the jurors’ waning patience and the chance of a fluke slip-up on the stand. Neither of those factors poses a risk now. Nothing Simpson said during the PPV event--even a breakdown and confession--could be used in another criminal trial, because of double jeopardy.

As for Clark, she reportedly relished the chance to cross-examine him. This represents her only chance.

The only stumbling block is that Simpson would have to settle in advance the civil suits pending against him. With that road cleared, the American public would pay $100 to watch a Simpson-Clark match.

It would be the biggest PPV event in history.

Imagine:

Clark: Mr. Simpson, if you were home that Sunday evening, why didn’t you answer any of limousine driver Allan Park’s buzzes until a few minutes before 11 p.m.?

Simpson: I was showering and couldn’t hear them with the water running. I might have heard one of them, but I knew he’d still be waiting when I finished, so there was no rush.

Clark: What happened to the dark sweat suit that you wore to McDonald’s that June night when you and Kato went out for burgers, the one we think you were still wearing while committing the murders?

Simpson: Uh. . . . There’s no double jeopardy, right?

Clark: What do you think made the thump-thump-thump sounds against Kato’s outside wall?

Simpson: Three disoriented birds?

Rest assured the real Q&A; between Clark and Simpson would be much more compelling, but consider the possibilities if they faced off. Don’t you think we’d have a much clearer idea as to whether Simpson committed the murders?

Marcia Clark thinks she could break O.J.’s story. Let’s find out. He says he had nothing to fear from testifying. Let’s find out.

This is like the prizefight where both fighters want the bout, and the public is clamoring for it.

As veteran referee Mills Lane always says to the fighters before the bell starts Round 1: “Let’s get it on!”

Indeed. Call your cable company today.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.