So he was competiting in the Olympics of ignoring red flags. While she was competiting in the Olympics of least intelligent murderers. Even OJ managed to figure it out: verdict, then books.
> Even OJ managed to figure it out: verdict, then books.
As a thought experiment, let's begin with the assumption that OJ didn't kill Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman. If he really didn't do it, if he was innocent of the murders, how much would it fuck with him to have that prosecution against him? How much would it fuck with anyone to have that level of national vitriol?
_If_ he hadn't committed the murders but folks generally assumed he was guilty, it seems likely that it would mess him up. He could blame the prosecutors, blame the news media, blame the victims (that he didn't kill), blame society at large.
_If_ he hadn't committed the murders but folks generally assumed he was guilty, does it follow that he might make dark jokes about the murders, try to capitalize whatever he could financially from the murders, and generally engage in behaviors that seem reprehensible to the general society?
I'm not arguing that he's innocent -- but a false accusation can destroy anyone's life, so I'm arguing we shouldn't assume later behavior is evidence of guilt.
I am a true crime fan and I did a careful study of OJ material and I do indeed believe he is guilty. During the Ford Bronco chase OJ held a gun to his own head as AJ drove, which was not focused on during the trial. Clearly he was suicidal, and the “suicide note” discovered also shows unstable mental state.
I don’t believe anyone else had the motive to commit the crime, in contrast to OJ who was a documented serial wife beater and had a violent temper. It’s clear to me he did it.
Right, this totally makes sense. Every time I am accused falsely of something, I am making a deal with somebody to write and publish a book claiming I did that very thing, and then lie about writing it myself. That's what every falsely accused innocent person does in such a situation, right?
