No he did not write a book on how he did it. He wrote a book on the topic, but it was never published by him. It was withdrawn due to public outrage. But then copyright was transfered to the Goldmans who changed the title to infer he was writing about it as if he did...and published it.

Why did he write it in the first place? You say because he was confessing his guilt...I say it was because he needed the money and there was a voracious public appetitie for anything OJ and murders.

If he confessed to Greer, why was this not admitted into evidence at trial? Greer did not have to say anything because he was supposedly a pastor, but it was supposedly overheard. By Whom? Why was this person not used by the prosecution?? He was supposed to have also confessed to others but their testimony was in books...and their authors were simply after bucks and were discredited.

Brian, it is obvious that you know beyond any reasonable doubt that he was guilty ...which is more than the courts could do...

The jury saw this as reasonable doubt

1) the primary investigator was a proven racist and perjurer who may have planted the glove
2) there were no eyewitnesses and there was no uncontrevertable evidence tying him to the scene
3) there was contradicting testimony as to OJs actions, appearance and behaviour just after the murders
4) DNA evidence that was at that time an infant science and taken from a blood sample that was mishandled.
...and 5), of course the famous glove.

still...you'd rather believe the outcome was due to a perfect storm of incompetent prosecution, an idiot judge and a biased jury....but not the reasonable doubt.

...and maybe I'm wrong, but you continue to refuse to answer my main point...and keep harping on his guilt in the murders...making it appear you advocate that people who have been found not guilty of a crime in a court of law should nonetheless pay for that crime...because the court of public opinion says he's guilty

Why is that?

And the US is the same as Canada. In the English language, and to a moral person, there is definitely a distinction between not guily and innocent. But there is not one in the legal system. In law, there is no "Guilty", "Not Guilty (but probably)", "Not Guilty (and unlikely)" and "Innocent"



If writing ever becomes work I think I'm going to have to stop