| So I just finished reading the OJ Simpson Book (there are FREE copies available all over the internet). It’s called “IF I DID IT” and is approx. 180 something pages. Surprisingly, it only took me a couple of hours to finish reading. The story was terribly written and although it was easy to read, it was just fustrating (as an English major) to read all the mistakes and understand how he couldave written it better. I do not think I would purchase a copy of this book and I'm glad I was able to read the FREE version online before making that decision. I felt like OJ was narrating the story onto a cassette tape, then just retyping everything he said, word by word - without proofreading or trying to arrange it into a more compelling story.
The book is mainly what OJ claims it to be (HIS version of the events leading up to the murder and of the murder). It ends abruptly with an excerpt of a letter his ex-wife Nicole Simpson had written to him. No comments of what happened during or after the trials (perhaps since we've all followed his trial either through the newspapers, tv, radio or word-of-mouth). In this book, he DOES claim that he was the one who went after Nicole and the other man (but in the book he claims to have a blackout rage and woke up afterward holding a bloody knife and not remembering what happened)....and yet, he writes about it in the book...haha...so much for "not remembering."
What I dislike about the book is all the oxymorons and the way he keeps contradicting himself. He'd claim to love his wife and care about her, then he'd write how he was sick and tired of her and wanted out of the marriage. Then he'd write he'd never wanted out of the marriage and should have tried harder to keep it going. So which is it? Are you glad about the divorce or not?
He claimed Nicole had split personality (the Nice Nicole vs. the Bitchy Nicole). He says that he was "worried about her" and her choice of friends and possible use of drugs. But he never forces her into therepy or rehab. There was no intervention and the few times he tries to talk to her, he ends up yelling at her, banging down doors and making Nicole call the police. Never once does he report her drug use to the police, ask her "bad" friends about the drug use or hire an invenstigator, so on so forth.
He claims he is worried about his kids left with Nicole since she hangs out with the "rough" crowd and possibly does drugs, but he never fights for the kids full custody and further in the book, right after he writes about her bad habits, he writes "don't get me wrong, she a terrific mother." So which is she? A promiscious girl who (apparently) sleeps around (even with OJ's best friend) and does drugs and parties hard and influences his kids to say bad things - or a good mother?? How come nobody ever did a drug test on Nicole? Goodness knows there was plenty of blood available for testing. And how can you be a good mother when you are teaching the kids to do wrong things?
I think the book just confirms what I've been thinking all along. Although Nicole didn't deserve to be murdered, she wasn't an angel (nor is OJ a perfect husband as he keeps insisting he is "I have been nothing but a caring and helping ex-husband" - which is bullshit because if you really have been a caring and loving ex-husband you would have done things a lot differently - perhaps not getting angry over the fact that she slept around...she is, after all, your EX....so why do you care?). After reading the book, I searched online for some fact regarding both Nicole and OJ. I also researched some of the evidence presented at the trial. It just seems that, for Nicole to get murdered, it must mean that she had done something drastically wrong. Nobody gets murdered for nothing (not counting incidents like innocent bystanders during a drive-by shooting). It just seems to me that her murder wasn't a random act of violence and that perhaps, by investigating more into Nicole's background, we might be able to get an better idea of who she was. In both OJ's book and the websites, there wasn't much to say about Nicole herself or exactly who her friends were. The "rough crowd" was always described as the "rough crowd" in OJ's book. No names, no dates, no places, no events. It just seems weird that OJ himself keep telling us "so and so told me that you were hanging out with a rough crowd" and Nicole getting angry/defensive. It just wasnt specific enough. If you were a caring and loving husband (or ex-husband) then shouldn't you have done some research? Or was she just not worth it? I though you claimed to care about her though?
If OJ had commited this murder, then Nicole had played her part in inducing his rage or discontent. She wasn't perfect. But its weird, you see your wife making out with another guy on the sofa and you aren't even a little bit pissed off, yet when someone else tells you that your NOW ex-wife HAD partied & been with several guys, you blow out completely and grab a knife for a confrontation? This book just contradicts itself. This book is pretty entertaining though. It's got me thinking about it and writing about it hours after I've finished reading it. If anyone wants to read it, it'll only take you a few hours I can give you that link so that you may read it too. I wonder what other people think about the book. Is there someone out there that enjoyed it or hated it? Perhaps, you are like me - it might have been poorly written, but it's a pretty interesting tidbit to read and really gets you thinking..... |
So boy am I happy I found this!!! 
