It's a compliment if you want it to be. In reality, it was that you reminded me of someone who fell off the face of this board. Someone who possibly helped start this site and since you seem intent on keeping the posts going, makes me wonder, who you are?
In response to your question, again, I can only speak for myself. I didn't watch the trial closely, but a friend did religiously and told me what transpired daily as well as the news reports I watched regarding some of the witnesses' testimonies, Fuhrman's actions, the tainted crime scene, the evidence, etc., etc. Most people wanted him convicted just on the fact that he ran, if you can call it that. But that doesn't explain the fight or flight syndrome. Based on the above, the prosecution presented a weak case that showed lots of doubt. So, in the words of the late Johnny Cochran, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." To me, that didn't just represent the glove.
Did he do it and get away with murder? Probably...he wasn't exactly a saint towards his first wife, but the case was extremely flawed and that's what acquitted him. It's one of a few times, if any, a Black person was acquitted on flawed, tainted evidence...many have been convicted on much less.
Why would he want to write a book, IF I killed them...is beyond me and is completely stupid whether he did or not, but that's my opinion. Then again, he played the cards that were dealt to him and got paid, so perhaps he's not so stupid afterall.