In 1989 Mr. Simpson could probably have proved that he was innocent of abuse. All he did was pulling Nicole Brown out of the room in a way that he later considered too violent. That police officer John Edwards lied about her alleged injuries was proved by a hospital report. But I think that if the truth would have come out people would have wondered if Nicole Brown was a bit crazy ... She called 911 because she was in a state of fury and he locked her out of the room, not because of abuse. He sacrificed his own reputation for the sake of protecting hers. I don't get the impression she ever realized that. When any authority asked her "Did he ever hit you?" she said "once" referring to 1989. Mr. Simpson never explicitly denied that, as he didn't want to contradict her. So in the civil court they asked "Did you hit her?" and he said "You mean punched her? No". Of course everybody took that as a confession that he did hit her. He didn't. He couldn't deliberately hurt anybody and has always gone out of his way to avoid unintentionally hurting somebody. Maybe she thought he did, that time. "O.J." takes that "once" as a simplification of what happened, but I don't know if that really is what she meant. I suppose Mr. Simpson does know, but he won't tell us.
So she was a bit crazy and a bit out of touch with reality. This is something that has been obvious for a long time to everyone who tries to make sense out of things. Time and again Mr. Simpson has made huge sacrifices to protect her privacy and reputation, at the expense of his own, but with the media-people just going on sticking there noses where they don't belong, and her personal life being shamelessly discussed on TV, we already knew so much that all he could do was to give us some more information to put things in their place. I must say that some of the things she did really made me very angry, where as I can now understand them better and find them a bit more acceptable.
She made 911 calls. I understand Mr. Simpson only knew about three: in 1984, when she, when a police officer arrived, said it had been a mistake, and the other two in 1989 and 1993. The transcript of the last one you find in the book, so that you can see for yourself it makes no sense. (I'm afraid she hasn't been the only person in history to have used the police to participate in dramatic domestic scenes.)
Many marriages go wrong after the children are born because your children bring back your own childhood. Nicole Brown started physically attacking Mr. Simpson after the birth of their second child. I know of only one reason why a woman gets physically aggressive like her: experience with physical abuse as a child. The abuse stories she told sometimes to some people must have been projections. (This doesn't mean she is to be compared with the witch-hunters who use their target for that. Unlike the ones you see in TV-series, a real marriage is some kind of psycho-analysis and that often involves projection.) "She was a bad liar" says "O.J.", which is a compliment. Bad liars are people who have some kind of censor in the back of their heads which makes their stories unconvincing. The people she told those stories to later blamed themselves for not doing anything. I can tell them why: they were not at all sure they were true.
What else is there to say? They got divorced, and she got in touch with Faye Resnick's crowd. In the end everyone around her was greatly alarmed. She had associations with criminals and then she got killed ...
Mr. Simpson should never have been arrested. I blame his alleged 'dream-team' of lawyers. Bob Shapiro asking him if he did it; I would have fired him straight away. Telling him "You have to turn yourself in, an hour from now" is like your doctor telling you that you have one hour left to live. I think they could have proved him innocent many times over but it seems they all thought he was guilty, stirred up by the media ... Why didn't they get the records of Nicole Browns' last phone call, which might have given him a watertight alibi?
This is where the story ends. Now I'll move to the deeper, fictional level, where this book tells you the story of the Fall. For that, I must first say something about the meaning of that word.
The origin of evil
Most people in the western world are Darwinists. What has always puzzled me is that so many of them seem to think that evil is part of human nature. Most forms of evil have a negative effect on the chances of survival of all parties involved, so it's not very likely that they could survive an evolutionary process. And when they assume that morality is a social invention ... do they really believe that society can create new feelings, like guilt, moral indignation, thirst for revenge?
But biologists in general fail to give you an acceptable explanation for mental human properties. So I will start out with a Darwinist explanation of morality.