To be precise, OJ DID NOT LIE: about owning Bruno Maglis.

EXAMPLE 1: He did not lie about owning Bruno Maglis. He did say that he never bought shoes he KNEW were Bruno Maglis. When asked how he could know, that's when he made the famous "ugly-a***d" comments.

But later on in his deposition, he EXPLICITLY refused to swear that he did NOT own Bruno Maglis in June, 1994. In fact, his STAUNCH DENIALS regarding the Scull & Flammer pictures, to me anyway, are PROOF of his lack of dissimulation.

Even Petrocelli said in his close, "Why does he deny he's wearing the shoes in that picture? He could simply have said, "yeah, I was wearing them at that game, but I wasn't wearing them on the night of June 12th." After all, Petro-man could place him at Bundy with likelihood like in the BILLIONS - what should OJ care about a one-in-three hundred possibility? This is just ONE example of OJ's UNCOMPROMISING attitude toward what HE felt the truth was.

EXAMPLE 2: In the CRIMINAL case, when his lawyers talked him out of testifying, he wanted to elicit testimony from ARNELLE that he never beat NBS - this at a time when the defense team was already smelling victory.

EXAMPLE 3: Whether he told Alan Park if he had overslept - he tells his lawyers - "I DON'T CARE if I lose the case - I DID NOT TELL HIM I OVERSLEPT."

EXAMPLE 4: HIS OWN LAWYER BOB BAKER asked him a leading question about the New Years' incident in 1989 - if his ELBOW OR SHOULDER COULD HAVE COME INTO ACCIDENTAL CONTACT WITH NBS - AND HE SAYS "NO."

EXAMPLE 5: Whether he retrieved Paula's message - a relatively TRIVIAL matter - and he stuck to his guns.

To me, these are but a few examples of statements that are either those of a man who is scrupulously telling the truth AS HE SEES IT - OR, of a superb, pathological liar who successfully lied his way out of a double murder and got caught in the civil trial only through the SUPREME GOOD FORTUNE (of the plaintiffs) OF THE SCULL/FLAMMER PICTURES.

Either scenario is possible, but obviously, it appears that OJ has not told ONE lie (as opposed to misrecollections) about matters pertaining to the case.