After realizing that the American public hated her for interviewing OJ,
Judith used the excuse that she was abused or something like that -- and even that was not completely true.
How many women immediately identified with her and supported her because she said that? How many women still maintained their opposition to her trying to become famous by ditching morals and interviewing a murderer?
2007-01-01 11:41:28 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
the 2 are not related, bad judgement is bad judgement regardless what daddy did to you
2007-01-01 11:46:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do not ditch your morals for fame. Or maybe she had no scruples, in any light she has made a total (donkey) of herself, something she has to live with. Oh what a good example she has made for future young women as to what not to do or be.
2007-01-04 21:30:19 · answer #2 · answered by Bethy4 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False claims of abuse are pretty much a standard tactic available to women for gaining privilege these days, so I'll be going with yes.
2007-01-01 13:15:48 · answer #3 · answered by Happy Bullet 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know, but she clearly was using that as a rationale for funding OJ. I found some good (negative) analysis of her and her legal strategy at http://unfilterednews.blogspot.com/ .
2007-01-03 17:05:23 · answer #4 · answered by Carly C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one believes a word she says. She is an opportunist who would do anything for money.
2007-01-01 11:50:21 · answer #5 · answered by notyou311 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋