Alex Koppelman

In a statement given to the New York Post, Judith Regan, who heads the publishing house responsible for Simpson’s book and will interview him Nov. 27 and 29 on Fox, strikes a similar note.

“I have not spent a lifetime in the study of deception detection,” she writes, “but ex-CIA specialist Phil Houston has. ‘When killers confess,’ he told me, ‘the way they often do it is by creating a hypothetical’ — and then they spill their guts.

“For many of them, it is the only way to tell the truth.”

There are few, if any, legal risks for Simpson. Because of the constitutional protections against double jeopardy — being tried twice for the same crime — he can not face criminal charges for the murders. Additionally, Simpson has already been the target of a wrongful death lawsuit in which he was found liable; he has, so far, avoided paying anything but a minimal portion of the $33 million judgment against him in that case.

According to Saul Kassin, a professor of psychology at Williams College, who co-wrote the book “Confessions in the Courtroom,” cost-benefit analysis nearly always goes into the decision of whether or not to confess. In Simpson’s case, the freedom from legal risk makes his situation unique.

“The psychology of O.J. may be the psychology of nothing but O.J.,” Kassin says. “From a psychological standpoint, I can’t think of any clearer instance in which somebody has — at least on the face of it — everything to gain and nothing to lose. I’m not sure I can even come up with another example, where a true voluntary confession brings a financial gain to a criminal without putting them at risk.”

Another way some criminals may attempt to avoid taking full responsibility is to admit — as they or their stories break down under interrogation — to elements of a crime but not to actual culpability. For instance, they could say they were indeed at the scene but did not take part. It appears that Simpson may be doing something similar; the New York Daily News has reported that he will admit to being at the scene with “Charlie,” an accomplice, who handed Simpson the bloody knife after the murders.

William Morrissette, a former CIA forensic investigator who specializes in the science of interrogation and now runs Intuition, a company that trains law enforcement in forensic interrogation techniques, says some criminals “rationalize” their crimes in order to alleviate their conscience.

“Guilt can become a physical thing,” Morrissette says. “It can actually make you sick. So this rationalization, saying, ‘Well, I did this, but it was because of…’ is a way of letting some of that guilt out without admitting culpability. … We [as interrogators] try to encourage that rationalization, to help them along in that.”

Kassin points out that Simpson is not under interrogation, and he believes this situation is different, partially because of that.

“You know, if this just looked like a guy who needed to get this off his chest, I’d say sure, that’s possible,” he says. “But it looks like a guy who has some tangible benefit to gain; I’m more likely to believe he’s doing this for personal gain than to get it off his chest, as somebody of conscience might have.”

Morrissette agrees, contrasting the Simpson case with that of Michael Skakel, the Kennedy cousin who was convicted of killing his neighbor, Martha Moxley, years after the crime was committed — partially because some years later he confessed the crime to classmates at a private school for teenage substance abusers. That, Morrisette says, was evidence of guilt driving a criminal to confess, but he doesn’t believe that’s the case with Simpson.

“A genuine confession coming out of guilt,” Morrissette says, “you don’t write a tabloid book to do that.”

Richard Leo, an associate professor of law at the University of San Francisco, agrees, and thinks there may be an additional factor in play: Simpson’s own ego, and desire to be the focus of the public’s attention.

“There may be some psychiatric need here,” Leo says. “Yes, he may be in the spotlight, may have always been in the spotlight, but he may need more, and this is a way for him to get it.”

And thanks to the readers as well. There are, of course, times we’ve had our differences, but I even appreciated that. Salon has what I think is the most dedicated, involved group of readers on the Internet, and it’s a pleasure to write for you all and to read your responses.

So this is goodbye, for now. Salon has been nice enough to ask me to stay on the masthead as a contributing writer, but you probably won’t see me around these pages; for now, I’m going to be spending some time working on a couple long-term projects that I’ve allowed to languish for far too long. I might even spend some time away from a computer screen, something I haven’t been able to do since I started in War Room. But hopefully we’ll all see each other again soon.

“The chairman felt it was critical to make a move swiftly to ensure that no improper expenses happen in the future,” RNC spokesman Doug Heye told Hotline On Call. Similarly, he told Politico, “This is about ensuring that we have the tightest financial controls in place and to ensure that every nickel we spend is done with the goal of winning in November …. The chairman wanted to take swift action so that we can move forward.”

Reaction to the move has been mixed. Former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie praised Leavitt in an e-mail to Hotline On Call. But one RNC member who spoke with Salon slammed the decision.

“Ken Mckay worked his ass off for the party and for the chairman, and for all the different problems, ups and downs, well documented, he was stunningly loyal to both the building and the chairman,” the RNC member said, adding, “The problem in the building had nothing to do with Ken. He was part of the solution, not part of the problem.” The RNC member did emphasize that this judgment wasn’t a reflection on Leavitt, however.

Update: One of Steele’s closest allies, consultant Curt Anderson, is out as well, seemingly in response to the news.

“Ken McKay’s departure is a huge loss for the Republican Party. Ken steered the party through very successful elections last fall that have given us tremendous momentum,” he said in an e-mail, according to CNN’s Political Ticker blog. “He’s a great talent. Given our firm’s commitments to campaigns all over the country, we have concluded it is best for us to step away from our advisory role at the RNC.”

The ad:

Hat-tip to the Washington Post’s Federal Eye.

“I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president’s eligibility under the constitution to hold office,” Lakin said in a release. (He’s also spoken in a YouTube video about his decision; it can be viewed at the bottom of this post.)

Lakin isn’t the first member of the military to become a Birther cause celebre. The case that brought the now-infamous Orly Taitz her first real mainstream media attention involved another one.

In the past, the impetus for including military men and women in lawsuits had to do with the fact that to bring suit successfully a plaintiff must have what’s known as standing; at minimum, they have to show some sort of particularized injury. In other words, the average person can’t get much past the courtroom door if they sue Obama for his records, saying they’re entitled to them as a voter — there has to be some way in which they’d be more directly affected if he were in fact ineligible. So the various Birther attorneys came up with a plan: Members of the military have to take orders from the president in his capacity as commander-in-chief, so, the theory went, they should have standing. It was at least creative, but it’s also proven unsuccessful for reasons including and beyond the standing issue. Taitz’s behavior in one of the cases even brought her a $20,000 sanction from one federal judge fed up with her antics.

This time, though, there’s no lawsuit on the horizon, Margaret Hemenway, a spokeswoman for the American Patriot Foundation, told Salon. Instead, Lakin appears content to wait for a court-martial, possibly with the hope that if the Army did try him, he could seek Obama’s birth certificate as part of the case. The foundation is working to raise money for Lakin’s defense in the event he is brought up on charges, and Hemenway says he has a legal advisor, though she declined to name him. (Hemenway did say she’d pass on a message to the advisor in case he wanted to talk to Salon, but as of this post, there’s been no word back.)

The Army is aware of Lakin’s pledge, spokesman George Wright said Thursday. But so far, there’s no word on whether the lieutenant colonel will get the disciplinary action he seems to welcome.

“I can say that Lt. Col. Lakin has stated his intent to violate articles 87 and 92 of Uniform Code of Military Justice, but he has not done so,” Wright said, adding that it will be up to Lakin’s chain of command to decide whether his actions thus far violate any regulations. Asked whether, if Lakin follows through on his vow, he’d be likely to face court-martial, Wright would say only, “I can’t speak to that case, but I can say that for soldiers who refuse to follow orders, in particular soldiers who refuse to deploy under combat, there are possible consequences for those actions.”

Hemenway herself has something of a pedigree in the Birther movement. Her father-in-law, John D. Hemenway, faced sanctions for his role as local counsel in a suit brought by the original Birther lawyer, Philip Berg, on behalf of a retired Air Force colonel. The judge ended up opting not to fine her father-in-law, butt that experience is part of what prompted Margaret Hemenway to get involved with the cause generally and this case specifically.

A former Congressional and Pentagon staffer, Hemenway currently writes for outlets such as Family Security Matters, a Web site affiliated with the Center for Security Policy, run by influential neo-conservative Frank Gaffney. (Gaffney himself has expressed some solidarity with the Birthers, and wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times in which he pronounced Obama our first Muslim president.)

One of the members of Congress Hemenway worked for is former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who served two terms before losing a reelection bid in 2002. Smith, who’d flirted with a run for Senate in his new Florida home recently but dropped out of the race, also happens to be the founder of the American Patriot Foundation. As a result, at least one blogger had suggested the former senator might somehow be involved in the foundation’s efforts on Lakin’s behalf. Reached at home last week, however, Smith told Salon he no longer controls the group, which had essentially been dormant since its founding in 2003 — he handed it over to a friend. (Hemenway confirmed this.)

Asked whether he supported his former foundation’s work for Lakin, Smith said, “I’m just gonna stay out of that right now, I think that my personal belief is that when an officer has a constitutional question I don’t have a problem with that being answered, that’s his legal right to have that answered, but I’m not involved in it.”

This whole thing can ultimately be traced back to the same misinformation that has animated other elements of the Birther movement from the very beginning. In speaking with Salon, for instance, Hemenway repeatedly said Obama hadn’t released the same birth certificate Lakin would have to show the military — but the certification of live birth the president made public during his campaign is the official copy that Hawaii now provides everyone who requests their own records. The foundation’s Web site also cites myths like one about Obama’s step-grandmother confirming that he was born in Kenya; in fact, after an initial miscommunication — or mistranslation — during the conversation in question, she and Obama’s other Kenyan family members all repeatedly emphasized that he was born in Hawaii.