Your snort is appropriate: if you read the transcript in the Daily Mail article, what he’s describing is most definitely not self-defense, regardless of what he claims.
What does he have to lose? He’s been acquitted of the crime and can’t be tried for it again. He’s already lost the civil suit. Can he be held liable for more damages?
ETA: I would so like this to be true, but iIhonestly believe that OJ has convinced his pathological, sociopathical selfthat he did not do it. He is where he belongs, and I hope he dies in prison, preferably by being murdered by an inmate or while “trying to escape.” I so hate that smug bastard.