Which part comes across to you like the ravings of a madman? If it is such - and to be sure, I can't claim to know it isn't - then in my opinion he's doing a good job of appearing sane.
Whether or not it is a cautionary tale about minding your sanity, I think it's also a cautionary tale about not believing everything you read in the press. Until fifteen minutes ago I held the belief that McAfee had committed the crime of which he is accused; thinking about now I realize I held that belief based on essentially no actual evidence. I'm not saying I now believe his side of the story instead. I have no real evidence for that either (and I don't have time to follow up all the links he presented right now). My current conclusion is that at this time I don't know enough of the facts to judge either way.
I think part of it has to do with the conclusion many of us jump to when someone refuses to submit themselves to a trial in a court of law. In the US we like to believe our system is just, or at least mostly just, and therefore anyone who is accused of a crime and skips out must be admitting guilt through their actions. People then tend to project this bias to people who skip court in societies with less just courts like Belize.
To be honest, even in this country any unattractive minority that is accused of a crime may want to consider running from the law and skipping the country because for them our courts are less than just and more likely to convict them of that crime and give them a sentence worse than the average.
He was not accused of a crime! The police wanted to question him as a "person of interest" - big difference!
Almost every news story I saw report on this when it broke last week reported it incorrectly in the headlines as him being "wanted" - it's a shame that journalism can get away with being so sloppy sometimes.
> He was not accused of a crime! The police wanted to question him as a "person of interest" - big difference!
It's a procedural difference, but "person of interest" is really just a bureaucratic euphemism for "suspect we don't officially designate as a suspect yet".
> However, running from the law and how he's been acting is not in accordance with someone who's innocent - no?
What law? You mean the corrupt "legal" system there? Wouldn't most innocent people who are afraid of corrupt police act in the same way? (i guess that implies his innocence then!)
Furthermore, if you believe he is actually insane/paranoid then of course he's going to believe they're out to get him and will try to avoid capture, whether or not he's guilty.
Whether or not it is a cautionary tale about minding your sanity, I think it's also a cautionary tale about not believing everything you read in the press. Until fifteen minutes ago I held the belief that McAfee had committed the crime of which he is accused; thinking about now I realize I held that belief based on essentially no actual evidence. I'm not saying I now believe his side of the story instead. I have no real evidence for that either (and I don't have time to follow up all the links he presented right now). My current conclusion is that at this time I don't know enough of the facts to judge either way.