Without a Doubt

Rating:
Summary: Highly entertaning, without being overly melodramatic
Review: With all the terrible crime scene police work, I don't think anybody other than OJ himself can ever find out whether he was guilty or not. But a book reader's interest is not to uphold one set of criminal evidence by suppressing another. As a book, Without A Doubt is a great read. It's highly entertaining without being overly melodramatic. Marcia, of course, is just as brutally honest about, if indulgent of, her emotions in the book as we've seen her throughout the trial back in 1995. Credit should be given to her vivid characterization of the players: Judge Lance Ito as a wimp; John Cochran, a demagogue; Chris Darden, a 'model minority'; and of course, Marcia herself, a tough, chivalrous, and yet compassionate professional. Whether these characterizations are truthful or distorted is for the academics; but Marcia's strong personality came through in the book and transports the reader back to the anxieties and fears we all experienced throughout that restless year.

It is very amusing, to say the least, that to Marcia the whole world seems to form one big conspiracy against her. The press, the criminalists, the cops, the jurors, the judge, the colleagues, the ex-husband, everybody was terrorizing her life. Then you have the defense team taking every possible cheap shot to upset her plan. One has to wonder if it has ever occurred to Marcia that a real winner in this day and age makes other people play her game, not vice versa.

The book adds virtually nothing, except for Marcia's side of her personal life, to what we don't already know. But as she weaves the Rodney King trial into context, readers soon find themselves thinking, 'Ah. White people had it coming. When they acquitted those cops they should have known that what gets around, comes around.' Perhaps the most thought-inspiring thing about the book is Marcia's personal journey through race issues. She claims, for example, to have had no idea of how the black community would react to Mr. Shipp's testimony. Despite her attempt at being open-minded, what she lacks is not the right attitude, but the fundamental understanding of the sufferings of minorities.

The views in the book, just like all other books about the trial, might be unsurprisingly 'biased' or selective. But it's great for those who aren't seeking to validate their own opinions or to beat a dead horse. After all, remember, after the trial Marcia has nothing left to lose. The trial is over, and history becomes story-telling. Marcia's own imperfections leave us reflecting on what we've learned from all of this.

Rating:
Summary: Strength and courage to walk this walk.
Review: If nothing else we must acknowledge the fact that Marcia Clark had a fortitude and steadfastness that many lack in todays society. She believed in her fight and worked day and night for the truth to be revealed. I admire her will and ability to keep on even when she was blasted by so many. I enjoyed the book, believed he was guilty by the facts presented and all the DNA evidence if nothing else. A great read if you are looking for the truth.

Rating:
Summary: The Final Verdict
Review: For OJ to be guilty, you must believe that he quickly disposed of the bloody clothes, shoes, and knives so they would NEVER be found, yet brought the socks and glove back to his home! And then smeared blood all over the console!

The coroner who did the autopsies testified "the forensic evidence says the murders occurred after 11PM". The limousine driver testified he brought OJ to the airport at that time. When you read this book, note how they avoid discussing these facts.

Rating:
Summary: Without A Clue
Review: The clue is the testimony of the coroner in July 1994: "the forensic evidence says the murders occurred after 11PM". By August 1994 somebody knew Fuhrman planted the glove (see Steven Singular's "Legacy of Deception"). The 'LA Times' reported on June 7, 1996 that Vannatter collected blood from the victims before the evidence was turned over for analysis.

Marcia Clark previously prosecuted twenty murder trials winning all but one (p.2). Teresa Carpenter made this a very readable book.

Page 62 says the killer had been in a frenzy to kill Ron Goldman, but killed Nicole swiftly and efficiently. Doesn't this suggest Ron was the target, and Nicole was an innocent bystander? On page 76 she quotes Keith Z. as to stalking by OJ; since they had appeared in public, couldn't someone have tipped off OJ with the news? Didn't Ron Goldman resemble Keith Z. enough to be mistaken for him in the dark? Did this cause Keith Z. to go into hiding for many months afterwards?

Page 105 says Nicole's bed had blankets and sheets in a rumpled heap. Would Nicole leave it like that from Saturday night? If not, does this suggest that something else happened? Page 123 says "the FBI found a single Caucasian hair on the glove from Rockingham". It could not be traced to the victims, or the police officers there. Whose glove was it then?

Page 144 discusses asking for the death penalty: "it would have been immoral to seek his death".

Pages 240-1 tell of the strategy to use domestic violence. "One, to strip the jury of their illusions about the defendant; two, to give us the opportunity to present a compelling motive for murder". In other words, if you can demonize the defendant, then it'll be easier to convict him. Note that there is no question of actual guilt here. Page 242 claims Paula Barbieri left a "Dear John" message for OJ that fatal Sunday. But other books say she visited OJ in jail regularly.

Marcia speaks highly of Allan Park, the limousine driver. He arrived at 10:22, but saw nobody until 10:53 (p.369). He left for the airport after 11PM. His testimony convinced the jury to vote "not guilty".

On page 396 she talks about the odds for a match on DNA, "one in 57 billion". Doesn't she know that these figures are made-up and have no scientific basis? Read "Tainted Evidence" for the details.

Pages 405-8 tell of the attempt to have OJ try on the killer's gloves. Later, a new pair of gloves were produced, they fit perfectly. New gloves fit snugly, but after wearing they develop a looser fit. Here new gloves fit easily, but older worn gloves are too tight? Something's wrong here!

Page 411 tells of the Silga sole that was sold to Bruno Magli (and other shoe manufacturers). No one could locate any store, salesman, witness, or receipt that would show OJ bought a pair of Bruno Magli shoes.

On page 413 she says you "can see the similarities between the defendant's head hair, for example, and what the killer left behind". Similar-looking hair is NOT proof they're the same. Read the book "Tainted Evidence" for more details.

Pages 437-441 describe what happened when the Fuhrman tapes surfaces, like a 'deus ex machina'. Page 451 tells of Fuhrman's testimony: to be convicted of perjury, the lie had to be material to the case. If he lied about racial slurs, it was not material to the murders. But if he planted evidence, then he had the right against self-incrimination.

On page 463 she says OJ needed "time to wash himself up, wash off the blood, change the clothes". But no bloody clothes or shoes were found at Rockingham, nor was any blood found in the drains. To believe OJ guilty you must believe that he quickly disposed of the bloody shoes, clothes, and knives so they would never be found, yet kept one glove and both socks!

Rating:
Summary: Without A Clue
Review: The clue is the testimony of the coroner in July 1994: "the forensic evidence says the murders occurred after 11PM". By August 1994 somebody knew who planted the glove (see Steven Singular's "Legacy of Deception"). The 'LA Times' reported on June 7, 1996 that Vannatter collected blood from the victims before the evidence was turned over for analysis.

Marcia Clark previously prosecuted twenty murder trials winning all but one (p.2). Teresa Carpenter made this a very readable book. Page 3 says there "was enough physical evidence to convict O.J. twenty times times over". Does this mean it was too good to be true?

Page 62 says the killer had been in a frenzy to kill Ron Goldman, but killed Nicole swiftly and efficiently. Doesn't this suggest Ron was the target, and Nicole was an innocent bystander? On page 76 she quotes Keith Z. as to stalking by OJ; since they had appeared in public, couldn't someone have tipped off OJ with the news? Didn't Ron Goldman resemble Keith Z. enough to be mistaken for him in the dark? Did this cause Keith Z. to go into hiding for many months afterwards?

Page 105 says Nicole's be had blankets and sheets in a rumpled heap. Would Nicole leave it like that from Saturday night? If not, does this suggest that something else happened? Page 123 says "the FBI found a single Caucasian hair on the glove from Rockingham". It could not be traced to the victims, or the police officers there. Whose glove was it then?

Page 144 discusses asking for the death penalty: "it would have been immoral to seek his death". Because of his innocence?

Pages 157-9 and 163-7 tell of her youthful experiences, and her first marriage; a husband who "displayed" physical aggression. Page 205 tells of Faye Resnick's book, which told of beatings and abuse of Nicole. But these had never come to the attention of the DA's investigators! Faye made other statements which could not be corroborated.

Page 228 says Nicole's family needed OJ's financial support, and discouraged Nicole from leaving OJ! I don't remember the media reporting this. Page 230 says Fred Goldman would check with Marcia before talking to Geraldo. Didn't Joe Bosco write that Fred was sent to the press as a diversion? She also says "the Goldmans and the Browns were simply beyond out control"?

Pages 240-1 tell of the strategy to use domestic violence. "One, to strip the jury of their illusions about the defendant; two, to give us the opportunity to present a compelling motive for murder". In other words, if you can demonize the defendant, then it'll be easier to convict him. Note that there is no mention of actual guilt here. Page 242 claims Paula Barbieri left a "Dear John" message for OJ that fatal Sunday. But other books say she visited OJ in jail regularly.

On page 308 she criticizes Tom Lange for appearing "cool and unbiased". Did she want him angry and emotional? On pages 334-7 she discusses the Fuhrman problem. But Marcia does not tell what was causing the problem between Chris and Mark. Or why Chris refused to deal with Mark.

Marcia speaks highly of Allan Park, the limousine driver. He arrived at 10:22, but saw nobody until 10:53 (p.369). He left for the airport after 11PM. His testimony convinced the jury to vote "not guilty".

On page 396 she talks about the odds for a match on DNA, "one in 57 billion". Doesn't she know that these figures are made-up and have no scientific basis?

Pages 405-8 tell of the attempt to have OJ try on the killer's gloves. If they don't fit, you must explain it. Later, a new pair of gloves were produced, they fit perfectly. New gloves fit snugly, but after wearing they develop a looser fit. Here new gloves fit easily, but older worn gloves tighten up? Something's wrong here!

Page 411 tells of the Silga sole that was sold to Bruno Magli (and other shoe manufacturers). You can visit a store and see if each style has a different sole. Marcia wonders where all those photographs were during her trial. Perhaps they were waiting for photo-editing software that would run on a 486 (see "Popular Mechanics" for December 1997). No one could locate any store, salesman, witness, or receipt that would show OJ bought a pair of Bruno Magli shoes.

Marcia says OJ is the guy "who wears cashmere-lined gloves". Don't they cost the same as fur-lined gloves? On page 413 she says you "can see the similarities between the defendant's head hair, for example, and what the killer left behind". Similar-looking hair is NOT proof they're the same. Read the book "Tainting Evidence" for more details.

Pages 437-441 describe what happened when the Fuhrman tapes surfaces, like a deus ex machina.

Page 451 tells of Fuhrman's testimony: to be convicted of perjury, the lie had to be material to the case. If he lied about racial slurs, it was not material to the murders. But if he planted evidence, then he had the right against self-incrimination. On page 463 she says OJ needed "time to wash himself up, wash off the blood, change the clothes". But no bloody clothes or shoes were found at Rockingham, nor was any blood found in the drains. To believe OJ guilty you must believe that he quickly disposed of the bloody shoes, clothes, and knives so they would never be found, yet kept one glove and both socks!

On page 483 she talks about the civil trial, but doesn't tell how it was fixed. She tells how witnesses altered their testimony. Doesn't this remind you of the legendary show trial of Stalin? Testimony changed to ensure a conviction?

...accept the truth: OJ was guiltless...

Rating:
Summary: Are you more gullible than the Simpson jury was?
Review: This is the book for you if you are less skeptical than those imprisoned on the jury for the Simpson criminal trial. Ms. Clark could not sell herself or her case to them. Now she has taken millions in advance to try to sell herself and her case to those who do not know what happened in the courtroom.

I own more than forty books that are, all or in part, about the Simpson trial or trials. Ms. Clark's -- alas! -- is not the worst of the lot, but it is far from the best of the lot. From the point of view of the prosecution, even prominent blowhard Vincent Bugliosi is more persuasive. If you would learn why the jurors would have been derelict had they not acquitted Simpson, read Dershowitz's book or, even better, read KILLING TIME.

Ms. Clark, it appears from her book, was unable or unwilling to surrender either the timeline that made little sense or the police officers who told little lies. She phased herself out of her own case for weeks while incompetents made a hash of the DNA evidence. She dissembled about child care, mugged for the cameras, and made a dozen debilitating mistakes and then, in this book, blames Judge Ito. Judge Ito was, I agree, no month in the country; but Marcia was not even a Sunday drive. If I were foolish enough to step into a ring with Mike Tyson, I would never last a minute, but I could hope he would not knock me so senseless as to blame my loss on the referee.

Ms. Clark had better come to grips with two statements that I regard as facts. One, O. J. Simpson killed or participated in the killing of one or both victims. Two, O. J. Simpson got away with his crimes due to the ineptitude, stubbornness, and childishness of Marcia Clark more than any other factor (except his money).

Rating:
Summary: GOOD BOOK
Review: I Liked the book,enjoyed reading it.The verdict could go both ways.There was enough evidence to prove guilt,and enough reasonable doubt.People can't believe the jury voted not guilty but I can.It's hard for people who don't live where they are subjected to police injustices to believe that police would deliberately tamper or plant evidence.THEY DO,it's obvious they did in this case.Doesn't mean O.J. is innocent,but I believe they needed more evidence to make the case more solid. O.J. Simpson was terrible to Nicole,I was very dissapointed,he was always a hero to us kids when I was growing up(and yes,even to us white kids).He definantely fits the criteria of someone who would murder out of jealousy and rage.Sorry Marcia,with the clowns in the police department that investigated this,you didn't stand a chance to win. P.S FUHRMAN IS A PUKE!!!

Rating:
Summary: She should be DISBARED
Review: She belongs in jail for impersonating a Lawyer. SHE is the reason the OJ Simpson is walking the streets. This book shows what an egotistical person she was/is.

Rating:
Summary: Baffling science?
Review: The scientific evidence was over the heads of the unintelligent jury, but didnt Marcia and her cohorts ever hear of Newtons Laws of cooling? Had they applied this mathematical concept to the 2 bodies, they could accurately have determined the time of death to within 20 minutes. This would have dismissed any doubts about the time theory.

Rating:
Summary: BLIND JURY
Review: The verdict of the jurors still haunts me, and the expression on Marcia Clark's face, as she looked each juror in the eye as they announced their decision, is something that I will live with for the rest of my days. How could they be so blind....and stupid? I was very impressed with Marcia throughout the entire trial. I thought she was so professional and covered all extremities- but I cannot understand her choice of jurors. Several of these people were of the same race as the murderer and others were so 'hooked' on his fame that it would have been impossible to obtain a guilty verdict. Why were there not a greater number of intellectual people on the jury who would have understood the scientific evidence? The fact that only 1 in 57 billion people can have the same DNA (with only 5 billion people in the world) would suggest to even the most academically 'challenged' individual that OJ was there at the scene of the horrific murders. The mountain of evidence illuminated by this terrific lady and her prosecution team highlights the gross injustice to the 2 families involved. I agree with Marcia when she criticises Judge Lance Ito for his unprofessional bias towards the defense, allowing them to constantly interrupt and throw red herrings into the circus ring, which is what it became eventually. This man was terrified of Johnny Cochrane, and that became very obvious as the trial came to a conclusion. I didnt really understand, though, why Marcia did not introduce the Bronco car chase as evidence, as a false beard, passport and a lot of money, are not items one takes to a graveyard to visit a recently deceased wife! Also, why did Nicole not have her home under surveillance camera, like many Americans do- especially as she knew she was going to be attacked by her ex husband...and she did know it.? I have become even more engrossed in this trial since the outcome and agree with the expression 'trial of the century