<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Quoting the author, Robert Shapiro, on "Search for Justice":
Review: "This is a work of fiction that reads like nonfiction."No more need be said.
Rating:
Summary: Quoting the author, Robert Shapiro, on "Search for Justice":
Review: "This is a work of fiction that reads like nonfiction." No more need be said.
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: A Defense Attorney's Moment of Self Glorification
Review: One book reviewer said that the OJ Simpson Trial will not truly be over until everyone involved has written a book about it. Robert Shapiro has thrown his log on the fire with this recent book. In it he delivers an account of the OJ Simpson trial in a manner that makes him look like the savior of the American justice system. F. Lee Bailey is an underhanded crook who leaked information to the media and who can't cross examine to save his life.
Cochran is a blatant race card player who was all fluff and no substance, and even had the audacity to compare Mark Fuhrman to Hitler. On top of that, Shapiro was the only person who was willing to cooperate with the LAPD. This self righteous angle takes away from any value the book might possess. Unfortunately it is the only angle that separates it from the library of commentary the trial has generated.
My recommendation is to leave it on the shelf, because you can probably get better facts on the trial around the water cooler at work.
Rating: 
Summary: The "Quarterback's" journey through the trial of the century
Review: Robert Shapiro tells the story of HIS roller coaster ride from June 13th until the day of the verdict. The readers get an honest peak at the impact that this trial had on perhaps one of the most well-respected criminal attorneys. Shapiro is not reluctant to address his opinion on O.J. Simpson, Johnny Cochran, Marcia Clark, Judge Ito and even the jurors.
Rating:
Summary: His Search for Truth
Review: The Prologue tells about the Bill of Rights, and the duty of a defense lawyer to represent his client. RLS politely tries to educate the willfully ignorant about law and reality. The corporate media should be blamed for its misinformation. The death of a spouse focuses suspicion on a surviving spouse, especially if they were alone and have no alibi. An accusation is enough to destroy a life. This very readable book lacks an index and table of contents; it is not a good reference. Chapter One tells why RLS has to know if his client committed the crime, else the prosecutor has an advantage. He asked OJ Simpson if he did it: "I did not do this" (p.10). Once the justice system locks in, innocence has nothing to do with the outcome of a case! Against OJ were 45 deputy district attorneys, the resources of the LAPD, and the assistance of the Chicago PD, the FBI, and Interpol. There was never any consideration of a plea bargain by anyone (p.13). Chapter Two tells of his recruitment of the experts. If a detective's job becomes "getting the guy", then that is improper and foolish. In a rush to judgment evidence is overlooked or mishandled, and procedural and investigative mistakes are made. They would let OJ take a lie detector test if the results would be admitted to court; Marcia Clark refused this (pp.26-7). This test creates charts that can be interpreted in different ways, and challenged on the basis of wrong questions framed the wrong way! The murderer had to hav some bodily injury from this violent struggle. RLS had OJ's physical condition recorded immediately. There was an unprecedented swarm of reporters on this case (p.35). Why was it played up so much by the corporate media? Pages 60-62 explain why the grand jury was dismissed and a preliminary hearing was obtained. Pages 70-72 tell of the problems where four detectives left the Bundy crime scene to travel to Rockingham. The more important the evidence is to the prosecution, the lower the constitutional standard (p.86)! The judge is part of the prosecution team, usually a former prosecutor (p.109). The forensic criteria puts the deaths after 11PM (p.91). Mark Fuhrman was the key detective in the all-important first hours, but his name never appeared in the reports (p.93). Crime laboratories are exempt from regulation and review (p.149), that's why the defense wanted the evidence checked by their experts. The polling as to OJ's guilt was not based on what you knew, but on who your parents were (p.192)! Pages 218-9 summarizes RLS' dispute with F Lee Bailey. The gloves didn't fit because they didn't belong to OJ (p.295). Hair examinations have never been recognized as a positive means of identification (p.302). EDTA is used to preserve blood samples (p.313). If EDTA is found in blood evidence, then it was planted as real evidence on those socks and the back gate. In August 1995 the McKinney tapes were turned over to the defense. who tried to get them into court. Page 318 suggests to me that the substitute for the coroner committed prosecutorial perjury: submitting opinions for fact. Page 319 tells how Marcia Clark tried to protect a prosecutorial witness from his perjury, then tried to replace the judge! RLS was "stunned" by the speed of the verdict, but isn't that usual when they don't believe the prosecution's case? RLS tells of the errors in the prosecution's case, and why the "mountain of evidence" collapsed (p.352-4). Could the anti-defense attitude in the press corps (p.357) be explained by the policy of the National Association of Editors & Publishers or the corporate media owners? That's a bigger problem than in just one criminal case.
Rating:
Summary: I like it
Review: This book is a very excellent book. It gives the readers the lawyers side of the story. It tells the reader what the lawyer was thinking and doing at the time of the trial.
<< 1 >>
| 
