Rating: 
Summary: Witness against the prosecution
Review: Having just read Mr. Bugliosi's wonderful book, "And The Sea Will Tell", I was eager to get his take on the O.J. Simpson trial. He scathingly proved what was, even from my layman's perspective, clear to me from watching the opening arguments on TV -- that this inept prosecution team could not have convicted O.J. with this jury and Johnnie Cochran even if O.J. stood up and confessed. However, no matter how much he might have tried to spread the blame around to the so-called "Dream Team" and the jury, Bugliosi rightly laid the bulk of this travesty of justice at the feet of Clark and Darden. In addition to their own mountain of mistakes and plain poor preparation and presentation, it is they, along with the media-absorbed and quite mediocre Lance Ito, who allowed the defense the type of freedom they had in proffering their ridiculous "frame-up" nonsense to the jury. I was disappointed that much of what he wrote that fell outside of the specifics of the O.J. trial was lifted straight out of "And The Sea Will Tell". In only one small passage did he acknowledge this fact. I guess it's O.K. to plagiarize your own works, but it shouldn't be offered up as "new" material. It gave a large part of the book a "recycled" feel, which was disappointing. What really took me aback was Bugliosi's eight-page diatribe against God, after spending the first 340 pages proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the prosecution was completely and unbelievably incompetent and, of course, O.J. did it. This non sequitur into theology was totally out of place. I wish that I could cross-examine Mr. Bugliosi on this one -- I think I could beat him at his own game! He should at least try reading St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the Book of Job before asking where God was in all of this. Vince, you're the best -- but stick with the law and leave the theology to the Church.
Rating: 
Summary: If you even had any doubts....
Review: Only a star prosecutor like Bugliosi could write a book like this one! If only he had been the one trying the Simpson case, the verdict would definitely have been different. Bugliosi methodically goes through the errors and incompetance that riddled the Simpson trial and let OJ get away with murder. He goes through everything from the blood evidence to the lawyer's arguments to show how the trial could and should have been different. A few of the things he shows are: 1) The incompetance of the prosecutors in the way they handled witnesses, evidence, defensive arguments and their closing arguments. 2) The damning evidence against Simpson that the defense didn't even bring into the trial, or Judge Ito (wrongly) didn't allow in. 3) The illogical arguments of the defense that could have been destroyed if the prosecution had done their job right. 4) The fact that the blood evidence was solid and not planted or contaminated. 5) Logical and irrefutable step by step arguments to show how all the evidence (from blood to Simpson's behavior and statements), without a shadow of a doubt, points to Simpson. I had a few questions about the case that concerned me when I read other books, like the bloody socks possibly being planted and the time differences. Bugliosi puts all these doubts to rest and makes you look at all the evidence and say, "Good grief, how could I have thought he was innocent?" A great and necessary book for all those interested in OJ SImpson's murder case!
Rating:
Summary: Read it! Read it! Read it!
Review: Bugliosi is the man you would want representing you if your life was at stake. See how a master Attorney's mind works. If anyone writing a review of this book says that it isn't good, that person is a moron. That person is also most likely a liberal. These are the same kind of people that would vote innocent even if they saw a video of Simpson murdering Nicole and Ron. This is a must read. One of the top 10 books ever, up there with "Roots" and "A Walk Across America". Bugliosi shows you what the "best" attorney money can buy would do. Marcia Clark and Chris Darden are the reason Simpson is walking the streets. And now they are wealthy from writing books of their own. They should be disbared. Shows you how stupid most people really are, including the "talking heads" on T.V. Read this and see how the best would operate. "Truth" vs. "Stupidity".
Rating:
Summary: Does What a Book is Supposed To Do ^O^
Review: Provocation is the only true mark of whether or not an author has an acceptable thesis. "Outrage..." certainly does provoke its readers, whether for good or ill, and it is this provocation that makes Bugliosi's outline argumentative. An argumentative conclusion makes far better reading to the intellectual mind over the dull and uninteresting, that which failed to take a risk. While we cannot say for certain what would have made Mr. Bugliosi a better lawyer had he been allowed to prosecute the Simpson case, the leader is left with sufficient doubts about the quality with which the entire judicial process was handled at that time. Judge Ito, defender Bailey and prosecutor Clark are all intricately and adeptly scrutinized, not to mention the suspect himself. Whether or not Mr. Simpson was actually guilty is irrelevant, even though he was found innocent of the gruesome murders of which he was accused. Whether Mr. Bailey, a highly-paid and well respected lawyer, was merely playing to the courtroom and television audience with dramatics does not matter. What really matters is that the audience of "Outrage..." is left thinking, to wonder what could have been missed, and what actions left undone would have bettered the legal proceedings. The book is compelling. Brought to light are the fumblings of the Los Angeles police department and their bunglings at the Rockingham estate, in addition to the entire transcript of OJ's interrogation, verbatim. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Because Mr. Bugliosi's style is provoking, having weaved an intricate pattern of intelligent reflection on the Simpson case, is reason enough to read "Outrage..." as a thinking-man's curriculum.
Rating:
Summary: Guilty
Review: The author stated that if you threw out all the evidence of blood; the unexplained cuts on his hands would convict anyone else. O.J. never does explain the cuts on his hands with any consistancy. I was glad to hear I was not the only one who knew the gloves would not fit after being exposed to moisture and the blood. Of course the gloves did not fit.
Rating:
Summary: Long live Bugliosi
Review: Sure his arrogance is tiring. But reading this book you find it hard to fault him for it. He is inescapably right. It is a refreshing book for people who find it inconcievable that someone as guilty as Simpson could possibly get off. It is the book for those who have tired of the legal industries' sophistry in justificating the verdict. Dershowitz, in his book, tries to show how the verdict was legitimate because blacks distrust police in general, and because the jury distrusted the police in this case in particular. Bugliosi, almost as an afterthought, in his epilogue, discusses the nature of police misconduct and the black experience with it. And he cleanly wipes away Dershowitz's mildewed ideologcial defense of the verdict. The black experience with police misconduct is serious, but certainly does not extend to officers with clean records fabricating a complex forensic case against a beloved public figure. You cannot be innocent when your blood is at the murder scene. That is often Bugliosi's refrain when trying to show, as simply as possible, how Simpson must be guilty. And he's right. Of course he's right. I'm not sure how much I agree with Bugliosi on the "unbelievably incompetent" performance of the prosecution. I certainly agree with his critiques (except for his argument that the prosecution should have opened an 'Uncle Tom' file on Simpson, as if that were admissable, or even proper) of the prosecution. But I still think they did an adequate job, given the enormous pressure of publicity. Some of his most insightful comments have to do with human nature and the psychology of human nature, such as the first chapter "In the Air". In all, Bugliosi does a wonderful job or reassuring the reader that the verdict was improper and that a different approach could have put a murderer where he belongs. I wish he could have prosecuted the case. In all, Bugliosi reasures the reader that a different approach could have changed the verdict.
Rating:
Summary: Bugliosi Re-prosecutes Simpson and More in "Outrage"
Review: Crime prosecutor-turned-true-crime author Vincent Bugliosi slams the door on any debate of O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence with this detailed critique of recent history's most celebrated trial and its participants. Writing with avenging anger, surgical precision, and evangelistic zeal(from a self-described agnostic, no less), Bugliosi describes the defense manipulation, proscution ineptitude, jury ignorance, media malice, and general hypnotism to celebrity collectively allowing a man Bugliosi saw as guilty man to walk free from a grisly murder. Amidst unbending, unending criticism of lead prosecutors Marcia Clark and Chris Darden, Bugliosi shows with Monday morning quarterback clarity how he might have handled the case's key issues: opening and closing statements with their objections; evidence including the infamous suicide note, disguise and cash, blood found throughout Simpson's and his wife's car and home, the finger cut, the ill-fitting glove (which Bugliosi describes as a key turning point and one of Darden's errors, and how Bugliosi would have handled it), testimony from police scientists and detectives (including a lengthy semi-defense of the criminologists and the villified Mark Fuhrmann), and finally, racial and political tensions which to many underlined the jury's final, quickly-reached decision. Also amidst the criticism, Bugliosi details the intense preparation going into preparing criminal prosecution. He discusses a closing statement needing constant revision, witness interviews needing review (criticizing both sides there) addressing potential weaknesses before the opposition exploits them and that, but for time spent outside with children, a lawyer preparing a case should stay time only at office, courtroom, and home. This flies against Darden, Clark, and most notably Judge Lance Ito becoming media celebrities. Bugliosi also uses the Simpson trial and verdict to comment on larger societal issues, from a chasm on racial matters (even among those supporting civil rights) to dealing with police brutality to, finally, questioning of God's role in human tragedies such as the Simpson murders. Bugliosi's spiritual questions, somewhat disjointed from the book's otherwise hard-hitting style - are intriguing. You might understand his agnoticism: a man whose fame came proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt might have difficulty believing on faith alone. But his questioning of God's laws does not weigh equally with his full understanding of man's. His remark that "No one, not even the tyrants of history, bad-mouths God" ignores Church persecution throughout the last 1000 years, even Hitler's remark that "you cannot be a Nazi and a Christian." As Stevie Wonder so eloquently sung: "Where is your God, that's what my friends ask me/And I say it's taken him so long, 'cause we've got so far to come." Nonetheless, "Outrage," despite needing a new chapter regarding what the prosecution did correctly in the wrongful death lawsuit a year later, represents the most authoritative, compelling retelling yet of the O.J. Simpson criminal trial story by an already proven master prosecutor and storyteller. Recommended, even amidst the myriad of Simpson trial books still on bookshelves.
Rating:
Summary: The definitive work on the Simpson trial/travesty
Review: It stands to reason that Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote arguably the all-time best true crime work, "Helter Skelter," would come out with by far the most comprehensive and thought-provoking book about the O.J. Simpson trial. "Outrage" is aptly titled, for Bugliosi's prose fairly crackles with it as he outlines the numerous foul-ups, bungles, and media-playing episodes that allowed a man guilty of two heinous murders to walk free. His hypothetical closing argument would have convinced even the most ardent Simpson supporter to convict. Unfortunately, hypothetical is the operative word here. Bugliosi is a brilliant attorney, an astute observer, and a sharp writer, all qualities admirably displayed in this book. Even those with only the faintest interest in the Simpson circus will find this compelling reading--and grieve anew for the extreme injustice that was rendered unto Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Rating:
Summary: Five Fathers of Defeat
Review: The old proverb says that "victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." This adage, of course, speaks to the numbers of people who would claim credit for the victory or take the blame for the defeat. In reality, defeat often has more fathers than victory. Senator Clinton says it takes a village to raise a child; in most cases a botched criminal prosecution also comes about as the result of multiple mistakes by multiple parties. Bugliosi explores five of the fathers of defeat in the Simpson case, and does a commendable job of making a fair assessment of the case. Other factors, of course, played their part, but Bugliosi's five loomed large in the fiasco. In the arena of criminal prosecution, there is always at least one identifiable whipping boy upon whom you can lay the blame: the prosecution team. This is because, no matter how long it has been brewing, the disaster comes to fruition on the prosecutor's watch. When the jury pronounces that ghastly phrase, "Not Guilty," it's the prosecutor who is there in front of the cameras. Of course, the prosecutors made mistakes, but Bugliosi goes a bit too far in laying blame at their feet. The prosecutors did enough to win on a level playing field. Trial lawyers are nothing if they are not supremely confident of their own abilities. Bugliosi is quite sure that he could have won a conviction. Bugliosi is like all good trial lawyers: he cannot look at the work of another trial lawyer without thinking that he could do better. No doubt he would not have made the same mistakes that Clark & company made. He would, however, have made mistakes. He would also have had problems overcoming the multiple mistakes of the investigators and forensics experts. In some cases the fates conspire against you so that nothing you can do will avert defeat. Such was the case in People v. O.J. Simpson. Other than these two false steps, Bugliosi has written a concise, insightful critique. In addition to his stated purpose of analyzing the "fathers of defeat" in the Simpson case, Bugliosi incidentally provides numerous insights into the mechanics of investigating, building, and trying a criminal case.
Rating:
Summary: What Would Vince Do?
Review: Uber-prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi spares no punches in this triumph of judicial genius reviewing the less-than-admirable performance of both legal teams in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Bugliosi, the man who put Charles Manson and his followers away, is not one to let either his ego or critical restraint get in the way of stating his opinions. This ultimately turns out to be exactly what the book needs to live up to its goal of conducting a thorough autopsy on the conduct and outcome of the trial. Bugliosi gores every ox he can lay his hands on, from the frighteningly inept lead prosecutors to a judge smitten with his new-found status as a media icon to a defense team only slightly less incompetent than its opposition and certainly morally compromised to a self-important and uncritical media that worried more about the "buzz" surrounding the trial than the actual facts and arguments themselves. Bugliosi even indulges in extensive comparisons of what various attorneys told the jury with what he himself would have said had he been trying the case. After awhile, you become uncomfortably aware that Bugliosi is right in his assessment of the trial and its participants. You also pray that he's not quite so accurate in his prediction of how the trial will taint race relations in the U.S. for decades to come. Bugliosi gives two seemingly juicy targets - the primarily black jury and LAPD Det. Mark Fuhrman -- more benefit of the doubt than either were ever given by major media outlets at the time of the verdict. Bugliosi makes a good argument that the jury's verdict was not based on racial nullification, but instead confusion over how solid the prosecution's evidence was and how weak the defense's argument was. It's a good argument, but not, in the end, a convincing one. He also rehabilitates Fuhrman somewhat by balancing the detective's stupid perjurious statement about whether he had ever used the "N" word with a look at Fuhrman's actual record as a cop. The arrogant, swaggering detective may have talked the talk of a bigot, but he obviously didn't walk the walk since most of his partners in the decade and a half prior to the Simpson case were black and Latino and none experienced racial problems with him. Bugliosi even reveals that Fuhrman, on his own, accumulated the evidence necessary to clear a black homicide suspect that Fuhrman himself had originally arrested and investigated. Fuhrman's willingness to lie on the stand during the Simpson trial and, earlier, to lie to psychologists about his emotional state of mind in order to secure an early retirement are still loathsome, especially since the latter was an outright betrayal of people whose trust and respect Fuhrman had earned. But Bugliosi at least allows Fuhrman a somewhat more complex character than the thoroughly evil, unrepentant racist portrayed by the media. This is probably one of the best texts available on how to judge for yourself what's actually going on in a courtroom if you're not a lawyer. True crime junkies may be disappointed because Bugliosi's intent is not to construct a narrative of the case from start to finish. Instead, he uses the Simpson case as a mirror to show us some things that are terribly wrong with our culture, our society and our justice system.
| 
