Customer Reviews


176 Reviews
5 star:
 (100)
4 star:
 (36)
3 star:
 (16)
2 star:
 (10)
1 star:
 (14)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


138 of 145 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An ex-prosecutor shows his extreme disgust
If there is anybody out there who thinks that O.J. Simpson might possibly be innocent, reading this book will erase any doubt from his/her mind. Bugliosi puts on the boxing gloves and scores a knockout, stating exactly who is to blame and what they did wrong with brutal honesty. When
I read this book, I could feel the incredible anger
burning from Bugliosi's...
Published on September 10, 1997 by Bryan Carey

versus
85 of 98 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Or How I Would Have Won
Vincent Bugliosi, author and prosecutor who successfully convicted Charles Manson as conspirator in the Helter Skelter murders of Sharon Tate and the LaBiancos, catalogues the mistakes of the prosecution, the judge, the media, the jury and the case.

In short, Bugliosi states what the defense should have not been allowed to do, what the judge and prosecution...
Published on September 21, 2006 by Edwin C. Pauzer


‹ Previous | 1 218 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

138 of 145 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An ex-prosecutor shows his extreme disgust, September 10, 1997
If there is anybody out there who thinks that O.J. Simpson might possibly be innocent, reading this book will erase any doubt from his/her mind. Bugliosi puts on the boxing gloves and scores a knockout, stating exactly who is to blame and what they did wrong with brutal honesty. When
I read this book, I could feel the incredible anger
burning from Bugliosi's soul. He is FURIOUS over the fact that a double murderer was allowed to go free, and he does not hesitate to express his feelings on the matter.
Bugliosi does an excellent job explaining why the case was lost and he backs up his opinions with precise examples, basic logic, and good common sense. The only problem that I had with the book is the fact that Bugliosi does tend to get sidetracked (when he debates beleiving in god, for instance) and some of his examples that he uses to back up his opinions are a little too lenghty (we get the picture!). Still, the book is the best one that I have read on the Simpson trial and I highly recommend it
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


96 of 101 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The definitive work on the Simpson trial/travesty, September 21, 2000
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


93 of 105 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Makes me sad, makes me mad, June 19, 2006
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
"Outrage" is not only the title of the book, but also the state of mind of author/lawyer Vincent Bugliosi due to what he believes to be the wrong verdict in the OJ Simpson trial.

Bugliosi presents 5 aspects of the case which resulted in an unbelievable acquital. His 5 reasons OJ got off are:
1. "In The Air - What the Jurors Probably Knew" - Information they should not have gotten during sequestration (mainly pontification by untrained talking heads with the days' trial wrap up)...
2. "The Change of Venue - Garcetti Transfers the Case Downtown" - This changes the demographics of the jury to be heavily African-American, and not representative of OJ's Brentwood "rich white" lifestyle...
3. "A Judical Error - Judge Ito allows the Defense to Play the Race Card" - The defense contends racist Mark Fuhrman planted a glove (evidence clearly indicates he did not), because he lied about saying the "N" word within the last 10 years. Fuhrman was also the only cop to pursue OJ over spouse-abuse in the past a few years earlier, after 8 previous ignored complaints by Nicole. These events are non sequiturs, but it is the only way to mangle the truth to acquit OJ.
4. "The Trial - The Incredible Incompetence of the Prosecution" - Self explanatory, but it appears they were ill-prepared.
5. "Final Summation - The Weak Voice of the People" - Again, the prosecution could and should have been much better prepared to refute the defense's stupid allegations.

He presents a strong, if sometimes rambling, argument for all points. Here are only two of them:

1. Prosecution did not present certain major critical evidence at all:
A. The slow-speed chase with the disguise, passport, and $8,500 of OJ's cash in friend Al Cowling's pocket. Indicates flight of a guilty man.
B. OJ's suicide note/letter. Indicates guilt over murder. It's included in the book.
C. OJ's statement to police, in which he obviously lied about being cut. All of it is in the book.

2. The prosecution did not even refute much of the defense's argument or testimony. Here are some examples of that:
A. Defense argues Detective Vannater planted blood evidence at the scene. This was after many hours of media coverage with cameras rolling all over the scene, in daylight. Videotape shows he gave the vial of blood to Dennis Fung as soon as he got there. So, when did he spread the blood? And, since Vannater already knew there was blood all over the place, why risk getting caught by adding more?
B. Defense argues Vannater should have booked the vial of blood. However, all evidence is assigned a number, and as he was not the booking detective and therefore did not know the number to assign to it, he held on to it until he could give it to Fung for proper booking.
C. Defense contends Mark Fuhrman took one of two gloves from the Bundy crime scene and planted it at Simpson's Rockingham estate. However, everyone saw only one glove at Bundy before Fuhrman arrived. The first officer there, Riske, was not called to testify about that as his other testimony would point out some sloppy procedures by Vannater - the worst was not reading Furhman's notes about the bloody fingerprint on the rear gate which was never recovered.
D. Defense contends the DNA results were contaminated. Prosecution did not make the strong argument that any contamination or degradation would only make a match difficult, not turn it into OJ's blood.

Some bits of evidence the jury ignored (beyond even the DNA slam-dunk)
1. The glove argument...The former marketing exec of the glove company testified the murder gloves had shrunk about 15%, making them too small to fit OJ at the trial, much less having to pull them on over latex liners in the demonstration. Subsequently, OJ tried on a brand new pair of same-style gloves and the rep said those fit well.

2. House-guest Kato hears thumps on the wall of his room, just before the limo driver (who had been buzzing OJ's intercom for about 10 minutes) sees a black man in dark clothes approach and enter OJ's dark house. The thump Kato heard was someone running into the air-conditioner in the dark pathway behind his guest house. And where was the glove found by Mark Fuhrman? Right there at the air-conditioner. OJ tells limo driver he overslept and was getting a quick shower.

Bugliosi's writing style leaves much to be desired. He uses every cliche known to man. He also uses sentence fragments quite often. Lots of them.

There's much more, but I'm out of space, so here is part of OJ's statement to the police (Vannater) after returning from Chicago the morning after the murders:

Q: How did you get the injury on your hand?
OJ: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.
Q: How did you do it in Chicago?
OJ: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just went bonkers for a little bit.
Q: Is that how you cut it?
OJ: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.
Q: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?
OJ: I recall bleeding at my house, and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.
[snip]
Q: So do you recall bleeding at all?
OJ: Yeah, I mean, I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play golf and stuff, so there's always something, nicks and stuff, here and there.
(Reviewer - I did not know golf was a contact sport.)
Q: So did you do anything? When did you put the Band-Aid on it?
OJ: Actually, I asked the girl this morning for it.
Q: And she got it?
OJ: Yeah, 'cause last night with Kato, when I was leaving, he was saying something to me, and I was rushing to get my phone, and I put a little thing on it, and it stopped.
[big snip about past violence and failed attempt to reconcile with Nicole. Also fact that he gave subsequent girlfriend Paula the necklace and bracelet returned by Nicole, and told Paula he bought it for her. Incidentally, Paula broke up with OJ the morning of the murder...]
Q: We've got some blood on and in your car, we've got some blood at your house, and it's sort of a problem.
OJ: Well, take my blood test.
Q: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?
OJ: A week ago?
Q: Yeah.
OJ: No. It was last night.
(Reviewer - so the blood found at the murder scene was not from a previous visit as defense contends.)
Q: Okay, so last night you cut it? Somewhere after the dance recital?
OJ: Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house.
Q: Okay, after the recital?
OJ: Yeah.
Q: What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?
OJ: I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea. When you said to me that my daughter had said something to me today that somebody might have been involved, I have absolutely no idea what happened.
[big snip]
OJ: I know I'm the number one target, and now you tell me I've got blood all over the place.
Q: Well, there's blood in your house and in the driveway, and we've got a search warrant, and we're going to go get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that's there?
OJ: If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.
Q: Last night?
OJ: Yeah, and I wasn't aware that it was...I was aware that I...you know I was trying to get out of the house, I didn't even pay any attention to it. I saw it when I was in the kitchen, and I grabbed a napkin or something, and that was it. I didn't think about it after that.
Q: That was last night after you got home from the recital, when you were rushing?
OJ: That was last night when I was...I don't know what I was, I was in the car getting my junk out of the car. I was in the house throwing hangers and stuff in my suitcase. I was doing my little crazy what I do, I mean, I do it everywhere. Anybody who has ever picked me up says that O.J.'s a whirlwind. He's running, he's grabbing things, and that's what I was doing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


85 of 98 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Or How I Would Have Won, September 21, 2006
By 
Vincent Bugliosi, author and prosecutor who successfully convicted Charles Manson as conspirator in the Helter Skelter murders of Sharon Tate and the LaBiancos, catalogues the mistakes of the prosecution, the judge, the media, the jury and the case.

In short, Bugliosi states what the defense should have not been allowed to do, what the judge and prosecution should have done, and how the jury should have responded. In other words, had he been prosecutor, he tells us how he would have done it differently and won.

We learn the results of O.J.'s lie detector results here. He scored a minus 22. This is about the lowest score a person can receive. He lied. We also learn how Bugliosi would have attacked the defense's assertion that the three (white) detectives conspired to convict O.J. Simpson with planted evidence.

Bugliosi's argument is that conspiracy to frame a person charged with a crime punishable by death is itself a crime punishable by death in California. The defense would have had us believe that two detectives on the verge of retirement would have entered into a conspiracy with a detective they didn't know (Mark Fuhrman), and plant or taint evidence against Simpson because they were racist. For their supposed racism, they would have risked their careers, pension, jail and death to get Simpson. Bugliosi makes a strong argument here that this would have been a stretch especially for three savvy detectives. The prosecution failed to challenge this wild assertion.

He makes Judge Ito out to be what he was, a man who bent over backwards to appease the media and the defense when the latter should have been held in contempt many times.

This is about the trial more than the story of O.J. Simpson, a man whose story has divided a nation in a way that hasn't occurred until our current political divisions.

Like more than half the nation, I am so convinced that he did commit those murders, I would bet the mortgage, and my career.

Sadly, the belief in innocence or guilt falls right along racial lines.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


24 of 27 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A nice third person view.., July 11, 2005
By 
Rolltide (Columbia, Tn) - See all my reviews
This book should be the first read for anyone interested in this case. Bugliosi was not involved in the case in any way which puts him in a position to analyze without having to be defensive the way vanatter, lange and fuhrman have to be and while their books are worthwhile this book cuts through all the BS.

The author is a lawyer, a former prosecutor who believes the evidence available to darden and clark was more than enough to convict. Therefore he doesn't obsess on evidence that was missed. Instead he wonders in dismay why the prosecution didn't make use of all the evidence that was available. Like the incriminating 32 minute interview. The $8700 and passport as OJ fled from police. The cheap diquise that OJ had purchased 2 weeks before the murders or the very incriminating suicide note. None of it mentioned in court. Why?

If there was a conspiracy it was to get OJ off not to convict him and only an idiot would think the entire LA police force, forensics lab and DA's office was in cahoots to be mean to OJ for no other reason than his skin color.

Why didn't OJ ask questions about his ex wife's murder? When told of it on the phone he didn't seem shocked at all and didn't even ask how or why. Wouldn't an innocent man ask that? He had spent a significant portion of his life with her and she bore two of his children. Why during his interview after he came back to LA was he not acting upset, shocked? Why did he never ask questions about her murder or demonstrate the least amount of curiosity the way any innocent man would. Because he already knew what happened.

The author gives his legal opinion on judge's ito's behaivor that was so biased toward johnny cochran, a friend and former supervisor of his but was hostile to clark and darden and seemingly obsessed to hang mark fuhrman out to dry.

Bugliosi puts away this facade of the dream deam's great competance when he goes over the roster and all their previous murder case experience or lack of it. Cochran was mainly a civil lawyer. Shapiro had handled criminal cases but none who actually went through an entire trial. F lee bailey who had lost his two biggest cases(de salvo and hearst) and dersehwitz who was an appeal attorney who lost his biggest appeal in his career. Because the media was so intent on puffing up these defense lawyers the jury couldn't help but be in awe of them even before they uttered a word in court.

Despite all that hype the only real accomplishment by the defense team was to interject race into the equation something that any idiot street thug could do. They suceeded because of a gullible racist jury and an accomplice judge.

Bugliosi also demonstrates how henry lee's testimony is basically moronic and does nothing to prove that OJ was not involved in the murder. Lee identified a foot print in the concreate made years ago as fresh from the crime. He also identified other incidental marks in the concrete as footprints. The propsecution easily proved his statements wrong.

Anybody who thinks that OJ is innocent is an idiot. The evidence is and was so overwhelming. Bugliosi here refutes many of the moronic theories about OJ innocence and points out repeatedly that the defense made no attempt to even offer evidence to suggest that OJ could not have murdered these two people or even a spec of evidence that anyone planted anything. The defense is about defamation, slander and lies appealing to the worst in people. A supposedly innocent OJ and his defense team who is hostile to those who have been victimized in a horrible crime. How disgusting.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


39 of 47 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Riveting and Brilliantly Argued, December 1, 1999
By 
Alan Rosinus (New Haven, Connecticut) - See all my reviews
Put simply, this book makes me wish that Mr. Bugliosi had been arguing in place of Clark and Darden. Mr. Bugliosi's analysis of the case should convince even the most narrow-minded person of O.J. Simpson's guilt. The book is filled with insightful commentary as well as biting indictments of incompetence, when appropriate (and indeed, such indictments are appropriate all too often). At the same time, the book remains engaging and very enjoyable to read. The Final Summation section, with the arguments that Mr. Bugliosi would have given the jury in his final summation had he prosecuted the case in bold, is particularly powerful. The arguments condemn Simpson with the power of pure, straight-forward logic and a superlative command of the written word.
People in the reviews below have said that Mr. Bugliosi "demeans" people and that in being a defense attorney he is doing the same thing he condemns Johnny Cochrane for. These reviews are ridiculous for several reasons. First of all, Bugliosi does not have the intention of "demeaning" people such as the prosecutors or the LAPD when he criticizes their respective performances; he is simply analyzing their individual performances, which frankly were quite poor, and saying what he considers to be the truth. He is certainly not euphemistic in his criticism; but he is rather just being objective (he has nothing against the people he is critiquing on a personal level, for sure), and anyone who says he is being too harsh had better have a good reason, because his comments sure seemed to be dead-on accurate. Regarding Mr. Bugliosi's criticism of Johnny Cochrane in light of his own turn as a defense attorney: every criminal who stands trial has the right to an attorney, and defense attorneys are generally respectable people who attempt to advise their clients in a way in keeping with justice. Johnny Cochrane's showy, preachy, over-the-top, and, most importantly, vehement defense of a man he must have known to be guilty was disgraceful. Defending an accused criminal is one thing; pulling out every possible stop and every ludicrous argument so that vicious murderer goes free is entirely another.
Regarding people's complaints about Mr. Bugliosi's ego: I think you mistake his expertise for ego. I didn't sense any self-consciousness on the author's part, only a firm handle on the subject at issue.
As for Mr. Bugliosi's words on God: instead of having a gut reaction of "How dare he!," why don't you actually think about what he says? The man is clearly one of the most clear-headed and intelligent people around, and it might do you good to think about religion from a different perspective than your own with an open mind, particularly when the source is one so distinguished. Mr. Bugliosi uses the powers of analysis that enabled him to demonstrate Simpson's guilt so decisively to grapple with contemporary organized religion--if his logic was good enough in the former instance, why is it all of a sudden called into question and, indeed, struck down by certain reviewers in the latter instance? Read with an open mind, people--you just might learn something. Don't accept everything you're given--examine and scrutinize the universe that surrounds you instead. And by the way, just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you can't distinguish right from wrong--the idea that morality has to spring from religion is a conceit that some religious people tell themselves to make themselves feel noble. A sense of right and wrong can certainly come from a belief in God, but it can also come from respecting your fellow human beings.
In more general terms, though, I think it can be agreed that this is an immensely intelligent and revealing look into the mockery of justice that was the O.J. Simpson case. I would invite anyone who cheered Simpson's acquittal to read this book and see if they regret having rejoiced in the freeing of a murderer. As for the rest of us, it gives us an opportunity to sit back and read all of the points that we have made time and again about the case plus some we haven't thought of thrown in for good measure, all articulated in the most eloquent fashion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


24 of 28 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars What Would Vince Do?, June 19, 2000
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


17 of 19 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Justice By Proxy, February 8, 2000
By 
Special Reporter (Seattle, Washington) - See all my reviews
At last, there is a sense of "relief" for the travesty of justice that was the O.J. Simpson circus of 1994-1995. This book had me saying "Yes, Yes! I knew it!" I latched onto the words in this book with full attention. I completely agree with the author, and wondered why he was not in the courtroom instead of the prosecuters who tried the O. J. Simpson case.
Mr. Bugliosi did not let a single detail of the much publicized trial escape his attention. He makes it clear that if a guilty person will not confess of his crime, for whatever reason, then everyone else who is aware will do it for him. The author's wit is razor sharp in each chapter, especially the Final Summation. I ate up every word in this book like pancakes and syrup on Saturday morning!
Why did the judge allow the race card to be played? Is it a coincidence that money buys a verdict of "not guilty?" How can blood at the crime scene from one out of 233 people not be convincing? If we cannot obtain testimony--which the author, a lawyer, indicates is something that an innocent person is inclined to do after being falsely charged with a crime--then there is satisfaction, at least, from having possession of the printed words written by someone with genuine knowledgeability.
The highlight of "Outrage..." is the transcripted interrogation of the LAPD with O.J. Simpson, word for word. It allowed me to understand how guilt has a way of making a story trip all over itself. There is no such thing as the perfect crime. After reading this book I feel like a lawyer instead of a spectator.
Wherever you see this book, buy it, buy it, buy it. Don't think--get it! There's more in this text than the trial of one man. "Outrage..." makes a solid case for revamping the entire American judicial system.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


16 of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Buckle up before reading!, March 16, 2005
By 
John (Southern California) - See all my reviews
The author says he only wrote this at the behest of his editor but ironically, this is Vince Bugliosi at his finest: indignant as hell and shouting the plain truth in a book that reads like a raging oratory. He also cites examples of incompetent judges and attorneys in other celebrity cases, and he names names. He rants about incompetence in general, religious beliefs, and more; it is provocative and refreshing. These are akin to George Carlin observations except that no humor is intended.

Mr. Bugliosi serves up a big helping of law for the layman without being pedantic. It is super-informative and I learned a lot about how a case comes to trial, rules of evidence, and the emerging field of jury consultants. Next time I am on jury duty, I will in no way feel that I am any less a part of that trial than the lawyers or judge!

I was surprised by some revelations such as: Simpson's jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier and why that evidence was perfectly admissible --but Judge Ito barred it because he apparently does not know the law. Another: Mark Fuhrman had had a previous squabble with the highest-ranking woman in the LAPD, who also happens to be the wife of Judge Ito! (Which might explain why Ito allowed Fuhrman to be crucified on something not relevant to this case.)

Mr. Bugliosi is not content to prove something once and leave it at that. He proves it again and again with different evidence. He pulls no punches on:

(1) Gil Garcetti, the then-District Attorney of LA County;
(2) Judge Lance "Ego," who never met a TV camera he didn't like, for making one appallingly illegal or idiotic decision after another once the trial started;
(3) the so-called "Dream Team," who was anything but that: not one of them had any murder trial experience whatsoever until Lee Bailey joined them;
(4) journalists and commentators, who consistently missed the point entirely;

...and then there was the prosecution. It is worth noting that "Bugliosi" is not found in the index of either Marcia Clark's book nor Chris Darden's. Silence in the face of an accusation = consciousness of guilt.

The only copy I could find was a large print edition and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants the full effect; it made the words seem extra declamatory. Wow.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Extremely Insightful Book on the Trial of the Century, October 22, 2003
Vincent Bugliosi has written one of the most insightful books on not only on the OJ Simpson case, but the issue of the rule of law, our court system, what constitutes effective and competent counsel, outrageous conduct on the part of the defense.
Bugliosi first outlines the basic facts of the case: first, OJ is obviously guilty. His blood is found at the crime scene, in his Bronco, and at his estate. Nicole and Ron Goldman's blood are also found in all three locations. OJ created a suicide note, got a mask, and ran away from the cops. He told the police he "didn't know" why he was bleeding at the night of the murders -- at the exact same time the crime was being committed. He told Nicole he would kill her one day. The murder was not a burglary -- because nothing was taken. And the crime was definitely one of passion -- notice the knife. All the signs point to Simpson.
This book is an extremely useful one for myself because I do intend to be an attorney one day. Bugliosi provided many very simple tips on how best to argue one's case and to destroy one's opponents arguments. This is certainly a book I would recommend. There is no nonsense or hodgepodge in this book. A+!
-- Michael Gordon
Los Angeles
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 218 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi (Paperback - February 17, 2008)
$15.95 $12.74
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.