Customer Reviews

A Problem of Evidence: How the Prosecution Freed O.J. Simpson

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Of all the books written about the Simpson trial, it is refreshing to find one where the author paid attention. It takes great courage to write about this trial without jumping to a popular conclusion that has little to do with actual evidence (or lack thereof). Congratulations to Mr. Bosco for putting a search for truth ahead of public demand for scapegoating. By the way, did the publishers actually read the book before writing their review?

Only two of the O.J. trial books are really essential reads: Lawrence Schiller's, and this one. Anyone who professes to be "outraged" by the verdict MUST READ THIS. You will still be outraged when you finish ... at all the TV and print media who downplayed much of the evidence that was plainly presented in the courtroom and then had the nerve to blast the jury for returning the only verdict a reasonable person could. Unlike Dominick Dunne, Bosco covered the trial like a real journalist and not a dilettante. The result is many fascinating and unsettling nuggets and factoids. Such as: the truly mercenary nature of the Brown family (Lou Brown had the audacity to lie about not getting child support while O.J. was in jail); the clear evidence that more than one person was directly involved and the unlikeliness that any of the killers were Heisman trophy winners and just how badly the media let themselves be manipulated (I find it unsettling that some of the "respectable" press sold stories to tabloids on the side). For his efforts, Bosco's book goes unreviewed while Dunne writes a forgettable, racist memoir in which he can't even use his own name and gets lionized. There ain't no justice in the world.

Unlike Bugliosi, who presented the Simpson case as a 'no-brainer', Bosco does not refer to readers who might disagree with him as 'pin heads' or 'mental midgets'. Instead, he shows some of the deep contradictions in the evidence which lead a reasonable person to doubt Simpson's guilt. What neither he, nor any other writer has yet done, is resolve the mystery at the heart of the case. Are there really no other suspects? Well, maybe this author has another book in the works.

This author brings the unique perspective of an educated author who attended the trial EVERY DAY, but was not a participant. He brings out lots of tidbits from the trial, and lots of evidence that suggests O.J. did not do it -- while acknowledging the blood evidence that O.J. did it. I only regret that Bosco does not plainly give us HIS ultimate opinion on whether O.J. did it.

Joe Bosco takes a critical eye to the OJ case and comes up with solid reasoning that the case was poorly put on by the prosecution and tells why. It's original and very well written in a clear and insightful way. A must read.

Joseph Bosco is a journalist who has written other books on true crime. He tells the story as he sees it. The `Acknowledgments' thanks the prosecution team, the defense team, the Sheriff's Office, the LAPD, the media reporters, and many, many others. This very readable book lacks an index and is not a good reference. But it is a unique eyewitness account of the trial. Chapter 21 explains "reasonable doubt". The State's case must "exclude all reasonable hypothesis of innocence". Any scenario supported by evidence that could exculpate the defendant creates reasonable doubt that requires a verdict of not guilty. Peter Bozanich said the media was biased against Simpson (p.258). They never criticized the conduct of the prosecution team and a poorly presented case (p.259). The jury followed the evidence and the law. What is the psychological problem of those who hate O. J. Simpson but pass over Timothy McVeigh (p.261)?

The `Introduction' says the book will present "snapshots" of the crime, the trial, and the events. It will probably be different to what you have read. Bosco was amazed by the taped and edited segments of the trial on television because it was different from what he saw in the courtroom (p.xv). This book will not cover broad aspects of the trial but with the pivotal "facts" of the case. In effect, it is why they voted "not guilty" (pp.xvi-xvii). Bosco's past knowledge of a "blood case" murder made him more knowledgeable; he was a friend of Dr. Henry Lee, the "pre-eminent forensic scientist". Bosco says Detective Vannatter did not call the designated Deputy District Attorney but Marcia Clark (p.xix). No explanation given.

Chapter 1 asks if the case against OJ was "almost too perfect" because it could be a frame-up (p.1)? Chapter 2 tells why the grand jury was dismissed - it would not indict on murder (pp.8-9). Chapter 4 comments on the DA's arrogance. Office politics eliminated the best prosecutors (p.22). The LAPD's rating is on page 23. [Did you see that on TV?] The public did not see all that happened (p.40). Reporters were afraid (p.42). Chapter 7 notes the blunders of the prosecution (p.57). The jurors did not believe in a lone killer (p.63). What happened in the court was not on TV (p.68). Chapter 8 lists the mysteries about the murders. Why was the security gate left open (p.73)? The Italian shoes were traced, "none to OJ" (p.75). What about the bloody fingerprints on those glasses (p.76)? The Medical Examiner's autopsies created a problem for the Prosecution (Chapter 10). There are questions about the blood spatter (pp.104-106).

The lack of extensive physical damage on OJ is an argument for his innocence (Chapter 11). Allen Park didn't see the Bronco, or Kato's car either (p.151). Chapter 12 has his comments on Nicole's family. Chapter 13 discusses the status of the blood evidence. The gloves didn't fit (p.167). Bosco blames Marcia Clark for losing the case (Chapter 16). What is the significance of Fuhrman's pointing to the glove (p.219)? There is a theory about planting the glove (p.224). There is more about Fuhrman's importance on page 228. Was there a hidden secret for the prosecution team (p.238)? Was the trial an exercise in Public Relations (p.244)?

The Trial of O.J. Simpson was the most publicized event since the Washington hearings on Watergate and Nixon's impeachment. Why did the corporate media push it so much? Was it a distraction to avoid the problems of NAFTA and similar economic attacks on the middle class? George Orwell's novel "1984" explains how sensational news is used to distract people from events in the real world.

WHO IS "NO NAME" from Perth Amboy who felt compelled to post 3 identical posts? He must be O.J. Simpson, or maybe he wrote this book. This is from another one of his posts of another book on the same subject: "Nothing has happened since 1995 to contradict the jury's verdict. The whiney complaints about the verdict and jury system have ceased...." Ooops! I just read his confession in another book...Ooops! Better place your faith in something a little more reliable.

The author was one of the few to sit through the entire trial. This book is a personal account of what he thinks. He wondered about the guilt or innocence of OJ, and I would like to answer his question.

The testimony of the two witnesses who cannot lie say that OJ Simpson is not guilty.

Blood and flesh were found under Nicole Brown's fingernails; the blood type did not match OJ (or Nicole or Ron). Ron Goldman walked to work, worked out, and practiced karate; his hands showed bruises from punching someone in the face or head more than once. OJ had no scratches or bruises on his hands, arms, face, or body: he could not have been a lone murderer.

The newspapers said that when the bodies were found after 12:15 AM their red blood was trickling down the sidewalk. The crime scene pictures printed in the National Enquirer showed the red blood. This says they were freshly killed, around 11:30, because their blood would be black and clotted if dead for over an hour (as in the Borden Murders).

The above physical evidence proves OJ Simpson to be innocent of these murders. Some say the 25 to 30 stab wounds on Ron Goldman suggest an emotional frenzy from a personal enemy, and Nicole Brown was the innocent bystander. The book "Killing Time" is the first and only objective book (arguments for both sides) to discuss all the evidence.

I hope that those who want to know the facts will read this, and reconsider any prejudgments that they made in June 1994.

The only thing I derived from this book is confirmation that the jury made the right call. The prosecution did a terrible job.

That being said, this author should hang his head in shame. The book is mostly innuendo, rumor and gossip....hardly the mark of respectable author. Chapter Nine, "Conspiracies, Grand And Otherwise" is purely speculation with virtually no factual information in it at all. Most of the points the author wishes to make cannot be verified by any other source. This man had a permanent seat at the trial. He attended nearly every session for the entire 18 months. It is hard to believe that this is the product of much thought on his part. I bought this book at the Dollar Tree Store. That's about what the book is worth.

I have also read Marsha Clark's book as well as the book written by Chris Darden. These were also terrible. I'm sure there has to be good book on the Trial Of The Century, but I don't know where it is

Joseph Bosco had a permanent seat at the O.J. Simpson trial,so you would think he would have something new to add.Unfortunately,he was so mezmerized by Mr. Simpson and his attorneys,that he must have forgotten to take notes during the prosecution phase of this trial,so what the reader ends up with is a rehash of the Dream Team's smoke and mirror act.One of the most telling statements arrives early in the book,when Mr. Bosco states that he can't understand why when he went back to his hotel every night and turned on the TV,Mr. Simpson didn't look sincere,as he claims,he apparently did when you watched him in person.The camera never lies,Mr. Bosco.It always knows when you're telling the truth and when you're lying.That's why some actors become stars,and others fade away after one movie.This is a great book for anyone who either can't or won't remember what the evidence really was.