“Provocative and entertaining. ... A powerful and damning diatribe on Simpson’s acquittal.”—People Here is the account of the O. J. Simpson case that no one dared to write, that no one else could write. In this #1 New York Times bestseller, Vincent Bugliosi, the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson and best-selling author of Helter Skelter, goes to the heart of the trial that divided the country and made a mockery of justice. He lays out the mountains of evidence; rebuts the defense; offers a thrilling summation; condemns the monumental blunders of the judge, the “Dream Team,” and the media; and exposes, for the first time anywhere, the shocking incompetence of the prosecution.

The L.A. DA's office should have rehired Vince... (4.0)

Some may say that this book's analysis of the famous O.J. Simpson trial is now moot given that he is finally and correctly behind bars...some (like me) may still be outraged that he was able to enjoy many years of freedom for so clearly and deliberately murdering his ex-wife and her friend while also receiving a gift acquittal due to the ineptness and hubris of the prosecution in that case. It was with this still strong emotional content that I took up this now rather older book and came once again to realize the enormity of the prosecution's amateurish and boorish preparation for this trial as explained here in typical Bugliosi detail.

Written on the heels of that trial, this book does not revisit the exact details of the crime but rather goes into the almost criminal lack of readiness and incompetence of lead prosecutor Marsha Clark and L.A. County prosecutor Christopher Darden. Time and again Bugliosi shows how both prosecutors thought the case was open and shut and that the preparedness of the DA's office lacked the motivation and fortitude to bring it to the proper close. Factors such as racism and the circus like media attention associated with the case are shown by Bugliosi to have been influential in the outcome when it should have been discounted immediately. We see how Mark Fuhrman's testimony is turned into a major defense advantage due to his (Fuhrman's) racial attitudes and comments as a part of the LAPD when the prosecution again should have recognized this and turned it into a non-sequeter. The relatively new (at the time) analysis of DNA evidence, which should have been the iron-clad closure to the case, was allowed to go on for days, which gave the jury the less than clear evidence that it needed to disprove reasonable doubt and that the defense used to hinge it's entire case upon. Bugliosi is clear on all these points and also on how Clark and Darden let these issues overwhelm them. Finally, we see how the prosecution's all important final summations were essentially glossed over when they should have been the "meat" of the prosecution's case and final attack at the jury.

Hindsight is of course 20/20 and Bugliosi could be accused of being the proverbial Monday morning quarterback, but in "Outrage" he brings amazingly clear and important points forward that show how the legal system preposterously failed the Brown and Goldman families and allowed a killer to go free. Just because Simpson showed his true character and subsequently went to jail for another crime is no excuse to not be still "outraged" at this trial. Clark, Darden and the L.A. DA's office were and continue to be correctly vilified for their heinous lack of preparation and execution of a trial that should have been easily won. Bugliosi's account here will bring it all back and revisit the disappointment associated with this case and in many aspects of the law enforcement system in general.

Is There A God? Will There Be Justice? (5.0)

I thought this was a great book, because it spelled out very plainly, simply and credibly, the reasons why Orenthal James Simpson got away with murder. I won't attempt to explain them here; others have done this nicely in other reviews. In reflecting upon the result, it reminds one of the political climate in our country at this time, fifteen years later. Back then, it was race that divided us. Close to 80% of black people thought Simpson was innocent, and close to that same percent of white people thought he was guilty. The defense did everything they could to lie, cheat and twist the rules to achieve their goal of acquitting Simpson. Now, we have almost the same amount of division between Democrats and Republicans. McCain and Palin and their ilk did everything they could to discredit Obama in the election, and now they are doing everything they can to prevent him from succeeding. Back then, most black people didn't care a whit whether or not Simpson was guilty; they just wanted him to walk. Simpson's attorneys were worse; they KNEW he was guilty, and they stopped at nothing to get him off.

But I digress. I am white. I am not an attorney. Could someone, preferably an attorney, explain to me how anyone in the "Dream Team" of defense attorneys representing Simpson, could justify their conduct? Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Barry Scheck, Allen Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, the whole group, are, or were, very smart and successful men. Any reasonable, objective person had to know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Simpson was guilty. The DNA, the blood, the cut fingers, the phony chase which was really a suicide drive where Simpson had a gun to his head, the suicide note, the role of A.J. Cowlings, the confession to Rosie Grier, and much, much more, showed that Simpson was guilty. They had no case at all. So, they had to create doubt, to lie, to discredit witnesses to a shameful degree (Mark Fuhrmann, Phil Vanatter, Dennis Fung, and others). And they played the race card, which was ironic. Simpson himself did nothing for the black community, but he was portrayed as being just a few rungs down the "holy" ladder from Martin Luther King Jr.

So all of this brings me to the questions in my title: if these lawyers really knew going in, that their client was guilty of double murder, and they decided to defend him anyway, then, as a Christian and believer in an afterlife, I can't help but feel that they will each burn in hell. And they probably should. But that will be up to God. Wouldn't a person who has even a shred of decency resign from the defense? How can people behave this way? If this despicable behavior is justified by saying "everyone deserves their day in court", or "innocent until proven guilty", and this is considered normal in the legal community, then the profession has become a travesty.

I would urge people to read Dominic Dunn's Simpson book, entitled Another City, Not My Own, which is told in the form of a kind of novel, but using real people and real names, except for the main character, Gus Bailey, which is a pseudonym for Dunne himself. Dunne's own daughter had been murdered and the guy who did it got....are you ready? Two years.

The "dream" prosecutor would have been Mr. Bugliosi (5.0)

Very interesting book if you were fascinated like my husband and I were by the whole OJ Simpson trial.

For my husband, a defense attorney, who throughout the months of courtroom circus activities often argued with the tv for the inappropriate motions by the defense,the wildly arbitrary decisions by the judge and the lack of preparation and guts by the prosecution, this book is an affirmation of his strong feelings that this trial was a travesty from beginning to end.

Especially interesting were the important tidbits missed by the professional pundits that clearly showed the reasons the jury was mislead into a not guilty verdict - the biggest of which was the police interview with Simpson the day after the murders clearly showing his guilt, which the prosecutors were too timid to present to the jury. That interview is given word for word in the appendix.

What made this book stand above others written on this subject are the proposed addresses Bugliosi would have given to the jury if he had been in charge. His common sense approach, I believe, would have been persuasive even in the emotionally charged atmosphere of the biggest trial of the century.

Stunning analysis by a great legal mind (5.0)

I'd always assumed OJ was guilty, but I was convinced by Alan Dershowitz's argument that he probably should have gone free due to the evidence Officer Furman most likely planted.

However, in this book, Vincent Bugliosi shows the absolute incompetence of the prosecution. It was way worse than I thought. Just the few pages on the evidence they "forgot" to submit (the suicide note which looks like a confession, the gun/cash/passport/beard and mustache disguise in the Bronco) is enough to convince anyone of his guilt. It makes you think either the prosecution were retards, or perhaps bribed.

It really goes beyond incompetence. Even with the tainted Furman evidence, this case was still a slam dunk.

And even though this case is more than a decade old, this book is a great analysis of our legal system, and common mistakes of prosecutors. Interesting book.

If you enjoy Bugliosi, you must read his newest book, his best yet: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

Exceeded expectations (5.0)

I ordered this book, in used condition, from BetterWorldBooks via Amazon.com. Not only was the book great condition but the delivery was very quick (less than a week).