Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder

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.

The best information on the trial. No one is better at trial. You will learn a lot about the Justice system, not just about O.J.

Bugliosi, to his credit, minces no words for the scumbag that is O.J.

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.

How does a true investigator take Vincent Bugliosi seriously in his analysis of the OJ Simpson case when in the first paragraph of the INTRODUCTION, the first thing he says, after lauding his accomplishments, and venting the opening salvo of his disgust and outrage with the Simpson verdict, "I FOUND I HAD VERY LITTLE INTEREST IN THE CASE ITSELF". 'If Simpson had testified I would have been interested ....but other than that THE CASE HELD LITTLE FASCINATION FOR ME". "THE REASON IS SIMPLE"...."HOW DO YOU SUSTAIN YOUR INTEREST IN A CASE, OR ANYTHING, WHEN YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?" So this became the man that the media chose to examine the important elements of the Simpson case and its subsequent trial. Barnum and Bailey would have loved him, and probably would have placed him at center ring as an exceptional ring master when the clown cars rolled in. Bugliosi who was sold to the public as an expert, turns out to be a clown that knows very little to nothing in regard to the manipulation and malfeasance of sworn court officers of his former agency of employment, the LADA's office, to conceal evidence in the most important pop culture trial of the 20th century. This book is a pure D mess, only important to the angry souls who've bothered to do no due diligence, like Bugliosi, believing the best of all sworn officers of the court. I still struggle to get all the way through this book because of its lack of true insight and its racially insinuating hyperbole. However, my book shelves are full of the limited few as well as the bad books, like this one, so I would never tell anyone not to buy the book. It may provide further insight to the wrongs associated with
this case, but as some of the other books by Simpson detractors reveal their participation in malfeasance, this book seems to be just the
ramblings of a court juster, a clownish entertainer, whose writings my second mind continues to suggest I could have ended reading after the
INTRODUCTION. Rating.....One star, if that.....

I forgot I had purchased the paperback several years ago and didn't like at all. Sorry to say bad about the departed but Bugliosi is so self-centered and it's all about him. There are many better books to read on the subject.

I respect Mr. Bugliosi for his work as a lawyer and as a writer. However, when I purchased this book, I thought he was going to present the case against Simpson based on the evidence. Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of the book. Bugliosi instead critiques the trial itself, and especially the lawyers and Judge Ito. He explains how incompetent both sides were and how Judge Ito allowed the trial to get out of hand. He has few kind words for anyone. I did learn why he believes (strongly) that Simpson is guilty, but this was presented in the first third of the book, and in reality, I could have stopped there. His critiques are certainly valid and enlightening, but in my opinion, this is a book that appeals to someone who perhaps has an interest in the process of a court trial.

I thank Mr. Bugliosi for exposing the fact that our judicial system is not always about justice. Even with overwhelming evidence that points to OJ's guilt, the 12 men and women who heard the trial allowed him to walk away a free man. I share in Bugliosi's "Outrage", knowing that if a guilty man can walk away from a double murder, an innocent man can likewise be wrongly convicted. While we likely have the best judicial system in the world, this book shows that the system is far from perfect. It is a sobering thought to realize that one's very life can be in the hands of people who often have agendas of their own.

kone

In light of O.J. Simpson's latest legal troubles (to which I now firmly believe in the power of "what goes around comes around"), I must say that I was completely bored with the so-called "Trial of the Century" media circus in 1995 and did not believe, for one second, that Simpson was remotely innocent (it's nice to see, all these years later, how his most vociferous defenders then have changed their tune now).

The American legal system is a complete joke and the media circus of the O.J. Simpson trial proved it ... and then some! The whole thing reminded me of the so-called "Manson Family" trial in 1970 (that I read about in newspapers on microfilm) for the murders of Sharon Tate, et. al., the previous year. So it's very fitting that retired Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi, who put that clown Manson and his pack of zombies away, would comment on another media circus that would occur a quarter of a century later where the victims were, once again, completely forgotten.

I firmly believe had Mr. Bugliosi prosecuted Simpson, he would have been in the can - without the possibility of parole - right where he belongs!

District Attorneys Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, along with judge Lance Ito, were more concerned with becoming celebrities than in doing their jobs - and that was to be the voice of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman in the courtroom. It was a given that Simpson's so-called legal "Dream Team" would turn the proceedings into a circus, but the judge and the DAs played the game, too, and it left doubts as to the level of their professionalism (and rightfully so).

At 19 years old, I was so disgusted with reading and hearing about Marcia Clark's hairdo, whether or not Clark and Darden had something going, how Ito shaved his face this week that I would run away from the TV everytime the proceedings were on or if the case was being covered on the nightly news. I know now, as I knew then, that I didn't miss anything - and Mr. Bugliosi's book reinforced that point.

I read Mr. Bugliosi's book not too long after its release and I concur with another reviewer in that if there's anyone who still believes in Simpson's "innocence," this book will shatter that ... and then some!

Mr. Bugliosi does what a competent attorney would (and should) do and that is making Swiss cheese of the other side's case. He ripped everyone involved with this case brand new ones - he shot major holes through the defense, but also appropriately ripped Clark and Darden for being more concerned with fame than in doing their jobs.

I'm not crazy about DAs or the legal system in general, but folks such as Vincent Bugliosi are one of the very few bright spots of the entire legal system.

Sometimes one can't help but feel the system is aptly titled the "criminal justice" system and I certainly felt that way after the verdict was read (and then to hear those biased jurors say they believed he was guilty, but let him off because of the Rodney King brouhaha really soured me on the whole jury thing).

But if every lawyer - defense attorney, district attorney, even judges - had the same set of legal standards and integrity that Vincent Bugliosi displayed during his career (who lost exactly one murder case out of a hundred in his career, among other case wins), I honestly believe the public wouldn't be so down on lawyers. His professionalism certainly comes through in this book. - Donna Di Giacomo

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.

As a lawyer I found Vincent Bugliosi to know his way around a courtroom. How to prepare a case, how to cross-examine a witness, .... But the book is repetitive and was obviously dictated, i.e., this is a very long oral account of Bugliosi's observations about the murders, the trial, and the outcome. Not an edited written book. But excellent observations, ones with which I agree. I too am outraged at Orenthal J. Simpson's killing his wife and the young man, and at Simpson's escaping justice. I too found his lawyers (save one) to abuse the rules of court. I too found the prosecutors did a very poor job. I too found Judge Ito's rulings legally absurd. I too found the jury lacking in capability to hear a case.
Bugliosi is to be admired, and I have admired him since the 1960s. He said he did not want to write this book. I am glad he did, because is much value to be found within it. But he should have had it edited down, then edited down again.

A brief background: I grew up in Europe, and was still playing hide-and-seek in the playground when the Simpson saga was breaking news. Of course, even in Europe we heard of the trial, and I have vague recollections about hearing that someone famous was on trial for murder, but it was only more recently after moving to the U.S. that I became interested in the story. After doing some general research online, I became more and more surprised that OJ Simpson had been acquitted - it seemed incredible given the mountain of evidence that was against him. Naturally, this book and its title appealed to me.

I have spent the last few days sinking my teeth into the book, and to be honest this is one of the more challenging reviews I have ever written. For the first few pages my eyebrows were raised at Bugliosi's tone towards all who were involved - you rarely see an author speak so bluntly to the point of being uncaring - but there was definitely a sense of "finally...someone is saying it"! As the pages wore on, his disgust for both sides was unrelenting - it is clear that Bugliosi thinks that the Prosecution was a joke, the Defense was a joke, and the judge was a self-absorbed nutcase who rarely made a decent decision (either in regards to decisions at his discretion or decisions regarding the law). The problem is...I agree with him. The more Bugliosi talks, the more I find myself nodding my head. Sure, he's being a jerk, but most of the time he's being a jerk who happens to be right.

The book provides a very thorough review of the trial, the jury, the legal teams on both side as well as Judge Ito. Please note the use of the word "thorough". I do have to agree with some of the other reviews here - this book could have been written as a series of articles - as a book I find that Bugliosi repeats himself a few times too many. It's always strange when you have a sense of deja vu in the first sitting of reading a book... Still, if you enjoy the thoroughness that is not unexpected from a writer with a legal background, you may not mind it as much as others have. I personally read pretty quickly, and often miss details here and there, so it's not unpleasant for me to read some repetitive phrases here and there in a book.

Overall, I usually don't enjoy books from people who have a very high opinion of themselves, but the content of this book and the unflinching shredding of the entire trial is pretty darn entertaining if you ask me. This book isn't for everyone, but I can only give my honest opinion and say that I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. Minus one star for the excessive verbosity and the author's general tone of self-righteousness, but a solid four stars for this unique work on the Simpson trial. Recommended, insofar as one can recommend a book when this conflicted...