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

by Vincent Bugliosi

Book Overview

Here at last is the account of the O.J. Simpson case that no one else has dared to write, that no one elsecouldwrite. InOutrage, the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson and bestselling author ofHelter Skeltergoes to the heart of the trial that divided the country and made a mockery of justice.??Vincent Bugliosi, who never lost a murder case, brilliantly outlines the five reasons why O.J. Simpson got away with murder: the worst possible jury, a sloppy...

• Format: Mass Market Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0440223822
• ISBN13: 9780440223825
• Release Date: March 1997
• Publisher: Island Books
• Length: 513 Pages
• Weight: 0.62 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.2" x 4.3" x 7.1"

Customer Reviews

This was a very good book from start to finish

This was one of the best books I've read on the OJ murder. Bugliosi's passion for this crime is evident throughout the book, highly recommend this!

This is one of my FAVORITE books!

I love the way Bugliosi writes. He's so clear and concise in making his points; proving his case, etc. Or it could be that he writes just like a prosecuting attorney, and I appreciate THAT. Even though I had read at least one other book about the O.J. Simpson case, "Outrage" caught my attention right from the beginning, and I spent more than a few nights reading into the wee hours of the morning; having to stop myself so I could catch a few hours of sleep before I had to get up for work.

Makes me sad, makes me mad

"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 a

The definitive work on the Simpson trial/travesty

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.

What Would Vince Do?

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

Riveting and Brilliantly Argued

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 insta

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 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