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

For a case that was overly saturated in the media, and with an abnormal plethora of books written about it, to have one book stand above all the rest is quite a feat.
"Outrage" is not a rehashing of the crimes themselves, nor a step-by-step recounting of the criminal trial. It is master prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's views on the five main reasons that Simpson got away with murder. And Mr. Bugliosi spares no one. From his biting critique of the prosecutors' weak arguments to amazement at the defense's blatant race card tactic to disgust at the media-obsessed judge and disappointment at the weary jurors, Bugliosi pulls no punches in stating flat out that due to bungling all around, a murderer walks free among us.
Bugliosi is best known for being the prosecutor to put Charles Manson and several members of his "Family" behind bars and he is well equipped to write this scathing tome. Finishing the book, it is clear that the prosecutors would have done themselves a favor by hiring Bugliosi as a consultant.
If you're going to read a book about the Simpson criminal trial, choose this one . . . or at least read this one first.

"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 after his return from Chicago:

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.

The "Bug" is a fantastic writer. I wish he would run for California Governor. Anybody that still thinks O.J. didn't commit this crime needs a reality-check. The evidence was overwhelming...
the problem is the jury had an average IQ of room temperature.
This book clearly shows why we need to dump the archaic jury system and replace it with three judges. Look at the Robert Blake trial, etc., etc. The sad reality is that the prosecutor has to convince twelve people while the defense only has to convince one person for acquittal. Buy this book and you won't put it down until the last page. The Bug pats himself on the back too often, but hey, he still deserves credit. He managed to put Charlie Manson and his ilk behind bars where O.J. should be. I wonder if O.J. has found any new leads on the "real murderer" around the golf courses. hmmmmm.....

This book dissects the actions of the prosecution and defense from a technical standpoint. Vincent Bugliosi spent many years as a prosecutor, and was quite successful. (He was the person who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson.) In my opinion he is the perfect person to judge the performances of the lawyers involved in the case. First of all his experience and success qualifies him to scrutinize the proceedings. Secondly, his lack of involvement allows him to give an honest, unbiased opinion. Books from Marcia Clark or Alan Dershowitz may provide inside info, but they also contain the opinions of people who have vested interests in making themselves look good.

As you can tell from the title, Bugliosi feels that OJ is guilty. From the beginning the book assumes his guilt, and goes on to explain why the prosecution is at fault for not obtaining that guilty verdict.

While the book focuses on the technical components of the trial, Bugliosi does spend a little time showing how the evidence proves OJ's guilt. He explains how the police conspiracy theory to frame OJ just isn't plausible. In addition, he points out that for every piece of evidence the defense could explain away, there were 10 times as many pieces that they could not explain. He doesn't go into deep detail in these areas, but he is effective is showing all of the defenses arguments can be countered.

Since he is an experienced prosecutor this is a great book for law students or those interested in the methodology behind presenting an effective case. I'm just a layman, but Bugliosi has me convinced that fault of the non-conviction lies on the shoulders of the prosecution, and no one else.

Finally, I greatly appreciate Bugliosi pointing out that Cochran should be ashamed for playing the race card. In a place and time when race relations were strained, Cochran made an issue out of a non-issue and quite possibly made things worse for the community of Los Angeles. (And who said one person can't make a difference?)

In the book Bugliosi said that he could not, in good conscience, attempt to get a man acquitted when he truly felt he was guilty. I admire him for this moral stand. Too many defense lawyers today see the trial process as a big game. They look for one little technicality that they can exploit to get their clients off the hook. To them it's not about justice; it is about winning, making a name for themselves, and making a buck. "So what if he killed a man. He deserves to go free because they didn't give him a phone call". Don't get me wrong, I'm not a vigilante. I believe the rules of the system should be followed. I just cannot understand how some people can sleep because they've exploited a flaw in the system and set a murderer free. I've always felt that Johnny Cochran was just such a lawyer, and, after reading this book, I've found an authority who agrees with me.

Vincent "The Bug" Bugliosi writes a scathing review of the OJ Simpson trial. He spares no punches as he outlines the five reasons why OJ got off. He begins with the "aura" that permeated the air around the trial; the change of venue which doomed the trial for the prosecution; the ineptness of the prosecution team; the disastrous self-serving Judge Ito; and the closing arguments.

I remember the trial very well. I remember asking myself several questions during the trial: "Why are they allowing OJ to handle the prosecution's evidence (the glove?)" / "Why are they persecuting Mark Furhman for saying the "n" word at a MURDER trial?" / "Why is Marcia Clark apologizing for having to prosecute OJ?" and so on. Vincent answers these questions and more.

I found myself outraged at what he revealed and how this trial should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. And, surprisingly, he corrobates everything said by Mark Fuhrman in his book, "Murder in Brentwood". To really understand the case, I would read these two books together.

My only complaint about the book was that about 3/4 of the way through, I found myself saying, "OK, Vince, you made your point." In other words, I thought he pontificated a bit too much. Nevertheless, the book is quite provoking and a genuinely good read.