Justice: Crimes, Trials, and Punishments

I wrote a harsh review of this book and Mr. Dunne. I would like to reverse my opinion. I found myself thinking that he
is, indeed, a very good investigative reporter. These true
crime stories still fascinate. It's just that the recent column
in Vanity Fair seems so trivial compared to the early stories.

I hope that Mr. Dunne continues to write in-depth pieces like the ones in this book about the Menendez brothers, Claus von Bulow, etc.

The only novel I have been able to penetrate of his is
"The Two Mrs. Grenvilles." And the portrayal in the TV miniseries of this book by Ann Margaret was brilliant. The others just didn't hold my interest.

I will say, again, that Mr. Dunne is completely justified in his rage against Judge Katz and the defense attorney at the trial of his daughter's killer. I hope I never meet Judge Katz...I know I would want to spit on him.

The best part of this book is the first...re. the tragic death of
his daughter at the hands of a monster...and the subsequent failure of the law... another monster, in this book...to offer up true justice for the crime.

All that said, Dunne seems pretentious to me, as a journalist, as writer. To begin with, most of the stuff in this book, as another reviewer has pointed out, has been dealt with by Mr. Dunne ad nauseum in Vanity Fair already. I, too, was hoping for some fresh insights. Nada.

Second, I can't believe Vanity Fair or any of his other publishers don't notice that, in so many of the cases he writes about, he exhibits absolutely no journalistic objectivity
whatsoever...it's just all his personal blather about brittle people.

He comes across as a celebrity boot-licker (despite his protestations that he is an "outsider). He flatters himself.
In fact, he's a rather mediocre "insider" like most of the people he writes about. And he's not near the writer that Truman Capote, another celebrity hound, was. At least Capote was a poet. Dunne seems to be simply a "tattler" of sorts, and a rather peevish one at that. He's always having a hissy fit about someone snubbing him or insulting him . Give me a break. He's so snotty, pretending to be an
intellectual; I can understand why a lot of people would shun him. He doesn't exactly come across as a pleasant man, though I'm sure he was a good father and kind to a chosen few.

His is a kind of yellow journalism...cat-fighting, name-calling, meow, meow. And here's the funny thing: I happen to agree with most of his views on the topcs he writes about, so I'm not some "secret Kennedy" sneaking in a bad review. Don't get up on your high horse over that, Mr. Dunne. No, I am simply an amused reader who can't believe Vanity Fair would allow such...to take a prominent position in their pages.

And, then, too, also I must admit that I turn to his column first thing every month because I want to see what socialite(s) he is pretending to turn into chopped liver...when what he is really doing is giving them inordinate publicity for their shallow shtick...and his...

For a book titled Justice; Crimes, Trials, and Punishments, it has very little to do with law and order. I find Dunne's overabundance of name dropping quite distracting as well as trivial to the cases he presents. It seems more the work of a tabloid writer than anything else. I constantly found myself flipping back and forth trying to figure out what role each character had played in each crime, and or trial. This was especially the case in the chapter entitled "The Social Web of Claus von Bulow." I was quite surprised that Dunne never even made mention of the crime that von Bulow is suspected of committing. I understand that most people likely know the circumstances surrounding the case, but a short overview would have been nice.(I was a toddler when the trial took place, my knowledge of the crime is from outside sources) I do like the way Dunne compiled several cases into one book. They are all quite intriguing. I have all the respect for Dunne's quest for justice. His personal story is gripping. I am anxious to see if his previous book, Fatal Charms, contains more about crime and punishment, and less about the people he knows.

Dominick Dunne's 'Justice' is a look at several criminal trials and their outcomes. As the father of a murdered daughter Dunne's main concern seems to be whether or not justice is served. Unfortunately at times it seems that for one reason or another (mostly wealth or fame) that justice is not served. This is where 'Justice' is at its best, seething with indignation that such things could have an effect over a judge/jury. This is particularly true in the titular installment dealing with the trial of the man who murdered Dunne's daughter, where he is the most personally involved. But 'Justice' is an uneven book. There is far too much of the O.J. Simpson case, which occupies the entire middle of the book (Dunne himself professes that many people seem sick of that trial, then continues to harp on it for another hundred pages or so). In the last half of the book Dunne's incessant name-dropping began to seriously bother me. It seems as though every time he steps out he just happens to run into some well known society figure or celebrity, and there is constant mention of all his famous friends. The final installment, about the Martha Moxley murder trial that just ended now (after the book's publication), is so self-serving that I was tempted to put the book down. The epilogue about 9-11 didn't help either, as Dunne uses the day as an opportunity to point out how his otherwise normal week was turned upside down by relating his schedule of fabulous events that he had gone to on september 10th, unaware of the looming tragedy. After a good start 'Justice' loses something. Many chapters are not as compelling as Dunne seems to think they are, particularly the ones pertaining to O.J. All in all it is not a bad read and I would recommend it to those who are interested in law or perhaps in ethics for the better moments.

I gave this four stars due to the entertaining readability of the book. However, I take many exception to his views on the O.J. Simpson case. He believes that the criminal verdict was a race-based decision. As one who watched the trial from beginning to end, someone not of the same race as the defendant or the majority of the jury, I was offended as I came to the same conclusions as the jury (although I agree the deliberations should probably have gone on longer.) Also, for someone who was very offended by anonymous letters to Judge Ito, it seems to border on hypocrisy when every other page seems to have a reference to someone whom he quotes, yet says he can't or won't name. Other than that, I found this book to be very interesting. As a true crime fan, I can highly recommend the book as a good read.