social sciences

Having just read Mr. Bugliosi's wonderful book, "And The Sea Will Tell", I was eager to get his take on the O.J. Simpson trial. He scathingly proved what was, even from my layman's perspective, clear to me from watching the opening arguments on TV -- that this inept prosecution team could not have convicted O.J. with this jury and Johnnie Cochran even if O.J. stood up and confessed. However, no matter how much he might have tried to spread the blame around to the so-called "Dream Team" and the jury, Bugliosi rightly laid the bulk of this travesty of justice at the feet of Clark and Darden. In addition to their own mountain of mistakes and plain poor preparation and presentation, it is they, along with the media-absorbed and quite mediocre Lance Ito, who allowed the defense the type of freedom they had in proffering their ridiculous "frame-up" nonsense to the jury.

I was disappointed that much of what he wrote that fell outside of the specifics of the O.J. trial was lifted straight out of "And The Sea Will Tell". In only one small passage did he acknowledge this fact. I guess it's O.K. to plagiarize your own works, but it shouldn't be offered up as "new" material. It gave a large part of the book a "recycled" feel, which was disappointing.

What really took me aback was Bugliosi's eight-page diatribe against God, after spending the first 340 pages proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the prosecution was completely and unbelievably incompetent and, of course, O.J. did it. This non sequitur into theology was totally out of place. I wish that I could cross-examine Mr. Bugliosi on this one -- I think I could beat him at his own game! He should at least try reading St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the Book of Job before asking where God was in all of this.

Vince, you're the best -- but stick with the law and leave the theology to the Church.

Having read all of the reviews of this book, I am not convinced that even had Vince Bugliosi prosecuted Simpson, he could have secured a guilty verdict.
I seems that despite having read Bugliosi's irrefutable - not just persuasive, but irrefutable - arguments, a small minority of readers still believe Simpson to be innocent of the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. No, I don't mean "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (thanks to the bumbling and incompetent - Bugliosi's word - prosecution team), but actually innocent! Why do they think this? I really have no idea. Why do people believe in alien abductions, paranormal phenomena, or the tooth fairy? People have actually written books arguing Simpson's innocence, but then again, people have written books claiming that alien abductions and ghosts are real.
Was it a case of a predominantly black jury seeking revenge on "White America" for hundreds of years of injustice? As if freeing Simpson - a white man in black skin - of the murder of two innocent people could ever do that! Was it simply that the prosecution was so unbelievably bad that it made it seem that Simpson must truly be innocent? (Having read Darden's words to the jury - which virtually said "there is real doubt about this man's guilt, so free him" - I can't understand why he was not disbarred.) Was it because Fuhrman had made racist remarks 10 years ago, remarks that had nothing to do with the case, and which he was too embarrassed to admit to? It seems that a reformed racist (who had none-the-less gone out of his way at one time to prove the innocence of a black suspect, and got on well with black officers) could never be believed but a wife-beater could. Was it because one juror couldn't distinguish DNA from the racing guide, or Madam Foreman didn't think that the suspect's blood at the murder scene was significant to the case? Could an entire police force hatch an elaborate conspiracy literally at the drop of a hat? Anyway, read the book if you want to know more.
There are some valid criticisms of this book - it is somewhat repetitive and it does seem that Bugliosi is indulging his ego at times. However, in his defence, I would say that he is writing as if he were spoon-feeding a jury - ie. say it over and over again, say it in different ways, leave no room for doubt. Also, he can't avoid telling the reader how he would have argued certain points - that isn't "Monday morning quarterbacking", it's just showing how simple and obvious it really was. Don't forget that had he been the prosecutor he would have actually had a lot more time (and access to evidence, and witnesses and co-prosecutors and assistance of many other forms) to prepare his case than he did in the writing of the book.
Read it. If you don't believe in the tooth fairy then you will be as outraged as Mr Bugliosi!

In the first week of October 1995, only one person on the planet was angrier than I was - and that person was none other than Vincent Bugliosi - star prosecutor of the Manson gang. Thus, I was drawn to his account of the debacle known as the O.J. trial as if it contained the secrets of Tutankhamen. There are many attributes to this seething indictment of our legal system, the brain-dead jury who rendered the laughable verdict, and the bunglings of the prosecutors (and the eunuch-like judge) involved in this case. However......

Bugliosi gives an "F" grade to Marcia Clark, Chris Darden, et. al. A failing grade? Really now, Mr. Bugliosi. The same evidence that convinced you, me and millions of other non-retarded individuals was presented by the very prosecutors you excoriate in this book. Yes, they were clumsy. Yes, they made critical errors. But let's face some salient facts here. Forrest Gump could have presented the overwhelming (and irrefutable) evidence in this case - merely by calling in the DNA experts, who proved beyond ANY doubt that Simpson's blood was dropped at the crime scene. Virginia Woolf, in the midst of a lithium overdose, could have been convinced of the disgraced NFL star's guilt.

Mr. Bugliosi states, with the supreme confidence of someone supremely confident, that "he could have convinced the O.J. juty to convict O.J." Come again? Let's be reasonable here. The genius prosecutor of Manson and his trogledyte terrorists did not have a jury inflamed by Rodney King, nor were Manson and his co-defendants sports icons. The Manson jurors were reasonable, compassionate people who listened to the evidence, maintained a healthy respect for justice, and saw through the sophomoric antics of the defense team. (Anyone remember Irving Kanarek? If you don't, count your lucky stars.)

"Outrage" marked the first and only time I've ever been somewhat annoyed with Vince Bugliosi. He can't expect every prosecutor, especially someone with a mountain-sized chip on their shoulder (C. Darden) to perform to his standards. Lightning doesn't strike twice - and neither will Bugliosi's genius of the early seventies.

Bugliosi is absolutely correct in disdaining the woeful verdict that exonerated O.J. for his despicable behavior. His meticulous examination of the mistakes that pervaded the trial is beyond reproach. However, I believe he fails to recognize another irrefutable fact: His own staggering brilliance would not have swayed O.J.'s jury; rather, it would have worked against him. It's fairly obvious that this jury would not have convicted the wife-battering O.J. - not even if they had witnessed the crime first-hand. (Two words: "Brenda" and "Moran" come to mind. As Dominick Dunne so succinctly said, "Never underestimate the power of stupidity.")

Yes, there was plenty of blame to go around in one of the bleakest events in the history of American justice. Bugliosi is justifiably bitter; I too shall be saddened until the day I leave this earth. Like Bugliosi, I cannot regard the lives of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman as any less sacred than those of Emmett Till or Medgar Evers. I regret that I was not old enough to vote on those juries so many years ago, because I despise the mockery of justice and virulent racism that pervaded those proceedings. Like O.J.'s jury, those panels were populated by ignorant persons possessed of personal animus, limited intelligence and misdirected rage.

"We've got to protect our own," Carrie Bess allegedly belched to one her fellow jurors. Let's put the blame where it belongs, Mr. Bugliosi: on a defense attorney whose insipid blatherings shouldn't have scared a two-year-old; on a jury who refused to see the truth - and who deliberated for an appallingly short time - and a flaccidly foolish judge who couldn't control his own courtroom. It is Bugliosi's heavy-handed condemnation of the prosecution that detracts from an otherwise excellent presentation. Yet, I shall always admire and respect Mr. Bugliosi for his years of dedication to the cause of justice, and my loyalty is unwavering - now and for always.