Share for friends:

Murder In Brentwood (1997)

Murder In Brentwood (1997)

Book Info

3.81 of 5 Votes: 4
Your rating
0821758551 (ISBN13: 9780821758557)

About book Murder In Brentwood (1997)

Didn't like this as much as his Murder in Greenwich, but didn't expect to, either. The writing in Greenwich is a bit more polished, but mostly I figured I would prefer Greenwich because I expected Brentwood to be a bit more about how Fuhrman was railroaded, which it is, however he keeps the whining to a minimum and I thought his apology sincere and worthy of note. Fuhrman does not do the usual, "I'm sorry my words hurt people" routine -- he says flat out that he did something wrong and cruel, and that he should have known better.That said, one of my greatest frustrations watching the O.J. trial was that the prosecution never made any effort to deal with "the Fuhrman problem." My mom and I were practically shouting at the screen at one point, "CALL HIS PARTNER TO THE STAND, for crying out loud." The only significant discovery Fuhrman made on his own was the glove behind Kato Kaelin's unit; once Fuhrman was compromised, any sensible prosecution team would have brought in the many UNcompromised witnesses who could back Fuhrman up. Fuhrman has some speculation on why the O.J. prosecution did not do this, but since those speculations boil down to "politics trumping truth," they don't make me feel any better. But, really, there is no excuse for that sort of incompetence, so I don't really expect ever to find a reasonable explanation. Fuhrman believes the jury let O.J. off for racist reasons. Personally, I think the jury just didn't understand forensic evidence and so didn't weigh it heavily enough. The fact that the defense kept insisting the forensic evidence had been compromised feeds into that, of course. A lot of the arguments the defense made simply aren't possible -- but if someone doesn't understand how DNA works or how forensic work is done, they are not going to realize that. Fuhrman also thinks that the forensic evidence was so strong, the prosecution got cocky. And he is correct that the forensic evidence was overwhelming and clear. But if the jury doesn't understand that evidence, they're going to discount it, and I think that's exactly what happened. I'm not saying O.J.'s personal charm or race loyalty or any of that didn't play into it, but I do believe that the fact that most of these jurors honestly didn't understand the forensic evidence was the primary factor in their verdict, and it would have been nice to see Fuhrman consider that.For that matter, he doesn't always make clear in this book why the idea of him forging some of the evidence makes no sense. He does point out a couple of specific flaws in the defense's argument, but if he was going to touch on it at all, it would have been nice to see the false accusations countered point by point. I think Fuhrman considered most of them so obviously false they weren't worthy of being countered, but IMHO a lot of people reading his book likely aren't any more knowledgeable about forensic evidence than the jury was.Although considering how many crazed theories the defense threw out, countering them point by point even in chart form would have made the book a fair bit longer, so I don't blame Fuhrman too much. I haven't read many books on this case, but I did think that, if anyone was going to touch on that, it'd be Fuhrman, so I was disappointed not so see that. But I didn't faithfully watch the trial beginning to end by any means, so the parts I wanted cleared up were likely not pivotal points for anyone else.Fuhrman does do an excellent job at laying out the plethora of forensic evidence, and I would say this is the best O.J. trial book I have read -- but that's admittedly a pretty short list.

I purchased this book right after it came out. I was obsessed with the case but by the time I started to read it, I was burnt out on just the name O.J. I put it aside and forgot about it. A few months ago I finally read it and was upset with myself after finishing it for not reading it immediately. It explained several questions I had the whole time about how this all came down to Mark Fuhrman and not O.J. It was a sin what they did to him, his career and his family. NOW all these years later I see that Karma has been a friend to him and not so much a friend to those who threw him under the bus to improve their careers. I believe him 100 percent. IF you have worked, work or know how it is in the law field you know there are those that are very capable of doing anything to win, cover up their short comings and destroy others to progress in their careers. This is exactly what happened to Mark Fuhrman. He may have been robbed of the truth with the Simpson case but has proven himself as the great detective and crime solver he is time and time again. He has gained back all the respect from his peers that he was owed and Marsha Clark and Chris Darden now no longer have from their peers in the legal field. I believe if not for this turn of events in his life the Martha Moxley murder would never have been solved and Michael Skakel would have gotten away with it. He has solved several cold cases since and those families are blessed by this turn of events because they now have closure because of Mark Fuhrman.

Do You like book Murder In Brentwood (1997)?

The book was well-written. It gave more information on the OJ Simpson case than I'd ever seen before. Throughout the book there was information that supported OJ's guilt and no typos at all. I appreciated the Appendix where it transcribed every word of OJ's first police interview, listed each search warrant. I enjoyed the detailed courtroom drama and looking at things through Mark Fuhrman's eyes. Fuhrman understands the legal system and gave great insight into what should have been done by prosecutors. He even stated the wrongs he committed. There were both real pictures and drawings that kept the reader transfixed to the book and made me personally want to research the entire ordeal. It was sad that Mark Fuhrman was so harshly set up to be the scapegoat for the murders. I think everyone knows by now that OJ got away with murder. Fuhrman was vilified, but he was vilified because of his thoughts that he willingly and openly shared with someone else. He allowed himself to be taped saying some really tragic things, and though I no longer believe that he planted evidence, his being vilified is somewhat his own doing. He's not as innocent as the book makes him appear to be. We all have to answer for our wrongs and this book was unputdownable primarily because Fuhrman acknowledged his personal wrongs while guiding us to a clearer view of what really happened.

This is a truthful (I believe) account of the O.J. Simpson double murder trial from a detective's viewpoint. After reading Marcia Clark's book, Chris Darden's book, another one from the jury foreman, this one gets to the nitty gritty from the get go! Ironically, Mark Fuhrman seems to be the only crime scene person who had his act together from the start.I have a hard time believing the whole LAPD was so inept and so screwed up to make as many mistakes as they did. They failed to collect the evidence in a timely manner, they didn't follow procedure, they seemed very disorganized, and completely botched the interrogation of the only suspect. They had more than enough evidence to convict Simpson several times over.Mark Fuhrman was called out to respond to a double homicide in Brentwood. He showed up with his partner, and they began the initial investigation. For some unknown reason that Fuhrman never explained, he was taken off the case and it was handed over to Detective Phil Vanatter and Tom Lange. It seems like you'd keep the guy on who was first called out, to maintain continuity in the investigation. Also, for all the mistakes Vanater and Lange made, Mark Fuhrman never talked to them apart from the initial meet and greet.In spite of his obvious arrogance (comes with being a cop, I think!) Mark Fuhrman was a very professional investigator who received the shaft from the court of public opinion. I thought he was unduly harsh about the prosecution. From reading the other books, they were limited on what they could present as evidence, and had limited resources as well. Several times Fuhrman referred to the presecution's "lead detectives" as if Vanatter and Lange worked for Marcia Clark rather than the LAPD. He seemed to think most of the mistakes were theirs.Fuhrman is rather a whiner, especially in explaining about his relationship with Judge Ito's wife, who was a captain on the police force. Fuhrman had had several run-ins with Margaret York. The other area of defensiveness was the tapes. Yes, they were taken out of context and were completely misconstrued, and he seemed more sorry the tapes were released than he was that he had made them in the first place. In spite of those two areas, I think Mark Fuhrman had a stronger grip on the trial than anyone else. I would really like to know how it came about that he alone became the fall guy. It seemed too convenient that he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The whole trial was about race rather than murder (thanks to Johnnie Cochrane)so how did "they" put an alleged racist cop on location and on the witness stand? Too many questions are still unanswered. But, I feel for the guy, because I do think he received a guilty verdict in a trial that wasn't about him. He is paying the penalty for life, while the murderer received an acquittal. This book is definitely a worthwhile one to read, if you are interested in what has been called the trial of the century.

This was my second reading of this book. I listened to an audible version at times. And I enjoyed it even more this time around. For a detailed review of Murder in Brentwood, see my first review. Warning! The following thoughts are just my political views - why I re-read Brentwood - not so much a book review. :)I started Murder in Brentwood again because, as an African American, I wanted to weigh this book amidst the racial divide that is currently besmirching our nation. When OJ was freed I actually believed - please don't laugh :) - that he was innocent. Hey, it was 1995 - I was 20 years old! I was naive and went along with the crowd. Afterwards, I never gave that man or the crimes I later believed he'd DEFINITELY committed a second thought. I remember almost approving of the crime - as sick as that sounds - thinking, "if he is guilty, then that is one up for the blacks who had to watch Rodney King's probable murderers beat the man to within an inch of his life, or the many other blacks and Latinos who've suffered the same fate or worse." Sadly, that is how I felt. I'm proud to say that my thought processes have matured. The same racial ignorance and hatred that put people (not just minorities) at the end of police sticks and bullets throughout the years was the same ignorance and hatred I held and let brew bitterly in my spirit. Now I try and use empathy in every endeavor. I think that we can all agree that there have been horrific policemen of every race. But there have always been great policemen of every race as well. Thousands upon thousands of policemen and women have devoted and even given their lives to keep you and me safe. Some have lost marriages, health, and even their minds to the integrity that it takes to police our neighborhoods. I find it strange that when we're in danger, no matter our race or how we feel about the police, most of us call 911 BEFORE we call GOD. Yet, when AN officer does something that looks racist or insensitive we condemn the whole lot. Condemning an entire occupation; that is some sort of 'ism, I'm sure. We just don't have a word for it yet. So, what's my point? Racism is racism even when it comes from those on the "slighted" end. When INDIVIDUALS do wrong, judge them INDIVIDUALLY. That's all I want to get across. I stand behind this view because of my heritage and because I wish to be treated this way - don't judge me by what others who look like me have done, whether it's a good judgment or a bad one. Judge me for what I do and who I am. And if you don't know me, please, don't judge me until you do. That's why I do not stand with those of us who preach hatred of other cultures, including the police culture. My prayer is that my kinsmen of every race, nationality, and culture do the same.

download or read online

Read Online

Write Review

(Review will shown on site after approval)

Other books in category Fiction