About book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder (2008)
How do you take a fascinating case like the O.J. Simpson murder trial and make it boring, offensive, and tiresome? Hire Vincent Bugliosi to write a book about it, of course.I have read quite a few books on the O.J .Simpson case. I strongly believe he is guilty. But I was very curious about this book because I was interested to hear Bugliosi's take on it. The glowing reviews on Amazon convinced me I was about to read a brilliant rhetoric on how and why the state lost the Simpson case. Instead, what I got was a bitter diatribe about how literally everyone (not just those involved with this case) is intellectually inferior to the author. Bugliosi attacks the media, the defense team, the prosecution, the judge, the jury, and even the talking head legal analysts in his furious rant on the case's outcome. He presents himself as morally and intellectually superior to everyone, even going as far as to attack the courage and characted of a soldier in the Bosnian War, who was described in the media as an American hero for surviving a plane crash deep in enemy territory. Was this necessary? No. Did this have anything, anything at all, to do with the book's topic?. No. But in his desperate need to paint himself as so much better than everyone else, he will allow anyone - even a courageous soldier - to fall on his sword. It was unnecessary at best and nasty at worst. But at least it clearly shows the character of the author to any critical reader who is not blinded by his accomplishments.Not only does he arrogantly place himself on a stool - make that a throne - above the rest of society (while tearing down those whom he considers to have over-bloated reputations) he rambles ad nauseum about topics that have nothing to do with the case at hand. He goes on and on and on about random topics like the Reagan presidency and the existence (or lack thereof) of God. One has to wonder, did he bother using an editor before publishing this book? Or did his giant ego lead him to think he didn't need one?I will state that he makes some good points about the overwhelming amount of evidence in this case and how celebrity culture was a major factor in Simpson's acquittal. But that's also kind of obvious to anyone who watched the trial or even just watched the evening news throughout 1996. Much as he loves to accuses the dream team of being glaringly predictable, his own insights into the case are also blindingly obvious. The man might be a great prosecutor - indeed, the man behind the Manson convictions - but he is so overwhelmingly arrogant that it takes away from his achievements. Yes, we get it Mr. Bugliosi, you are smarter than the rest of us lowly humans. Cochran wasn't possibly a genius for knowing which issues would resonate with the jury. The jury was clearly both dumb and racist. Judge Ito was much too infatuated with the limelight. Blah blah blahdy blah blah.If I could have given this book less than one star I would have. If you insist on reading it, please try to find a free copy online or get it from your local library. At least then you can avoid the mistake I made of paying ten bucks for this rubbish. I wish I'd given the money to a homeless bum rather than padded Bugliosi's overly large wallet - AND EGO - with my purchase. Hopefully, you can learn from me and avoid the same.
A thorough and convincing argument both of Simpson's guilt and that the case was lost primarily due to failures by the prosecution to present their side properly. Bugliosi cites many examples of instances where introduction of a piece of evidence or a testimony would have substantially undermined or even completely eliminated crucial points the defense were presenting. He also correctly points out that the points that the defense used to sway the jury were largely left unaddressed by the prosecution, even though they could have been easily refuted if they'd been vigorously countered. This would normally have been a four-star review, but I deducted one primarily due to a lengthy digression late in the book where the author wanders off into a discussion of his own (agnostic) views on the existence of God. It really makes no difference to me what he chooses to believe or not to believe, but the whole passage seemed to have some sort of axe to grind and, more significantly, bore no relation to the point of the book. It was rather out of place and felt like an attempt to boost the word count. To be fair, it would be easy enough to skip, and certainly doesn't undermine the main points if the text. Well worth a read for those interested in true crime or in this case.
Do You like book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder (2008)?
I "sorta" read Bugliosi's most famous work "Helter Skelter" as a kid (meaning I skimmed it a lot). This one came up in an online forum I was reading and I thought it could be an interesting read, as I was one of the millions who followed the trial on TV as it happened. The good parts of the book are pretty much the five reasons that the author lays out. He does a good job of explaining how the lousy jury, the inept prosecution, and the bizarre judge botched this case, which should have been a slam dunk.The reason the book is just "OK" and I only gave it two stars is that it was written pretty soon after the verdict came down and Bugliosi is just SPUTTERING mad in all of it. Nothing wrong with that, except I think that it made his writing suffer. He launches personal, snarky, sometimes downright petty jabs at the players in this show so often that it starts to make HIM look bad. An overarching theme of the book is that most people are really stupid and I'm very clever and this is how I would have done it. With a few years "cooling off" time, maybe he could have told the story in a more measured, less childish tone.
—Leslie Irish
For those people who believe O.J. was guilty, a category that I fall in, this book reinforces any feelings you may have had about the injustice of this case. For those of you who do not feel that O.J. was guilty, this book makes it impossible for you to continue to feel that way after having read it. Bugliosi does a magnificent job of laying out all the overwhelming evidence and criticizing (sometimes to the point of insulting) the prosecutors' lack of competence. My biggest criticism is that he does a poor job of addressing the issues from a procedural perspective. Specifically, Bugliosi present several examples of evidence he would have introduced and arguments he would have made had he been the prosecutor. However, he never explains how he would address any objections or procedural issues that may arise from his arguments. I understand that the audience here are not necessarily lawyers, but if you are going to criticize the prosecution, then you should explain fully how your methods would have worked in practice (beyond just the common sense or layperson argument). If you listen to Bugliosi's arguments, they make inarguable sense. I am just not certain that he would have been able to make all of them given possible restrictions of things like rules of evidence. I may be wrong, but that is exactly my point. We do not know if I am wrong because he does not explain his arguments in this level of details. It is probably beyond the scope of the book, but it is the thing i found most lacking. Overall, it is a good and entertaining book. I recommend it to anyone interested in the case.
—Nelson Candelario jr.
If you liked "Helter Skelter," don't assume you'll like "Outrage." Rather than police investigation story, Outrage is a very long-winded criticism of the L.A. County's handling of the O.J. Simpson trial. Bugliosi's criticism isn't just reserved for the police department, however, he's got lots to say about the Prosecutors office, the Defense and the jury.Bugliosi does mention in his forward that he's going to be criticizing, so I won't say he didn't deliver what he promised. And deliver it in plenty.
—David Felder
