Welcome to Litsy!

I am only half way through but this book is so aptly titled as outrage is exactly how I feel reading it. The prosecutors and the judge are so incompetent it‘s hard to grasp.
I was too young as this was happening to follow it but have grown slightly obsessed with it recently and with the other things I have read and watched it did not seem the prosecutors did poorly until Bugliosi pointed out all the insane lapses in judgement on their part.

Whew. I am emotionally drained after reading this and seeing from Bugliosi's perspective how incompetent the prosecution was. Bugliosi gives 5 talking points but immediately concedes the not guilty verdict can be boiled down to one reason: abysmal performance by the prosecution. Meanwhile, Nicole and Ron are still dead 😓 Worth reading if you're interested in a post mortem of the failures of the prosecution.

All scientific evidence, such as blood and fingerprint evidence, is considered to be circumstantial evidence.

My disinclination to defend murderers also resulted in my electing not to represent former San Francisco supervisor Dan White for the 1978 assassination murders of George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk when friends of White's from the San Francisco Police Department-White was a former officer-asked me to.

When Judge Ito's clerk, Deirdre Robertson, read the jury's not-guilty verdict, Nicole's mother whispered, "God, where are you?"

What I'm saying is that unbelievably, for all intents and purposes, Clark and Darden conceded the conspiracy issue by default in their summations. Because of their extreme incompetence and abysmal lack of preparation, they virtually did not contest what had turned out to be the main issue at the trial. They treated the issue that was most responsible for the not guilty verdict in this case as if it didn't exist.

Another very powerful piece of evidence that the prosecution mysteriously did notnintoduce, at least during its case-in-chief, was photos and videos of Simpson from his days as a TV football commentator wearing highly distinctive Aris Isotoner Light leather gloves identical (right down to the extra-thin leather, stitching pattern, V-shaped bent at the wrist, and cashmere lining) to the gloves found at the Bundy murder scene and on Simpson's...

Incompetence is very common but the prosecutors' type of incompetence was so extreme that I doubt it was shared by the defense in this case.

While the goatee and mustache have been widely reported, what hasn't been is Item 147, three receipts found inside the Bronco along with Item 146. The receipts for the purchase of the disguise materials are from Cinema Secrets Beauty Supply...The date they were purchased is what is so incriminating. It was May27, 1994, just over two weeks prior to the murders! And just a few days after Nicole returned [jewelry] for her birthday, May 19, telling ..

The prosecution of O.J. Simpson was the most incompetent prosecution I have ever seen. By far. There have undoubtedly been worse. It's just that I'm not aware of any.

There are two main ways a lawyer can lose his credibility with the jury. One is when the jury forms the opinion that the lawyer is not being honest with them and is trying to win at all costs. The other way, which is rarely talked about, surely not in the reporting of this case, is when the judge demeans the lawyer in court and the lawyer lets him get away with it.

Changing his mind during the trial, by the way, became Ito's signature, his rulings having all the permanence of a breath upon a mirror.

Our jury system is perhaps the most priceless legacy we inherited from our legal ancestors, the British. The Simpson jury defiled that legacy.

Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this.

This book sets forth five reasons why he case was lost. But even these five can be distilled down to two: the jury could hardly have been any worse, and neither could the prosecution.

But there is no mystery in the Simpson case. Anyone who says this case is a mystery and Simpson might actually be innocent is either being disingenuous-a euphemistic way of saying he or she is lying-or is suffering from a severe intellectual hernia, or is just not aware of the evidence. I know of no fourth option.

It still amazes me that OJ was found not guilty but this book really cleared up a lot of my questions. It was also interesting to read about big names that I come across a lot in my job I already checked out Helter Skelter from the library to read next by this author.

Apparently I've decided to just keep going with the giant stack of OJ books at work - this one from the viewpoint of a very successful prosecutor and true crime writer.