Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder,Books,Free Shipping,0393330834,

	Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi
	List Price $14.95 Our Price $10.17 You Save $4.78 (32%) Prices subject to change. Eligible for FREE Shipping See details Availability Usually ships in 24 hours
	Marketplace New from $8.34 Used from $3.05 Collectible from $39.99
Product Details Binding Paperback Dewey Decimal Number 364.1523 EAN 9780393330830 ISBN 0393330834 Manufacturer W. W. Norton Number Of Items 1 Number Of Pages 384 Publication Date February 25, 2008 Publisher W. W. Norton Availability Usually ships in 24 hours Product Description 'Provocative and entertaining.... A powerful and damning diatribe on Simpson's acquittal.'—People Here is the account of the O. J. Simpson case that no one dared to write, that no one else could write. In this #1 New York Times bestseller, Vincent Bugliosi, the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson and best-selling author of Helter Skelter, goes to the heart of the trial that divided the country and made a mockery of justice. He lays out the mountains of evidence; rebuts the defense; offers a thrilling summation; condemns the monumental blunders of the judge, the 'Dream Team,' and the media; and exposes, for the first time anywhere, the shocking incompetence of the prosecution. 16 pages of illustrations. The brutally candid, irreverent and authoritative book for which trial watchers have been hungry for too long . . . they won't stop reading until the end. His well-informed analysis is in welcome contrast to much of the insipid or pointless commentary about the Simpson trial. -- The New York Times Book Review, Mark Lindquist 'Provocative and entertaining.... A powerful and damning diatribe on Simpson's acquittal.'—People Here is the account of the O. J. Simpson case that no one dared to write, that no one else could write. In this #1 New York Times bestseller, Vincent Bugliosi, the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson and best-selling author of Helter Skelter, goes to the heart of the trial that divided the country and made a mockery of justice. He lays out the mountains of evidence; rebuts the defense; offers a thrilling summation; condemns the monumental blunders of the judge, the 'Dream Team,' and the media; and exposes, for the first time anywhere, the shocking incompetence of the prosecution. 16 pages of illustrations. 'Brilliant...the best book yet on the Simpson trial.' --Newsday (N.Y.) 'The brutally candid, irreverent and authoritative book for which trial watchers have been hungry for too long.' -- San Francisco Examiner The #1 New York Times bestseller by the author of Helter Skelter and prosecutor of Charles Manson. Here at last is the account of the O.J. Simpson case that no one else has dared to write, that no one else could write. In Outrage, the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson and bestselling author of Helter Skelter goes to the heart of the trial that divided the country and made a mockery of justice. Vincent Bugliosi, who never lost a murder case, brilliantly outlines the five reasons why O.J. Simpson got away with murder: the worst possible jury, a sloppy and incomplete prosecution, a fatal change of venue, judicial error that allowed the defense to play the race card, and a weak summation and rebuttal that barely addressed the defense's frame-up and conspiracy theories. He reveals: --The offer Marcia Clark and Bill Hodgman should never have refused. --The bluff that saved the defense's cardboard case. --What Deputy Sheriff Jeff Stuart overheard when Rosey Grier visited Simpson in jail. --The 17 words Johnnie Cochran used to cover his argument that could have been his undoing if caught. --Why the jurors never heard Simpson's first police interview-- filled with self-incriminating statements that alone could have convicted him of murder. 1. What mistake in jury selection could have cost Marcia Clark the trial--even before she argued the case? 2. What did Simpson do to make sure the gloves wouldn't fit? 3. How did Judge Ito's behavior towards Marcia Clark prejudice the jury? 4. Why did the prosecutors suppress Simpson's 'smoking gun'? 5. How did Johnnie Cochran con the jury? 6. Who might really have suggested that Simpson try on the evidence gloves? In addition to Outrage and Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi is the author of the best-selling books And the Sea Will Tell and Till Death Us Do Part. His most recent book is Reclaiming History, on the Kennedy assassination. He lives in Los Angeles, California. From the moment O.J. Simpson became a suspect in this double murder case, it was 'in the air,' perhaps as in no other case within memory, that he might get off despite the conclusive evidence of his guilt. In fact, even before the murders, it was in the air, Nicole presciently telling her close female friends that 'O.J. is going to kill me someday and he's going to get by with it.' It was in the air from the day (June 17, 1994) when mental midgets stood atop the freeway overpasses holding 'Go O.J., Go' signs during the slow-speed chase prior to his arrest. Everywhere one looked, it was in the air. People predicting confidently, 'This jury will never convict Simpson--they wouldn't convict him even if they were shown a film of him committing the murders.' People carrying signs outside the courtroom during the trial declaring 'Free O.J.,' 'Save the Juice,' and even 'Whether you did it or not, we still love you, O.J.' The incessant jokes and tasteless comedy routines on TV and radio about the case, which could only serve to subliminally trivialize the murders of the victims. U.S. Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson beginning the Senate's day on June 23, 1994, with a 'prayer for O.J. Simpson.' The first juror called for questioning in the case happening to be juror number 32, the number Simpson wore throughout most of his football career, prompting Judge Ito to say, 'I don't know if this is an omen,' and Simpson to smile and nod his head in agreement. Marcia Clark, during jury selection, making one of the most ill-advised statements ever made to a jury by a prosecutor: 'You may not like me for bringing this case. I'm not winning any popularity contests for doing so.' Chris Darden's almost equally incredible and ill-advised statement to the jury in his summation at the end of the case: 'Nobody wants to do anything to this man. We don't. There is nothing personal about this, but the law is the law.' (Can you imagine being almost apologetic to a jury when you believe the person you're prosecuting committed a brutal double murder?) To this day, virtually everyone refers to Simpson only as 'O.J.,' a friendly nickname that implies the speaker still likes Simpson or at most views him as one would an errant friend or relative, certainly not a brutal murderer. 'How's O.J. doing?' Larry King would solicitously ask any guest of his who was a Simpson intimate and who had visited Simpson recently at the jail. These and many other small signs of respect, or awe, or affection, indicated that Simpson, even if guilty, might be given some break tantamount to a papal dispensation. In the absence of a powerful prosecution, it became almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that he would be found not guilty. This feeling, this sense, which permeated every segment of our society, was obviously known to the jurors before they were selected, even manifesting itself during the trial. Because when something is in the air, it reaches everyone, by osmosis, by accident, or, if by no other means, by the weekly conjugal visits to the sequestered jurors. Surely, no one can doubt that the jurors were speaking to those loved ones who visited them in the privacy of their quarters. Everyone knew this. You don't have to take my word for it. What conceivable reason would Marcia Clark have had to beg Judge Ito not to let Simpson make a statement near the end of the case, when Simpson wanted to do so outside the presence of the jury, if she didn't virtually know that what Simpson said would get back to the juLÿry? This 'in the air' phenomenon couldn't help but contribute, in some way, to the eventual not-guilty verdict. It made it so much easier, either consciously or subconsciously, for the jury to give Simpson every benefit he was legally entitled to, and then some. In such an atmosphere a not-guilty verdict would no longer seem to the jury like the very worst thing that any jury could do--let a brutal murderer walk out the door a free man. They were just doing what everyone had already predicted they were going to do, and apparently if the jury was to believe the prosecutors themselves, what most people wanted them to do. Wasn't that really what prosecutor Darden himself was suggesting to the jury when he said, 'Nobody wants to do anything to this man'? And what Clark was suggesting when she said she 'wasn't winning any popularity contests'? I've been asked to explain more than once why, right from the beginning, I was saying publicly that there was no question Simpson was guilty. I take no pride in having been the first public personality to come out publicly against Simpson. It just happened that way. I was asked by the media how I felt about the case way back in the early summer of 1994, and I decided to be candid. Before I tell you why I did, I should point out that some people objected to my having done so. One reason was the presumption of innocence in our society. Also, they felt that as a member of the bar, I should, therefore, not have spoken of Simpson's guilt before the verdict. I spoke out in the Simpson case for two reasons. The main reason should be self-evident to the reader by now. The 'in the air' phenomenon attending the Simpson case was, at least to my recollection, unprecedented for any criminal case. Because this was a highly unusual situation, I departed from my customary policy. There was no doubt in my mind that the 'in the air' phenomenon had the potential of having a prejudicial impact on the prosecution's case, since the jury couldn't help but be aware of it and probably be adversely influenced in the process, and I was trying to counter what was happening. I obviously was unsuccessful. There was another related reason I spoke out early on, months before the trial. I was disgusted by the tremendous groundswell of support for Simpson, even though two human beings had been brutally murdered, and all the evidence pointed to Simpson as the perpetrator. He had received 350,000 letters of support at the time, and although each revelation of his guilt the media learned of was clinically and dispassionately reported in the news, nearly all of the commentators on television nonetheless treated Simpson as if he were a very special human being, and not one of them dared to say one negative word about him. He was being given special treatment at the Los Angeles County Jail; thousands of people were calling in on radio talk shows asserting his innocence; some, unbelievably, stating or strongly implying that even if he was guilty, he's O.J., let him go, he has suffered enough. As I've indicated, even today, everyone still calls him O.J. You know, O.J. this and O.J. that. Well, he's no longer O.J. to me. He's Simpson. Someone who viciously carves up two human beings and leaves them lying dead in a pool of blood forfeits his right to any endearing nicknames, at least in my view. Again, why there was this enormous support for someone who had obviously committed two of the worst murders imaginable I don't know, but I personally found it repulsive and repugnant. Customers who bought this item also bought Murder In Brentwood If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder Till Death Us Do Part: A True Murder Mystery Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders Customer Reviews for: Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder Rating - Informative but too verbose I really loved Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi is a super intelligent and talented former DA. I was slightly dissapointed in this book because it was a little too verbose for my taste. A lot of legal chargin. But its great if your an attorney and you want to learn how to be a good trial lawyer, learn from the master. Still an interesting read. Rating - This book is the ultimate OJ murder trial book Bugliosi leaves no doubt about the OJ murder trial and what went wrong from the beginning to the verdict. A must read for skeptics as he leaves no stone unturned. Rating - Guilty As Sin Vincent Bugliosi does a terrific job explaining how and why O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. From the prosecution's inability to present the evidence to convict Simpson, to the defense's misleading the jury. Some main points that point to Simpson's guilt: 1) His blood and DNA found at the scene of the crime.2)His suicide note.3)Having alot of cash,a disquise and passport on his person after the chase.4)History of violence towards his wife.5)His ... Read More Rating - High Dudgeon Bugliosi is in high dudgeon here, but not without considerable justification. A book urged on him by his Norton editor, the tone is that of a conversation between author and reader, with copious asides and personal reflections. Bugliosi is outraged by the incompetence of the prosecution, the mendacity of the defense, the palpable guilt of the defendant, the many flagrant mistakes of the judge and the flawed and fawning reportage of the media. He ... Read More see more reviews See all books by author Vincent Bugliosi

Books : Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder