 
|
|
Paperback
Publisher: Touchstone
Using the O. J. Simpson case as a backdrop, the famed defense attorney examines the American criminal justice system, critically analyzing its strengths and weaknesses. Reprint.
| Customer Reviews: |
|
| |
| The Single Most Important Book On The Case |
| Customer Rating: 5 out of 5 |
 |
|
Who can forget the controversies surrounding the OJ Simpson murder trial. Alan Dershowitz, America's renowned civil liberties lawyer and Harvard Law School Professor, was a member of OJ Simpson's legal counsel. This is the single most important book about the intricacies of the case and the complexities and vexing issues confronting the criminal justice system as a whole. The tactics of prosecution and defense are eye-opening and as usual, Dershowtiz is not only a great teacher, his eloquent and compelling writing and readable style will hold you right to the end leaving you to reflect on the argument that regardless of Simpson's factual guilt or innocence, the jury's verdict of not guilty was the correct one within the framework of the existing, perhaps flawed, criminal justice system.
|
| A Fascinating Book |
| Customer Rating: 5 out of 5 |
|
|
Harvard Professor (and Simpson defense attorney) Alan Dershowitz writes a compelling book about the O.J. Simpson trial. He insightfully challenges many popular conclusions about the trial. For example, if the jurors were blinded by race in the vote for acquittal, then why did one of the white jurors--who admitted being offended by Cochran's closing argument which used rhetoric about race--vote for acquittal. He also declares that the press portrayed events differently than what happened in the courtroom. For example, why did so many of the people inside the courtroom conclude that the gloves did not fit O.J. while major newspapers concluded that they did fit, albeit snugly.
Dershowitz also does not shy away from people's perceptions of criminal defense attorneys. He explains, "A criminal trial is anything but a pure search for the truth . . . [many times a defense attorney] responsibility is to try, by all fair and ethical means, to prevent the truth about their client's guilt from emerging." This book provides wonderful insights about the Simpson trial and the issues it raised such as the role of race in trials, whether police officers ever lie, and the obligations of a defense attorney. You may find yourself disagreeing with the author but will have a hard time articulating your reasons as well has he does.
|
| Weightless |
| Customer Rating: 1 out of 5 |
 |
|
This book is an intriguing read if you are a featherbrain. But it is just an appalling read for anyone else.
Dershowitz walks the gullible, dunces (I mean wide-eyed, intrigued readers) through a maze of "let's pretend we don't see the blood dripping from OJ's hand." After all, how do we know Fuhrman didn't sneak into Simpsons bedroom and plant the cut on Simpson's hand while he was sleeping.
Let's pretend "the bloody-size 13-Bruno Magli shoe print" is from a different big-footed, upscale, fashion-conscious murderer.
Lets pretend OJ was hitting golf balls (with his bloody hand), when the murders occurred, and that's why he was dripping blood droplets all over the place.
Or no, let's pretend Simpson was really sleeping (with his bloody hand) as he had told the limo driver, even though the limo driver testified he saw OJ simpson run across his lawn and enter his house wearinng a dark sweat suit just moments before he knocked on Simpson's door.
Let's pretend the victims blood (that was found in Simpson's truck) was really the result of contamination. You know, mix a little sand with Simpson's blood and, voila! you get the victim's blood to match. Yeah, that makes sense.
Yes, Dershowitz offers the reader a intriguing look at the possibilities. He uncovers aspects of the case that will leave the featherbrain reader pondering the evidence for years to come.
|
| Trials are not Games |
| Customer Rating: 3 out of 5 |
 |
|
I'm reading reviews in an attempt to choose a book to purchase. It is amazing to see how many readers have commented that they feel OJ is guilty, but the jury made the correct decision to acquit.
Huh? Did I just miss something?
People, a trial serves one purpose: to determine if the defendant is guilty or innocent of the crime. If you feel he was guilty, then how can you accept anything but a guilty verdict?
It seems to me that you have fallen under the spell of a great defense lawyer. They are not concerned with finding the truth, they are only concerned with getting their client off. They treat the court procedings like a game: "Oh, someone did not follow this rule, therefore we win and our client it not guilty".
Although this is how it works all too often, it is not the way it was meant to be. The rules and procedures were designed to make sure the process is correctly executed. Instead, those reviewers are equating a rule infraction with innocence.
The laws governing the legal process are there to prevent an innocent man from being found guilty. "Illegal search & seizure" is illegal because we do not want police planting evidence. Whether the police do or do not follow law and/or procedure does not prove a man's innocence or guilt. It merely makes the trial process more or less difficult to correctly execure. If the judge determines that evidence was planted then he is to throw out the evidence. If there is so much tampering that he feels the defendent cannot get a fair trial then he throws out the case or declares a mistrial. If the judge takes either of those actions that does not mean the defendent is guilty or not guilty, is merely means the procedures or proceedings were flawed.
In this particular case the defense discovered a few instances where the police did a less than perfect job of collecting evidence. Ok. Fine. Throw it out. That still leaves dozens and dozens of other instances where the defense can't explain the hard, clear evidence of guilt.
OJ is guilty, and he should have been found guilty. The jurors should not have been acquitted just because someone forgot to dot an "i" or cross a "t".
|
| Stop the nonsense! |
| Customer Rating: 2 out of 5 |
 |
|
Hwere we have a guilty concience trying to make himself feel better by justifying in helping a murder go free. The arguemnnts are weak and stupid and do nothing to refute the overwhelming blood evidence. What is more is that after the criminal trial so much additional evidence has been exposed that only proves even more how guilty this man is.
A few reviewers seem rather confused.
One reviewer suggested that mark fuhrman discovered both gloves. Not true! The glove at the bundy crime scene was in full view of numerous police officals before fhurman even showed up. Those gloves were a rare isotoner product of which only 240 extra lg were sold at one store in the united states. Bloomingdales in ny and credit card receipts prove that OJ owned 2 pair. I wonder how many other los angelas residents owned any of those 240 pairs of gloves sold 4 years ago in new york? Not many? Where would mark fhurman even get a pair of he wanted them and how in the hell did he know OJ's glove size?
Another reviewer suggested the crime was commited at 11:15 which is interesting because simpson's own defense team suggested the murders took place around 10:40. The discrepancy of time comes from when witnesses heard nicole's dark frantically barking. Witnesses saw nicoles dog barking nonstop with blood on her chest area at around 10:30-10:40. Where did the blood come from if ther murders have not been commited yet?
That same lame brained reviewer also said that OJ had nary a scratch on him. Really? What about the severe cut on his left middle finger that bled all over his property? In simpson's interview with police the next day he actually volunteers that he cut himself getting something out of his car. Cut himself at around the exact time the murders were commited? What a one in a million coincidence.
What about all of OJs blood at the crime scene? What about ron and nicole's blood in OJ's bronco? What about blood from all three on the rockingham property? Who was that running behind OJ's house bumping into the airconditioner at around 10:45 if it wasn't OJ frantically returning from the murders? Who was that 6 foot 200 lb black man the limo driver identified as walking into OJ's house at around 10:50?
Only idiots and the ignorant blind can honestly claim that OJ is innocent. If dershowitz needs to clean his concience he should talk to a rabbi.
.......socks
|
|
