What do you think?
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder
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 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.
Paperback
Published January 1, 2008
About the author
Vincent Bugliosi
50 books1,210 followersAmerican attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and his followers for the murder of Sharon Tate and others.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
July 22, 2026
A FAMOUS FORMER PROSECUTOR ‘SECOND GUESSES’ THE PROSECUTION’S CASE
Author (and former Charles Manson prosecutor, as well as JFK assassination expert; 1934-2015) Vincent Bugliosi wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “this book will not be a detailed recitation of all the facts of the case or the testimony and evidence at the trial… How did it come to pass that someone we know---not believe, but know---committed these two savage murders is now out walking around, enjoying life with a smile on his face? That’s what this book is all about… This book sets forth five reasons why the case was lost. But even these five can be distilled down to five: the jury could hardly have been any worse, and neither could the prosecution.” (Pg. 18-19)
He asserts, “there are only three possible explanations other than guilt for one’s blood being found at the murder scene… One is that Simpson left his blood there on an earlier occasion… [But] how can one believe that on some prior occasion Simpson bled, not just on the Bundy premises, but at the precise point on the premises where the murders occurred?… The second possibility is that Simpson cut himself while killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown in self-defense… even the defense attorneys never suggested this… The third and final possibility is that the LAPD detectives planted Simpson’s blood not just at the murder scene but to the left of the bloody shoe prints leaving the scene… if any reader is silly enough to believe that the LAPD detectives decided to frame someone they believed to be innocent… and actually planted his blood all over the murder scene (and, of course, planted the victims’ blood in Simpson’s car and home)… this book is probably not for that reader. This book is for people who… want to know how this terrible miscarriage of justice could have occurred.” (Pg. 21-22)
He argues, “There can be little question… that most members of the Simpson jury were biased against the prosecution and in favor of Simpson… in this case, there certainly was no ‘collective’ wisdom. The sum was no greater than the individual parts. A few examples will suffice. One juror, a 72-year old black woman… said during the jury selection process that she never read newspapers, magazines, or books… This juror, after the verdict, said: ‘I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all… [It] carried absolutely no weight with me.’ Another black female juror felt that… Simpson’s history of physical brutality and violence against Nicole was completely irrelevant, according to this juror.” (Pg. 56-57)
He observes, “I have never heard of another case where the prosecution decided not to introduce such a GREAT amount of very incriminating evidence… they never presented the suicide note Simpson wrote after he was charged with these murders but before he was arrested… After the slow-speed chase of Simpson and his friend Al Cowlings… the police found in the Bronco a gun… Simpson’s passport, and a… fake goatee and a mustache. Additionally, Cowlings … pulled out a wad of currency totaling $8,750. These items, of course, have guilt written all over them… Let’s see if there is any evidence that Simpson has ever worn a disguise at any other time in his life… And if he had bought the disguise for some innocent purpose, why was it necessary for him to bring it with him in Cowlings’ car.” (Pg. 97-98, 100)
When Simpson was interviewed by LAPD detectives Philip Vannatter and Thomas Lange, Bugliosi notes, “From Simpson’s own lips, he admits dripping blood all over his car and home and on his driveway around the time of the murders! And when they asked him how he got the cut on his left middle finger that caused all the bleeding, he answered: ‘I don’t know.’ When they asked him again later… he replied, ‘I have no idea, man.’” (Pg. 105)
When the prosecution allowed Simpson to try on the gloves, Bugliosi laments, “you don’t turn over any evidence in any case to the defendant… and had HIM tell YOU whether there’s a fit or match… You have a third party put the gloves on him, feeling Simpson’s hand and fingers … to ensure he doesn’t do anything to inhibit the fit.” (Pg. 115-116)
He states, “unbelievably, [Marcia] Clark in her opening statement, never uttered one single word to knock down the frame-up, conspiracy allegation. She treated it like a nonissue… her only words on the subject was, ‘If there was evidence of a conspiracy, it would be my obligation to dismiss [the case], pure and simple…’ … And in … her last address to the jury, she treated the issue so superficially that she commented on it for less than one minute, and she waited until the end of her argument to do so… these are the only words she uttered to attempt to rebut the police conspiracy… in her final address to the jury: ‘Do you realize how many people would have had to have gotten involved in a conspiracy within an hour? … Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange never even knew Mark Fuhrman until they met him that night… and yet the allegation by the defense is that they got together that night … for the first time… and everybody is covering up and conspiring all of a sudden. Impossible.” (Pg. 159-160)
He continues, “[Christopher] Darden was even worse. Out of his approximately 170 pages of opening argument and rebuttal, he devoted one-sixth of one page… to rebutting the main argument for the defense… These were his only words on the subject: ‘They want to tell you the police conspired against O.J. Simpson. Nicole says they have been out there eight times before and never did anything to him. I don’t know.’” (Pg. 161)
Bugliosi strongly defends detective Mark Fuhrman, however. “When Darden said, ‘If [Fuhrman’s lie about using the racial slur] helps you in assessing his credibility---and it SHOULD...’ what does that mean?… Darden didn’t then go on and defend Fuhrman’s credibility on … whether he was telling the truth or lying about finding the glove… Fuhrman’s lie, on a private matter that had no relevance to the facts of the case… hardly even merits attention. The prosecution should have met the issue of Fuhrman’s lie head on in summation, explaining that it was not relevant to any issue in the case.” (Pg. 172-173)
He suggests, “The prosecutors, in their opening argument, should have also given [Johnnie] Cochran a list of questions… that he could not answer. For instance, 'Mr. Cochran… I want you to reconcile three contradictory statements. In your opening statement, you told the jury that Mr. Simpson was practicing his golf at the time of the murders. But Mr. Simpson told the limo driver that he was sleeping, and in his statement to the police… all he said what he was very busy packing and getting ready for his trip to Chicago. He said nothing about playing golf or sleeping.’” (Pg. 179)
He would have told the jury, “the detectives told Mr. Simpson that they found blood in his car, in his home, and on the driveway… Mr. Simpson admits, then, that around the very time of the murders---which was about 16 hours BEFORE the police removed blood from his arm and would have had any opportunity to sprinkle or plant it… he was dripping blood in his car and home and on his driveway… Because whatever blood that would have been planted had to be IN ADDITION TO the blood of Mr. Simpson’s that was already in his car and home and on his driveway… We know that because the defendant, from his own lips told us so.” (Pg. 185)
He continues, “if, in fact, the reference blood from Mr. Simpson’s vial, because of mishandling by the technicians and chemists … had somehow gotten on the five blood drops which were removed from the crime scene… these blood drops would then have had the preservative EDTA in them. And although the defense has claimed there was EDTA present on the blood found on the back gate and on the socks, they’ve never even alleged that any EDTA at all was found on the Bundy blood drops.” (Pg. 203)
He goes on, “After all these months and all the money expended on Mr. Simpson’s defense, they never offered one witness, one speck of evidence that … anyone other than their client, committed these murders. And the reason they didn’t is that no such witness, no such evidence, existed.” (Pg. 222)
He explains “The reason I am omitting any reference to Robert Shapiro here… is that I am unclear as to his state of mind and intentions with respect to some of these matters. Although he is on record as saying before the trial started that race was not going to be an issue at the trial, and immediately after the verdict he distanced himself from Cochran and condemned him for playing the race card, and from the bottom of the deck at that… So at least based on what I know thus far, in my mind the jury is still out on Shapiro.” (Pg. 277)
Bugliosi’s book is a persuasive summation of the evidence, but his giving a ‘free pass’ to admitted perjurer Mark Fuhrman leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth.
Author (and former Charles Manson prosecutor, as well as JFK assassination expert; 1934-2015) Vincent Bugliosi wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “this book will not be a detailed recitation of all the facts of the case or the testimony and evidence at the trial… How did it come to pass that someone we know---not believe, but know---committed these two savage murders is now out walking around, enjoying life with a smile on his face? That’s what this book is all about… This book sets forth five reasons why the case was lost. But even these five can be distilled down to five: the jury could hardly have been any worse, and neither could the prosecution.” (Pg. 18-19)
He asserts, “there are only three possible explanations other than guilt for one’s blood being found at the murder scene… One is that Simpson left his blood there on an earlier occasion… [But] how can one believe that on some prior occasion Simpson bled, not just on the Bundy premises, but at the precise point on the premises where the murders occurred?… The second possibility is that Simpson cut himself while killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown in self-defense… even the defense attorneys never suggested this… The third and final possibility is that the LAPD detectives planted Simpson’s blood not just at the murder scene but to the left of the bloody shoe prints leaving the scene… if any reader is silly enough to believe that the LAPD detectives decided to frame someone they believed to be innocent… and actually planted his blood all over the murder scene (and, of course, planted the victims’ blood in Simpson’s car and home)… this book is probably not for that reader. This book is for people who… want to know how this terrible miscarriage of justice could have occurred.” (Pg. 21-22)
He argues, “There can be little question… that most members of the Simpson jury were biased against the prosecution and in favor of Simpson… in this case, there certainly was no ‘collective’ wisdom. The sum was no greater than the individual parts. A few examples will suffice. One juror, a 72-year old black woman… said during the jury selection process that she never read newspapers, magazines, or books… This juror, after the verdict, said: ‘I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all… [It] carried absolutely no weight with me.’ Another black female juror felt that… Simpson’s history of physical brutality and violence against Nicole was completely irrelevant, according to this juror.” (Pg. 56-57)
He observes, “I have never heard of another case where the prosecution decided not to introduce such a GREAT amount of very incriminating evidence… they never presented the suicide note Simpson wrote after he was charged with these murders but before he was arrested… After the slow-speed chase of Simpson and his friend Al Cowlings… the police found in the Bronco a gun… Simpson’s passport, and a… fake goatee and a mustache. Additionally, Cowlings … pulled out a wad of currency totaling $8,750. These items, of course, have guilt written all over them… Let’s see if there is any evidence that Simpson has ever worn a disguise at any other time in his life… And if he had bought the disguise for some innocent purpose, why was it necessary for him to bring it with him in Cowlings’ car.” (Pg. 97-98, 100)
When Simpson was interviewed by LAPD detectives Philip Vannatter and Thomas Lange, Bugliosi notes, “From Simpson’s own lips, he admits dripping blood all over his car and home and on his driveway around the time of the murders! And when they asked him how he got the cut on his left middle finger that caused all the bleeding, he answered: ‘I don’t know.’ When they asked him again later… he replied, ‘I have no idea, man.’” (Pg. 105)
When the prosecution allowed Simpson to try on the gloves, Bugliosi laments, “you don’t turn over any evidence in any case to the defendant… and had HIM tell YOU whether there’s a fit or match… You have a third party put the gloves on him, feeling Simpson’s hand and fingers … to ensure he doesn’t do anything to inhibit the fit.” (Pg. 115-116)
He states, “unbelievably, [Marcia] Clark in her opening statement, never uttered one single word to knock down the frame-up, conspiracy allegation. She treated it like a nonissue… her only words on the subject was, ‘If there was evidence of a conspiracy, it would be my obligation to dismiss [the case], pure and simple…’ … And in … her last address to the jury, she treated the issue so superficially that she commented on it for less than one minute, and she waited until the end of her argument to do so… these are the only words she uttered to attempt to rebut the police conspiracy… in her final address to the jury: ‘Do you realize how many people would have had to have gotten involved in a conspiracy within an hour? … Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange never even knew Mark Fuhrman until they met him that night… and yet the allegation by the defense is that they got together that night … for the first time… and everybody is covering up and conspiring all of a sudden. Impossible.” (Pg. 159-160)
He continues, “[Christopher] Darden was even worse. Out of his approximately 170 pages of opening argument and rebuttal, he devoted one-sixth of one page… to rebutting the main argument for the defense… These were his only words on the subject: ‘They want to tell you the police conspired against O.J. Simpson. Nicole says they have been out there eight times before and never did anything to him. I don’t know.’” (Pg. 161)
Bugliosi strongly defends detective Mark Fuhrman, however. “When Darden said, ‘If [Fuhrman’s lie about using the racial slur] helps you in assessing his credibility---and it SHOULD...’ what does that mean?… Darden didn’t then go on and defend Fuhrman’s credibility on … whether he was telling the truth or lying about finding the glove… Fuhrman’s lie, on a private matter that had no relevance to the facts of the case… hardly even merits attention. The prosecution should have met the issue of Fuhrman’s lie head on in summation, explaining that it was not relevant to any issue in the case.” (Pg. 172-173)
He suggests, “The prosecutors, in their opening argument, should have also given [Johnnie] Cochran a list of questions… that he could not answer. For instance, 'Mr. Cochran… I want you to reconcile three contradictory statements. In your opening statement, you told the jury that Mr. Simpson was practicing his golf at the time of the murders. But Mr. Simpson told the limo driver that he was sleeping, and in his statement to the police… all he said what he was very busy packing and getting ready for his trip to Chicago. He said nothing about playing golf or sleeping.’” (Pg. 179)
He would have told the jury, “the detectives told Mr. Simpson that they found blood in his car, in his home, and on the driveway… Mr. Simpson admits, then, that around the very time of the murders---which was about 16 hours BEFORE the police removed blood from his arm and would have had any opportunity to sprinkle or plant it… he was dripping blood in his car and home and on his driveway… Because whatever blood that would have been planted had to be IN ADDITION TO the blood of Mr. Simpson’s that was already in his car and home and on his driveway… We know that because the defendant, from his own lips told us so.” (Pg. 185)
He continues, “if, in fact, the reference blood from Mr. Simpson’s vial, because of mishandling by the technicians and chemists … had somehow gotten on the five blood drops which were removed from the crime scene… these blood drops would then have had the preservative EDTA in them. And although the defense has claimed there was EDTA present on the blood found on the back gate and on the socks, they’ve never even alleged that any EDTA at all was found on the Bundy blood drops.” (Pg. 203)
He goes on, “After all these months and all the money expended on Mr. Simpson’s defense, they never offered one witness, one speck of evidence that … anyone other than their client, committed these murders. And the reason they didn’t is that no such witness, no such evidence, existed.” (Pg. 222)
He explains “The reason I am omitting any reference to Robert Shapiro here… is that I am unclear as to his state of mind and intentions with respect to some of these matters. Although he is on record as saying before the trial started that race was not going to be an issue at the trial, and immediately after the verdict he distanced himself from Cochran and condemned him for playing the race card, and from the bottom of the deck at that… So at least based on what I know thus far, in my mind the jury is still out on Shapiro.” (Pg. 277)
Bugliosi’s book is a persuasive summation of the evidence, but his giving a ‘free pass’ to admitted perjurer Mark Fuhrman leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review