The Truth about the O.J. Simpson Trial: By the Architect of the Defense

by F. Lee Bailey

The Definitive Account of the O.J. Simpson Trial, by Legendary Defense Attorney F. Lee BaileyIt was called “The Trial of the Century.” Beloved football sensation, O.J. Simpson was famous for his prowess on the field, his good looks, and his charm. But all that changed the night his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were brutally slaughtered in her front yard late at night on June 12, 1994. The media circus that consumed the news cycle for the next eighteen months would forever change the world's opinion of O.J. Simpson, despite the fact that the jury, after nearly a year of sequestration, came to their decision in just a few Not Guilty. Although at least a dozen books have been written about the O.J. Simpson trial, from every possible perspective from provocative to sensationalistic, The Truth About the O.J. Simpson Trial is the most revealing because the writer was the Architect of the Defense. Bailey, shows definitively why the jury was correct in finding that the timeline of the evening made Simpson’s presence at the murder scene impossible, which eclipses the question “Did he do it?” and establishes that he simply could not have done it. This book reveals shocking evidence of police corruption, mishandling of blood samples and other materials that formed the basis of the prosecution's case. Bailey includes convincing evidence that was not presented at the trial—including interviews, forensic results, and revelations about the case that have since come to light.   Scathing, controversial, and, yes, entertaining, The Truth About the O.J. Simpson Trial will be read and studied by anyone interested in defending the innocent, the history of law enforcement in America, students of the Law, and all those who are still obsessed with “The Trial of the Century.”      

Genres: Nonfiction, True Crime, Law, Crime, History

357 pages, Kindle Edition

Published June 4, 2021

Reviews

[Carolyn M L · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started this book at the start of December and then got caught up with Christmas, so it kind of fell by the wayside. I picked it up again yesterday and decided to start it over. I’ve finished it in just over 24 hours. That’s how good it is.

As a law student, trials captivate me. As do exceptionally good trial lawyers, F. Lee Bailey being amongst the greats. I can’t think of Bailey without recalling his cross-examination of Fuhrman during the Simpson trial and how it was like watching a bored cat toy with a trapped mouse - guiltily captivating.

Whilst I appreciate that some books regarding the Simpson trial are pro and some are against, I wanted to read this account mainly because I am in awe of Bailey’s courtroom presence. His narrative didn’t disappoint. May he rest in peace.

[Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was 12-years-old when this trial occurred so I had much more interesting things going on in my life than following the trial. Over the years, tons of books, shows, and movies have been made about this case. This is the first form of media I've chosen to partake in to get a behind-the-scenes view. No doubt, Mr. Bailey is one of the most distinguished criminal defense attorneys of our time (he writes, "I have - as a lawyer who has appeared before more different state, federal, military, and administrative judges in the United States than any lawyer in history..." But the reader still needs to acknowledge that any candid account provided in this book is tinged with its own subjective bias.

I think Bailey does a wonderful job of showing the reader how he and the defense team sought to win this case. From the inception, most of them believed that OJ was factually innocent, as opposed to legally not guilty. The way its laid out and the facts provided its easy to understand why Bailey was the ideal proponent for OJ - he never once wavered about his client's innocence.

What I found mildly amusing about this book is the criticism that Bailey doles out despite his claim "I do not wish to appear before my colleagues as one who is willing to denigrate them." (pg. 114).
As to Robert Shapiro: "Because of his modest speech skills and limited inventory of fifty-cent words, I believe that Bob did not know the meaning of the word, and that he had not meant to call the Judge a liar in open court." (pg. 22) BURN!!! This is only one of many instances where Bailey shows his dislike for Shapiro and lack of respect for him as a litigator.
As to Robert Kardashian: "Seeing how history has unfolded for his reality TV ex-wife and children and their inexplicable rise to fame and wealth, perhaps Kardashian, who died in 2003, would have been better served to have remained stalwart in his support of his friend rather than weakly cave to the deadly sin of greed for his own benefit." (pg. 257).

Bailey makes solid points about the length of this trial and trials in general. "[O]ne must understand that the habit and culture of California lawyers routinely involves windy oratory that is ten or times its ordinary length." He suggests that lawyers "talk on and on, as though motions could be won by the number of words in counsel's argument rather their cogency." No truer words have been said.

Think about this statistic as it applies to this trial: "Over the next one year and one week - fifty-three weeks - the jurors would sit through 253 days of trial, be sequestered for 266 days, and hear testimony from 126 witnesses" (pg. 71). 126 witnesses!!! That is absolutely insane when you break down the necessary witnesses to really prosecute and defend this case (from an outsider's perspective). There were around 5 people in the neighborhood where Nicole and Ron were killed who could testify about material facts that night. Add in Kato and Allan Park and you have 7 civilians. A dozen or so police officers who did any actual meaningful work collecting evidence, then another handful of forensic people. The prosecution probably could have called 20 witnesses maximum. Figure the defense has the same number to refute the State experts and then a handful of witnesses to discuss OJ's demeanor around the time of the murders and they should call 10-15, tops. So the fact that 126 people were called to testify about an event that NOBODY witnessed is astonishing.

What I also found confounding is how the prosecution was able to elicit testimony about past acts of violence to establish propensity. In Florida, that is "bad act evidence" and has extreme limitations on admissibility. I can only assume that California lacks a similar statute. I was surprised that Bailey who practiced in Florida and federal court didn't address this issue.

Overall, an entertaining read and would recommend to those who enjoy first-hand accounts of trials.

[Lee Anne · Rating 2 out of 5]

I will give F. Lee Bailey this: if this was the only book you read about the O.J. Simpson trial, you'd probably think he was innocent.

I started flagging the most egregious nonsense passages pretty early on, and had a scattering of little, literal red flags throughout by the time I finished. Twice he referred to Black men as "well spoken," and I shouldn't have to explain to anyone why that is problematic. He suggests the case was transferred downtown because the prosecutors lived and worked closer to there, and the defense didn't (the case was transferred downtown for dumb reasons, but not that dumb reason). And the very worst of all, when he describes the infamous night when O.J. witnessed Nicole giving a BJ to her boyfriend inside her own house, he explains it away by telling us how "gentlemanly" O.J. was in ringing the doorbell and leaving, shaking the boyfriend's hand the next day, and how he was only concerned that the kids would come downstairs and see. Not that O.J. only saw this because he was STALKING Nicole, lurking outside her door. Bailey pooh-poohs all the evidence of O.J.'s abuse of Nicole, saying there was only one incident, he loved her, he was so upset by her death, blah, blah, blah. Infuriating. Maddening.

Bailey also most often cites a book written by a few members of the jury pool, as if that pack of dummies have relevance. I mean, they got him off, so I guess they do, but I'd rather hear from some great reporters or legal minds, which is why in all my O.J. book reading, I've never read their book.

Basically, F. Lee Bailey blames everything on Mark Fuhrman. Fuhrman planted all the evidence, Fuhrman, Fuhrman, Fuhrman. I'm not going to disagree with the fact that Mark Fuhrman is a piece of shit, or that the LAPD is full of racist, bad cops, the evidence collection was shoddy and the prosecution put on a mediocre case, but that doesn't negate the fact that O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife and poor Ronald Goldman.

The only funny part is how much Bailey seems to hate Robert Shapiro. The girls are fighting! Also, I sure wouldn't want a blurb from Alan Dershowitz on the back of my book nowadays. Oof.

[Erin Loshaw · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is laughable at best. Mr Bailey acts as if we're just supposed to take his word for it and none of us have access to the internet.

He claims:

1. Mark Furman was a rouge cop who planted the glove and blood in the bronco in order to be the star witness in a high profile case.

2. The lead detectives and head criminalist conspired to plant the blood evidence at Rockingham and Bundy.

3. OJ wasn't observed to have any cuts before getting to Cleveland.

4. OJ's blood at Rockingham and in the bronco was from him having scrapes and nicks from golfing.

5. None of the blood evidence is reliable because of shotty collection methods and incompetent lab work.

6. OJ had NO MOTIVE? He totally underplays the well documented history of domestic violence. Claiming there was only 1 instance of domestic violence.

Wut?

Are we really supposed to believe that there were two completely independent conspiracies happening? Are we really supposed to believe that they would conspire to frame OJ without knowing if he had an alibi?

We've got a case of Schrödinger's cuts here.

OJ's emotional, mental, financial, and physical abuse of Nicole was well known and documented.

Why would the conspirators go through all the trouble of risking their entire careers and reputations to plant evidence only to allow a poor job of collecting it?

[Steven H · Rating 2 out of 5]

BAILEY CONTINUES DEFENDING SIMPSON, AND MAGNIFYING HIMSELF

Francis Lee Bailey Jr. (1933-2021) was an American criminal defense attorney, who was involved in number of high-profile cases—most notably the O.J. Simpson case.

As far as containing ‘insights’ from a person involved in the Simpson trial, this book is far inferior to those by Johnnie Cochran, Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, etc. Much of the earlier sections of the book contain Bailey’s ‘wisdom’ about every aspect of trials (thereby supposedly demonstrating that he knew far more than anyone else involved in the trial… except perhaps Johnnie Cochran). And the last parts of the book contain large verbatim quotations, with little or no commentary from Bailey. (Was he getting exhausted, by this point? He died in hospice care the year the book came out.)

Of course, the Simpson case is now more than 25 years past; Simpson lost the civil trial, and spent about ten years in prison for armed robbery and kidnapping. So why did Bailey write this book? Probably for money; he owed millions in back taxes, and he’d been disbarred in Florida and Massachusetts—and he was denied a law license in Maine, to where he’d moved, and started up a consulting practice. Anyway, let’s move on to the book itself.

In the first chapter, he states, “At the request of [Robert] Shapiro, I entered the O.J. Simpson case… two days after the homicides. I have frequently asked myself what I might have done differently in those earliest days had I joined the defense team as lead counsel, rather than as an adjunct… Most certainly, my investigators would have discovered much earlier that the lead detective in the case, Mark Fuhrman, filed a lawsuit years before that effectively labeled him as a racist, a liar, and a malingerer. A further inquiry would have upended a veritable cornucopia of impeachment materials, history has shown. But I wasn’t in a position to call the shots in the early days of the case.” (Pg. 3)

Upon hearing that Shapiro was “trying to get Simpson tested on the polygraph,” he says, “I was quite taken aback by this news… that he was attempting to subject O.J. to a polygraph examination two days after the murder of his ex-wife. One of the critical aspects of administering a reliable polygraph test is that it not be given to a surviving marriage partner hard on the heels of the traumatic loss of the spouse… the results are wild and inconclusive… Bob wanted to use the prestige of a polygraph test conducted by a former high ranking LAPD examiner… because he believed that if the results were favorable for Simpson, they could be used to slow the momentum of the detectives who were advocating Simpson’s arrest. Shapiro’s sense of urgency was justified in part because no one likes to give polygraphs in a jail facility… I asked to speak to the examiner [who] told me that the charts were wild and ragged, which is exactly what one should expect when testing a subject who was in an agitated state of mind. I strongly suggested that the test be terminated and that it be run another day somewhere down the road even though that retry might very well have to be in a Los Angeles County jail facility… Shapiro grabbed the paper charts which record the responses of the suspect and left the office building… I later saw the charts in Shapiro’s office… In my opinion, they were unreadable. When ordered to produce them in the later civil trial, Shapiro said he had destroyed them.” (Pg. 4-6)

He recalls that on June 18, “I got another call from Shapiro… he said, ‘it looks like they have Simpson’s blood everywhere, along with Nicole’s---and we don’t have a shot in this case, so please explore an insanity defense.’ What I didn’t then but would soon find out, this kind of unpredictable, uninformed, half-cocked behavior became Bob’s way as the case progressed… It developed, however, that the blood evidence that Shapiro claimed was ‘everywhere’ would prove to be all but meaningless.” (Pg. 7-8)

Of Simpson’s interview with detectives Vanatter and Lange, he comments, “From a defense point of view, it was flawless. Simpson was convincing in maintaining that he knew nothing about the crimes… At trial, this transcribed statement became a hot potato. The defense desperately wanted the jury to hear it because it showed a still-bewildered ex-husband whose answers… were completely nonincriminating… However, the statement was turned away by Judge Ito, who ruled that basically the account was fundamental hearsay.” (Pg. 48-49)

About moving the trial from “a sterile, all-white community” to downtown, he suggests, “I also suspect that [Vince] Garcetti knew his evidence was weak. The fact that any jury selected from downtown would be heavily minority and, presumably, anti-law enforcement, would give him a handy excuse should the case result in an acquittal.” (Pg. 67)

He records that he said to Shapiro, “I have heard a report about a contract you signed obligating me to try the case, a contract that pays you a million dollars for OUR services. Since you have received half of that already, I am wondering what part of it you have set aside as my share?’ Shapiro responded in a heartbeat, ‘You get nothing. You are a mere volunteer in this case.’” (Pg. 77)

He says of Simpson’s ‘If I Did It’ book, “the bizarre, fictionalized version of Simpson’s ‘hypothetical’ confession to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Although it was pulled from circulation almost immediately, and its editor fired, the book hurt Simpson badly in the public eye.” (Pg. 93)

He points out, “During and since the Simpson trial, there has been a pervasive claim by many that the ‘race card’ was unconsciously used, dealt from the bottom of the deck. To the extent that race became a major issue, the provocation rested entirely on the moral cavern brought to the table by Mark Fuhrman… By all accounts, Mark Fuhrman was a racist…But I did not feel that in the circumstances of this case, Simpson’s race was an important fact in the decision of Fuhrman to place himself at its center. After all, he had no way of knowing where Simpson was during that fateful evening or whether he might have had an unassailable alibi… I think his manipulation of the glove evidence was done for entirely different reasons: He was simply desperate to cling to some part of this hugely important murder case…” (Pg. 96-97)

He recounts, “I had the opportunity to cross-examine him. But I was hampered in my ability to put the screws to him… Judge Ito issued a ruling that was… a major blow to the defense. He stated that I could not… inquire about Fuhrman’s use of the ‘N-word’ going back more than ten years. By doing this, he neatly covered up the damning contents of the bizarre lawsuit that Fuhrman had filed … after being denied a disability pension… These findings relating to Fuhrman’s character would have been … the equivalent of tank-obliterating rockets, so blazingly did they spotlight Fuhrman’s scheming, severe psychiatric dependencies… Had these findings been presented to the jury in the form of questions to Fuhrman, he would have lost all credibility as a witness.” (Pg. 106-107)

After he asked Fuhrman whether he had used the ‘n-word’ in the past 10 years and Fuhrman denied it, he mused, “I felt that with that string of answers, Fuhrman had lied himself into a corner… Why Fuhrman, who is not a stupid man, had chosen to answer with such an absolute, all-encompassing denial still eludes me… Johnnie Cochran… put it down to Fuhrman’s arrogance. He was probably right… Before we reached the stage … where he could be recalled… He took the Fifth Amendment… Although the prosecutors were loath to admit it, their case was over, and they began desperately looking for a mistrial.” (Pg. 136, 139) He notes that the later ‘Fuhrman tapes’ “proved what we already knew about Mark Fuhrman… He was a vindictive viper---one whose head had just been lopped off by a guillotine of his own making.” (Pg. 143)

He notes, “Had a mistrial occurred, O.J. would have remained in jail. The trial costs had already become enormous, and there was not enough money to pay them out again.” (Pg. 152)

Of the blood evidence, he says, “we contended 1.5 cc of Simpson’s blood were missing. Where did that blood go?... OF the four drops found at Simpson’s estate, three were tested using the PCR method, which … is highly susceptible to contamination. We also argued these drops were inconclusive as Simpson had told police he had a minor cut after golfing that day. Therefore, his DNA in these places would be consistent… Detective Vannatter took Simpson’s reference blood sample… back to the Rockingham home… Why would a veteran detective return to a scene with evidence incriminating a suspect?... Of the blood evidence found, the Bronco appeared, on its surface, to be the most important to neutralize…. There was a trace amount of both Simpson’s and Nicole’s blood on the steering wheel… those blood samples found in the Bronco matched those of O.J., Nicole, AND Ron Goldman, which the jury had not heard before. This looked bad for O.J. because there was no way to explain how it got there other than criminally. But… We had already established … that there was a period of close to fifteen full minutes where Fuhrman roamed the Rockingham property unaccompanied… We also had a expert witness… prepared to testify that the blood stain … in the Bronco appeared consistent with a ‘smearing’ motion, a detail we felt indicated that the blood was placed there.” (Pg. 170-172) Later, he adds, “we felt there was enough murkiness surrounding the infamous sock, glove, and other evidence to raise more than just reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.” (Pg. 176)

After the ‘Not Guilty’ verdict, “I had no inkling at the time that a man acquitted of two murders by a jury of his peers would be held to such harsh public scrutiny… As for me, I was somewhat surprised at the vitriol heaped my way over my part in helping to dismember a racist cop, without whose perjured testimony, the trial would never have taken place. But… It comes with the job.” (Pg. 253)

Of Shapiro’s ‘race card’ comments, he states, “It had been his initial strategy to put the LAPD on trial from the moment he discovered…. Mark Fuhrman’s lawsuit… I suspect Bob’s change of heart was fueled by social fallout that he and his wife suffered within their wealthy circle of white friends and associates who felt uncomfortable with the verdict and the racial discussions it sparked at dinner parties.” (Pg. 256)

He concludes, “I wanted the Simpson case like I wanted chain of angina attacks. I had been burnt too often in California state courts… I saw the Simpson trial as an ugly experience about to happen. Further, I had never second chaired a major criminal trial before, and didn’t like the idea of committee decision… Had Shapiro remained as lead counsel, I would have snatched the reins from him early on… I had gotten myself into a lousy deal, but Johnnie Cochran’s leadership made the plight much more palatable.” (Pg. 275-276) He continues, “I cannot recall a case where a jury was so unfairly pummeled for simply doing its job and following instructions. And as a result, of course, the story has been told that Simpson got away with murder.” (Pg. 279)

This self-serving account will not make the now-deceased Bailey any money (his wives are also long-gone, and his 3 children are all middle-aged), and it reopens a lot of ‘old wounds’ for no particular purpose. He adds no new insights, and this book will mostly appeal only to those of us wanting to be ‘completists’ on the Simpson case.

[Joey · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought I would understand how 12 jurors who do not read on a regular basis, could have come to their conclusion. I still believe in the Prosecution's beliefs during and after the trial.

[Fred · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are some reviews saying this doesn't provide much new to the case, especially if you've read several other sources. This is true, but I think it's good for those new to the case who want the highlights from the defense, especially one of the lawyers who steadfastly supports Simpson's innocence.

I have read several books about the OJ Simpson case and did feel some of "I already know this" moments, but I thought the real meat was Bailey's thoughts on the aftermath of the case. He goes through some of the ways the civil trial was unfair. He also goes through some of what happened to both defense and prosecution lawyers after the case (several of them got huge book deals and one of them went on TV to voice their doubts but supposedly only for the money). But what is most important is that the other important aspects of this case have never been healed. We are innocent until proven guilty, but not as far as the media or prosecutors or the public are concerned. He also talks about how another polygraph test was set up with backing from a tabloid, but how that fell through.

There is still stuff I would've liked to know his thoughts on. Like Furhman's trial and second career going on talk shows and having his own shows. He also mentions OJ's book "If I Did It" but just calls it bizarre.

He also takes every opportunity to dump on Shapiro.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Better Written Than 3 Stars

But your opinion may vary a bit depending on your feeling about the trial. The author was a key member of the dream team. His perspective is that of a lawyer who believed
his client was innocent and the evidence against him was a hill of beans.

For me he was right on target discussing how awful Mark Fuhrman was in many ways including his racism and his mishandling evidence. He also was on target with the incompetence of the prosecution, poor
Assessment of evidence, and was fair to Judge Ito.

How would I have voted after watching much of the trial? Not guilty for those reasons. The case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And why wasn’t DNA evidence gathered from the globe anyway? How do a feel about the innocence of OJ. Not innocent in my eyes, but I would easily have gone with the jury.

I feel that the book is a very late attempt to justify F Lee Bailey’s participation and his belief or his selective reasoning that leads to his belief that OJ was not the person who committed this crime. The only reason to read the book is to see what the perspective is of one of the team members.

[Barbara Sanders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read if you want the truth about this case. Lee brings everything to the forefront. The mistakes that were made by both the prosecution and the defense are well described and it makes the reader aware of what each side was struggling wirh. The points of LAW that Mr Bailey explains, are eye openers as to how much we didn't know (about the law and justice system), as things were being played out daily.
I would recommend this books no matter if you are a believer in O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence. By the time you finish it, you may have a different viewpoint.

[James M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Bailey tells us how the legal Dream Team was assembled. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the Defense and the Prosecuting attorneys. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the case evidence as presented by the Prosecution. An insiders account, from one of this country's premier criminal defense attorneys
.

[Lynn Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's hard to believe that the "trial of the century" was 30 years ago, and OJ Simpson recently passed away. I followed the whole OJ saga, from the Bronco "chase" (which interrupted a Houston Rockets/ New York Knicks finals playoff game) to the conclusion of OJ's trial. I've read several books about the murders and formed my own conclusion (OJ did it).

This book gives a lot of great inside information about the "dream team" which defended OJ. It's amazing with all of the behind the scenes shenanigans that they won the case. I learned quite a lot of things which I did not know about the case.

F. Lee Bailey lays out very clearly the defense of OJ Simpson and why he did not and could not have done it. He makes a compelling case. Have I changed my mind? Well let's just say while I would still probably lean to the side of "he probably did it", Mr. Bailey apparently believes that OJ was truly innocent of the crimes. We likely will never know for sure, but it is always good to learn as much about something so you can make an informed judgment of facts.

[Ty Linder · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m pretty sure I’ve read and watched all there is to read and watch about the OJ Simspon trial. Like a good number of people who lived through it, I have for years felt justice was not served. But I approached Lee Bailey’s book with an open mind and I’m glad I did.

Bailey doesn’t necessarily try to persuade you that Simpson was innocent. He simply presents enough evidence to show the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. He spends a great deal of pages eviscerating Mark Fuhrman, (with good reason) and without coming right out and saying so, says he is the reason for the acquittal.

If you lived through the Trial of the Century or are just a legal junkie, I highly recommend adding Lee’s book to your list.

[Rochelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a compelling story written by a extremely sucessful, rich , powerful and famous defense attorney . This tells the most truthful and compelling account that I have found yet of the trial for oj simpson and about what went into the defense. It also speaks of the tension and infighting that happened in the defense camp. One of the attorneys wanted to make a plea deal right out of the gate without examining the evidence of the prosecution and when that was clearly not the wish of the client or in the clients best interest. This lawyer tried to be the lead attorney when he had no significant experience in criminal trials or in front of courtrooms and subjected his own client who was a grieving former intimate partner to a lie detector test less then 5 days after hearing that the mother of his children had been brutally murdered in cold blood in clear violation of all the literature and guidelines available on the subject. There is also the fact that he was often unavailable to discuss the case and did not work any where near the hours the others had done so on the case. He also made it so another attorney was bound to work on the case and pay the expenses but tried to keep that attorney from profiting in any way from his considerable work on the case. What they dont tell you is that a racist cop who had an admitted history of falsifying all of his work related paperwork , lying under oath and planting evidence on people he wanted to arrest is the one who is said to have found all the key physical evidence said to tie o.j simpson to the murders and he was alone for a significant period of time when he did so . This is the man who sought to get disability and pension benefits after being on the force for only six years because he said his experiences working with people of color during his work as a police officer made it so he was mentally unfit to be a police officer and that he had health problems making him unfit for work. This is a man who filed a frivolous lawsuit against the city when it rightly denied him pension and disability benefits due to the fact that his health problems did not affect his ability to work and that his job was not responsible for his prejudices against others. This also shows the story of a man who abused , neglected , gaslit , controlled, deceived and cheated on the women in his life while in the relationship and continued the pattern after the relationship was over as well as harassing and stalking the women . He seemed to be under the impression that the women he was in certain relationships with now belonged to him for the rest of his life. However the defense proved that he did not commit the murders of his ex wife and Ron Goldman . The reason that Ron Goldman and Nicole families won the civil suit against him was not because of evidence he committed the murders. It was because he had neglected and abused her during the relationship and then sabotaged her , assaulted , stalked , gaslit , harassed her and the men in her life after that. Nicole's family succeeded in getting his assets because since they are both Nicole's and OJ Simpsons children and are thus entitled to it anyway. I believe Oj was considered unfit to be a father in a custody battle in family court and so i think full custody of his children with Nichole went to her parents. Then i think he was convicted and sentenced to prison for armed robbery before he could get the court to reverse it. As far as i know Ron Goldmans famiy has recceived only a sliver of the money they were awarded in the judgement in the civil suit they filed. OJ has gone to great lengths to ensure Ron Goldmans family collects as little of possible of the money they were awarded. Personally i dont think that they showed any legal wrong OJ Simpson committed aganist Ron Goldman, so I dont think they should have been awarded the money or the apology. . Also i don't support the later conviction of armed robbery as it was his stuff that none of those people should have had in the first place and as far as i know none of them ever actually threatened or tried to harm anyone. I think that knocking around Nicole was one thing; going toe to toe with a active , fit young man who was well versed and trained in self defense was quite another. I don't think OJ was pyschically capable of doing that. Also the defense proved at trial that their timeline was accurate and didnt allow time for him to committ this crime in this area where he was so well known. They proved the pyschical evidence didn't amount to anything. I think that a number of jurors sat there and thought about what policing was like in the city for people of colour and whaat would have happened if oj simpson was not who he was and was the average black male in that city acussed of killing two white people . He would probably have died in a shooting while he was in a car chase.

[Ronald James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read

I recommend this book for anyone interested in the trial of the century. Mr. Bailey gives a true account of the inner workings of the justice system and explains reasonable doubt and the acquittal.

[Hari Brandl]

On my MacBookAir Nook.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely enthralling book. Found some stuff suspicious but makes it much easier to understand how a jury acquitted OJ Simpson.

[Phebe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting, but questionable accuracy.