I have read most of the popular books about the Simpson case except for the Marcia Clark book, which I skimmed in a bookstore and decided that it added nothing new. This summer, I read Fuhrman's book and now this.

O.J. Unmasked is similar to Bugliosi's book, Outrage, in that it provides a great deal of detail and analysis of contradictions and exaggerations in the defense arguments. The two books even directly share some observations such as the fact that Simpson admitted during questioning by the police that he had bled around his house the night of the murders so there was little incentive for the police to then go and replant blood at a location he already had admitted bleeding in. The book is not so much a continuous narrative of the trial and related issues as it is a consideration of different bits of evidence and arguments put forth by the defense. Each chapter considers a different bit of evidence and underlying strategy. Rantala tries and I think succeeds in showing much of the defense's case was bunk when examined in detail and considered as a whole.

Some examples: there is a chapter on how the defense treated Fung as both a bungling idiot who handled no evidence correctly and yet was able to deftly participate in a massive coverup leaving almost no clues except perhaps some wet bindles. There is a good discussion of how Scheck's sneering closing argument misrepresented Henry Lee's actual testimony and other evidence and of the complete irrelevance of the Furhman tapes. There is also a small section on how the jury clearly misunderstood the DNA evidence and the non-issue of EDTA contamination of the blood stains on the back gate (there was no EDTA in these stains). And while numerous police arriving at the scene prior to Fuhrman confirmed they saw only a single glove at the crime scene, this was largely ignored at trial.

The ending, whereby she discusses all of the coincidences that would have to be true if Simpson were innocent, is almost worth the price of the book. I do think one flaw is that she does not discuss enough how Ito's abdication of the courtroom to all kinds of lawyer antics played a large role in the aura of confusion they were permitted to create and that ultimately won the case for Simpson. I also like how her argument that the media (read Geraldo, et al.) relied almost exclusively on lawyers for analysis and as a result, never had scientific or forensic specialists in to examine some of the court room claims for their factuality.

Overall, I would put this in the must read category for Simpson trial buffs along with Toobin's book (best overview), Bugliosi's book (how the prosecution should have tried the case), Schiller's book (a detailed behind the scenes look at defense team intrigues and strategy), and Fuhrman's book (what the crime scene evidence showed and how Vanatter et al. really messed up.)

And finally, to answer some of one reviewers' ersatz concerns: Simpson did not "smear blood all over the console". There were some blood spots and a bloody foot print on the floor mat (size 12) but not smeared blood. Some of the spots were so small, they were hard to get enough sample for DNA testing. Simpson even admitted he bled in his car (the "cut myself on my cell phone" excuse) though it is hard to fathom how Goldman's blood got there if it was that sharp cell phone that caused the bleeding. And Simpson DID bring home his shoes, clothes, and knife as well as the glove and socks. He put the shoes, clothes and knife in a knapsack which he let no one touch and which not even the defense team could produce. To this day, no one can say where that bag is. Most likely, Simpson tossed it in an airport garbage can and was lucky that no one found it before it was taken to a city dump. The socks he just took off and probably did not think there was any evidence on them. And/or he forgot them near his bed in his hurry. The glove was dropped as he banged into the air conditioner in Kato's guest house. He did not have time to go back and get it nor may he even have been aware that he had dropped it. BTW, the glove was soaked with his blood. If it were a plant and there were another killer, it should have had other blood on it as well. And so on....

For OJ to be guilty, you must believe that he quickly disposed of the bloody clothes, shoes, and knives so they would NEVER be found, yet brought the socks and glove back to his home! And then smeared blood all over the console!

The coroner who did the autopsies testified "the forensic evidence says the murders occurred after 11PM". The limousine driver testified he brought OJ to the airport at that time. When you read this book, note how they avoid discussing these facts.

If you only read one book about the criminal trial of O. J. Simpson, this little gem is the one to read.

Yes, Ms. Rantala believes that O. J. participated in the murders. If you count that as a bias, then you must consider paying attention and retaining information to be vices.

The strength of her book, however, is not her fervent belief that O. J. got away with murder(s). Rather, the book's virtue is her clear communication of why the prosecutors ought to have been able to prove O. J. guilty in court.

I believe that the jurors did what they had to do, given the hash that the prosecutors made of the case: the liars for whom the prosecutors vouched; the handling of evidence that raised more questions than the prosecutors could swat away; the motives that made no sense as presented; and so on. However, Rantala shows that, although the verdict was legally correct because Simpson was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the result of the trial was at odds with the facts.