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".

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

Dershowitz raised some very interesting and important issues, but for the most part tries (unsuccessfully) to justify his own lack of integrity. Everyone alive during the Simpson trial knows he's guilty as sin and ought to rotting away in prison. No amount of explanation/interpretation is going to change that. He's guilty. Dershowitz thinks people are so upset because they don't understand all the issues. But that's not true. What so infuriates the general public is that we know he's guilty, we know his defense team knew he was guilty and yet he's free. What disgusts so many people about Dershowitz (and other defense attorneys) is not that he's white and defended a black man, or that he defended someone who mudered a fellow Jew, but that he worked so hard to suppress the truth and set a guilty man free. He didn't strive for truth or justice; he was only concerned with winning. Everyone, no matter how much evidence there is against them deserves a fair trial. But Dershowitz and most other defence attorneys don't want a fair trial. They look for ways to subvert the truth and hide the evidence--and there's no way anyone can call that justice.

Alan Dershowitz is deaf, dumb and blind and anyone who doesn't realize this needs help quickly. He has twisted and turned facts so that he can justify his stance with the OJ deal. OJ murdered Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Anyone who can have their brain muddeled by the ravings of this Dershowitz lunatic, needs a dose of reality. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial because of, 1.The shenanigans by Johnny Cochroach, Flea Bailey, Carl Douglas, Barry Sheick (spelled wrong) and most importantly Judge Ito, 2. The ignorant, and uneducated jurors who couldn't find their way out of a brown paper sack. Folks, I hate to break the news to you, but there is no "Tooth Fairy"....

I watched a ridiculously large amount of the trial of the century and the associated talking heads. I was in utter disbelief when the jury acquitted O.J.

Since then I have carefully evaluated the evidence that the jury had to consider. I now believe that, although O.J. probably did the crime, the jury came out with the proper decision.

This book is excellent if you are interested in the trial or just want to know more about our judicial system. Professor Dershowitz clearly lays out the rules the jury had to operate under and isolates the information I had seen on television against what the jury was allowed to hear.