High Dudgeon
Customer Rating: 
Bugliosi is in high dudgeon here, but not without considerable justification. A book urged on him by his Norton editor, the tone is that of a conversation between author and reader, with copious asides and personal reflections. Bugliosi is outraged by the incompetence of the prosecution, the mendacity of the defense, the palpable guilt of the defendant, the many flagrant mistakes of the judge and the flawed and fawning reportage of the media. He is angry and he displays his anger with a rush of charges, examples, and--in bold type--examples of how he himself would have argued the case.
The book is not an unrelieved phillipic and Bugliosi takes the time to weigh, e.g., the degree of guilt that should be assigned and the degree of victimhood which should be appreciated in the case of a subsidiary figure such as Mark Fuhrman. Ultimately this is a book about our system of justice, which Bugliosi admires, but also the pathetic level of minimal competence (or maximum incompetence) with which those who are part of that system turn and grind its wheels.
Though not a point-by-point history of the Simpson case and trial, the book reviews the individuals and the evidence which were at its core. If you have ever been nonplussed by our system of justice, read this book for confirmation of your own feelings. If you want a pointed and reasonably comprehensive review of the case and trial, read this book. Expect some fresh insight, but do not expect a vast amount of new evidence. And yes, O.J. did it. The evidence is indisputable.
Shockingly biased
Customer Rating: Even if you're among the many who, like the author, is convinced that O.J. "did it", this is not the book to read. Bugliosi comes across as so obviously biased against Simpson, his book, if anything, adds fuel to the fire for arguments by those who are convinced of Simpson's innocence. Bugliosi's arguments are contradictory, hypocritical and contemptuous of our legal traditions. For instance, after paying rich lip service to the legal principle that the burden of proof in a criminal case is entirely on the prosecution, he states openly that Simpson should have been convicted because he didn't have a convincing alibi. Also, after stating that ethical rules prohibit attorneys from "playing the race card" and criticizing O.J.'s defense team for doing so, he openly criticizes the prosecution for not trying to keep the trial in Santa Monica where Bugliosi asserts they would have been assured of a virtually all-white jury that would certainly have convicted Simpson. This book adds nothing of value to the long record of what is probably the world's most publicized case. Plenty of books have been written about this case. You'll get a lot more from them than you will from Outrage.
