O. J. Simpson Books

I have this item at my desk at work, and I find myself constantly pulling this down, and taking a few minutes to read it whenever I feel down. Almost without failure, it brightens my day. I followed this OJ trial to from the beginning to the end, and it was awesome! I bought at least 20 different books on the crime and the trial, over the past 10 years, most within the 2 or 3 years after the crime.

My mother bought me this notepad, and it is without a doubt, the best book I read on this topic.

I highly recommend it, for its humor and its lasting impression.

OJ was a real scumbag, and this notepad is constant reminder of that fact, and of the fact that we can't bring back Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown Simpson!

MC White said: Check it out!!!

I found a Xeroxed copy of entire book (shame on someone) in a box from an auction. I've held onto it for years because it's so smart, clever, amusing and imaginative. I watched the trial on tv and wondered many times "what the heck is he writing?" Now I know! Beard and Boswell are demented to be sure, but I've always preferred black humor (don't even go there) and only someone with jumbled brain cells could come up with a book like this one. Buy it..it's priceless!

Here it is, four years after I first spent a summer reading and re-reading it with my friends (one of whom must still have it!). I've got to read it again. Maybe e-bay?

without a doubt, the funniest collection of drawings and text on the o.j. situation. a comical view into the demented mind of a lunatic!

OK, if the humor of the title of this review evades you, this is not the "book" for you. If you think the whole situation is funny, then get this book.

Page after page of doodles and notes that blow political correctness out of the water, and made me laugh out loud. This product is fall down funny.

Again, a classic that is out of print. Shame, shame, shame.

Wow! He's almost as smart as his son

Uelmen writes as few can, a legal professor and scholar who himself was part of defense team of this trial.

He provides healthy, worthy set of lessons to be taken from this experience. This is more vital than disputing the outcome, for it must be all about a legal system with the best chance for a true and fair outcome for all parties, including society.

Agree with the author that biggest lesson is that trials as this are flashpoints for what is really on culture's mind at the time, here race, decreasing attention spans and bias without basis, spousal abuse, etc.

Further, we learned that tv and courtroom don't mix well. That massive DNA data without certifiable collection/preservation. Uelmen also contends that this trial was an aberration of the real, normal trial system.

Well done, and fascinating, insightful read.

Professor Uelmen is doubly blessed. First, he has one of the finest legal minds in the country and, second, he writes in such a clear, cogent style that one need not be a lawyer to understand him. Despite knowing the outcome from the start, this book is a real page-turner. One cannot help but think that if the prosecution had a lawyer nearly as capable as Uelmen they might have won instead of the defense. But the best part of all is the insider's view: no other book on the trial comes close to explaining how the defense won a case that seemed at the outset to be unwinnable. Whether or not you agreed with the defense, this book demonstrates their superior lawyering.

Gerald F. Uelmen is a professor and former dean of the School of Law at Santa Clara University. He was part of O. J. Simpson's defense team from the beginning, and can speak with authority about this trial. The sixteen chapters contain the lessons that readers may learn. There is no index. You should be familiar with this case or have read some other books before reading this overview of a Trial of the Century. After the jury verdict there was an abundance of proposed solutions which were thoughtless and wrong (p.1). A knowledge of history would correct these errors for those "unhappy with the verdict" (p.3). These proposals have led California to intellectual, fiscal, and moral bankruptcy in the criminal system, which is weighted heavily in favor of the prosecution (p.4). Many innocents have been convicted because of mistaken identification, police perjury, or simple incompetence by a defense lawyer (p.5). The foolish call for reforms have occurred in the past (p.7). The first lesson from this trial was how the Corporate Media fooled the people and fueled this controversy (p.8). [Joe Bosco said the trial he witnessed was different from the trial broadcast by the media.]

The media blitz led by DA Garcetti affected public opinion. But this allowed the defense to bypass the grand jury and go to a preliminary hearings (p.23). The double-dealing of the prosecution's grand jury is described on page 25. Fuhrman and Vannatter "contradicted each other on many key points" (p.35). Page 39 tells of the effect of the exclusionary rule, and why judges won't do anything. Do judges lack "moral courage" (p.45)? The "narcissistic personality disorder" (p.47) is defined as "a grandiose sense of self-importance, a need for excessive admiration, and fantasies of unlimited power and brilliance". [Does this remind you of some of your managers?] Uelmen shows his wisdom on page 65, unlike the critics. The need for press interviews by defense lawyers is explained (pp.69-70).

Their concern about evidence tampering and forging is explained (p.72). California law allows a lawyer to protect his client from prejudicial publicity (p.75). The foolish actions of "knee-jerk" politicians is described on page 77. The "National Enquirer" is more honest than "TIME" (p.78). A juror's race is part of their life experience, which affects judgments (p.81). Uelmen explains the death penalty (pp.82-83), and why selecting jurors is very important (pp.88-89). Video recording of trials could be a good teaching tool, but television allows reporters to comment as if they knew what happened (p.94)! The bias of commentators is explained on page 95. They had no idea! Television helped to find witnesses (p.99). But TV is for entertainment, not justice (p.101).

The murders of Nicole and Ron had nothing to do with domestic violence, based on the evidence; it was smear tactics (p.103)! The problems with the blood evidence and its collections are on page 122. The prosecution delayed the defense's testing of the samples (pp.123-4). The flip-flop testimony about OJ's blood sample is on page 126. The Fuhrman tapes were "the most devastating evidence" to completely destroy the credibility of this police officer (p.129). Fuhrman had been extolled as a model officer. When the Prosecutors learned of these tapes, they tried to get a mistrial (p.145)! I think the original intent of the Fifth Amendment was to prevent torture by forcing a person to testify against himself (p.155). "Third degree" methods were still used in the early 20th century. The Prosecutors would do anything to convict (p.165). A defendant can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence only if no other conclusion is possible (p.167). Were the threats to Cochran meant to force him to accept guards (p.171)? The jury quickly said "not guilty", there was "something wrong" with the prosecution's case (p.180). Watching a trial on TV gives the illusion of actually being there (p.182). Uelmen explains the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial (p.195). [The example of Lizzie Borden shows flawed research (p.196).] A trial isn't a search for truth, but to have a vision of truth prevail 9p.199). Civil liberties in America are documented in the criminal courtrooms, where the Government infringes on the individual's rights for the weak and powerless (p.205). Chapter 16 summarizes the lessons from this trial.

Out of all the millions of words printed on the Simpson case, Dr. Hutchinson's is head and shoulders above them all. He emphasizes the true meanings of the case, accurately identifying race, sex and class as being what was on trial in America. That I found his book in a tiny public library in the Deep South is perhaps an indication that there's hope for us all...I like to think that lots of us 'down here' will learn something from Dr. Hutchinson. Note: the bibliography in this book is outstanding...a study guide of and in itself!

DR.Hutchinson Has A Great Mind.The Way He Connects things&Speaks is always on The Money.OJ was The Latest To Learn The Hard Truth.ANY Black MAN IN AMerica Can Be Like OJ At ANY TIME.that's the Reality of This SOciety.DR.Hutchinson does a Great Job of Presenting Other Examples.everone is accountable for their actions&what not but MR.Hutchinson's Knows that A Black MAN IS COnsidered GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT.That's THe SAD REALITY&INJUSTICE that We Face.His Words Always Hit Home.Very Much ON POINT.

Looking for a book you literally can't put down?

Even though the 1995 OJ/Brown/Goldman tragedy is well behind us (or should be), racism continues to plague American society. Why?

It didn't begin with OJ and unfortunately will not end with his story. Dr. Hutchinson's mountain of research weaves together the compelling stories of OJ, boxer Jack Johnson, Iron Mike Tyson, tennis great Arthur Ashe, superstar Michael Jackson, basketball/baseball's Michael Jordan, and even multi-millionaire Magic Johnson. Is there no escape for a black man accused of improprieties? Dr. Hutchinson contends that neither money, fame, nor professional connects will shield a carefully protected, and long-held pristine reputation once accusations or unfounded rumors begin to fly. Dr. Hutchinson also dissects the disparity between media treatment of blacks and whites, and pinpoints how television news, newspapers, and national magazines add fuel to the smoldering tinderbox.

Thats how I would sum up this book. The OJ robbery is really inconsequential to the true story of this book. It's only a backdrop to a life that was lived to the fullest (sometimes foolishly) straight from the man who lived it. Truly an amazing tale of love, luck, money, and greed. Its a terrific book from someone that lived a life that Hollywood probably wouldn't be able to create in any movie. Good Luck with the rest of it Tom!

Yes OJ's an interesting character, and you learn plenty about the Las Vegas robbery here. But the back story is just as interesting, especially for card collectors or memorabilia people. The busting out of jail parts are crazy (you gotta read it to believe it) and so is Tom's lotto/gambling tales. Luck is a funny thing and Tom Ricico has had plenty of it on his side. A controversial guy who's lived a wild life--it's all in the book.

If a bland life story "Catch Me If You Can" can be made into a movie, this book should be too. Riccio's life story would be unbelieveable if it wasn't true: escaping from jail, winning the lottery, beating Vegas, successful entrepenuer and a life filled with being in the middle of breaking news events from OJ Simpson to Anna Nicole Smith. Truly a one-of-a-kind story. This book is a page turner and an easy read and better entertainment then the 10 bucks you would pay to see any of the lousy movies that are out now.

This was a great book telling how the laws prejudeces i reccomend it to anybody interested in the truth.

The Courtroom Explained Through the Trials of the Century uses the major cases of the last decadeinvolving President Clinton and O.J. Simpson to show how the courtroom works. The book examines the courtroom principles underlying these questions: Didn't Monica Lewinsky first admit to a sexual relationship with President Clinton in tapes surreptitiously recorded, later deny it in an affidavit, then admit the relationship before the grand jury and Senate? Weren't O.J. Simpson and President Clinton both the subject of DNA testing? By summarizing these important cases and explaining the principles of evidence, The Courtroom Explained is a great reference book for undergraduates and law students.

This book covers the various theories and timelines, and lets the reader decide what is the best evidence in the most highly publicized murder case of the 1990s. On June 12, 1994 Nicole and Ron were alive at 10pm; their bleeding bodies were found just before midnight. The limo driver picked up OJ Simpson at 11pm and drove to the airport. These facts are not in dispute. The Prosecution claimed the murders occurred after 10pm. The Medical Examiner said the forensic evidence indicated they died after 11pm. Hence the 'not guilty' verdict if you believe the facts rather than the unsupported allegations. The problem with eyewitnesses is they could be mistaken or lying when there is no corroboration for their statements. Keep this in mind to evaluate lone witnesses in general.
The Prosecution timeline is on pages 22-24. They picked the only time when OJ Simpson could have done it given Ron's earlier presence at work and the limo driver's presence at Rockingham after 10:22pm. Aaronson and Mandel passed the crime scene around 10:30 and saw or heard nothing (p.21). Another couple found Nicole's bleeding body around 11:50pm. This defines the time limits for the murders (p.26). Given the time needed for blood to clot (about 40 minutes) this would place the deaths at 11:40pm to be still bleeding when the police arrived at 12:15pm. OJ Simpson could not have committed the murders. That is why there were no bloody shoes, clothes, or knives ever found. No proof of buying Bruno Magli shoes. The problems with the blood evidence are listed on pages 67-68. The Coroner's Report has facts that dispute the scenario created by the Prosecution. The blood evidence problems are on pages 74-77.

The engine noise and headlights from a Ford Bronco would not let it arrive unnoticed by the limo driver that Sunday night (p.100). The problems with the prosecution's timeline are on page 102; the importance of the limo driver's testimony is on page 103. The topic of Planted Blood Evidence is on pages 137-139. Unlike other books, the authors mention the 'Los Angeles Times' story of 6-7-1996 where Vannatter picked up blood samples of Nicole and Ron from the coroner's office before evidence was turned over for analysis. This book assumes the murders occurred before 11pm (p.255).

Pages 177-183 has the scenario for two killers. For those who doubt an official conspiracy, the authors tell of the Black Dahlia Murder (p.222). The secret information that would later appear in Stephen Singular's "Legacy of Deception" is on page 226 (did he have a secret source in the LAPD?). The Media "almost never reported on the actual substance of the evidence at the crime scene"; they "dealt in sensation rather than analyses" (p.236). Was this the result of Establishment Censorship? You can draw your own conclusions. This is the only book that printed the autopsy reports of Nicole and Ron and the information on the wounds.

This is Film Studies of the first order. Williams takes the idea of melodrama as a mode and intersects it with issues of race and its representation. According to her, in conjuction with the popularity or in the legitimization of a particular medium in American society, the representations of the black male and female bodies take on center stage and gain new significations. The book starts out with Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and shows how it stays and strays away from the conventions of the Victorian novel. It then focuses on the Stowe's characterization of the black bodies and how they elicited the sympathy of the readers. Next, it shows how Dixon, with his novel "The Clansmen,' either changes or reverses Stowe's characterizations and themes to elicit another kind of response. However, it is D.W. Griffith's adaptation of the novel, "Birth of the Nation" that had a powerful influence in the society's imagination. Not only did the film legitimize the medium as an art form, it also gave the public a new way of understanding race relations in America. The book covers both the novel and the movie adaptation of "Gone With the Wind" and other cultural texts and ends with the televised trial of O.J. Simpson while keeping on the other eye issues of representation. Linda Williams' project is both multi-disciplinary and multi-media and she weaves them together in a rich study of melodrama as a cultural mode and the ever evolving nature of race relations and representations in our society. She wittily uses Henry James' imagery of the 'leaping fish' to show how melodrama dynamically moves from one medium to the next. Each time it makes an appearance in a big way, it also entails a recasting of black and white or racial representations. Williams achievement lies in her ability to pull together a variety of texts and approaches to engage upon the central issue of race. And she does this in clear, well-written prose. Although this is more like a work of cultural criticism, the book also opens up the possibilities of film studies as a powerful lens or a way of approaching cinema-related queries and dealing with socio-historical matters.

In "Representing O.J.; editor Gregg Barak makes use of meta-analysis to present a broad spectrum of views and commentary pertaining to the controversial "not guilty" verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial. Supported by contributed accounts, the editor paints a very disturbing picture of the African-American people's plight under the country's justice system. Also of particular interest is the role that the mass communications media is described as playing in the orchestration of periodic themes of violence that tend to depict members of racial minorities as having a monopoly on crime. Frenzied coverage of O.J. Simpson himself, Mike Tyson, Clarence Thomas and the dismissed Afro-American male juror whose crime was to look at a non-black female juror is presented as indicative of suck bias, and that's not all.

According to Barak and Co; themes such as the foregoing also have the effect of perpetuating the hegemonic order. As one contributor puts it, it is by means of legal fictions that the ruling class often criminalizes, manipulates, and otherwise controls political opponents and "uppity niggers" sic. He adds that occasional disorder actually serves to provide the ruling class with an excuse to tighten its grip on society by enacting harsher penal laws for society's so-called protection.

With regard to the "not guilty" verdict, the prevailing view seems to be that, that was a mere fluke since the factors that combined to influence it are non-existent in the majority of cases where Blacks fall foul of the law. Not everybody can afford the high legal fees that went into the Simpson defence and therefore they end up having to plea-bargain. The system was never meat to work for the African-American and therefore it would be naïve for anyone of them to believe that now it does. The book is surely an eye opener to anyone interested in the legal system and its impact on certain sectors of American society.

Finally, an unbiased look at the Trial of the Century. The authors managed to keep from using the race card, innuendos, and Hollywood hype to tell just the facts. This book gives the reader a honest look into that fateful night.