Triumph of Justice: The Final Judgment on the Simpson Saga

The definitive book on the Simpson case. Daniel Petrocelli and his fellow lawyers brilliantly dissected and debunked every myth about the Simpson case. I found the book very entertaining and well written and an excellent primer on how to do direct and cross examination of a witness. The book also demonstrated the powerful differences between a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit. The plaintiff lawyers brilliantly used the civil rules of discovery to their benefit. They made a discovery demand for Simpson to provide all the evidence he had of any sort of police conspiracy, contaimination of evidence, evidence of any third party who did the murder, etc. Simpson could not produce a single piece of evidence to support any of these theories. And since he could not produce any such evidence, the court properly refused to allow him to argue those theories at trial. Trials are solely about what can be proven and disproven. They are not forums to throw out every cockamaimie theory you can come up with (the criminal trial in this case). The civil rules also required Simpson to submit to "requests for admission" a powerful mechanism to reduce what has to be proven at a trial---if the opponent admits it, you don't have to prove it. Simpson had to admit that the blood collected at Bundy and in his car was his. And he had absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up any claim that it was planted. The civil rules also required Simpson to submit to a deposition and to testify at the trial. If he had refused to testify, he would've forfeited the case. And of course in his deposition and in his trial testimony he lied continuously and in easily provable ways. For every lie he gave the plaintiffs had one and usually at least two different witnesses to impeach Simpson, often testimony from his close friends, Taft, Cowlings, Kardashian and his estranged girlfriend Paula Barbieri, amongst others. Finally, and most devastatingly, they found the photos of Simpson wearing the same shoes that were worn by the killer at the murder scene. Simpson had previously denied ever owning such shoes. And to try and debunk the photo? He brings in a kooky JFK conspiracy buff as his photo "expert". Then when 30 other photos from a different photographer show up, one of them printed in a newspaper 8 mo before the murders, the game was over for Simpson. An innocent man doesn't have to lie when he's on trial. Simpson lied. I thought the most powerful argument that Petrocelli made in his rebuttal was concerning the attempt by Simpson's lawyers to trash the reputation of Ron Goldman. If Simpson was truly innocent, why would he try to trash and debase the memory of Ron Goldman? According to Simpson's theory, Ron Goldman died fighting to save the life of the mother of Simpson's children! In fact, if there really someone else who did the murder, then Goldman's heroics might've prevented the killer from going into the home and murdering Simpson's childre

This is a great read about the real, authentic search for the truth about the O.J. Simpson double-murder case. The story captured me from start to finish and has details that were not brought out in the criminal trial or were ignored then. Furhman and Bugliosi's books are also good, but Petrocelli's puts the lid on this can of worms. It tells how the justice system should work, whether or not there's money involved. It makes the criminal trial look like it truly was: injustice.

Was drawn to this book because I had seen Daniel Petrocelli on various talk shows. His explanation and legal rationale relative to the important legal and social issues of this case caught my attention. Prior to the publication of his book, I had not read any books relative to the O J case. Petrocelli provides the reader with a behind the scene view as to the strength of his leadership and managerial skills. He was faced with a huge task of evaluating the mountains of legal testimony and evidence from the original case. Where to start? Where would the money to put on a first class case come from? Who should be involved? He takes the reader on his personal journey from the early stages as to whether he should take the case,through his approach to key individuals in his law firm, the rationale he used for delegation, as well as expressing the personal doubts he encountered both prior to and during the case. Soon the reader feels his obsession, his passion and distaste for Simpson, but is still able to become focused enough to develop a very cogent legal strategy. The book certainly is a must reading for any law student because of its awareness in how important it is to have good case preparation. Such an approach may be taught in law school, but when done in an effective way as outlined by Petrocelli, it can be a realistic learning experience. It is even recommended reading for experienced trial lawyers who have an opportunity to reinforce what it takes to develop a thoroughness of legal preparation whenever they represent a client. Petrocelli provides a high quality sense of reality for legal scholars and practioners as to what clients should expect from a legal team in a high stakes winner take all game. The purchase of this book is worth the investment.

I found Petrocelli's book utterly engrossing. I admit now that I was a Simpson trial junkie. Perhaps because of my disgust with the first outcome, it was with excitement that I picked up Petrocelli's book; I was not disappointed. Petrocelli's finest accomplishment with this book is showing how utterly shameless Simpson is. Petrocelli does not hide his incredulity, as well he shouldn't. Using sworn documents and other statements and materials, Petrocelli shows step by step Simpson's repeated attempts to obfuscate, attenuate, and ameliorate. Petrocelli also succeeds in voicing the reader's thoughts, as when he makes comments on specific Simpson lies; he knows what the reader is thinking. If you read one more book on Simpson, make it this one. "After you read this Simpson bible, you must find him liable."

I was one of those few who had not closely followed the Simpson case. I purchased this book because I felt that it would report verbatim the testimony given in depositions and in the trial, and thus could not suffer too much from creative, biased writing. The author is, of course, biased. He represented the plaintiff, and felt Simpson was guilty, but I cannot conceive of anyone objectively reading this book and not coming to the conclusion that Simpson is a double murderer. While many of this country's citizens may have legitimate concerns about their treatment by the police, this is not the case to represent those grievances. Simpson's side simply has no evidence regarding a police conspiracy. It is amazing to read about the mock trials conducted by Petrocelli's team wherein some Afro-American members of the mock jury indicated that while feeling Simpson guilty they would vote to acquit. As Petrocelli says, he wasn't trying to keep Blacks off the jury, he was trying to keep people with this sort of bias off the jury.This book is important as history. It relates almost all the research done by the plaintiff's legal team, and the testimony presented in depositions and at the trial. For all of this, it is never tedious or dull; rather it reads like a courtroom thriller novel.I have only one negative feeling about the book. While I am convinced that it is an important, necessary book, it seems odd that Petrocelli should make millions from writing it while the plaintiffs in the suit will probably see little of the 33.5 million dollar judgment. I had hoped that somewhere Petrocelli would say that he is giving some of his profits to the charitable organization founded by Goldman. Petrocelli also states how the Goldmans became like family to him. I guess he needed another family as it was obvious that he totally neglected his own for a year.