This book just angered me! Before I started I didn't really know much about Marcia Clark. I had read a book of hers and thought it was okay. So I was indifferent when I started this book, but that changed quickly. She is judgmental, thinks she is absolutely perfect, that no one can compare to her highness. I was disgusted throughout this book. It's easy for someone to look back on an event and see things that happened and try to clear their themselves of a failure. This is one of those books. She doesn't take back anything she did, but defends it. Within the first 50 pages she places the blame on every single person, but accepts none for herself. I take extreme offense when prosecutors or defense attorneys blame the jurors for their decisions. They are always called "stupid" by one side or the other. The lawyers feel because they are common people or lower class that they could never understand the depth of DNA evidence. Clark, at the end of her book, specifically states that we need to have smarter, well educated people on juries. I am sorry, but I think this is the worst possible thing to ever say. As an American citizen every person whether they are educated or uneducated have the right to sit in the jury box and serve. Not only that, but they should never be called stupid or told they could never understand evidence because they don't hold a degree in a certain area or field. I hold no degree in science, but I understand DNA evidence. We need to give jurors more credit. We need to respect them. Marcia points the finger at the jurors, the cops, the judge, the defense attorneys, and even the public. To me that isn't what lost the case for her. It was the reasonable doubt that was presented. The failure to maintain the scene and knowing the problems you had, but ignoring them is what cost the case. It's funny at the beginning Marcia says she got a call about the crime scene and she specifically asked that the "best" guys were on the scene. She knew she wanted the "best" because sometimes you get guys who skimp on collecting the evidence or don't do it properly. Really? This was the first thing that you say to someone? Oh by the way make sure to send the best. We are going to need it. Right... Even when the DNA was going to be tested she said she doubted their capabilities, that had it been up to her she would have sent it elsewhere... Again right... All these little statements annoyed me. She was trying to pump herself up. She wants to come out of this disaster looking like an innocent victim. Even the fact that Marcia didn't want to work with another lawyer was annoying. She didn't like working with others. Not only that but when she worked with Darden she would make these side comments on how he messed up, how he didn't understand premeditation, among a slue of other issues. She didn't want to work with anyone else because she was perfect and she knew what she was doing. The entire book felt like a slam against every single person she came in contact with. I think at some point you need to step back, admit defeat, and accept responsibility. I was hoping for a look into the trial and to see what was going through the prosecutions heads, what they thought they did wrong, what they did right, would change. All the things lawyers look back on and see about a trial. Not this book. She goes through the trial and recounts everything she did and there was absolutely nothing she would have changed. She presented the case in the best way and should have won. Well it wasn't a slam dunk. You didn't win. So wouldn't there be things you look back on and say yeah I might not have done the best here or I wouldn't have done this or that? I struggled to finish this book. I ended up putting it down for a very long time before wanting to get it off my shelf permanently so I finished it. I just have a hard time when someone attacks others to make themselves look good.
It brought back the whole context of the Simpson trial to me. At the time, I paid little attention to it because I knew from the beginning that he would get off, and it was too painful, so I minimized my exposure. One of my friends at work used to vent about it to me, so I began using our daily newspaper in a creative manner. I'd find the picture of OJ in the paper, and lay it down every morning for our elderly poodle to pee on. I'd tell her every day, "Linda, Spunky peed on OJ today," and that seemed to make her happy.This book was really good. I don't think I would have read it, though, if OJ wasn't in jail right now. This book really brings home just what a big deal it was that so many respectable people (Barry Scheck, Alan Dershowitz, for example) jumped on the flimsiest pretexts to prostitute themselves for him. Anyway, it cost me a buck, so if you can find a copy for that kind of money, then go for it. Read it in small doses, though, because it's depressing to see the overwhelming evidence and know what the outcome was going to be. I note that none of OJ's attorneys have come out with books with this kind of detail - perhaps because they really couldn't find anything to exonerate him.Thank goodness he's in jail and I hope he stays there the rest of his life. I hope he's really, really miserable. Still, that's small comfort for the two families of the victims.
What do You think about Without A Doubt (1997)?
This book was fascinating. She begins the book with stating how painful it still is to her to remember the O.J. trial. Ironically, the day I'm writing this review is the very day that Casey Anthony was found not guilty (O.J. Trial part 2). I can only imagine how completely empty Marcia Clark felt when her verdict was read, and they had enough forensic evidence to convict O.J. 5 times over. I know how disgusted I feel right now (and how disgusted I felt back in 1995), and I'm just an "armchair warrior" as Marcia says. She put her blood, sweat, and tears into that case.This book made me so angry so many times, not because of the writing but because of how much of a circus it was allowed to become. Everything that could have gone against the prosecution, did. I watched the O.J. trial on TV. I don't remember it all vividly, but I think a lot of us remember where we were when that verdict was read.I've become very interested in the workings of the law after this Casey Anthony trial. I liked going behind the scenes with Marcia in this trial. I learned a lot.I'd suggest this to anyone interested in either the O.J. trial or law in general.
—Beth Bedee
My grandma gave me this book; she was done with it and she was just going to give it to goodwill. The beginning is a bit boring, but after that, it is riveting, and I couldn't put it down. I'm very interested in the O.J. Simpson trials now, especially because I was a baby when they actually occurred, so I guess I never really knew the whole story. I'm going to read some other books about the trials, to get different perspectives, but this one struck me as pretty fair and balanced. It really made me think about our jury system, because mainly the people who end up serving jury duty are the uneducated, can't-hold-down-a-job type, since jury duty requires a long absence which most working people's jobs don't allow. This needs to be fixed!!!
—Michelle
Judge Richard Posner once opined, “Once a case gets to the jury, all bets are off.” He was referring a civil matter but the same is equally true in the criminal realm. This book about America’s most widely-watched criminal trial fully discusses the societal and individual factors contributing the one of the most celebrated and reviled jury decisions in our country’s history. Although I was too young to appreciate the finer points of evidence in the Simpson trial while it was happening, reading Marcia Clark’s accounting of the event was illuminating. She was willing to admit her mistakes and wrote candidly concerning the role that race played in swaying the sympathies of the jury. Having gone to bat for the defense in mock trial during law school, I was truly interested in the prosecutor’s version of events and surprised at many of the personal revelations Clark shared.
—Jade
