Great book of his. RIP to an angel and burn in hell to Cochran.

@Brandon Bell Are you alright?

Bugliosi was a nut job too & a liar. Used to respect him until learning this:: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aN2AfNGYlc6rqIU.html

He really shows how incompetent and clueless the whole District Attorneys office was. Garcetti, Clark, Darden etc.

I doubt you have done any research on him. He loves to go on Gerardo and pound his chest , look how great I am. Vince lost the DA election in 72 Vince lost the AG election in 74 Vince lost the DA election in 76 There reasons he lost. You might want to look into the “milkman” incident, some idol

Until someone asks you why.

@@Solitude47152 So you're saying he was arrogant or overconfident in his life? I have not noticed that yet but he was a legal heavyweight. To my knowledge he never claimed to be a great mathematician, artist or athlete...he was a a warrior of law and justice and I don't think it's wrong to flaunt your strengths and have strong opinions about things you have spent a life time studying. Arrogance and being a straight up knob is what the defense displayed during the OJ Simpson trial and they were not reprimanded for it much. The court system relies on an adversarial process and while Bugliosi was much more of a gentleman than Simpson's lawyers he was trained in a confrontational, disagreeable style because that's how the system works. Simply knowing all the facts is not enough; you also have to be charismatic and appeal to emotion (which is how the defense won) and since Bugliosi was deeply concerned with justice and a senior lawyer it only made sense for him to voice his opinion on the case strongly so that hopefully the miscarriage of justice displayed in the Simpson trial could be prevented elsewhere.

@@miesvaillanykyisyytta3252 Gentleman? He used the power of his office to investigate his milkman. He was told to leave the DA’s office.

@@Solitude47152 As I understand it that was when he was a young man and I don't know if he took responsibility for it later on or not. I can only assume that he did. He's about 60 in this video. You're not the same person at 40 as you are at 60. Not making excuses for his bad past behavior; just noting that good people own up to their mistakes and improve. People like OJ Simpson don't do that. Simpson committed serious crimes and flirted with crime well after his physical prime...even well after he was given those "free murders".

Even considering the fact that the prosecution was grossly incompetent in Simpson's trial for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, that jury should have convicted Simpson! But as Bugliosi accurately stated, that jury couldn't have been any worse! No one should ever be allowed to sit on a jury in a criminal case in which DNA evidence is the key evidence in the case without being able to prove to the court's satisfaction that a juror has a basic understanding of how DNA distinguishes one person from another - i.e., that DNA is composed of 4 proteins adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine and that adenine always bonds with thymine and that cytosine always bonds with guanine and that the pattern of those pairings of proteins in a double-helix "ladder" forms the DNA molecule and distinguishes one person from another. Marcia Clark incompetently had the DNA expert Robin Cotton on the witness stand for a mind-bogglingly, ridiculously excessive 3 DAYS going over technical aspects of DNA analysis which went way over the heads of that jury! Any truly competent prosecutor would have had Robin Cotton keep her testimony short and simple by explaining DNA in the most basic, simple terms without going into totally unnecessary technical detail such as how the lab splices the DNA in a blood sample or blood drops into fragments/segments in order to analyse those fragments and the technicalities of the analysis process! The total idiot juror Brenda Moran after the concludion of the trial spoke to the news media and said to them that the jury just ignored the DNA evidence in the case because they didn't understand it!!!!!!!! That speaks volumes as to the incompetence of that jury to hear that case and render a logical, rational verdict based on the evidence in the case! And calling her an idiot is not racist because stupidity knows no racial boundaries and there were two whites on that jury and they were just as incompetent and stupid as the rest of the jury!

You would have been crying and this Loser , would have been defeated so bad. This real clown never in his life confronted a team like that defense team with all of that logistic. For sure Bugliosi wouldve lost big

@@msbrando you make no sense

@@msbrando , you're fucking delusional. Vincent Bugliosi never lost a murder case, either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. That is a claim that Johnnie Cochran can NOT make. There's a reason Cochran never came onto any talk shows to argue the Simpson case with Bugliosi. Cochran would have gotten crushed if Bugliosi had been the prosecutor.

@@pythonpatrol1110 If Bugliosi were the prosecutor, Cochran wouldn't have taken the case. He knew he could turn it into a race thing once Chris Darden and Mark Fuhrman were involved.

@@msbrando no he would have won and the one defended he did defend he got an innocent verdict even when a majority of his colleagues thought she was guilty you don’t know what you are talking about.

What's amazing is that the Goldman family didn't look at this book and realize how stupid the prosecution was and never talk to their asses again for anything? There is stuff in there that I know would make their blood boil.

@PhilC: Give us an exhaustive list of all Bugliosi's terrible flaws and explain how they have an impact on this or any other case.

@@stddisclaimer8020 Considering that Bugliosi won 105 of 106 felony cases as a prosecutor AND defense attorney, his flaws had no impact on his legal resume. As I previously stated, he was a genius, but with serious character flaws. Just for starters, he stalked a man who delivered milk to his home, he accused this man of impregnating his wife, and he picked up this man's 5 year old daughter at school and took her for ice cream. Bugliosi also had several mistresses, he impregnated 1 of his mistresses, demanded that she get an abortion, and when she refused to do so, he beat her up to the point where she lost the child. I could go on, but then I would be doing all the work for you.

@@pjtheory If Bugliosi's alleged flaws have no impact on that for which he's most noted, there's no compelling reason to bring it up, unless you have it in for him. Trawling the tabloids for dirt on Bugliosi is not "work" for you, more likely a labor of love, or rather hate. Even if all the assorted sordid tales you cheerfully recite are 100% true (which is 0% probable), it still would not dim the Bug's bright star one lumen, nor put him anywhere near the top tier of infamously misbehaving lawyers (cf. Rudy Guiliani). I can see Vince having a laugh at your silly post.: "What this man (PhilC) writes is absurd on the face of it!" And then a libel suit might fly...

@@stddisclaimer8020 Have it in for him? Ah, no. I have 4 of his books and labeled him a genius, but one cannot embrace the better without accepting the bitter. Were it not for your hypersensitive response to a singular sentence in my original post, I would not have provided any details of his disturbing behaviors. Those behaviors are not rumors, they are documented fact. If you had done a lick of research, you wouldn't have compared them to tabloid fodder. If you want to get the full picture of Vincent's issues, Tom O'Neill's book CHAOS is a good place to start.

Maybe they didn't, but Bugliosi would've ridiculed the police conspiracy thing so badly that they would've had no choice but to convict without making complete arses of themselves (although they already did).

@@TDKiller415 With all due respect, did you listen to any of these juror interviews? One of them said she thinks the blood was from OJ's kids. Another (I think Carrie Bess) said, and I quote, " If he did it I think he would have had to have help." With this level of idocy in basic logic, I stand by my word, they wouldn't have convicted. Bugulosi wouldn't have convinced them. He didn't have a perfect prosecutorial record btw. Yes even with his great rhetoric and arguments, he can lose too, even with a good case.

@@nolaguy1408 I tend to agree with your point regarding the jury. However, I saw Bugliosi give a mock closing argument shortly after the verdict and found it very effective. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iJ9nicl23rupk30.html It's long but I found it very persuasive. Of course, I think OJ is 100% guilty, so it might be a case of him preaching to the choir. Also, you heard Bugliosi state that the original vote on the case was 10-2 in favor of guilt, even after this very poor performance. Finally, I think that Bugliosi would not have made the egregious errors that Clark/Darden made such as having OJ try on the gloves in open court.

I heard NINETY MINUTES was the deliberation time.

I have a hunch that you are correct. For one thing, the trial took place too soon after the Rodney King debacle, and for another thing, I think that the jurors of colour could not have held their heads high in their communities if they had convicted the most beloved athlete of all time.

Same here. It's an absolute tragedy he wasn't called to lead the prosecution team for the 1995 murder trial. He would have torn the defense's case to shreds, even with all the LAPD's mishandling of the evidence.

He would of been absolutely no match for Johnnie Cochran. If it doesn't fit you must acquitt.....now that's legendary!

@@louaiga74 I can do one better “if you aquit,your full of shit!”

That’s why he took the “Fifth” at the trial. A complete disgrace to the LAPD.

@@Solitude47152 is that right,can you please show me the evidence that proves fuhrman planted anything that the defence accused him of? I’ll wait patiently.....

It's called double jeopardy. They can't go after the real killer.

They would've shit their pants till it filled up their socks and covered up their shoes.

So misleading, Vince would only take slam dunk cases to trial. If he thought he was gonna lose he would hand the case off or dismiss it. That statistic is so misleading

Remember good old Vince like to run for office. In 72 ran for DA, lost. In 74 ran for AG, lost. In 76 ran for DA, lost. Vince never talks about this. He also doesn’t tell you about the “milkman” incident. This guy is bizarre.

@@Solitude47152 doesn't matter has won most of his cases and the one person he defended he got a not guilty verdict even though most of his colleges thought she was guilty.

@@Solitude47152You gonna post this everywhere ?? There’s 2 sides to that incident anyway !

You seem upset William, everything okay?

Shut up Willie

That book was so terrible I used it as firewood

Man, that's terrible to hear. It wasn't like that when I grew up in the 80s. Whenever a bully got what was coming to them, everyone considered it justified.

@@chrisb8655 A time where sanity ruled, not minority favouritism

just shut up all your arguments are ad hac responses with no facts to back them up.

Watch the interview with OJ titled; “If I did it”. He confessed to those murders.

@@saltychips5795why wasn’t the glove cut?

And the blood on the driveway, and the blood in the bronco, and OJs blood at the scene? Man, he must have sure hated OJ!

@@BulDurham Furhman taking the 5 on if he planted evidence would have gotten your mother off a murder charge need I say more

@@BulDurham Vanatter

Vince was appearing on EVERYTHING at this time. He wasn't afraid of confrontation.

It takes arrogance to erode the public's faith in the police and judicial system. Bugliosi's just doing his job. Cochran, Scheck, Bailey and Shapiro were the ones who put the system on trial.

Where was that proven? And even if its true, whats your point? OJ had every right to butcher them? Mr Reality, lets see if you repeat those words if its your child who's been butchered, you comeplete and utter moron.

And your point ? Does that mean they deserved to be murdered?

It’s all facts . OJ admitted to the murders in 2006 anyway . Now he’s ash it’s over

You almost got it, but you went with the "conspiracy to frame" angle again. The D.A. had over 24 lawyers working for it, not just Christopher Darden. The prosecution absolutely threw the case in order to appease racial tensions in L.A. at the time in regard to the Rodney King incident. All you have to do is watch Vincent Bugliosi's deep dive into the case (it's free on KZfaq and it's about 4 hours), where he points out the immense amounts of obviously incriminating evidence against O.J. that were intentionally left out for no reason by the prosecution. I'll give you one example that shows clearly that the fix was in to get O.J. off the hook. The prosecution had a video of O.J. in a good mood at his daughter's recital from the day the murders took place. The prosecution gave that video to the defense team, knowing what was on it and then AFTER that had Nicole Brown's sister give testimony that O.J. was angry all day. So they set themselves up to be beat by the defense's cross examination, because once Nicole Brown's sister said that, the defense just showed the video of O.J. in a good mood and smiling and the testimony was ruined. This case was thrown.

Half the country was. A killer walked free.

Used his position to do so and spent tax payer dollars in doing it.

Nope he uses facts and evidence and as its stated he won most of his cases and the one defense he did, he won.

@@spearfisherman308 Nope he was too busy counting his money.

@@Solitude47152 nope again used facts and evidence, its funny how you don't provide any examples.

@@spearfisherman308 It was unethical for him to cash 💰 in on the Manson murders. He should have been disbarred. He gave nothing to the victims family. That’s why he lost the DA’s race in 72 and 76. You have my utter contempt.

@@Solitude47152 he wrote a book about the case which is not illegal again you have not debunked anything he has said.

Smoke another one! Ooft!

If you’ve watched this interview and don’t agree that OJ got away with murder then you are lying to yourself! His 5 blood drops at the murder scene were collected BEFORE the cops even took his sample, END OF!

Jim Jim answer me this,if the cops illegally entered Simpson’s property to search around,why wasn’t all the evidence they found there including the glove and blood on driveway etc thrown out and made inadmissible?

Vince became a celebrity and and ego maniac yes, but he was still a top prosecutor first.

Vince loves to pound his chest on Geraldo, look how great I am. Him and Manson were both left wing liberals

@@Solitude47152, Bugliosi is a "left-wing liberal" when he put people on death row? Stupid.

You find a man who fights for justice irritating? 😅😅 I hope you're still saying that if a lawyer has to defend you.

But you do have skeletons as we all do, no need to get offended about it. Second, everything you just said is speculation, you're assuming he's corrupt. That's a weird thing to say considering you just complimented him in your original comment. And also, while Tom O'Neill may have been telling the truth, you have no idea if it's 100% all true. Anyway, no offense meant here, sorry that angered you so much. I wasn't saying you were a bad person, I don't even know you.