The author of this book is a defense lawyer and wrote from this perspective. He focused a great deal on what is wrong with our legal system, lawyers and judges, and how this came out in abundance in the O.J. Simpson trial. He tends to rant about and belabor a lot of his points, which was annoying to me, although he did have some good points. There was only a little bit of new information (to me) about O.J., what he did, how he was acting before and after the murders and what other witnesses knew but didn't get into the trial. As this is what I was most interested in, I didn't like this book overall. ( )

O.J.: The Last Word will be of use to two types of readers – fans of attorney Gerry Spence, and readers who seek every last work on the 1995 OJ Simpson trial. While informed readers will find a little that is new here, Spence has a handful of useful insights into the case and strong opinions of the kind that his devotees may enjoy. Neophytes, however, should start elsewhere (e.g., Jeffrey Toobin’s The Run of His Life).

Mr. Spence served as a television commentator on the 1995 murder trial, and apparently had not intended to write a book on the subject. By his account, he and a friend took a road trip through the western US, reading the other books aloud to one another, and vehemently arguing aspects of the case. He offered this work as a corrective to the many previous books by other participants and observers of the trial. Whether the book is a "corrective" is a matter of opinion; it rambles quite a bit (as if it had been dictated), with much second - guessing and hindsight- based criticism.

Spence agrees with most observers that the evidence presented of Simpson’s guilt was overwhelming. However, Spence levels strong charges against the police, whom he considers guilty of deception and of mishandling and possibly fabricating evidence. He argues that in light of police misconduct as well as prosecutorial incompetence, a verdict of “not guilty” was entirely justified. “Although we may feel that justice was aborted in this case, we celebrate the jury’s verdict because even though it may have released a guilty man, it preserved a system that can also protect the innocent” (p. 230).

In Spence’s view, the judge (Lance Ito) was competent but ought never have been permitted to try the case, due to conflict of interest; the defense team was capable but nowhere as good as the press made them out to be; and the jury (contrary to common opinion) was conscientious and attentive and came to a reasonable conclusion in light of the evidence.

On the other hand, Spence is unsparing in his criticism of the prosecution’s tactics. He considers that they “tried the wrong case”, attempting to force it into the context of domestic abuse and into a specific timeline, neither of which would have been necessary for an effective case. Likewise, he considers that the prosecution failed to present important evidence. For example, a major witness who saw Simpson fleeing the murder scene was never called to testify, partly because her evidence didn’t precisely match the prosecution’s timeline of events. (In defense of the prosecution's decision, as Spence acknowledges, this witness had already sold her story to a tabloid). As to the murder weapon, he notes that Simpson had recently been given 10 knives of various kinds prior to the murder by the company the makes them. (This point would hold more weight had the actual weapon been recovered). Further, Spence points out shortly before the murder, Simpson acted in the role of a knife wielding killer in the movie “Frogman.” Thus, the prosecution missed a valuable opportunity to highlight the fact that Simpson had practice in use of knives and slashing actions just like those he used the night of the murder. As to the famous trial episode when Simpson seemed unable to fit into the glove used the night of the murder, Spence considers it a major prosecutorial blunder not to have someone put the glove on Simpson (since he clearly was protruding his thumb so as to make the glove not fit)

At times, Spence plays armchair detective, as in his strong speculation that Simpson hid his bloody clothing and murder weapon outside a neighbor’s house. One wonders if he is aware that Simpson took a suspicious bag with him to the airport that fateful night, which was never seen again. Elsewhere, he comments on the ways “race” permeated the case from the outset (affecting the choice of a black prosecutor, arguments over where the trial would be held, outlook of the jury, and the nature of the prosecution’s case), as well as on the ways the death penalty is imposed, and on the tabloid nature of the trial’s press coverage. Likewise, we are told that OJ directed his attorney Robert Shapiro to recruit Mr. Spence to the legal defense team. (Shapiro's account in his own book states, instead, that OJ left the decision to him). Shapiro went through the motions of asking, but apparently saw from the outset that the case could not benefit from their dual participation.

The Simpson case was once called “the trial of the century”, and while it continues to fade from public memory, it is used in law schools for instructional purposes. While this book is a minor footnote to the trial, readers interested in how the case might have been tried more effectively could well find it interesting. ( )