Murder in Brentwood

I absolutely loved reading this book. I was only 8 years old when this happened, I started watching the television series of the murder, and was in ah to know a guilty man was set free. I became curious of all the characters, especially mark and began to wonder what happen, and decided to read his book, and not for a second was I disappointed. He explains in depth every moment and I love him even more as a person. They should've never let him go from the force or pressed charges against him. It's sad how much of his life he dedicated to others and when he needed the support and dedication everyone turned their backs. His children should be honored and blessed to have a father like him. He has my support!

Such a sad and infuriating event. Mr. Fuhrman speaks plainly and gives a lot of detail and background into this case. I had a difficult time putting it down. Mr. Fuhrman was clearly railroaded, which I suspected back in '95 as this all unfolded in the media, and this account confirmed what I already thought. I sometimes found myself hoping for a different ending to the story, even though I already knew how it would turn out. Still, it's a great read and I highly recommend it. Thank you, Mr. Fuhrman, for putting the truth out there.

For some reason after 21 years I've finally started reading several books written about this horrific tragedy and I have come to the same conclusion I did 20 years ago. Mark Furhman was demonized by EVERYONE because he was the only competent person involved with this case and that the prosecutors were idiots!!!! Read this book!

Murder in Brentwood (American Crime Stories)The Hardcover of this book has some amazing COLOR PHOTOS of the crime scenes and of other important pieces of evidence. The Mass Market Paperback even has crime scene photos although I think they are in black and white in the Mass Market. THIS Trade Paperback? NO PHOTOS OF ANY OF THE CRIME SCENES OR EVIDENCE! That in and of itself IS a CRIME! This book is too good to leave out one of the most gripping parts of the book. The PHOTOS. Mark Fuhrman's drawings and sketches are still there, but without the photos to cross reference what you are seeing in the drawings, you lose HALF of what you want to see!! If you decide to buy this Trade Paperback version, make sure you pick up the Hardcover or the Mass Market Paperback so you have the crime scene photos.

I went into this book strongly disliking Mark Fuhrman. During the read I started realizing he was a good cop, did his job well and thoroughly. Unfortunately, he was used as the scape goat. The defense used him to deflect the guilt of OJ Simpson combined with an inept biased jury which equaled a not guilty verdict. Mark Fuhrman's honesty is what makes this a great read.

Murder in Brentwood is an amazing account of fact finding, evidence gathering by Detective Fuhrman. His methods for documenting, drawing and keen observations at the crime scene and Rockingham were the main reasons he was maligned--In other words, he did his job too well. He was the one person that the Defense had to destroy--but good begets good and today Det Fuhrman is writing, anchoring, etc. This is an excellent read and I suggest the Mass paperback because of the photos.

A complete miscarriage of justice this trial was. Interesting to hear the backstory as to how Simpson got off and how Johnnie Cochran was so quick to point out how others were racist when he was the biggest racist on the planet. In the end, Simpson is finally where he belongs.

mark is awesome. got totally shafted. thanks for writing such a great book and great perspective from the should have been lead detective!! what a bunch of incompetent prosecutors and judge. incompetence to the max. how can anyone look at so much evidence and say not guilty? i dont refer to him as oj or simpson i refer him as murdering scum bag. it would be one of my great joys in life to meet or talk to mark furhrman one day. really enjoyed the book thanks.

Like another reviewer said, 'a bit self serving' however an excellent expose on the failure of the system due to incompetence, celebrity worship, ineffective police work and corruption in the legal system (let's use the race card every time). Mr. Fuhrman's account of this event is revealing and disturbing.

It is still unfortunate that a killer (OJ) got off and the trial turned into a lynching of Mark Fuhrman. This book is an excellent account of what truly happened that night. recommended for anyone that KNOWS O.J. is a murderer!

Seems everything Fuhrman writes keeps your attention and is enjoyable to read. And, since he played a major role in this investigation, he has the inside track according to what he writes. Would recommend this book to all who still wonder about the O.J. crime.

Mark Fuhrman wastes almost all of the reader's interest level with a sloppy and disjointed view of the issues. He is constantly forcing himself into a position of far more importance than he had.
I had to force myself to finish the book.

This book was more about Mark Fuhrman than the murder of Nicole & Ron. How he got the shaft and all the mistake everyone else made that allowed OJ to be set free. It is amazing how easily people can be misled when the evidence clearly is there. If you want to read a story about the murder in Brentwood, don't pick this book.

Fuhrman bragging about how he was this big city detective and how he was a victim....what a joke. They guy was burned out after 10 years of service, had to see a shrink, whacked social life, and was working in one of the softest divisions in the LAPD-WLA where folks go to kickback. If you can get past his crying in the book and focus on the revelations about the actual investigation, then the book is an interesting read for the price.

Unfortunately the print is so fine that it strains my eyes. It was not available for my Kindle so I bought the paperback edition. Although not a lot of money, still a waste. Sorry Mark wont be able to rate the content.

Former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman wrote in the Prologue to this 1997 book, “This is not a book of justification or excuse, but one of truth… An apology for the racial unrest I caused seems painfully inadequate. My immature, irresponsible ramblings with a screenwriter were never intended to be heard by anyone but the two of us. Although truthful, this simple explanation is no excuse for the disrespect that I showed millions of people. People I never met, saw, or heard of were affected by my cruel words. These words echo in my mind daily, and I am ashamed… In my heart, I always knew it was wrong, even if I said them only to create a fictional story. My first failure was the lure of greed, and the second was my lack of compassion… I failed myself, my friends, and my family when I grabbed the chance to make money… No thoughts can describe the remorse I feel for the people I have wounded. No story that can begin to excuse my insensitivity. I simply return to a much-used phrase… I am sorry.” [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the original 392-page hardcover edition.]

In the first chapter, he adds, “once the trial was over, when I was retired and under no professional obligation to keep quiet about the case, I still wouldn’t talk. I moved out of California, wishing only that my family and I be left alone… Now, after the plea [bargain], I have no choice but to speak out. So I decided to write a book and tell my story of this case. I apologize for the pain I caused with my insensitive words. However, one thing I will not apologize for is my policework on the Simpson case. I did a good job; I did nothing wrong. Yet I was blamed when the case fell apart. Throughout my ordeal, many people wanted me to fight back. Now I am.” (Pg. 9)

He argues, “There is a difference between moral and legal responsibility. I should not have said what I said. But whatever I said, no matter how cruel or stupid, should have had no bearing on the Simpson case. My recorded conversations with Laura Hart McKinney were an attempt to create a fictional screenplay, but my words were used as if they were testimonial fact… I should never have been asked the questions that led to my perjury conviction. Even if everything my critics said about me was true, none of it would have been relevant to the trial.” (Pg. 6)

Of his decision to plead “No Contest” to the perjury charge, he explains, “I could not afford to mount any kind of defense… The Los Angeles Police Protective League would not help me, even though my alleged crime was well within the scope of my duties as a detective… All I had done was deny using a racial epithet. But I was too much of a risk to the public image of the League and the department… I had to think of my family. Could they go through another two or three years of this?... After I weighed my options and the potential consequences, I decided to accept the attorney general’s plea offer.” (Pg. 7-8)

In Chapter 3 he describes his work at the crime scene, including seeing blood on Simpson’s Bronco, finding the glove, and the socks in the bedroom. Significantly, he states that he and his partner Brad saw a “bloody latent fingerprint on the north walkway gate.” (Pg. 52) He points out, “I had no idea whose print it was. This makes the defense’s later claim that I planted a bloody glove at Simpson’s Rockingham estate completely absurd. Why would I plant a glove to implicate Simpson if I already knew we had a fingerprint at the crime scene, but I didn’t know whose it was?” (Pg. 53-54)

He also lists what he considers to be the eight “most prominent mistakes made to [Detectives Tom] Lange and [Philip] Vannatter” in their investigation. (Pg. 57) He is also [and properly] strongly critical of the interview these detectives conducted with Simpson: “The interrogation seemed more an opportunity for Simpson to explain away areas in which he appeared guilty, and by not challenging his excuses, the detectives almost appeared to accept the answers.” (Pg. 73) Later, he suggests that his partner was not called to testify because it would have embarrassed the senior detectives [who may not have read Fuhrman’s crime scene notes]: “And the prosecution would have had the reputation of their lead detective seriously compromised.” (Pg. 221)

Of his 1982 application for a disability pension, he says, “While I refuse to discuss the specifics of that file, I will… speak candidly about my life at that time. The period… could only be described as a time I felt lost. I know that my personality and inability to cope with job pressures broke up my first marriage… I realized that nobody was going to fix me but me. I got control of my emotions and learned to cope with stress… I rose above my failures and eventually made a successful life.” (Pg. 106-107)

He acknowledges, “I was also attacked for collecting war memorabilia, some of which happened to be German. In fact, I’m something of a history and military buff and collect all sorts of memorabilia. Decorations, daggers, and sabres are about the only artifacts from World Wars I and II which are neither too expensive, nor too rare for me to collect… The defense claimed that because I had some German war memorabilia I was therefore supposedly a Nazi. That’s like saying because I collect late 19th century American cavalry items, I approve of the slaughter of Indians… I’m not obsessed, only extremely intrigued by holding a piece of history, no matter what period it might come from.” (Pg. 125)

He also states, “The fact that I retired to Northern Idaho unfortunately dredged up the media stereotype of the area as a hotbed of militia freaks and Nazis. That is completely inaccurate… The headquarters of Aryan Brotherhood [“Aryan Nations,” actually] is thirty miles south… I the two years I have lived in Sandpoint, I have never seen a Nazi… If the people of Sandpoint hate anybody, it’s the Aryans.” (Pg. 138)

He discusses the “Men Against Women” group that was a factor in his poor relationship with his superior, Margaret York [Judge Ito’s wife]: “‘Men Against Women’ was a tongue-in-cheek, beer-drinking joke used by officers to blow off steam, make us laugh, and try to forget the impossible job we had in front of us. Some might argue that even as a joke, ‘Men Against Women’ is immature and sexist. Maybe in hindsight I would agree. But at the time, we were trying to relieve the pressure of a difficult situation with humor… cops … were asked to train and work with those female officers who were incompetent or inexperienced. My problems with Margaret York… were professional, not personal. I couldn’t stand being led by someone who I thought was an inexperienced supervisor, no matter what gender. And I didn’t hide it.” (Pg. 142)

He suggests, “What pushed Simpson from his usual behavior into a brutal murder? I always thought, and still do, that he believed Nicole had a lover, whether she did or not, and whether it was Ron Goldman or not… Whether they were overt or covert about it, they did appear to be more than just friends… I always believed that Ron and Nicole were lovers. The atmosphere of Nicole’s home, the candles and soft music, seemed more than a coincidence. A love triangle was a stronger motive for murder than the ongoing domestic problems that Nicole and Simpson had for years.” (Pg. 188-189)

He is dismissive of co-prosecutor Chris Darden: “Chris Darden is a brooding, confused man. He is hot-heated, immature, and not in the least bit organized… He is obsessed with race… Darden often saw himself as a black man first and a prosecutor second… This statement [in Darden’s book In Contempt] illustrates the problems that Chris brought to the case---racial hypersensitivity, callowness, an inability to make up his mind, and amnesia about his oath as a prosecutor… His obsession with race and police misconduct was not a secret.” (Pg. 228-229)

Of course, he has to comment on defense attorney F. Lee Bailey’s cross-examination of him about his use of the “N-word”; Fuhrman contends, “Bailey had yet to establish a time frame for his question, which from my understanding of the court’s ruling was use of the word in the past ten years… The question in my understanding then and now referred to habitual use in the course of a lifetime… I didn’t answer the question because he never restated it… Bailey quite clearly asked, since ’85 of ’86 have you ‘addressed’ which means, ‘directly called,’ an African American with that word… I answered no again… Bailey is referring to the previously asked question and answer, which clearly described addressing African Americans, not referring to them… at no point was I willfully lying to the court. The screenplay tapes only could prove the ‘use’ of the word, not the direct addressing of an individual… I could have answered ‘yes’ to the accusations that Bailey leveled against me, but I truly do not address people with that word. Perhaps I was a little stubborn, a little embarrassed, and felt like I was carrying the reputation of too many people on my back… there seemed to be no right or wrong answer. I did the best I could.” (Pg. 250-252)

He admits that had had a sexual relationship with screenwriter McKinney (pg. 270), and that “I can see the misguided, get-rich-quick mentality I had then. In hindsight, I can see how these attitudes… led me to try to impress of shock her.” (Pg. 271) After the tapes were revealed to exist, “I called Laura… and pleaded with her to destroy the tapes. ‘These will destroy me. This has nothing to do with this trial about a murderer.’ Laura wouldn’t destroy the tapes.” (Pg. 273) Of his taking his Fifth Amendment right, he comments, “What many people don’t realize is that you cannot pick and choose the question you will answer when you invoke your Fifth Amendment right. If you answer one question, you open the door to other questions. So if you take the Fifth, you must take it on all questions. [Defense attorney] Gerald Uelman … played the game and asked me patently absurd questions about planting evidence… I took the Fifth because I had no choice. The prosecution had abandoned me, and I was left twisting in the wind.” (Pg. 289)

He concludes, “Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone says things they wish they had not. But not everybody is forced to stand … in judgment before the rest of the world. Eventually, I will have to explain all this to my kids… I hope they will understand that while I am not perfect, the only thing I was guilty of was doing my job. And when my son grows up, I hope he does not want to become a policeman.” (Pg. 321)

This book is “must reading” for anyone interested in the criminal trial. Fuhrman’s actual police work was probably sound (I doubt he had the opportunity to actually “plant evidence,” but he certainly gave the jury ample reasons for what they perceived as “reasonable doubt”), but his rationalizations of his words and behavior are quite unpersuasive to me. (If a movie had been released using his “fictional” screenplay words as the script for his “brother officers,” would he have been satisfied with this horrifying and racist cinematic portrait of them?) And his harsh opinions of Darden and York prompt one to recall the admonition to “remove the log in one’s own eye, first.”

I actually enjoyed this book. As much as you can knowing that two people were butchered. I don't agree with everything that Mark Fuhrman said and lying about it during the trial didn't help. However, this wasn't a trial for Mark Fuhrman, this was a trial on OJ Simpson. I do not believe he planted any evidence and I do believe he was a very good detective. His memory was uncanny (except of course when it came to making racial remarks). It was actually interesting to me to hear what a detective would do and what he sees on a crime scene. I do think he was abandoned by the prosecution and I certainly do not believe that his family should pay for the rest of their lives for what someone else did (remember there was a murder of 2 people). Lets face it, everyone in this trial blamed someone else for all the mistakes. Fuhrman certainly made his share but I don't think it was in his detective work. You can detect in his writing at times the anger that he has. It was an interesting perspective to get his side of things and I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to hear more in depth details of the investigation and he trial.

First off, I'll comment on the writing and organization of the book, really well done. Many other true crime books drop so many names, places and whatnot, it becomes hard to track them all.

As for the content, this was my first book reading on the OJ trial and frankly, much of it made me both sick and furious. OJ's guilt could not have been more obvious and from what I read, Furhman was held to be the focus of the trial. Really?
I am not 100% sure of Furhmans's innocence in it all, but maybe 98%. To say I don't trust law enforcement is not accurate. I do for the most part. But lets face it, is Furhman, even at this point, going to admit any wrongdoing? I do believe Furhman is a fine detective who did his job well, but lets see what the other books have to say...

While I'm planning on reading as many books on this case as I can, I get the feeling there will be a lot of blame and bashing of all the players...it was Marcia Clarks fault...no, Chris Darden's...no, Judge Ito's...no, LAPD...in reality, they ALL had a part in this fiasco of a case.

For those seeking to understand the facts surrounding the OJ Simpson murder case, this is probably the best treatment out there.

And by the facts, I'm talking the criminal investigation and the day of the murders themselves and not the subsequent trial. As to to the trial and more specifically what went wrong, the best book is probably Vincent Bugliosi's Outrage.

But as to the facts, this book is welcome reading.

In it you learn that author Fuhrman was not the first officer on the scene of the OJ Simpson murders. Other police officers were already there to witness the two victims of OJ Simpson's brutal knife attack (Simpson's ex wife Nicole and one Ron Goldman, a waiter purportedly there because he was bringing Nicole glasses her Mom left at the Mezzaluna restaurant they'd eaten at earlier that evening). What was found at the crime scene were a stocking cap, a left handed glove and several drops of blood that didn't match to either of the victms.

However the blood did match to Simpson. The stocking cap had nine hairs from OJ Simpson. And significantly clothing worn by Goldman had fibers matching that of clothing worn by Simpson himself that evening.

Just a few miles away, Simpson's Bronco was oddly parked outside his residence with blood evidence both inside and outside the vehicle connecting it with the crime scene. A blood trail existed between the Bronco and Simpson's residence and the right handed mate to the left handed glove was found outside Simpson's residence with blood traces from OJ Simpson and his victims.

Significantly a limo driver tasked to take OJ Simpson to a red eye flight was at his residence just as the murders were taking place and was unable to make contact with Simpson. But he did see a large African American male furtively entering his residence just prior to when he made contact...a time that was clearly after the murders had taken place.

In other words, OJ Simpson was connected with multiple pieces of incriminating evidence at both the crime scene and his residence AND he had no alibi.

Convetional wisdom at the time said there could hardly have been more evidence favoring conviction other than if OJ Simpson had confessed and/or recorded the crime.

So what happened? How did the case go from being open and shut to...well...just shut?

To hear Fuhrman tell it, it was everyone else's fault but his. For starters, the extensive notes he'd taken of his observations from the crime scene were not read by the ultimate Detectives in charge. Crime scene investigators didn't properly secure all the blood evidence at the crime scene including a bloodly thumbprint on the gate leaving Nicole's residence. What's more, prosecutors Marcia Clark and Chris Darden failed to properly prepare their witnesses.

I think I would've liked this book a lot better had Fuhrman been more willing to fess up to his personal responsibility in dropping the ball. No where in this book for example do read all the racist stuff he said in an effort to secure an early retirement in the early 1980s. Similarly, no where in this book does he repeat or express genuine regret for his multiple uses of the N word. Perhaps most of all, he dismisses his guilty plea to the crime of perjury by essentially saying the deal was too good and he didn't have the money to fight the charges.

I think I would have appreciated more honesty from Fuhrman. Yeah. I used the N word. Yeah. It's something I deeply regret like a stain on my personality or something. But even with that there were fourteen other officers who could have supported what I said about the glove and where I found it. Should my use of the N really allow a guy to get away with two murders?

I understand all hindsight is 20/20 but for my money our actions under pressure probably say more about our true priorities than anything else. What Fuhrman's said about his priorties was that when the going got tough, he was going to look for the fastest way out of a bad situation...perhaps all too sadly reminiscent of Simpson himself.

Murder In Brentwood (1997) by Mark Fuhrman is a superb read for anybody who wants to read Fuhrman's fascinating account of what happened on June 12, 1994 and the days and months afterward. Fuhrman goes into elaborate detail on many things, including the infamous Rockingham right-hand glove, the bloody fingerprint that Fuhrman discovered and wrote in his notes, analysis of the Bundy and Rockingham crime scenes, the stab wounds, the prosecution, the defense, Judge Lance Ito, and so much more. This book was written by a now former LAPD detective who was actually THERE at the crime scenes gathering evidence. I and so many other people believe that Fuhrman was railroaded during the circus that the criminal trial was.

Even though the O.J. era is long over (well, that's actually debatable since he's been making headlines in the last few years and is now in prison for armed robbery), reading this book will bring you back to that era and I think you'll find it a fascinating read. This book also contains many color photos of key players on both sides as well as some disturbing crime scene photos (just to warn you).

He describes what happened on scene, and what happened in the trial.Of the half-dozen books I've read on the topic, his is the most clear cut. Like Bugliosi, he blasts how the prosecutors conducted the trial and how they acted, even in summary, as if the case was a difficult one. Bugliosi's book is better on the trial itself, but Furman gives a clear, reasonable review of the evidence and the crime scene.

GREAT BOOK MARK...hope you read the reviews! Because I want you to know that I'm proud of you. Having been involved in law enforcement in one way or another quite literally my entire life, (since my father was the 1st cop in the family), I have to tell you that I quite literally cried when I saw you on that stand taking the fifth. Why? Because I KNEW exactly what they'd done to you...by "they" I mean Ms. Clark & Co. (I just love how she's making tons of money out of losing, don't you? THAT's the justice that these victims received, and her comments about you to the jury were JUST as self serving as everything she's been doing in her life! Only in L.A...home of all the wannabe actresses eh?) Writing this book, taking responsibility where it was due, and telling the WHOLE truth about others involved, who I doubt will ever show this much honor in their entire lives...this took GUTS my man...and you've got 'em! I'm so GLAD that you gave the public this sorely needed insight into this crime as it was committed by the "alleged defendant" and the sham trial that took place afterward. It didn't take a cop or a rocket scientist to see who the guilty party was...and it REALLY didn't take either to see that you'd been railroaded, so that a murderer was allowed to go free. It also didn't take either to see that the defense did NOT win this case...rather the prosecution LOST it! Your book was a great read...it was honest, forthright, and most likely a very difficult task for you personally for a number of reasons, but you've managed to rise above all of the idjits (G-Rated Slang Noun) that were involved in that entire debacle, and in the end not only did you give us a book that had the cold hard truth in it, you also showed the public and Ms. Clark & the Gang, just who they REALLY were messing with... someone with more character in his little finger than they will EVER have in their entire bodies. Keep up the good work Mark...I've read 'em all...and can't wait for the next! Keep The Faith, and Stay Safe. FOLKS...READ THIS BOOK...you may "think" you know who Mark Furhman is, and what he's about, based on what you've heard and read in the press from talking heads, but you DON'T know...not until you read this tell-all exclusive by a man who, going in, had nothing to lose or gain on a personal level when he wrote it. And unlike so many of the other "players" in that drama, this man takes credit AND blame where it's due...he doesn't PASS THE BUCK!

Having read Evidence Dismissed, I picked up the paperback copy of this book to get a different perspective on the procedures that were followed ( or not) during the investigation of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. I was pleasently suprised by the candor and the honesty of the author, as he told "his side of the story". I, like others, felt that this man was the evil incarnate, but after reading this book I think that evil resides in the ego's of all that were involved in this case. Furhman admits and even chastises himself for some of his faults, but points out supporting information that the media, the procescuters, and the defense team failed to provide, that indeeds shows that this man, like all of us, is not perfect yet is not the beast that he was made out to be. As the old saying goes, Just the facts ma'am, and in this case the facts still add up to a damning case against OJ Simpson. The facts are clearly laid out, the mistakes noted, and still in the end, you come up with the same conclusion, if not OJ, then who? I am glad I added this material to my knowledge of the case, it provides additional insight into the crime. Would I like to share a drink with Mark Furhman, before this book no, after, I would say yes.

Who is Mark Fuhrman? EVERYBODY knows THAT! Do they really? Inthe media's rush to judgement of Mark Fuhrman, they forgot about adetective with a long distinguished career and about the damning evidence that he found. This book takes the reader inside the mind of an experienced detective doing what he does best: solving crime. Unfortunately, he did it to the wrong suspect, and in the ensuing debacle, was run through the mud for a few careless comments he made years ago while collaborating on a screenplay. After reading this book, I began thinking that the wrong man was set free for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and the wrong man now has a criminal record to follow him for the rest of his life, and is now the third victim of the "crime of the century". END

Fuhrman's book is a good, straightforward telling of the Simpson investigation. For the most part, he seems impartial, drawing his conclusions from the evidence alone. My only criticism is that I felt he defended himself too often, but that's to be expected, I guess, when people are blaming you (wrongly) for setting a murderer free. Some chapters seem to be all about Fuhrman, but most of the book is about the case and evidence themselves. I learned a lot from this book that I wasn't aware of during the trial, and I agree with Fuhrman that if the prosecution had done its job, Simpson would be behind bars today. This was a much better read for me that Vincent Bugliosi's book, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder, which was too emotional and seemed more like a rant than an objective look at the case.

Fuhrman's book is a good, straightforward telling of the Simpson investigation. For the most part, he seems impartial, drawing his conclusions from the evidence alone. My only criticism is that I felt he defended himself too often, but that's to be expected, I guess, when people are blaming you (wrongly) for setting a murderer free. Some chapters seem to be all about Fuhrman, but most of the book is about the case and evidence themselves. I learned a lot from this book that I wasn't aware of during the trial, and I agree with Fuhrman that if the prosecution had done its job, Simpson would be behind bars today. This was a much better read for me that Vincent Bugliosi's book, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder, which was too emotional and seemed more like a rant than an objective look at the case.

Murder in Brentwood

The Foreword by Vincent Bugliosi praises Mark Fuhrman as a "thoroughly professional officer", but also says this "is not to be construed as an endorsement by me" (p.xx). In the Prologue Fuhrman says the mistakes he made will forever haunt him (p.xxi). Any apology would be inadequate.

Fuhrman plead no contest to the perjury charge, and thinks he got a raw deal (p.252). "I should never have been asked the questions that led to my perjury conviction" (p.6). This plea deal was as lenient as the law allows (p.7). The Los Angeles Police Protective League would not help, even though they financed the defense of accused murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug addicts! Fuhrman complains that "policemen never get the benefit of the doubt" (p.9). After his plea he decided to write a book to tell his story: he did a good job, he did nothing wrong, but was blamed when the case fell apart (p.9). So what did he do to deserve all this? Fuhrman alone found the blood on the Bronco; he alone found the bloody glove (p.32). Yet he did not discover the blood on the inside of the Bronco (p.35)! He blames the lead detectives for the mistakes that would compromise the case (p.45). Page 48 mentions the brown leather glove found at the crime scene, but the picture shows a black leather glove was found at the Simpson estate! On pages 52-54 Fuhrman tells of a bloody fingerprint seen on the back gate. Was it erased because it was not Simpson's, and would weaken the case against him?

Pages 60-76 tell how interrogations are done; you won't see this on TV. Fuhrman again criticizes Vannatter and Lange for their actions, but also said decisions came from "higher up" (p.78). Page 105 gives Fuhrman's comments on the alleged glove planting. "There was not a shred of evidence that I could have done anything like planting the glove. In fact, it could be proved there was no way I could have done so." You can read Stephen Singular's "Legacy of Deception" for another viewpoint: "all the blood evidence is suspect". In Chapter 11 Fuhrman gives the allegations, and his facts in denial. Chapter 12 tells of his "professional conflicts" with Judge Ito's wife. Was it now payback time?

Chapter 13 discusses the evidence. Fuhrman uses words like "a match with" and "consistent with". The book "Tainting Evidence" explains why these phrases are misleading. Fuhrman says "the blue-black cotton fibers are no doubt from the clothes that Simpson wore". "No doubt"? Can anyone believe that OJ hid the bloody clothes and shoes so they would never be found, but brought the socks and one glove back to his home? Since the forensic evidence said the murders occurred after 11PM, OJ could not have committed these murders. Fuhrman's book is well written. The LAPD's loss is the literary world's gain. Marcia Clark's career also ended, and Lange and Vannatter then retired. No one says why.

I really wasn't interested in reading a book about the Simpson case. It was so highly publicized that I was tired of hearing about it. However, after I read "Murder in Greenwich" by the same author and watched a video about the Simpson case in my criminal justice class, my interest was piqued. So I decided to buy the book, and to my surprise, found it very interesting. There was a lot that I learned by reading this book that I never heard when watching the news-some of it quite fascinating. If you're interested in learning about what went on behind the scenes in the investigation and trial, read this book. It's a fairly quick read and quite entertaining.

Mark Furhman did a great job explaing this case. He is a great detective, he want on to help solve an old cold case after this case. He's not afraid to investigate someone with political pull, or celebrity status. They sure could use him on the Ramsey case.

This book is written in a way, that someone without a legal or law enforcement background can read and understand the situation. This trial was never about the tragic loss of 2 lives. It was about money, fame, prosperity and total incompetence. It allows the reader to surmise that every character in this tragic drama threw Mark Furman under the bus for their own personal gain and allows a murder to remain free.

Excellent telling that explained prosecutorial incompetence and cronyism.

Fuhrman never should have lied about the use of racial epithets when testifying. That said, the trial should not have been about what Fuhrman said in stream of consciousness script writing for a screenplay. The book sets the record straight about the laziness and arrogance of the lead detectives, Darden's epic racism, and Clark's astounding incompetence at handling simple trial issues.

The story is well told, and extremely compelling. It makes a great companion read with "Outrage", and Bugliosi wrote the foreword. Simply outstanding!

Perceptive, unbiased people know the truth when they hear it, and one of the most famous of those people is Oprah Winfrey. At first, all she had to go on were the lies, half-lies, and twisted truths of the "Dream Team", Oprah Winfrey was a Fuhrman-hater extraordinaire. However, when Fuhrman, with bigger balls than a Texas bull, accepted whole-heartedly an invitation to sit in a snake pit and to be hissed, struck at, and spit at (Oprah Winfrey's show) speaks volumes. Anyone who watched that show marvelled how Fuhrman stood up to a barrage of garbage and simply told the truth. We witnessed a miracle: as Fuhrman calmly, and with quiet authority, told that truth, the hands of those, who fifteen minutes earlier could have strangled him, were now coming together in applause as the ring of truth began to sound, and it was Oprah Winfrey who led the way. When Mark Fuhrman apologized on nation TV, for using the 'N' word in writing dialogue for a movie script (something which not only regularly done, but is also EXPECTED by a movie-going public who wants realism) it was the icing on the cake. Fuhrman went from being hated to actually loved in a matter of an hour....and why? Because he told the truth and humbled himself.

He has done the same in MURDER IN BRENTWOOD. If readers cannont fully smell the coffee after reading this book, then there's something very wrong with their sniffer. Fuhrman was a cracker-jack detective, probably the best LAPD had. Without him, Simpson never would have been in custody, and with him LEADING the case, instead of the starry-eyed, Simpson-smattered, Vannatter and Lange, Simpson would never have, NO, could never have walked no matter how big the 'dream team', because in evidence a 'clear, first-rate, blood fingerprint would have been included, the finger print that Simpson left on the back gate as he made his ludicrous, wild-eyed, escape. That finger print was cleary noted and referred to in Mark Fuhrman's notes, and was witnessed by his partner. Why was in never lifted? The reader can only imagine. But Fuhrman's painstakingly accurate, crime scene notes have the ring of truth............and so does his book! Yes, it is 'a little self-serving', and after what he had been put through, it darn-well ought to be.

I highly recommend this book for any who want the truth!

This book reads like a documentary and is probably the most realistic report on what really happened that night. The system failed the deaths of Nicole and Ron and it failed Mark as well. Whether he was a racist or not is not the issue. O.J.'s ability to "spin" whenever the police were called eventually lead to Nicole's demise. Mark wrote an excellent account of the night of the murders and the ensuing investigation.

A fascinating book by a guy who was probably unfairly judged. The world went crazy when OJ killed his ex wife. He should have gone to prison, and finally he did. I feel very sorry for the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

Mark Fuhrman is a brilliant writer and was a brilliant detective. Unfortunately, 'they' made him the scapegoat in OJ's murders and ruined his police career but those that are aware, realize what the truth is. Mark Fuhrman has made a great life for himself and his family, in the second chapter of his life. I am so grateful to him for writing all these books (check out "Murder In Greenwich" book, it is awesome too). This book about the slaugher of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman goes into minute detail as to the forensics and all the other evidence that should have convicted that murderer. It is sickening to see how badly the other detectives bungled the case and it is more than sickening to see how Mark got blamed for it. It is a MUST-READ book for all who care about the Truth. Thank you Mark Fuhrman!

This book meticulously outlined the blood evidence in this case and I am shocked and appalled that O.J. Simpson could walk out of that courtroom a free man, and Mark Fuhrman ended up prosecuted for perjury. Fuhrman can no longer vote or own a weapon, and lost his career as a police officer because he had the misfortune to become the defense "dream team" target. To this day, I have intense feelings of disgust toward the defense team of lawyers and their willingness to do anything to get O.J. off, even destroy the career and life of innocents. Vince Bugliosi wrote an introduction to this book that is worth reading; his book on the O.J. travesty is one of my favorites. He explains why Fuhrman's "perjury" should never have been prosecuted and why, and how irrelevant Fuhrman's racial attitudes (whatever they may truly have been) truly were to the case (they had NO bearing other than to create a scapegoat so that a murderer could walk free!). I have immense respect for Bugliosi, who did not compromise his integrity to win cases, and yet won almost every case he took on. There is something very wrong when the "trial of the century" was nothing more than a circus and the "dream team" a high paid team of professionals who were willing to sell themselves to O.J. for the almighty $ and the fame that went with it. Which ones of them did NOT write a book after their glorious victory? Shame on them. Good for Fuhrman to come out fighting finally and rebuild his life. He shouldn't have had to do it.