Venkataramani 1

Vignesh Venkataramani
Professor R.E. Fulton
First Year Writing
5 December 2016
A Deconstruction: Vincent Bugliosi
In this paper, I will be deconstructing the author Vincent Bugliosi. I have chosen to base my
analysis of Bugliosi on one of his bestselling books Outrage: five reasons O.J. Simpson got away
with murder. In this paper, I will try to bring to light how his writing is different from others in
the same genre and I will also briefly go over his writing style. I will look at the inspiration he
draws from his personal and professional life. Overall I will analyze Vincent Bugliosis approach
to crime writing, what inspires him and what thought goes behind his observations.
We will begin by looking at Vincent Bugliosis life. Vincent Bugliosi a decorated American
attorney and a best-selling author sadly passed away at the age of 80, on 6th June 2015. He is
certainly a successful attorney, with 105 out of 106 successful prosecutions of which 21 were
murder convictions. Gerry Spence, a fellow lawyer who once squared off (and lost) against
Bugliosi says no other lawyer in America could have done what Vince did in this case
(Bugliosi 11). Another one of his peers Harry Weiss says Ive seen all the great trial lawyers of
the past thirty years and none of them are in Vinces class (Bugliosi 11). He is a man admired by
all. His best-known case was the Charles Manson case. Known to be the most expensive and
lengthy case at that time Bugliosi used circumstantial evidence to show Manson had orchestrated
the killings. Bugliosi left the DAs office in 1972 and started representing criminal defendants.
Having experience on both sides of the table Bugliosi knows what it takes to make or break a

Venkataramani 2

case, but as a matter of personal preference Bugliosi says he identified more as a prosecutor. This
experience in the courtroom and outside it gave him a lot of intuition about the cases he wrote
about. His opinion, on many matters were contradictory to popular belief and I believe his
background in law has given him this outwardly persona. He says I was disgusted by the
tremendous groundswell of support for Simpson, even though two human beings had been
brutally murdered, and all the evidence pointed to Simpson as the perpetrator (Bugliosi 31)
which goes against what all the media and the world were saying at that time. People were found
holding signs saying Go O.J., Go and people were saying things like This jury will never
convict Simson .... This gives him a good grasp of the possible situations in a criminal case and
his brash nature helps him express his opinion without masking it too much.
Bugliosi being a lawyer played a big role in him being a successful author. When he came out
with his first Helter Skelter: the true story of the Manson murders he became a nation-wide
sensation. Bugliosi struck gold early as relatively early in his career he successfully prosecuted
Charles Manson, the case of the century, and his first book based on this case went on to win
the 1975 Edgar award for the best fact crime book. The case itself was so complex that Wilson,
Loretta S says Although he delineated psychological techniques used by Manson to manipulate
followers, prosecuting attorney Vincent Bugliosi finally credited the murders to something in
[Manson's] charismatic, enigmatic personality... that no one has yet been able to isolate and
identify (Kwileck). Bugliosi had a lot of inspiration to write books then due to his rising fame
and because many readers thought he offered a unique perspective. An online blogger
comments Vincent Bugliosi held a unique insider's position in one of the most baffling and
horrifying cases of the twentieth century: the cold-blooded Tate-LaBianca murders carried out by

Venkataramani 3

Charles Manson and four of his followers, not merely a spellbinding murder case". Titled after
a beetles song Helter Skelter was only the beginning of Bugliosis rise of fame.
When we look at his other works his focus is directed mostly to political figures and how
criminal cases surrounding them had an impact on the society then. His books Reclaiming
History: the assassination of president John F. Kennedy, and the prosecution of George W. Bush
for murder are some of his many books where he takes a political stance. He moves on from pure
crime writing and turns his focus on more of crime/politics book. He spends more time on
conspiracy theories and debunking them than on the topic at hand, not because he partakes in the
fallacies and theories proposed by internet trolls but due to the sheer number of theories
surrounding the issues of such political weight that must be debunked before Bugliosi can give
his views on the matter at hand and analyze it thoroughly. The one thing he maintains throughout
all his books is the fact that he remains completely factual and coherent, providing evidence for
his claims, Itos ruling was a clear violation of the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, he then goes on to explain how there was a violation of the amendment
and what effects it had on the proceedings of the case. In his book, Outrage, he attaches a copy if
the lab reports and the blood evidence in Appendix C. In his book Helter Skelter he says what
kind of mind would want seven human beings brutally murdered? we expect the evidence at the
trial to answer the question, evidence at the trial will show (Bugliosi 158). This shows he
sticks to the facts tries not to coerce his readers to form an opinion. He leaves his books up to the
readers interpretation, but his arguments are so compelling the readers find themselves seldom
in disagreement. He has drawn from his professional views and incorporated them into books in
such a way that a layman has no trouble understanding what Bugliosi is conveying.

Venkataramani 4

Bugliosis book Helter Skelter received the Edgar award from the mystery writers of America for
the best true crime book of the year. His book is the best-selling true crime book, with over seven
million copies sold. This book has been adapted into movies twice (first in 1976, then in 2004).
After his initial success in writing he became a critic of media, lawyers in major trials. The most
notable cases he has reviewed are the O.J. Simpson case, the Bill Clinton Case (Clinton vs
Jones), the George W. Bush case (Bush vs Gore) and the JFK assassination. The books he has
written about each one are exemplary. Stern, Sheldon M. says Reclaiming History is not really a
"book" at all in the conventional sense-it is more like a comprehensive reference work-an
encyclopedia of the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath. Bryan Burrough of the New York
Times says Reclaiming History, a cellular level re-examination of the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy, clocks in at 1612 pages (Burrough). The book took him 21 years to write, one
must think he would have found some concrete evidence solving the assassination, but he
reaches the same conclusion may writers reached years before him. Then why is the book a best
seller, not trashed by the critics? As one critic puts it So this is where one expects the reviewers
to savage Bugliosi for all those wasted years and pages. Well I cant do it. The fact is, the darned
book is very good. His books are such a good read you find yourself at a loss of words when
you finish. One thing I have noticed in his books, he is very emotionally vested in his books. He
assumes a basic level of cognition in his readers and demolishes stupid arguments in the passing.
He says the real mystery is how people with IQs no higher than room temperature can write for
major publications, it is the lack of common sense in his book, furious at journalists
misreporting incidents, creating groundswell where there is none. His books in general are
factual, well-structured and leave no room for stupidity. This is more so in his book Outrage: five
reasons why O.J. Simpson got away with murder.

Venkataramani 5

Bugliosi had no interest in writing a book about the O.J. Simpson case. He says I found I had
very little interest in the case itself (Bugliosi 15). He justifies this lack of interest by claiming
that Simpson committed the murders and that the trial was just a game and he had no interest in
the game. He starts off the book introducing the case. Usually at the beginning of any book
Bugliosi takes a firm, well substantiated claim. His case is usually very compelling which
usually brings most readers to his corner from the beginning. First, he gives a brief description of
the crime scene and the chain of events. He talks about the general ambiance of the case was
upsetting, people were still on Simpsons side when all the evidence points to him committing the
crime. He then notes a couple of things off the bat. The says the jurors dont seem to have
intellectual fire power and that they seemed biased towards Simpson. He, then, talks about the
DNA evidence provided and how that alone is enough to convict him. He takes a very firm
stance at the beginning and defends it throughout the book. He then goes on to deconstruct the
case into the core reasons why the people lost the case, starting with the media.
He clearly states and restates throughout the book that the media plays a big role in skewing the
mindset of the public. He clearly says that he is against what the media has said with respect to
his case. He has his own opinions even if it is contradictory to the general masses. Bugliosi does
not cower and change his opinion, is not one for herd mentality. He stands by his opinion backed
with facts. During jury selection, a prosecutor says you may not like me for bringing this case.
Im not wining any popularity contest by doing so. He blames the media for making a murder
suspect seem like a hero to such an extent that the lawyer feels the need to apologize for doing
her job. The media plays an enormous role in the giving people information of the Simpson case
that Mindy Mechanic says In light of the increased access to media information about domestic
violence in the post-Simpson period, it was hypothesized that post-Simpson participants would be

Venkataramani 6

more knowledgeable about domestic violence and less tolerant of woman battering when compared to
pre-Simpson participants (Mechanic). He also believes that the media plays a role in adding to
the mental stress of the prosecutors and leading the people to believe that the defense lawyers
were on a league of their own, calling them the dream team, the best defense money can get.
While Bugliosi says most celebrity defendants are extremely unknowledgeable, nave and if
they get into trouble they call their lawyer friends. He starts with Howard Weitzman, the first
lawyer Simpson called. He says Howard Weitzman, who I dont believe has ever handled a
murder case. He goes on to Robert Shapiro, another celebrity lawyer. Bugliosi points out in his
playboy interview that the Simpson trial was apparently Shapiros first murder trial. Lastly, he
talks about Johnnie Cochran, Cochran joined the defense team and soon emerged as Simpsons
lead trial lawyer, he also says recall him to be above average, which, of course isnt saying
anything. He then asks how do you take a lawyer who has never tried a murder case before
(Shapiro), another who isnt even primarily a criminal lawyer but a civil lawyer who may have
not won a murder case before a jury in his career (Cochran), and another who lost the last big
case he tried twenty years ago, and convert them into the Dream team, the best that money can
buy? (Bugliosi 41). Bugliosi is obviously outraged at the atrocious coverage the case was
receiving. He criticizes the media for exaggerating the achievements of the defense team and
undermining the prosecution constantly crates biases in the minds of the already biased jury. The
media takes it so far that Thomas Grochowski comments O. J. became a complex media
phenomenon, not a media event in the sense described by Daniel Dayan and Elihu Katz (1992)
though some aspect of the ceremonial was part of the criminal court procedurebut a dense,
multigenetic televisual spectacle that became a focal point for many Americans (Grochowski).

Venkataramani 7

He has a very rigid viewpoint and logically breaks down others arguments. He maintains his
stance through the book and has no problem offering negative criticism of his peers, collogues.
Throughout the rest of the book Bugliosi talks about the incompetence of everyone involved with
the case. He doesnt hesitate to point out others errors. This is very different from others. Jeffery
Toobin says Having played the role of loser enough times during my years as a prosecutor, I
hesitate now to play the role of the commentator. He starts with the defense. He complains
about their incompetence and how they should not have introduced the race card where there was
no need to. This, he says, only complicates the case more leading to a different dimension of the
case. Now the jury which is mostly black would tend to lean toward Simpsons side. This race
argument, says Bugliosi, should not have been permitted by the judge and should have been
quickly dismissed by the prosecution, none of which were done. He then lashes at the sitting
judge, judge Ito. He says his conduct was not professional and his behavior towards the
prosecution was to restraining. He says if he was the prosecutor in this case, he would have
ensured the judge does not mistreat him in front of the jury as reduces the credibility of the
prosecution during the final statement. He then vents out all his anger on the prosecution. This
may be because he identifies more with the prosecution or may be because they managed to lose
the easiest conviction, where all they needed to do was present all the evidence collected. For
some reason, they did not present to the jury some of the evidence. Bugliosi dedicates one fourth
of his book recreating the scene and narrating the events as if he were the prosecutor, telling the
readers how he would have gone about the final statement. He says he has a peculiar style of
preparation which is unlike most other successful lawyers. He is not hesitant to point out the
mistakes made by his collogues and is very brutal about it.

Venkataramani 8

In this paper, I have talked about Bugliosis approach to writing and what inspires him. I have
remained objective in this analysis and can conclude that he is an attorney par excellence and is
very well written. A self-made man and an inspiration to many Bugliosi is a role model to many.
Seemingly a great guy all round he does have his faults. In almost all his books he talks about his
wife Gail Bugliosi. He does draw a lot of inspiration from his personal life. It seems to me that
his wife played a major role behind his success. After his death, Linda Alvarez had come forward
claiming to have his love child. Though Bugliosi is an ideal lawyer/writer this paper does not
comment on his personal life.
Works Cited
Bugliosi, Vincent and Curt Gentry. Helter skelter: the true story of the Manson murders.
NewYork: Norton, 1974. Print.
Bugliosi, Vincent. Outrage: the five reasons why O.J. Simpson got away with murder. newYork:
W.W. Norton & Co., 1996. Print.
Grochowski, Thomas. "Running in Cyberspace." Television and New Media (2006): 361-382.
Web.
Mechanic, Mindy B. "O.J. Simpson: A Threat to Internal Validity." Journal of Social Issues
(1997): 517-530. Web.
Stern, Sheldon M. "A PROSECUTOR TAKES ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION." Reviews in
American History (2008): 142-150. Web.
Toobin, Jeffery. "Review: The O. J. Simpson Corpus." Stanford Law Review (1997): 971-1019.
Web.

Venkataramani 9

Wikipedia. 26 November 2016. Web. 4 December 2016.

Wilson, Loretta S and Susan Kwileck. "Are these people crazy, or what? A rational choice
interpretation of cults and charisma." Humanomics (2003). Web.