I've read most of Mr Dunne's books and he continues to hold my interest. I have the utmost of respect for this gentleman...his unbiased yet "in your face" take on the upper crust's trials and tribulations are bar none...right on the money, so to speak.
I hope Mr Dunne keeps on doing what he does best...and that is TELLING THE TRUTH!~

Yes, he is gossipy but in many ways that raises him above others. Any one who likes true crime will love his work. I think that he has experienced such things he speaks with the a personal insight that only the person who has experienced the pain knows ho to convey that in written form

Briefly interesting, but after awhile it begins to read like a syrupy tabloid. Also, as the narrative went through the murder account and trial of Dominick Dunne's daughter, I couldn't help but think, why didn't the author do more to keep his daughter away from this convicted criminal? Maybe I missed something, but he was in the know that his daughter was involved with a convicted abuser: why didn't he do everything in his power to bring his daughter back away from this creep?
Anyhow, as for the rest of the book, I really couldn't care less about individuals like Claus von Bülow, so the text tended to drag.

Briefly interesting, but after awhile it begins to read like a syrupy tabloid. Also, as the narrative went through the murder account and trial of Dominick Dunne's daughter, I couldn't help but think, why didn't the author do more to keep his daughter away from this convicted criminal? Maybe I missed something, but he was in the know that his daughter was involved with a convicted abuser: why didn't he do everything in his power to bring his daughter back away from this creep?
Anyhow, as for the rest of the book, I really couldn't care less about individuals like Claus von Bülow, so the text tended to drag.

The man cannot string two words together without name dropping. It is disgusting and so is he.

A fascinating book into how high priced lawyers can convince any jury your Mother is worse than a serial killer. Essentially that is the conclusion I got from the book.

Some of the stories are too long and complicated with lots of names, so that is why I am giving it 4 instead of 5 stars. It also was not clear to me what exactly happened in some of the murders, particularly the last one on Safre.

Most of these pieces appeared in Vanity Fair, and the overlap in some of them about the O.J. Simpson trial is left in. About 10 minutes worth of editing could have solved that problem. Otherwise, this is a passionate account of Dunne's view of several of the high profile cases he's made a career of covering since exiting the movie business. The most interesting is the case of his own daughter's murderer, but the Menendez stories and the Michael Skakel case make fascinating prose. Definitely worth reading, even now, long after these trials ended.

Dominick Dunne received a lifeline from a Washington Post reporter seeking to report the story of David Begelman's forgery. Dunne felt he was a Hollywood failure, and so, he admits, the desire for revenge drove him to help the reporter get his story. In 1982 Dunne's daughter, Dominique, was murdered. He felt the trial of her killer was a travesty. The author's first magazine piece for VANITY FAIR concerned that trial. Dunne covered the retrial of Claus von Bulow. Trials can be boring, but people involved in them are not. He had gone to Hollywood to work on PLAYHOUSE 90 with Martin Manulis.

In writing about the trial focusing on Dominique's death, Dunne repeats the adage that the murder victim is always placed on trial. In trials, journalists jockey for position. Trial-going in Hollywood highlights dysfunctions in the criminal justice system. Where the fact-finder fails to be impartial, and/or where the lawyer-teams opposing each other are disproportionate in terms of resources, results are skewed. A trial, of course, is theater. The glare of publicity never seems to serve the ends of justice; but, of course, injustices may also take place in relative obscurity.

What Dominick Dunne brings to trial reportage is his experience as the parent of a murder victim and his knowledge of the customs of the entertainment industry. Dunne reports that in the trial of O.J. Simpson the public sent bouquets of flowers to the participants. Juries don't like female prosecutors but do like female defense attorneys. The author believes an effective defense attorney must possess a mean streak. Most of the book's chapters are devoted to the Simpson case. Monte Carlo has been described as a sunny place for shady people. Edmond Safer, a financier, died there in a fire. A Dunne fiction work, A SEASON IN PURGATORY, was based on the Martha Moxley murder case. When he wrote his novel, that case had not been solved, even after some twenty odd years.

I have never written a review like this before, and feel compelled to share my thoughts, honest and forward, to anyone considering reading this book.

I picked it up and could not put it down.
I wish I had never read it.

It is a book that is so terribly sad, especially with the story of the author's daughter's murder, and it is written with a skill that is not often seen: a combination of honesty, pithy expressions, pain, joy, and a constellation of emotions that all masterfully come together.

Why do I wish I had never read it?

If you have any connection to the court system, you already know that lying is so common place that it is frightening. People swear an oath and lie with impunity, but reading of the injustice, for instance, that this man suffered in his daughter's murder, or all the spin that OJ's "dream team" used, in short clips to reporters, feeding the public red herrings; deliberate lies, knowing that public influence will reach even a sequested jury, is just horrible to read. The glam of hollywood is sickening and reading about how terribly hated white people were by blacks supporting OJ...knowing that this woman, who was brutally murdered along with an innocent bystander, only to hear that a male black juror could say, "she got what she deserved" is sickening. It brought back all those terrible emotions as race relations in 1994 revealed a black on white hatred that I was, quite frankly, ignorant of its depth.

Reading of wealthy scoundrels like Johnnie Cochrin and others is very difficult. You wonder whether or not these talented men possessed a conscience. The only comforting thought it that in the afterlife, Providence will decree justice. The man with the long record of violence against women, of which record the judge (wink, wink to the defense attorney he was buddies with) would not allow to be admitted, served 2 1/2 years for the murder of a bright and wonderful young woman is almost more than the reader can bear. Dunne brings you into this pain; perhaps as close as a stranger can come to feeling the maddening frustration that he and his family felt during this trial. How Dunne was able to do this, is beyond me, but he did it. Don't read the book if you cannot bear to be that close to pain.

It reminds me of the story of Bob Dylan, giving an interview in 1974, after many years of not talking to the press. The woman interviewing him starts off with, "I just want to say that I really enjoy your new album, Blood on the Tracks". Dylan says, "I can't understand anyone enjoying that much pain" and gets up and walks out.

I wanted to stop reading, quite often, but continued.

Reader: proceed with caution. It is not about race, as people of decency, no matter what race, will be terribly upset by what they read.

I have never written a review like this before, and feel compelled to share my thoughts, honest and forward, to anyone considering reading this book.

I picked it up and could not put it down.
I wish I had never read it.

It is a book that is so terribly sad, especially with the story of the author's daughter's murder, and it is written with a skill that is not often seen: a combination of honesty, pithy expressions, pain, joy, and a constellation of emotions that all masterfully come together.

Why do I wish I had never read it?

If you have any connection to the court system, you already know that lying is so common place that it is frightening. People swear an oath and lie with impunity, but reading of the injustice, for instance, that this man suffered in his daughter's murder, or all the spin that OJ's "dream team" used, in short clips to reporters, feeding the public red herrings; deliberate lies, knowing that public influence will reach even a sequested jury, is just horrible to read. The glam of hollywood is sickening and reading about how terribly hated white people were by blacks supporting OJ...knowing that this woman, who was brutally murdered along with an innocent bystander, only to hear that a male black juror could say, "she got what she deserved" is sickening. It brought back all those terrible emotions as race relations in 1994 revealed a black on white hatred that I was, quite frankly, ignorant of its depth.

Reading of wealthy scoundrels like Johnnie Cochrin and others is very difficult. You wonder whether or not these talented men possessed a conscience. The only comforting thought it that in the afterlife, Providence will decree justice. The man with the long record of violence against women, of which record the judge (wink, wink to the defense attorney he was buddies with) would not allow to be admitted, served 2 1/2 years for the murder of a bright and wonderful young woman is almost more than the reader can bear. Dunne brings you into this pain; perhaps as close as a stranger can come to feeling the maddening frustration that he and his family felt during this trial. How Dunne was able to do this, is beyond me, but he did it. Don't read the book if you cannot bear to be that close to pain.

It reminds me of the story of Bob Dylan, giving an interview in 1974, after many years of not talking to the press. The woman interviewing him starts off with, "I just want to say that I really enjoy your new album, Blood on the Tracks". Dylan says, "I can't understand anyone enjoying that much pain" and gets up and walks out.

I wanted to stop reading, quite often, but continued.

Reader: proceed with caution. It is not about race, as people of decency, no matter what race, will be terribly upset by what they read.

Of all the commentators I trusted Dunne's insight because I believe it came from a person who knew Hollowood. While the book covers many other cases I believe he gave us more insight on O.J. and the kind of man he was. After reading his observations I have to wonder how Judge Ito allowed this circus to go on.

In this collection of 19 essays, which originally appeared in "Vanity Fair" magazine, Dominick Dunne presents nine true accounts of crimes, trails, and punishments, mostly delayed or denied. He begins with his own wretched first experience with the debacle of the American court system, in which his own daughter was violently murdered, and the guilty served a sentence of only 2 ½ years. Ten of the essays deal with the O.J. Simpson case. Dunne always believed O.J. was guilty of the double murders, and he presents what happened at the trail and sketches of the participants in a straightforward manner that would convince all but the most stubborn. One essay deals with the Menendez brothers trail for the murder of their parents, another case where the victims are victimized again. The other essays deal with lesser known, but no less sensational crimes. What comes out of these episodes is a realm of society that few of us know well: multi-divorces, extra-marital affairs, extravagant spending, high-flying life styles, cut throat business dealings. It is as fascinating to read, as it is repugnant. Dunne is an outsider who has gained admittance to the inner thoughts and dealings of this nether world and brings it to us unflinchingly. Highly recommended.

There are 2 things that must be done:
1. The criminal behind bars.
2. I should get my reputation back.

Many people who have reviewed Dunne here have missed the fact that this book is a collection of essays with updates of his work for Vanity Fair. So if they appear repetitive, you probably subscribe to Vanity Fair.
For the virgin Dunne reader, I'd start with this book. I just finished JUSTICE at a cottage in the great Canadian North. What a quick, easy read.
I do think Dunne should have edited from essay to essay, as there are repeated names and facts from one to the next. Regardless, I can't think of another famous person I'd like to interview for his opinion on the world of the rich and famous. Dunne is a millionaire, hob nobs with his fellow kind, yet calls it like it is.
Some suggest he dwells in the land of good versus evil. I suggest, Dunne travels by gut instinct.
His honesty is refreshing.
I was fascinated with the extensive coverage of the OJ trail...
Again, I disagree with my fellow reviewers---I wanted more, more, more.
The newspaper and tv coverage gave the "official" view...Try a front row seat -- that's what the Judge gave Mr. Dunne.
This book isn't everyone's cup of tea, but its readers are sure to acknowledge Dunne has reinforced the concept that justice is a relative term.

Dunne is a hack when he tries to discuss the criminal justice system. His opinions are obviously not always incorrect, but he reveals a lot of misconceptions about the law and trials. His biggest asset seems to be that he knows and is known to many wealthy, famous or whatever individuals. One gets the impression that he is a groupie of both criminal trials and the rich and famous and inflates his own status. This collection of articles varies from really poor to average in intelligence and content.

While I did enjoy "Justice," it was not what I expected. I wasn't aware that the book is a grouping of Mr. Dunne's articles from "Vanity Fair." The book was off to an excellent start with a chapter about Dominique Dunne that made me cry. However, it quickly moved into numerous chapters about OJ Simpson (this was the bulk of the book). The book is worth reading if you are an OJ Simpson junkie. If you are not, I recommend skipping that part. I also could have done without Mr. Dunne's constant references to all the famous people he knows.

Dunne moves in circles that I scarely knew existed anymore. Well, I knew they were around of course, just not in my world. He exists often in a world that the Society pages in our newspapers once fawned over. Those days, as Joe Epstein argues in "Snobbery" are largely gone. However, Dunne moves in what is left of it. But, what sets him apart (makes him far more than a name dropper that some ridicule him for being) is his compassion for victims. His own loss is moving. He is funny, warm, honest, and never pulls his punches. He is elegant and real. This book of essays is well worth your time.

This is a collection of articles that appeared in Vanity Fair on some of the biggest crime stories of the rich and famous. This is not a series of "whodonits.." Instead Dunne weaves the tales of the people and personalities involved in each case. From the Menendez Brothers, to OJ, Claus Van Bulow, and Michael Skakel, we see the people behind the facades. Very, very entertaining pieces.

Much of the book centers on the OJ Simpson trial. I am sick of the OJ trail, but I found these articles interesting. Especially worth reading is how Dunne describes the culture of Los Angeles and its elite through these revealing articles. So even if you're tired of OJ, you'll likely find these pieces relevant and interesting.

After listening to Dunne on Larry King Live, I was very interested in his chronicles of some of the high profile murders of recent times.

Dunne is a good writer, entertaining, and worth reading. However, there was nothing new in this book. The man does get around socially and subsequently, he gets his story. While Dominick Dunne speaks with an honest voice, he's still singing the same old tune. Maybe I'm tired of hearing about OJ? I remain baffled about the title because Justice was certainly never accomplished for many of the rich and famous of which he writes. Ho Hum...

Dunne's approach is to size up each person he encounters and either vouch for that person's good character or to engage in broad-gauge character assassination. He either likes you or he doesn't. Dunne never met a cop or prosecutor he didn't like, and Dunne never considers the possibility that inept cops arrested the wrong guy.

The glaring exception to Dunne's principle that the defendant is always guilty is the Safra murder in Monaco, where the defendant was an American male nurse who, in Dunne's opinion, was railroaded by incompetent or corrupt Monegasque cops and prosecutors. Yet in the February 2003 issue of Vanity Fair magazine, published after this book, Dunne does a 180-degree turn and talks about how, once the trial began, it was obvious that the male nurse was guilty. One might hope that Dunne would get a dose of humility from this experience, but it's not likely. Dunne is always 100% sure he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Dunne's unquestioning support of all cops, good and bad, is most apparent in his unwavering friendship with Mark Fuhrman, the detective who played the pivotal role in the O.J. Simpson trial, and who was found to have perjured himself regarding whether he had ever used the 'n-word.' Granted, lying about such a thing is not equal to murder, but Dunne doesn't grasp how damaging Fuhrman's perjury was to the prosecution's case. When a detective lies about a small thing, it is logical that he should not be trusted about larger things. Dunne just doesn't get it. That Fuhrman would lie about something under oath on national TV, knowing that he had an ex-lover with a tape recording proving the contrary, suggests that Fuhrman is not quite the genius that Dunne portrays him as being.

The book is mainly a reprinting of Vanity Fair columns, of which 10 (of 18) chapters are about the Simpson trail. The most moving chapter is the first, where he recounts the murder trial of his own daughter. The author is correct in his theme that the criminal justice system is a mess, but anyone looking for a thoughtful analysis will be disappointed. At times, Dunne shows a gift for narrative flow; at other times, he comes across as little more than a self-important gossip columnist and name-dropper.

Truman Capote he's not, but with his insider status on the periphery of the worlds of the rich and/or famous, Dunne serves up his observations from the various murder trials involving people with last names like Bloomingdale, DuPont, and Simpson, and with ties to families with names like Kennedy, in a dishy and slightly catty style that makes you feel like you're gossiping with your best friend over brunch. It's a fun, revealing read, especially if you haven't read much of Dunne's trial diaries for "Vanity Fair" magazine. If you have, then these stories will not be new to you as they were previously printed in the magazine. Oh, the book contains about 10, yes 10, chapters on the OJ Simpson trial and aftermath, and Dunne doesn't have any pretensions of journalistic objectivity about the guilt or innocence of the people whose trials he covers.

Perhaps what makes Dunne's diaries most interesting is not just that they offer a glimpse into the lives of the very famous, or those whose wealth is almost beyond the average person's imagining, but that the glimpse offered is often a "warts and all" portrait that shows not just the fabulous wealth that many of these people enjoy, but also their faliure, bad decisions and unhappy love lives. While Dunne provides satisfaction to our voyeuristic tendencies (and in a manner that is perhaps a bit classier than any of the "reality shows" that pollute the airwaves and that more people watch than might be willing to admit it) he also serves to humanize people who are otherwise larger than life figures, whose lives have taken on such mythological proportions that we forget that they are people who eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, get sick, get old, fall in love, stuggle with mental and emotional problems (as well as alcoholism and drug addition) and experience faliure just like the rest of us.

The final portrait is one of the rich as like us and at the same time not like us. After all, they may suffer many of the same misfortunes as mere mortals and make the same bad decisions, but wealth often cushions the consuences, and sometimes cancels them altogether - even in the case of murder. After all, a DuPont whose a crack addict is, at the end of the day, still a DuPont, with a trust fund that will give him access to treatment that may elude not-so-wealthy addicts. And a murderer who has enough money to afford the best defense, and enough celebrity to generate some public sympathy, can get away with a murder that would inevitably send a poorer person to prison for a long, long time.

I wrote a harsh review of this book and Mr. Dunne. I would like to reverse my opinion. I found myself thinking that he
is, indeed, a very good investigative reporter. These true
crime stories still fascinate. It's just that the recent column
in Vanity Fair seems so trivial compared to the early stories.

I hope that Mr. Dunne continues to write in-depth pieces like the ones in this book about the Menendez brothers, Claus von Bulow, etc.

The only novel I have been able to penetrate of his is
"The Two Mrs. Grenvilles." And the portrayal in the TV miniseries of this book by Ann Margaret was brilliant. The others just didn't hold my interest.

I will say, again, that Mr. Dunne is completely justified in his rage against Judge Katz and the defense attorney at the trial of his daughter's killer. I hope I never meet Judge Katz...I know I would want to spit on him.