ATTACKING THE DEFENSE

Henry Weinstein’s review of “The Search for Justice” (April 21) put a finger on the uneasy feelings I had reading Robert Shapiro and Larkin Warren’s book. I had this feeling of a man full of self-pity; mad at the response he got at games and functions and at being not liked--after he had been applauded and a so-called star; a man who blames, not caring that Johnnie Cochran won the case and that the teamwork was outstanding; hating to be out of the lead; and hating everyone who had the spotlight when it wasn’t him.

“Petty, sour grapes,” was my thought when I put the book down. I’m glad O.J. Simpson is free. I watched the complete trial and cast: The D.A. and lawyers for Simpson, the parading of [Gil] Garcetti, smartass Marcia Clark, crybaby [Christopher] Darden. . . . What an incredible cast of characters. I’m glad Simpson was found not guilty. They never proved their case.

ELIZABETH N. BETTIS, VENTURA

****

Shapiro’s book should have been entitled “The Search for Acquittal.”

JACK KEARNEY, VENTURA

****

There is something I have invariably found to be true in the Los Angeles Times. Book reviews contain an outline of the book’s contents and an analysis of the authors’ ability to write and present their position in an interesting, understandable manner and add something of value to the reader’s life.

Weinstein’s “review” was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a book review at all but rather a baseless personal attack on Shapiro. Weinstein is so obviously biased he should have recognized that he was incapable of writing an impartial review about a book authored by Shapiro.

Weinstein’s “review” is so fraught with misstatements and important factual omissions that it is left with no relevant content. Let me give you just one example. Weinstein criticizes Shapiro for stating that he was not a friend of Simpson before the case; he “suspected” that they would not be friends after the trial. Weinstein concludes his article with the comment: “Even Simpson deserves better.” That is outrageous. Even Weinstein, who demonstrates a substantial lack of knowledge about the legal system, must know that after a case is over the attorney and client go back to their respective lives and very rarely remain friends. Who would want to be Simpson’s friend, knowing about his abusive behavior? Even his longtime friends no longer associate with him.

Shapiro is, and for many years has been, one of the best attorneys in California. Were is not for his brilliance and imagination in planning the defense and obtaining the personnel necessary to carry that plan out, Simpson would have been, rightly or wrongly, convicted of murder.

You owe Shapiro an apology for that horrific editorial that posed as a book review.

RICHARD G. SHERMAN, SANTA MONICA