Skip to comments.F. Lee Bailey: Dog Walker Would Have Shown O.J. Simpson Wasn’t a Murderer
Posted on 01/11/2011 6:50:51 PM PST by Gondring
F. Lee Bailey is taking issue with a decision by the late lawyer Johnnie Cochran in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson.
Bailey, a disbarred lawyer, writes that Simpson was in fact totally innocent of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and offers little-known evidence supporting his assertion. He makes the argument in a 46-page paper posted at the website of his consulting company, according to the Portland Press Herald and the New York Daily News.
Dog walker Tom Lang may have been the most important witness in the case, but his testimony was never used due to a decision by Johnnie Cochran, Bailey writes in the third portion (PDF) of his argument. Lang could have answered the question, If Simpson didnt do it, who did? Bailey asserts.
Bailey also makes these arguments, according to the New York Daily News account:
Simpson has no history of resorting to raging violence to solve his emotional problems.
Simpsons suicide attempt was spurred by his distress over his wifes death.
The famous Bronco chase was actually a high-tension escort" rather than a chase.
(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...
And "high-tension escort"...? Sounds like someone Eliot Spitzer would know.
The article explains exactly what this star witness would have said, but it's the ABA Journal, so I'm excerpting regardless.
Simpson has no history of resorting to raging violence to solve his emotional problems.
Hmm I guess Drunk Lee Bailey should again look at those photos of Nicole’s face, maybe that outta reminder him what OJ does when he’s pissed
hahahahahahahaha, I was wondering the other day what a lawyer who had his license revoked, did for a living.. now I know.... they write fiction!
How the mighty have fallen. This guy hasn’t yet realized that the entire country thinks he’s a flaming idiot.
He was going to be acquitted no matter what.
Am I the only one who remembers the juror throwing a black power sign?
The news here? F. Lee Bailey is STILL ALIVE.
His career, however, has been dead for over a decade.
Someone should tell him.
Logical that they would find a way to leverage their expensive educations....
His girlfriend is Connie Francis.
I’m actually surprised he is still alive. I thought he died of alcohol poisoning..dude is known to have loved the sauce
WOW really, you serious? Damn, I guess she doesn’t have very high standards in picking men
That’s what I read and he is only 5 years I think older than her.
He's survived by his brain being preserved in alcohol.
I hope you’re not serious.
“Where...........the boys are”
So how does Flea Bailey resolve OJ crying in the background of the infamous 911 call, “My god, how can I live with myself?!?!” I don’t think he was talking about forgetting the Monday special at Denny’s.
FWIW, I have heard a very convincing argument from a forensic expert that OJ wasn’t the killer, but his son, Jason, was & the old man was just trying to take the heat for the kid.
Which goes a long way in explaining why he is a washed-up, disbarred, EX-lawyer.
I feel that both juries reached the right conclusion, even if they may have done it for the wrong reasons. Simpson was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the defense offered evidence of blood sample tampering (which, it was later revealed, was not an unusual thing for LAPD to do when it really needed a conviction) that the prosecution did not successfully refute. I also felt there were holes in the timeline about when/where Simpson was while he was back at Rockingham after the crime was committed.
The civil journey had the lower bar of “preponderance of the evidence” (better than 50-50 he did it) and also had the additional evidence of the Bruno Magli shoe prints at the crime scene, which was not introduced in the first trial.
I think Bailey’s “new evidence” is a red herring anyway. Just because another person might have been in the area, doesn’t exonerate Simpson at all unless you can prove Simpson was *not* in the area.
I guess he forgot about the violent incidents OJ had in FL including smacking around his current girlfriend at the time and when he got into an altercation on an off-ramp, road rage. And lest we forget why he’s in prison now. I’m not a lawyer but du’oh?
Psst... Bailey.... He admitted it.
DNA? Everybody got DNA, so wut?
The Boston Strangler was innocent too.
I had a co-worker mention the same thing years back. Something about the DNA evidence and how it was tested.
I remember hearing the same and thinking it could be true.
I’ve never understood that. So the DNA was tested wrong in a manner that it tested positive for OJ and no one else?
Hey man - the glove didn’t fit!!
It is a crazy world we live in.
If memory serves, the Bruno Magli shoe prints were in the criminal case too. What was new to the civil case was the photos of him wearing them while doing his sports reporting. Remember the phrase, “I would never wear those ugly ass shoes”?
All of the evidence points to OJ. Perhaps his son helped, but not having an alibi is not the most convincing evidence when there are so many pieces of evidence that point to OJ.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm lists the evidence and both views of it.
So all he is guilty of is being a violent, wife beating, adultering sociopath who ditched the mother of his first two children to be with a blonde party girl, which he beat until she couldnt take it anymore and filed for divorce. He is going to hell forever either way, so it is fine with me.
That's what I've thought all along!
Lee didn’t say Simpson never beat his wife. He said he never beat his wife “to solve...problems.”
“I feel that both juries reached the right conclusion, even if they may have done it for the wrong reasons.”
There was overwhelming evidence presented in both trials about his guilt. There was no evidence of tampering.
No he’s right, it was OJ’s son. He wanted to borrow the bronco and OJ told him to go axe his mother.
Nicely written...great points
that is pretty darn funny. rack that!
I remember thinking that when a dismissed juror couldn’t spell DNA that OJ was never going to be convicted. I’m not talking about spelling deoxyribonucleic acid, I’m talking about spelling D..N..A. How easy is it to plant “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a moron?
Ah, but he got a jury of his peers.
I haven’t read the book pointing at the likelihood of the son's involvement. Like mysterious birth certificates, there is much else suspicious, such as the wife's coke-addicted roommate, just out of treatment and with some big debts. The wife too, and perhaps O.J., were cocaine users, as is much of Hollywood, and a remarkable number in the chi chi restaurant industry. All the salacious information is good for tabloids, but the evidence was so badly tainted that the judge should have thrown the case out.
It is amazing that none of the oh-so-self-righteous liberals sneering “jury nullification” regarding the “ignorant and ill-educated jurors,” clearly implying that O.J.’s race was the reason for the decision, were competent or rational enough to note the devastating corruption of all the physical data. The jury foreman was a system analyst; and yes, she was black. Perhaps someday someone will explain how those data, all of which were tagged, as the criminalists testified, by the two criminalists with his and her name, location, time, and other relevant information. My guess is that someone wouldn't subject herself to prosecution by lying to the court.
I too watch every minute of the telvised circus. Remember the socks that magically appeared on the bed, after the initial crime scene photos were made, just right for the appearance of the ‘bloody socks’, which had blood on both sides of the sock from seeping through? Remember the blood sample that was carried around all day by the detective? Remember the presence of blood preservative in the blood evidence on the socks and gloves? ... And remember how the gloves ... oh, never mind. Those cans of worms aren’t worht the argument which follows the truth of the frame.
Remember the slow speed chase? When Simpson pulled into his driveway, the son came running up to the vehicle and Simpson pushed him away. From that moment on, I felt like the son was the real murder. No proof, just a thought.
Pure B.S. F. Lee! Don't you remember O.J destroying Nichol's car with a baseball bat? I guess that wouldn't be rage would it F. Lee?
I respectfully disagree, at least to the criminal trial. I watched that trial, the entire thing, and the prosecution didn't even REMOTELY prove their case. They were completely inept. If I had been on that jury I, too, would have voted to acquit.
Perhaps you had to have been there.
1999 CNN story about LAPD cases being thrown out because of testimony of evidence tampering. If the Rampart Division had a history of faking evidence in order to win convictions, how short a leap to conclude that Fuhrman and Van Natta also knew how to fabricate evidence, including mixing O J's blood (with preservative already present) in the DNA evidence that allegedly proved that O J was at the crime scene.
Goes to "beyond a reasonable doubt", your honor.
Then, why was OJ's blood and size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints (of which OJ owned a pair) found at the scene?