Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F. Lee Bailey: Dog Walker Would Have Shown O.J. Simpson Wasn’t a Murderer
ABA Journal ^ | Jan 11, 2011 8:21 AM CST | Debra Cassens Weiss

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 didn’t 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.”

• Simpson’s suicide attempt was spurred by his distress over his wife’s death.

• The famous Bronco chase was actually a “high-tension escort" rather than a chase.

[...]

(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: fleabailey; fleebailey; oj; ojsimpson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
I guess Flea Bailey has come up with an angle to sell a book now that he's disbarred.

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.

1 posted on 01/11/2011 6:50:57 PM PST by Gondring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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


2 posted on 01/11/2011 6:52:56 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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!


3 posted on 01/11/2011 6:54:20 PM PST by bareford101 (. All Muslims lie to infidels to confuse them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

How the mighty have fallen. This guy hasn’t yet realized that the entire country thinks he’s a flaming idiot.


4 posted on 01/11/2011 6:55:34 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

He was going to be acquitted no matter what.

Am I the only one who remembers the juror throwing a black power sign?


5 posted on 01/11/2011 6:56:00 PM PST by GeronL (How DARE you have an opinion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

The news here? F. Lee Bailey is STILL ALIVE.

His career, however, has been dead for over a decade.

Someone should tell him.


6 posted on 01/11/2011 6:56:14 PM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bareford101
they write fiction!

Logical that they would find a way to leverage their expensive educations....

7 posted on 01/11/2011 6:57:21 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

His girlfriend is Connie Francis.


8 posted on 01/11/2011 6:57:40 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pogo101

I’m actually surprised he is still alive. I thought he died of alcohol poisoning..dude is known to have loved the sauce


9 posted on 01/11/2011 6:57:47 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

WOW really, you serious? Damn, I guess she doesn’t have very high standards in picking men


10 posted on 01/11/2011 6:58:44 PM PST by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

That’s what I read and he is only 5 years I think older than her.


11 posted on 01/11/2011 6:59:39 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
F. Lee Bailey is STILL ALIVE.

He's survived by his brain being preserved in alcohol.

12 posted on 01/11/2011 6:59:53 PM PST by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

I hope you’re not serious.
“Where...........the boys are”


13 posted on 01/11/2011 7:00:12 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (I'd get it myself but I don't have any thumbs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


14 posted on 01/11/2011 7:02:00 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

http://www.nndb.com/people/692/000023623/


15 posted on 01/11/2011 7:02:17 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


16 posted on 01/11/2011 7:03:14 PM PST by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Which goes a long way in explaining why he is a washed-up, disbarred, EX-lawyer.


17 posted on 01/11/2011 7:04:09 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


18 posted on 01/11/2011 7:10:41 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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?


19 posted on 01/11/2011 7:10:45 PM PST by ReverendJames (Only A Lawyer, A Painter, A Politician And The Media Can Change Black To White)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
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.

Do a little more than ponder what you think you remember from 15 years ago. Being in graduate school at the time I was able to watch nearly the entire trial. I felt sort of sorry for Clark and Darden having to make do with the tainted evidence provided them by the LAPD, deal with one of their main witnesses being charged with perjury during the trial, and attempt to come up with a plausible explanation for motivation for murder (they never succeeded on that one). With a circumstantial case like that they were pretty much doomed from the start.
20 posted on 01/11/2011 7:10:50 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Psst... Bailey.... He admitted it.


21 posted on 01/11/2011 7:24:23 PM PST by dangus ("The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" -- St. John Crysostom ("the Golden-Mouthed"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

DNA? Everybody got DNA, so wut?


22 posted on 01/11/2011 7:38:00 PM PST by SERKIT (We need more of Barry's "Wet Diaper" news conferences. He gets smaller and smaller each time.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

Yep.

http://www.nndb.com/people/692/000023623/


23 posted on 01/11/2011 7:40:59 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

The Boston Strangler was innocent too.


24 posted on 01/11/2011 7:49:17 PM PST by Slump Tester (What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh -Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty
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.

I had a co-worker mention the same thing years back. Something about the DNA evidence and how it was tested.

25 posted on 01/11/2011 7:57:05 PM PST by IYAS9YAS (Liberalism can be summed up thusly: someone craps their pants and we all have to wear diapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

I remember hearing the same and thinking it could be true.


26 posted on 01/11/2011 8:03:31 PM PST by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: IYAS9YAS

I’ve never understood that. So the DNA was tested wrong in a manner that it tested positive for OJ and no one else?


28 posted on 01/11/2011 8:15:29 PM PST by cydcharisse (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Hey man - the glove didn’t fit!!

It is a crazy world we live in.


29 posted on 01/11/2011 8:25:08 PM PST by 1FreeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

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”?


30 posted on 01/11/2011 8:31:45 PM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

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.


31 posted on 01/11/2011 8:31:51 PM PST by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


32 posted on 01/11/2011 8:34:23 PM PST by NorthStarStateConservative (I'm just another disabled naturalized minority vegan pro life conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Effen Lea Baily is still upset that so many people think he's a scumbag. He uses the word redneck more then once in the preamble of his screed. I read a few pages and all he does is put his own spin on all the evidence. He's an angry and bitter man who doesn't want to be remembered as the lowlife lawyer who helped OJ get away with a double murder.
33 posted on 01/11/2011 8:37:54 PM PST by peeps36 (America is being destroyed by filthy traitors in the political establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty
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.

That's what I've thought all along!

34 posted on 01/11/2011 8:38:19 PM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
F. Lee Bailey drunk? Surely you are mistaken.


35 posted on 01/11/2011 8:43:58 PM PST by Wallop the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Lee didn’t say Simpson never beat his wife. He said he never beat his wife “to solve...problems.”


36 posted on 01/11/2011 8:46:03 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

“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.


37 posted on 01/11/2011 8:48:37 PM PST by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty
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.

Yes, it's from the book/documentary OJ Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder by William Dear. I find it fairly compelling. Among the points:

Jason was emotionally disturbed and prone to violent outbursts - and had gone off his meds
Jason was upset at Ron and Nicole, one reason was because they failed to deliver on a promise to eat at the restaurant where he was cooking that night
Jason was known to carry a knife
His DNA would have also pointed to OJ, unless very specific tests were done to separate the two
...and a number of other interesting points that provide an equally valid interpretation of the evidence presented against OJ.
38 posted on 01/11/2011 8:50:28 PM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

No he’s right, it was OJ’s son. He wanted to borrow the bronco and OJ told him to go axe his mother.


39 posted on 01/11/2011 8:50:41 PM PST by 38special (AK, CA, CO, NV, WA ... WTF?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice

Nicely written...great points

touche’


40 posted on 01/11/2011 9:07:54 PM PST by Outlaw Woman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 38special

that is pretty darn funny. rack that!


41 posted on 01/11/2011 9:09:05 PM PST by oust the louse (When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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?


42 posted on 01/11/2011 9:36:27 PM PST by Hayride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hayride

Ah, but he got a jury of his peers.


43 posted on 01/11/2011 9:41:31 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; OrangeHoof
You aruanan, and orangehoof would make good jurors. I too was home, awaiting the beginning of a job to design chemical analysis systems incorporating FDA qualified audit trails (LIMS System, Lab Inst Mgmnt Sys). When the defense DNA expert pointed out that during discovery the two “Criminalists” testified that each had collected about half the samples constituting all the physical evidence, but when the case began the evidence presented was all signed by just one of the Criminalists, the physical evidence - blood, DNA, fiber, paint - was all inadmissible. No juror could make a life and death decision based upon such obviously corrupted evidence. The case then rested on the believability of the circumstantial evidence. That is likely why the jury asked to review the timeline evidence, which was very suspicious.

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.

44 posted on 01/11/2011 9:43:25 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

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.


45 posted on 01/11/2011 9:49:19 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

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.


46 posted on 01/11/2011 9:49:58 PM PST by stansblugrassgrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
• Simpson “has no history of resorting to raging violence to solve his emotional problems.”

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?

47 posted on 01/11/2011 10:15:27 PM PST by Balata (What part of 'WE THE PEOPLE' don't you understand Obama?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor
There was overwhelming evidence presented in both trials about his guilt. There was no evidence of tampering.

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.

48 posted on 01/11/2011 10:27:05 PM PST by Auntie Mame (Fear not tomorrow. God is already there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor
http://articles.cnn.com/1999-11-09/us/9911_09_lapd.prisoner.release_1_district-attorney-gil-garcetti-police-officers-prison-in-recent-months?_s=PM:US

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.

49 posted on 01/11/2011 10:54:06 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty
FWIW, I have heard a very convincing argument from a forensic expert that OJ wasn’t the killer, but his son, Jason, was

Then, why was OJ's blood and size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints (of which OJ owned a pair) found at the scene?

50 posted on 01/11/2011 11:38:33 PM PST by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson