Simpson “has no history of resorting to raging violence to solve his emotional problems.”
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 ...
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?
Then, why did Nicole have to call police because he was threatening her life? Why did she predict he would kill her?
Remember the spot of blood on the gate that wasn’t there in photographs at the beginning of the investigation and appeared in photos sometime later?
Kid called daddy to come help him after he'd murdered Nicole. OJ shows up and tells Jason to leave. Walking around in blood leaves footprints whether or not you're the actual killer.
Thank you, couldn’t remember the name William Dear. One of the forensic guys I go to school with had Dear come & do a presentation at the school.
Sadly, unless OJ or Jason break down and tell the truth, we’ll never really know what happened.
Clearance rate for murder in the US is only about 62%
I can't say. I do know that at the time, DNA testing was a relatively new science. IIRC, I think the point my co-worker was making was that the methodology used to test the DNA at the time would only give a familiar link - and that the match they actually came up with could have matched O.J. or his son.
Again, this is something I have no particular knowledge of, just relaying what a co-worker at the time (well, a few years after the trial) mentioned.
Those cases are not evidence in the Simpson trial. I do not doubt that the LAPD has problems but there was no credible evidence of tampering in the Simpson trial. The combination of physical evidence, injuries to Simpson, circumstantial evidence, and Simpon’s flight were overwhelming.
OJ’s blood was all over the place. If there is contamination of blood it doesn't turn into OJ blood.
The Jury nullification was ridiculous.
OK, that’s funny in a really tasteless, but classic, sort of way.
I find that hard to believe since to this day OJ claims “someone else” did it - if he had been trying to protect his son, he wouldn’t have been trying to get the police to look for someone other than himself.
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.