iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

F. Lee Bailey: O.J. Simpson's Innocence Proven By Paper

Oj Simpson F Lee Bailey

CLARKE CANFIELD   01/11/11 06:27 PM ET   AP

YARMOUTH, Maine — Evidence of O.J. Simpson's innocence was held back in the 1995 trial in which he was acquitted in the murder of his ex-wife and her friend in Los Angeles, one of his former lawyers says in a new document.

In the 20,000-word document, F. Lee Bailey tells of four people who could have bolstered Simpson's case but never testified. He also gives an overview of the sensational trial from his own perspective.

Simpson was found not guilty. Most Americans are convinced that he is guilty, Bailey said, but the document might persuade some doubters that he is innocent.

Bailey wrote the document, "The Simpson Verdict," in 2007 as a proposal for a book that never materialized. He published it on his website Sunday.

"It's time somebody put out the real facts of the case," he told The Associated Press.

In the document, Bailey said the defense team was prepared to call four people who never testified – a forensic scientist, an expert on battered women, a blood expert and the person whose possible testimony he says is the most important of the four: a man who might have seen the killers.

That witness, he wrote, saw a woman the night of the murders matching Nicole Brown Simpson's description in an apparent confrontation with two men, neither of whom was O.J. Simpson. Upon hearing of the murders the next day, the witness recalled what he saw on a tape recording and wrote a detailed description and sketch of his observations.

But the defense team decided not to call any of the four to the witness stand out of fear that additional jurors would be dismissed and a mistrial declared if the eight-month trial didn't soon end, Bailey wrote. Bailey said Monday he thinks the real killers were out to collect a drug debt and killed Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman after mistaking them for their targets.

The document might sway a sector of the public into believing in Simpson's innocence in the 1995 case, Bailey said. But he knows there's another group whose minds couldn't be changed "with a sledgehammer," and thinks the trial damaged his reputation among that group.

"Among the rednecks of America, which there are many more than people seem to realize, it was terribly damaging," he said. "I got blamed for O.J.'s acquittal."

Bailey was part of Simpson's defense team when the former NFL star was acquitted in the June 1994 deaths of Nicole Simpson and Goldman.

Bailey, who now lives and works as a consultant in this town 10 miles north of Portland, said his agent asked him to write an overview of the Simpson case for a publisher who was interested in a book. But the idea was shelved following the turmoil and eventual cancellation of Simpson's book, "If I Did It," in which Simpson put forth a hypothetical description of the murders.

But Bailey has shared his document with several dozen people over the years, and a number of them have urged him to release it. His website developer suggested he put it online, and it first appeared on both his website and that of the Portland Press Herald newspaper.

Although Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law, Bailey said it's important to prove him innocent in the court of public opinion.

"O.J. has what I call the damnation of an acquittal," Bailey said.

Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred, who represented Nicole Brown Simpson's family during Simpson's trial, said she doesn't see any "smoking gun" in Bailey's document that might persuade people who think he was guilty to think otherwise.

If Bailey's evidence were that strong, she said, it would have been brought into the later civil trial in which Simpson was found liable for the deaths and ordered to pay a $33.5 million judgment.

"If Mr. Bailey can't think of anything better than trying to help the public reputation of O.J. Simpson, that's really sad," Allred said.

The last time Bailey talked to Simpson was in 2008, the night before Simpson he was found guilty of kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges for his role in the gunpoint robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas hotel. He is serving a nine- to 33-year sentence.

Bailey said he isn't shopping his document in hopes of a book deal – although he wouldn't turn down the right offer – but still hopes to get it into the public arena.

He's not surprised that the document got more than 20,000 hits its first day online.

"I can get a firestorm going anywhere in the United States by saying 'O.J.,'" he said.

Besides Simpson, Bailey has represented clients including Dr. Sam Sheppard, Patricia Hearst and Albert DeSalvo, the man who confessed to being the Boston Strangler, over the course of a storied legal career. He has also been a controversial figure, and has been barred from practicing law in Florida and Massachusetts.

Bailey was disbarred in Florida in 2001 for mishandling $6 million worth of stock for a client. After reviewing the Florida case, Massachusetts disbarred him two years later.

___

Online: http://baileyandelliott.com

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SPORTS

YARMOUTH, Maine — Evidence of O.J. Simpson's innocence was held back in the 1995 trial in which he was acquitted in the murder of his ex-wife and her friend in Los Angeles, one of his former law...
YARMOUTH, Maine — Evidence of O.J. Simpson's innocence was held back in the 1995 trial in which he was acquitted in the murder of his ex-wife and her friend in Los Angeles, one of his former law...
Filed by Michael Klopman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 240
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
11:21 PM on 02/16/2011
Bailey is a liar
01:14 PM on 02/16/2011
If Baily had actually had a credible witness prepared to testify that he saw Nicole in a confrontation with two men neither of whom was Simpson and didn't put him on the stand one can only be delighted that he has been disbarred although for other reasons.

The fact is however that the prosecution was a Ship of Fools.

The police, prosecution and judge made so many egregious mistakes that one is lead to speculate that it was purposeful, in order to avoid the riots that would have followed a guilty verdict.

The police interview was tentative and sophomoric

The evidence keeping was atrocious.

The DA's decision to try the case in downtown LA before what would be a predominately a black jury instead of Simi valley was inconsistent with a desire to obtain a guilty verdict.

Prosecutors Clark and Darden were sophomoric, argumentative and completely outmatched by Bailey et. al.

The decision to put Furman on the stand was ludicrous. He wasn't needed and using him merely allowed the defense to play the race card which was allowed by Judge Ito who's rulings were not only erratic but time consuming. [he held a hearing that lasted for a week on the admissibility of a maid's testimony]

Darden's challenge to Simpson to put on the glove, was the final piece of idiocy and gave Johnny Cochran his closing line, "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit".
07:34 PM on 02/15/2011
I read the 3 pdf files on Bailey's website. There is quite a large literature on the evidence in the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman murder case and the files add nothing. In fact, they show no knowledge of the literature and just rehash some things Bailey has said in the past. Much evidence was presented in the criminal and civil trials concerning blood, hair and clothing, tied to OJ Simpson that was found at the murder scene, car and home of the defendant. No physical evidence of the "real killers" emerged. The claims of tampering and incompetent handling, that served the defense well in the criminal trial, have under scrutiny collapsed. There is no reasonable explanation of the evidence besides Simpson's guilt.

The real tragedy here is that the acquittal in the criminal case didn't lead to any change in legal proceedings in the USA. In the non English speaking world, the parties hand their cases in ahead of time and a tribunal (panel of judges) investigates the claims made by calling and examining the witnesses. That is very important to do when a lay jury decides. Theatrical lawyering and confusing witnesses should be not allowed. What often happens in the US, and it certainly happened here, is the jury votes for the best lawyers.
03:51 PM on 02/15/2011
It would be quite a coincidence if some drug dealers happened to have a pair of Bruno Magli shoes and a bunch of OJ's DNA.
02:48 PM on 02/15/2011
I'm sure all high-profile criminal defense attorneys think that rich clients and rich potential clients are all innocent.
photo
Rascal7
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness
01:24 PM on 02/15/2011
BS
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoWhineZone
12:57 PM on 02/15/2011
There are so many strange and unanswered questions in that case its not even funny. Of course the media which is controlled by a segment of the population convinced of his guilt has implied for that he was in fact guilty for the last decade. Its a forgone conclusion now for people who were not really old enough to pay attention to the trial at the time.
10:36 AM on 01/22/2011
comic about OJ http://www.gorillabrigade.com/2011/01/the-dreamer/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
sc29403
I only read comments from friends. :)
12:08 AM on 01/16/2011
Is this a good example of a non-story? Or am I missing some important point here?
09:01 PM on 01/13/2011
I was a first year law student when this case was going on. We talked about it often in criminal law class. My professor taped it every day. There were a lot of strange things that the media never publicized. One thing that sticks with me is the lab tech who was to testify about (I can't remember the number but it was significant) cc's of blood taken from OJ that were unaccounted for -- only small drops were found in the Bronco and inside and outside his house. That lab tech had some disease, cancer or something, and could not testify at trial.

Also, the whole motive behind the killings what that OJ was a wife beater and had a really bad temper, killing her and Goldman in the heat of passion. So...why lie in wait for them with a ski mask and gloves? That doesn't sound like heat of passion to me.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
transe
and in the end,,,the love you take is equal to the
02:02 PM on 02/15/2011
exactly. one of the doc's i worked with, played ball with him for a while. the day after it happened, he said he had talked to cowlings, and that jason simpson had done it. my brother-in-law was also friends with oj, he said from the beginning that jason had done it. ron goldman also worked for my brother in law, doing catering. fred goldman had disowned him years before, because he was gay. he had actually slept on my brother in law's couch, until he found a place to stay. he literally was just the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time. i still haven't figured out how oj got convicted of taking his stuff back, that had been stolen from him. i don't like him, but that made no sense at all.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
imaxfli
a
09:46 AM on 01/13/2011
Mr Bailey....I know rednecks..I am not one...you are living in a fantasy world...not one of the people you mentioned could prove his innocence...get over it...he killed her....if he didn't, he wouldn't be rotting in jail now!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AsISaid
12:33 PM on 01/13/2011
Uh...OJ is rotting in prison for an incident in Las Vegas that he was convicted for. He was acquitted of the murders.
11:51 PM on 01/12/2011
No one has ever explained to me how that additive got into the blood they found at the crime scene..
10:41 AM on 01/13/2011
The cops had some bad lab techs, which was exposed at trial, but that doesn't equate to him being innocent. It's obvious he did it.

And now he has a long history of violent criminal behavior, in prison on other charges for years to come. All told, I would not have much faith in the opinions of someone who thought he was innocent.
01:10 PM on 01/13/2011
Bad lab techs? How does an anticoagulant get into a sample of blood taken from the crime scene?
01:21 PM on 02/15/2011
If you followed the Civil Trial, the tiny amount of EDTA that was found in one sample of blood on a sock found in Simpson's bedroom, was explained by an FBI lab technician not cleaning the mass spectrometry equipment properly after a test of EDTA preserved blood.

Everybody who as made a real study of all the evidence has come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable way of explaining it except by Simpson's guilt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mfoto1986
#RomneyShambles
02:14 AM on 02/16/2011
"If you followed the Civil Trial, the tiny amount of EDTA that was found in one sample of blood on a sock found in Simpson's bedroom, was explained by an FBI lab technician not cleaning the mass spectromet­ry equipment properly after a test of EDTA preserved blood."

So you are saying that FBI screwed up collecting the proper evidence?? Then how can anybody come to a conclusion that OJ was guilty based on those evidence?? That is a little sketchy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BruntLIVE
Deal with my fullboreness
10:06 PM on 01/12/2011
OJ will never look like that picture above, that was one handsome man.
09:05 PM on 01/12/2011
I agree there are a lot of rednecks in america: however I still think he did it...
08:32 PM on 01/12/2011
The supposed reason why this is "evidence" wasn't presented in court...that the trial would have gone on too long...is about the lamest thing I've heard in my life.