Posted on 01/09/2011 2:38:10 PM PST by Izzy Dunne
By J. Hemmerdinger jhemmerdinger@pressherald.com
Staff Writer
YARMOUTH - Former O.J. Simpson defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey is out to set his record straight.
F. Lee Bailey 
O.J. Simpson reacts, Oct. 3, 1995, as he is found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend. Defense lawyers F. Lee Bailey, left, and Johnnie Cochran stand beside him. Bailey says there is a host of evidence proving Simpson’s innocence.
1995 Associated Press file
F. LEE BAILEY ON THE O.J. SIMPSON VERDICT
Read the newly released document in which F. Lee Bailey presents evidence he says proves O.J. Simpson did not murder his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1994. Called “The Simpson Verdict by F. Lee Bailey,” the paper is an effort by the 77-year-old Bailey to reveal evidence not heard by the jury and to tell the world why he has maintained Simpson's innocence in the face of personal attacks against his character.
Bailey also explains in a preamble his reasons for putting pen to paper.
In his first written account of the 1995 Simpson murder trial, Bailey reveals a never-called witness that he claims could have proved Simpson's innocence.
It's also an emotional appeal to critics who, the Yarmouth resident says, have questioned his integrity.
"Hopefully, those who read what I have set forth here will at least understand why I have never, ever wavered in my assertions that O. J. Simpson did not harm or kill anyone the night his former wife and her friend were butchered," Bailey, 77, writes in the 46-page document posted today on his website, www.baileyandelliott.com.
In addition to describing the alleged eyewitness, a neighbor walking his dog near the crime scene, Bailey lets readers in on behind-the-scenes details.
In one section, he describes his decision to purposely goad a prosecutor into changing his mind about asking Simpson to try on the infamous leather glove, and his attempt to cut a deal with the National Enquirer so it would offer a $2 million reward in exchange for access to Simpson.
Written in a very personal, conversational style -- he quips that the so-called "high-speed chase" was more of a "high-tension escort" -- Bailey puts his own feelings on display. He did the same in an interview last week, saying that the paper is in part a response to years of personal attacks on his character.
"So many people said, 'You are the reason he got off.' It is very frustrating, a terribly raw deal," Bailey said. "It's unfinished business ... I would like to be able to finish the case and put every witness (on the stand)."
Bailey said he may expand the document, titled "The Simpson Verdict by F. Lee Bailey," into a book. Bailey was one of numerous attorneys on the so-called "Dream Team" hired by the former professional football star after he was charged with murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman.
Simpson was acquitted on the murder charges but has remained a high-profile and polarizing figure in the wake of the trial.
Most recently, Simpson was sentenced to serve 33 years for kidnapping and armed robbery after a failed attempt to recover sports memorabilia in Arizona.
"I am convinced that he sits in jail today because a jury in Nevada believed it was punishing him because he 'beat the rap' for these two murder charges," Bailey wrote.
Several people closely tied to the murder case have published books, from journalists covering the trial to defense attorney Robert Shapiro, detective Mark Fuhrman, appellate adviser Alan Dershowitz, lawyer Gerald Uelmen and Simpson himself.
But Bailey chose not to publish anything earlier because he thought people were still too biased to consider Simpson's innocence.
"I had always decided to move forward, but was convinced it would take time until anyone has an open mind," he said. He acknowledged his steady support of Simpson's innocence has been "terribly unpopular."
Bailey said he has been cast by many as helping a guilty man go free. Even some lawyers still tell him, "You did a hell of a job, but he got away with it."
"It is the most sustained assault on my credibility that I have ever experienced," Bailey said. "Why -- if I knew he was guilty -- why go around taking this abuse?"
Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School who attended the trial and still follows the case, said she doubts the case sullied Bailey's reputation. Most people associate defense leader Johnnie Cochran with the case, she said.
"(Bailey) was part of the team, but certainly not the leader. I don't think most of the world knows he represented O.J. He was competing with other lawyers that had (more) face time," Levenson said.
Levenson suspects Bailey will be better remembered for two other clients: Patricia Hearst -- the wealthy newspaper heiress who was kidnapped and then famously helped her captors rob a bank -- and Sam Sheppard -- a doctor who was convicted, then acquitted, of murdering his pregnant wife.
In the essay, Bailey peppers the thinking behind his legal strategy, including a decision to purposely anger prosecutor Chris Darden during a recess with an attack on his manhood.
When Darden replied, "What the hell do you mean by that?" Bailey told him: "What I mean is that you don't have the balls to make O.J. try on that glove. If you don't, I think I will. ..."
Immediately after that exchange, Bailey writes, Darden caught up to Judge Lance Ito as he returned to the bench: " 'Judge,' (Darden) spluttered. 'Mr. Bailey just told me something, and I want the defendant to try on that glove.' Like so many who act impulsively when goaded, Darden got his wish."
The picture of Simpson with the apparently too-small glove was one of the enduring images of the trial -- and the repeated mantra of Cochran's closing argument: "If it does not fit, you must acquit."
Because the jury pool had already been winnowed from 24 people to 14 and a mistrial was possible, Bailey said, the defense chose to cut the trial short and never presented a host of evidence he says proves Simpson's innocence. Among the issues that Bailey says never made it to the trial are:
• Testimony from the dog-walker, Tom Lang, who said he saw a blond woman arguing with a man near a white Ford F350 pickup truck, with a menacing-looking man crouching roughly 70 feet away. He didn't think anything of it until the next day, when he learned of the murder. In hindsight, Lang told Bailey that he thinks it was Nicole Brown Simpson he saw that night.
"To my knowledge this is the first time that ninety-nine percent of the world has ever heard of Tom Lang. ... He could have said decisively that neither of (those men) was O.J. Simpson," Bailey wrote.
• The opinion of forensic psychiatrist Bernard Yudowitz, who had interviewed 400 people who had recently committed murder. Yudowitz spent eight hours evaluating Simpson after the murders and determined he wasn't guilty. "I don't know why they have this guy in jail. He hasn't killed anyone," Bailey said Yudowitz told him.
• The opinion of Lenore Walker, a psychologist who developed the concept of battered woman syndrome to describe the mindset and emotional state of a battered woman. She also examined Simpson and found that "he definitely did not fit the profile of a batterer who murders," according to Bailey.
Bailey said he first started writing the paper in 2007. If it becomes a book, he said, it will be after he finishes writing an autobiography and a book about cross-examination.
Levenson said even though Simpson continues to fascinate, the trial is of minimal relevance.
"Even if you think he is guilty, the jury found him not guilty," she said. "It is still a 'who done it.' Even this many years out people wonder, and O.J. hasn't left the news."
And Levenson doesn't think Bailey should be criticized for doing his job.
"I've never thought the lawyer's views in the case are critical. His job is to represent his client within the ethics boundary of the law," she said.
Staff Writer Jonathan Hemmerdinger can be reached at 791-6316 or:
jhemmerdinger@mainetoday.com
Wasn’t Bailey ultimately disbarred for corruption?
Yeah, tell us Flee . . . whether Mark Fuhrman ever said the N-word was far more relevant than the overwhelming DNA evidence.
Especially for that braintrust of a jury you selected.
You really got a raw deal, pal.
F. Lee Bailey. Isn’t he the guy who ended up spending time in the federal penitentiary because he took the money a drug dealer offered up to the government in an asset forfeiture case and used it to buy an airplane for himself?
From WikiPedia: Bailey was found guilty of 7 counts of attorney misconduct by the Florida Supreme Court.
In 2001 he was disbarred in the state of Florida, with reciprocal disbarment in Massachusetts in 2002.
Why disbarment doesn't extend across state lines, I don't know (maybe I do: lawyers make the laws), but yes, he was disbarred.
I thought he died years ago.
F. Lee is the usual crooked lawyer, disbarred in 2001.
Guess F. Lee is out there looking for the “real killers” just like OJ was back in the day?
I guess he just rode around with AC,wrote a suicide note,
and held a gun to his head because he was freaking innocent
For those die-hards; YES, the Prosecution made errors, but the bottom line is that, once again, the Lawyers and a favorable hand-picked jury let a murderer walk among us.
I don’t know who is dumber, Laurie Levenson, for thinking the public is too stupid to remember or F. Lee for thinking we are stupid enough to believe him.
Glad to see that Bailey is suffering. And things didn’t work out too well for Cochran either. Or for OJ for that matter. Insufficient justice is better than none at all.
The state court disbarred Mr. Bailey on Nov. 21 for mishandling $6 million worth of stock that belonged to a client now serving a life sentence for drug smuggling.
These lawyers want people to judge their behaviour. Guess what? We are not in the position to judge. God will judge. If Mr. Bailey is telling the truth he will be vindicated for eternity; if not, I cannot say, but Jesus did talk more about hell than heaven.
It more or less does. But because the laws of each state vary, there is typically some lag time between disbarment in one state and reciprocal disbarment in other states, to insure that the grounds in the first state are also grounds for disbarment in the second state.
For the money. You're a lawyer, remember?
Because everyone "deserves a defense"? Isn't that what they teach in Law School, Flea?
Face it, OJ Simpson walking out of that courtroom a free man was a great commercial for your legal services, and that's the bottom-line.
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.