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

[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.

[...]

[dangus]

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

[SERKIT]

DNA? Everybody got DNA, so wut?

[freekitty]

Yep.

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

[Slump Tester]

The Boston Strangler was innocent too.

[IYAS9YAS]

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.

[antceecee]

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

[cydcharisse]

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

[1FreeAmerican]

Hey man - the glove didn’t fit!!

It is a crazy world we live in.

[ArmstedFragg]

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”?

[skr]

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.

[NorthStarStateConservative]

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.

[peeps36]

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.

[Netizen]

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!

[Wallop the Cat]

F. Lee Bailey drunk? Surely you are mistaken.

[Arthur McGowan]

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

[businessprofessor]

“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.

[beezdotcom]

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.

[38special]

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

[Outlaw Woman]

Nicely written...great points

touche’