F. Lee Bailey: OJ didn’t kill anyone and here’s why…
Read Time:1 Minute, 45 Second
I know F. Lee Bailey, personally, although we haven’t spoken in many, many years. He is the ultimate showboat who always wants to be the star of the show. Now, after all this time, he’s making one of his more outrageous claims. One that can only be viewed as completely self-serving. No surprise for Bailey who is currently disbarred in Florida for unlawfully transferring the proceeds from a marijuana dealer, his client, to his private account, claiming they were for “expenses.”
As to Orenthal J. Simpson he is as guilty as sin. The acquittal was a prime example of jury nullification. An almost all black jury returned a not guilty verdict in the criminal trial because of one primary reason: the defendant was black and famous. The importance of one or the other is in the eye of the beholder. The evidence against Simpson was overwhelming and he was in fact found responsible for the deaths of Nicole and Ron in a civil trial. Here is the summary of this silly Bailey story:
F. Lee Bailey says OJ Simpson is innocent—and if you don’t believe him, he has a 20,000-word document that backs up his claim. Bailey, a prominent member of the defense team that got Simpson acquitted, published the document—which he originally wrote as a book proposal, but the deal fell through—on his website Sunday. “It’s time somebody put out the real facts of the case,” he tells the AP. The document reveals four witnesses, never called, who would have strengthened Simpson’s case.
Those include an eyewitness, a forensic scientist, and experts on blood and battered women. Most notably, the witness may have seen the real killers: He claims to have seen a woman who looked like Nicole Simpson arguing with two men—not OJ Simpson—the night of the murders. Bailey, who believes the killers were after a drug debt and simply mistook the victims for their targets, says none of the four were called for fear of a mistrial being declared if the trial went on too long.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
In Mr. F. Lee Bailey’s FIRST Download in his newly published document with this title:
“The Simpson Verdict by F. Lee Bailey”
Mr Bailey states this on page 14:
“10 St. John had been his regular driver for some time,…”
OJ Simpson Case Investigator for the defense Patrick McKenna, according to Joseph Bosco, in Bosco’s Book, “A Problem of Evidence,” also claims, again, according to Bosco, that Dale St. John is OJ Simpson’s “REGULAR LIMOUSINE DRIVER.”
In my Investigations of The Murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, I have pretty much determined that my Ex–in-Law Rocky Bateman GOT RID of that “Missing Bag” and also got rid of other “STUFF” for OJ Simpson a few days after the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson. Just Google me and Rocky Bateman.
WELL, in a June,1995 CNN interview, it was stated that Rocky Bateman (with Rocky Bateman IN THE INTERVIEW) was OJ Simpson’s Regular Limousine driver for OVER 3 YEARS.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-23/news/mn-16370_1_mario-nitrini
WHY? is there NO MENTION in F. Lee Bailey’s Document’s that ROCKY BATEMAN was OJ Simpson’s Regular Limousine Driver?
Maybe Mr. F. Lee Bailey and Patrick McKenna can “ENLIGHTEN” everyone in the world about who really was OJ Simpson’s Regular Limousine Driver. Please, Don’t everybody hold their breath at once…….
Legal Justice for me – http://nitrini.blogspot.com/
Who (s) MURDERED Bill Wasz. – http://blogmyspacecommariognitrini111.blogspot.com/
Mario Nitrini
MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
________________
The OJ Simpson Case
The Anthony Pellicano Federal Indictment Case
The Biggie Smalls Federal Lawsuit Case
The Michael Jackson Cases and Saga
The Robert Blake Case
Thanks for stopping by. Your research is beyond reproach. I hope you come by again…
How old is that alzheimer-suffering self-absorbed old sot? I will tell you, 78. He is broke I am sure and frankly, his mutterings on this issue mean little if anything.
Dusty, I totally agree. I just love to jerk Mike around a bit now and then. 🙂
Mike, I, like you, have little doubt, that OJ is guilty of murder in the death of both Nicole and Ron but probably for different reasons. I don’t attribute all of the blame of the acquittal to jury nullification as you do. I realize that it simply isn’t in your nature to acknowledge the fact that the prosecutors, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden screwed up what should have been a slam dunk case. Other significant blameworthy persons include Mark Furman and Judge Ito. I am sure, as you have said before, you will say that Furman did nothing wrong, but when a police officer perjures him self in a capital trial, it is a big deal. Having been in 60+ capital trials I have saw judges screw over both the defense and the prosecution enough to know that Ito was out of his league and should have been removed from the bench. Of course, in that case, you would needed Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O’Conner, Abe Fortas, etc in order to not have been out of their league. The only attorneys missing were “Horse Race” Haines, Gerry Spence, and Clarence Darrow to probably have a clean sweep of some of the top legal minds in the country. Still, Marcia and Chris spent to many hours in the sack and not enough in strategy sessions.
As for the civil decisions we both know there is a big difference between reasonable doubt and a preponderance of the evidence not to mention the difference in the evidence rules between criminal and civil trials.
But, as I said at the beginning. I agree that O.J. did kill them both. I was also glad that the Goldman’s got the civil verdict and that they relentlessly pursued him. I am now glad he is in prison. And, finally, I also know F. Lee Baily, and he is a bull sh*t artist in the first degree. He is also the worst polygraph operator I have ever met in my life.
Lazer, had you been on the jury, how would you have voted and why?
John, you ask me a very difficult question. I had the luxury of sitting on the outside and observing things that the jury did not. Also, I did not listen to every moment of the trial and I really don’t see how the people on that jury did. With all of that being said, and having to follow the instructions of the court to find a person guilty, I would have grudging voted for a lesser charge or not guilty. Please understand that my reasoning would be based solely on the concept of reasonable doubt. One of the biggest issues at that time was when Mark Furman perjured himself about the racial remarks. In my mind that cast doubt on every other part of his involvement in the case. If he would lie under oath about that it would not be a big leap to lie about other things. The other issue, in my opinion was that on a number of occasions Marcia Clark and Chris Darden simply were not prepared and did not prepare their witnesses well (Furman being one of them) and were ill prepared for the defense witnesses. Often times it seem that they were confused about what point they were trying to make. So, had I been there on that jury and been truly objective I would have voted not guilty. But, having not been there and observing from the outside, I have no doubt that he was guilty.
Mark Furman’s so called “perjury” was based on a book [or a screenplay] he was writing about various law enforcement cases he was involved in. When the question was asked about his use of the word “nigger” he did not factor that he used it in this fictional document. That in no way would have given me “reasonable doubt” as to Simpson’s innocence. He is a murderer, plain and simple. The idea that Furman would have “planted” a drop of blood is just ludicrous and a civil jury agreed.
I agree with you that the prosecution and judge left a lot to be desired, but their lack of competence would not have planted “reasonable doubt” in the minds of the vast majority of Americans including lawyers, scholars, cops, and many others who followed the trial. Keep in mind that the black community disregarded or chose not to understand the evidence as they were overwhelming in their desire for an acquittal.
I am surprised that you would have voted for acquittal and released a double murderer back on the streets based on the nonsense of Mark Furman’s so-called racism. The machinations of a desperate defense team would only have served to convince me even more that they had not one shred of exculpatory evidence and manipulated Mark Furman and the State into that ridiculous perjury charge in an effort to plant reasonable doubt in a jury that was inclined to acquit regardless of the evidence.
Anyway enjoyable discussion as always my friend.
P.S. As a polygraph operator of over 33 years I agree with you on the Bailey/polygraph observation Bill. I’m sure Vergil would agree also.
Mike, remember I qualified that with had I been on the jury and knew only what the jury had been exposed to. You and I and the rest of the country has access to a of different and expanded information. I didn’t say that Furman planted any blood evidence. In the taped interview he was asked if ever used the term “nigger” and he said yes. There was no clarification after he said no. Baily did follow up with “did you use on a day to day business in your work?” His response was “No, not on day to day basis.” At that point Clark objected and the questioning moved on. I only remember that because I used it as a training aide for a couple of police departments on giving testimony. In my estimation the two big problems here were 1) when involved in a case of this magnitude Furman should not have been giving interviews … Period. 2) He should have acknowledge, if true, that under a high stress situation he may have say a lot of things he did not remember saying but that it had no bearing on his job performance. And, 3. Clark and Darden sat on their hands and did not adequately prepare Furman nor protect their witness on the stand. Without a doubt it doubt it cast dispersion on Furman’s credibility because he lied on the stand. Problem is Mike I am being purely objective and treating Furman like any other witness like any other witness which is exactly what jurors are instructed to do. I would have to say through that Johnny Cochran’s closing argument would have almost swayed me the other way. I hate catchy phrases. When defenses attorneys used those it usually means they don’t have the facts. I know. I work with all the time.
This a very interesting discussion. I have always had a problem with the reasonable doubt rule. I always have reasonable doubt. With few exceptions, only arrogant esteem for one’s personal opinion can remove it.
If murder trials in America were decided by truly open-minded jurors, ones that never at any point saw the trial as a personal judgment of the jurors themselves and their contest to arrive at the right answer, then murder in America would have no consequences other than civil suits. The evidence is often too technical and the rules too legally complex for the beginner to jump in the middle and do well. To the extent that this true, reasonable doubt is the only answer. The jury not actually being present on the scene when the murder happens also adds permanent doubt to almost any trial. A million different things could have happened and just about everyone is spinning the truth some way, instead of presenting an unbiased opinion. Objectivity is hard to find in a court of law. It is, by definition of its function, a place of dispute.
I too believe that doubt for OJ jury was reasonable, even though being pretty damn sure he was guilty was also reasonable. I know this is not a popular thing to say, but when the court speaks of “reasonable doubt” a jury needs to hear “pretty sure,” else everyone goes free.
As for that bias his particular jury, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was there. All a jury that tends to favor acquittal must do is faithfully adhere to the instructions of the court: do not find a verdict of guilty unless there is no reasonable doubt. Well done, OJ’s jury. You let a murderer go free because of a loophole, as instructed by the court before the trial began.
John, I work on capital murder trials as a consultant. When conducting voir dire we have an interesting question that we ask juries in death penalty cases that gives even I some good things to ponder. Reasonable doubt, by most standards does not mean no doubt, but a doubt for which there is a reason. To that end it is each juror’s opinion and then the collective deliberation and the opinion of all twelve. The question we have posed is, “Could you vote for guilty in a capital murder case if you were 90% sure of the defendants guilt?”