Saturday, January 29, 2011

F. Lee Bailey Needs to Assure Us That The O.J. Verdict Was Correct

Have you heard?  F. Lee Bailey's gonna write a book about People v Orenthal James Simpson.  He's gonna show us that O.J. is truly innocent of the crimes with which he was charged.  And he's released a three-part teaser on his web site.  (I'm not going to cite the URL - you'll have to Google it yourself.)

I was able to read all three parts in about an hour or so.  Other than rehashing evidence you would've seen had you watched the trial on TV and pissing on police officers in general, it seems that Bailey's ace in the hole is a witness never called during the trial "who may well have seen the killers or their confederates."  Truly that's about all there is to Bailey's teaser.  Unless you want to count the five pages on the legal definition of evidence with which he begins the book.  Holy Christ, after suffering through that I probably wouldn't have cared even if he had a photograph of the crime in progress.

I fully understand and appreciate the vital role played by defense attorneys in our legal system.  I do not despise Bailey and the rest of the defense team simply because they represented O.J.  But I'm baffled as to what motivated Bailey to foist this turd on the public.  Is this his "No, really!" moment to explain his involvement?  Is he feeling guilty in his old age?  Has he gone slightly senile?

The Above the Law web site wrote something about this that made me laugh: the headline for this story should be "F. Lee Bailey Evades Caretakers, Gets to Internet Before Somebody Stops Him."

I was able to watch virtually all of the TV coverage of the trial and the only book on the subject that I've read is the one by the two police detectives.  I  believe that O.J. is guilty. And I'll add the obligatory disclaimer that I also believe Mark Fuhrman is a stupid ass.  And F. Lee Bailey's book is gonna suck.

P.S. Next time you put a PDF of your book online, don't use a crappy OCR scan that can't even properly resolve the name O.J.


Francis Shivone said...

I remember liking Bailey during the Patty Hearst trial. I followed that one closely. I followed the OJ trial but thought it turned stupid at some point. For me, it was one of the rare cases that I wasn't on the side of the defense.

John said...

Stupid doesn't begin to describe it. It spiraled out of control of all parties.

During my own experiences with jury duty I am always amazed by the number of prospective jurors who are either unaware or unable to uphold basic principles like "innocent until proven guilty." Siding with the defense is a great way to express that.

But at the end of the day it's the evidence that counts. And, IMO, it showed that OJ was guilty.