Former Florida lawyer F. Lee Bailey drafted a 50-page manuscript describing, more than 15 years after the event, why O.J. Simpson was not guilty of murder.
The timing and overall purpose for the document is unclear. According to his website, Bailey runs a consulting service where he provides various law and public relation-related services.
The document itself reads as if it is a rough draft of something. Bailey references that it might become a book. It does not read as if it is a polished, finished project. While memories of the details of the case have likely dimmed for all but devout followers of People vs. Orenthal James Simpson, Bailey’s defense of OJ generally involves citing witnesses who never testified.
Unless you are already convinced that the verdict was correct, the author fails to convincingly address bloody gloves which were separated and found at the scene and Simpson’s home; the period of time (admittedly tight) where the murder could have occurred; Simpson’s dubious involvement in the “If I Did It” book; and the instances of mixed blood specimens. There are sections where Bailey confronts some of the blood evidence (the only alternative explanation is that it was planted by the police) however the treatment is too brief and the conclusions are tinged by a one-sided, defense-lawyer-tone. It is unlikely that the text, as is, will lead to wholesale change of readers’ minds.
He does have some interesting opinions/overview of Rules of Evidence and he sits in a unique position to comment on witnesses, both testifying and those who never made it.
Interesting but somewhat untimely reading unless you are a fan/foe of Simpson or Bailey. That said, it is a free and quick read which you can find here.