F. Lee Bailey says O.J. "absolutely didn't do it" - The Boston Globe

[c_mulholland@nym.hush.com]

By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan
Globe Staff / March 13, 2008


F. Lee Bailey has defended plenty of guilty people, but he swears O.J.
Simpson isn't one of them. "He absolutely didn't do it," the celebrated
defense attorney still insists. Bailey, who grew up in Waltham, attended
Harvard, and lives now in Lynn, is talking for the first time about his
involvement in the Simpson case. Why? Because he's got a book to promote,
of course. Called "When the Husband Is the Suspect: From Sam Sheppard to
Scott Peterson - The Public's Passion for Spousal Homicides," the book
includes a section on Simpson and the so-called "trial of the century."
(There's also a chapter on Wenham dermatologist Richard Sharpe.) Bailey,
who helped discredit former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony
about the bloody glove, says defending O.J. proved to be a bad decision,
both personally and professionally. "It's the worst thing that's ever
happened to me," he said yesterday. "It caused a free fall. People turned
on me. Some of my best friends, lawyers and judges, treated me like
[expletive]." But don't think Bailey regrets springing Simpson. "I
certainly believe the guy didn't do it," he said, "and any intelligent
analysis of the case comes up with that conclusion." So why do most people
disagree? "Because the reporting on the case wasn't good," he said. "People
were told every day, 'He's guilty,'".

 

[Sal Video]

Geez I thought the old **** was dead

<c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
news:3v5qu31mnnn5e6vus6db0qmj6jpc2uhu34@4ax.com...
> By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan
> Globe Staff / March 13, 2008
>
>
> F. Lee Bailey has defended plenty of guilty people, but he swears O.J.
> Simpson isn't one of them. "He absolutely didn't do it," the celebrated
> defense attorney still insists. Bailey, who grew up in Waltham, attended
> Harvard, and lives now in Lynn, is talking for the first time about his
> involvement in the Simpson case. Why? Because he's got a book to
> promote,
> of course. Called "When the Husband Is the Suspect: From Sam Sheppard to
> Scott Peterson - The Public's Passion for Spousal Homicides," the book
> includes a section on Simpson and the so-called "trial of the century."
> (There's also a chapter on Wenham dermatologist Richard Sharpe.) Bailey,
> who helped discredit former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony
> about the bloody glove, says defending O.J. proved to be a bad decision,
> both personally and professionally. "It's the worst thing that's ever
> happened to me," he said yesterday. "It caused a free fall. People
> turned
> on me. Some of my best friends, lawyers and judges, treated me like
> [expletive]." But don't think Bailey regrets springing Simpson. "I
> certainly believe the guy didn't do it," he said, "and any intelligent
> analysis of the case comes up with that conclusion." So why do most
> people
> disagree? "Because the reporting on the case wasn't good," he said.
> "People
> were told every day, 'He's guilty,'".

 

[Christopher Helms]

On Mar 28, 11:09

 

[Anthony Ferrante]

How in the hell would he know? Was he there?

 

[Unique]

Anthony Ferrante <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
4hhtu3tlt39bpmdnibudedh9k1vjd65m2r@4ax.com,

> How in the hell would he know? Was he there?

He couldn't know because he wasn't there. Bailey's just trying to
generate some free publicity for his book and it appears to be working.

--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries,
Holocaust, Pearl, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs,
Marco Polo, Rich Man Poor Man, Peter the Great, Noble House,
and more...

 

[Goliano]

"Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms132@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3247e296-4e6f-4160-86f8-397160680099@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 11:09 am, c_mulholl...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan
> Globe Staff / March 13, 2008
>
> F. Lee Bailey has defended plenty of guilty people, but he swears O.J.
> Simpson isn't one of them. "He absolutely didn't do it," the celebrated
> defense attorney still insists. Bailey, who grew up in Waltham, attended
> Harvard, and lives now in Lynn, is talking for the first time about his
> involvement in the Simpson case. Why? Because he's got a book to promote,
> of course. Called "When the Husband Is the Suspect: From Sam Sheppard to
> Scott Peterson - The Public's Passion for Spousal Homicides," the book
> includes a section on Simpson and the so-called "trial of the century."
> (There's also a chapter on Wenham dermatologist Richard Sharpe.) Bailey,
> who helped discredit former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony
> about the bloody glove, says defending O.J. proved to be a bad decision,
> both personally and professionally. "It's the worst thing that's ever
> happened to me," he said yesterday. "It caused a free fall. People turned
> on me. Some of my best friends, lawyers and judges, treated me like
> [expletive]." But don't think Bailey regrets springing Simpson. "I
> certainly believe the guy didn't do it," he said, "and any intelligent
> analysis of the case comes up with that conclusion." So why do most people
> disagree? "Because the reporting on the case wasn't good," he said.
> "People
> were told every day, 'He's guilty,'".


That's because not one speck of evidence has ever surfaced to even
suggest that anybody other than OJ did it. People were told that there
was a literal, physical trail of the victims' and OJs blood that led
from the scene of the crime into OJ's Bronco and directly into OJs
bedroom, because there was one. No one ever explained how Dennis Fungs
"incompetence" caused all the DNA samples to "degrade" into the same
three results or how Mark Fuhrman managed to plant OJs blood in all
the right places or how Fuhrman would have even gotten it while OJ and
his bleeding finger were on a plane to Chicago. Don't get me started.
****, I'm already started.

---------

Who cares. The case is over.

 

[Scotius]

In article <3v5qu31mnnn5e6vus6db0qmj6jpc2uhu34@4ax.com>,
c_mulholland@nym.hush.com says...
> By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan
> Globe Staff / March 13, 2008
>
>
> F. Lee Bailey has defended plenty of guilty people, but he swears O.J.
> Simpson isn't one of them. "He absolutely didn't do it," the celebrated
> defense attorney still insists. Bailey, who grew up in Waltham, attended
> Harvard, and lives now in Lynn, is talking for the first time about his
> involvement in the Simpson case. Why? Because he's got a book to promote,
> of course. Called "When the Husband Is the Suspect: From Sam Sheppard to
> Scott Peterson - The Public's Passion for Spousal Homicides," the book
> includes a section on Simpson and the so-called "trial of the century."
> (There's also a chapter on Wenham dermatologist Richard Sharpe.) Bailey,
> who helped discredit former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony
> about the bloody glove, says defending O.J. proved to be a bad decision,
> both personally and professionally. "It's the worst thing that's ever
> happened to me," he said yesterday. "It caused a free fall. People turned
> on me. Some of my best friends, lawyers and judges, treated me like
> [expletive]." But don't think Bailey regrets springing Simpson. "I
> certainly believe the guy didn't do it," he said, "and any intelligent
> analysis of the case comes up with that conclusion." So why do most people
> disagree? "Because the reporting on the case wasn't good," he said. "People
> were told every day, 'He's guilty,'".
>

Well, Bailey is clearly right about that. It's funny how some
self-professed "liberals" are when it comes to matters of race... They
want their version of a rigid interpretation of constitutional law for
"their" issues, but when they get un-liberal (as in the Simpson case),
they were all ready to "give him a fair trial tonight and hang him
tomorrow".

 

[P.K.]

F. Lee Bailey is a drunken fool and always has been. He must have the "D.T.'s"

c_mulholland@nym.hush.com wrote:

> By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan
> Globe Staff / March 13, 2008
>
> F. Lee Bailey has defended plenty of guilty people, but he swears O.J.
> Simpson isn't one of them. "He absolutely didn't do it," the celebrated
> defense attorney still insists. Bailey, who grew up in Waltham, attended
> Harvard, and lives now in Lynn, is talking for the first time about his
> involvement in the Simpson case. Why? Because he's got a book to promote,
> of course. Called "When the Husband Is the Suspect: From Sam Sheppard to
> Scott Peterson - The Public's Passion for Spousal Homicides," the book
> includes a section on Simpson and the so-called "trial of the century."
> (There's also a chapter on Wenham dermatologist Richard Sharpe.) Bailey,
> who helped discredit former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony
> about the bloody glove, says defending O.J. proved to be a bad decision,
> both personally and professionally. "It's the worst thing that's ever
> happened to me," he said yesterday. "It caused a free fall. People turned
> on me. Some of my best friends, lawyers and judges, treated me like
> [expletive]." But don't think Bailey regrets springing Simpson. "I
> certainly believe the guy didn't do it," he said, "and any intelligent
> analysis of the case comes up with that conclusion." So why do most people
> disagree? "Because the reporting on the case wasn't good," he said. "People
> were told every day, 'He's guilty,'".

 

[Agent Smith]

c_mulholland@nym.hush.com wrote in
news:3v5qu31mnnn5e6vus6db0qmj6jpc2uhu34@4ax.com:

> By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan
> Globe Staff / March 13, 2008
>
>
> F. Lee Bailey has defended plenty of guilty people, but he swears O.J.
> Simpson isn't one of them. "He absolutely didn't do it," the
> celebrated defense attorney still insists. Bailey, who grew up in
> Waltham, attended Harvard, and lives now in Lynn, is talking for the
> first time about his involvement in the Simpson case. Why? Because
> he's got a book to promote, of course. Called "When the Husband Is
> the Suspect: From Sam Sheppard to Scott Peterson - The Public's
> Passion for Spousal Homicides," the book includes a section on Simpson
> and the so-called "trial of the century." (There's also a chapter on
> Wenham dermatologist Richard Sharpe.) Bailey, who helped discredit
> former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony about the bloody
> glove, says defending O.J. proved to be a bad decision, both
> personally and professionally. "It's the worst thing that's ever
> happened to me," he said yesterday. "It caused a free fall. People
> turned on me. Some of my best friends, lawyers and judges, treated me
> like [expletive]." But don't think Bailey regrets springing Simpson.
> "I certainly believe the guy didn't do it," he said, "and any
> intelligent analysis of the case comes up with that conclusion." So
> why do most people disagree? "Because the reporting on the case
> wasn't good," he said. "People were told every day, 'He's guilty,'".

Lawyers get paid to lie to journalists.

 

[Unique]

Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote in message:
Xns9A7A42D81DFB2agentsmithtwoblockso@207.115.33.102,

> c_mulholland@nym.hush.com wrote in
> news:3v5qu31mnnn5e6vus6db0qmj6jpc2uhu34@4ax.com:
>
>> By Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan
>> Globe Staff / March 13, 2008
>>
>>
>> F. Lee Bailey has defended plenty of guilty people, but he swears
>> O.J. Simpson isn't one of them. "He absolutely didn't do it," the
>> celebrated defense attorney still insists. Bailey, who grew up in
>> Waltham, attended Harvard, and lives now in Lynn, is talking for the
>> first time about his involvement in the Simpson case. Why? Because
>> he's got a book to promote, of course. Called "When the Husband Is
>> the Suspect: From Sam Sheppard to Scott Peterson - The Public's
>> Passion for Spousal Homicides," the book includes a section on
>> Simpson and the so-called "trial of the century." (There's also a
>> chapter on Wenham dermatologist Richard Sharpe.) Bailey, who helped
>> discredit former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman's testimony about
>> the bloody glove, says defending O.J. proved to be a bad decision,
>> both personally and professionally. "It's the worst thing that's
>> ever happened to me," he said yesterday. "It caused a free fall.
>> People turned on me. Some of my best friends, lawyers and judges,
>> treated me like [expletive]." But don't think Bailey regrets
>> springing Simpson. "I certainly believe the guy didn't do it," he
>> said, "and any intelligent analysis of the case comes up with that
>> conclusion." So why do most people disagree? "Because the
>> reporting on the case wasn't good," he said. "People were told every
>> day, 'He's guilty,'".
>
> Lawyers get paid to lie to journalists.

And authors get free publicity for their books by giving journalists
outrageous quotes to publish.

--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries,
Holocaust, Pearl, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs,
Marco Polo, Rich Man Poor Man, Peter the Great, Noble House,
and more...