Evidence of O.J. Simpson’s innocence was held back in the 1995 trial in which he was acquitted in the murder of his ex-wife and her friend in Los Angeles, one of his former lawyers says in a new document.
In the 20,000-word document, F. Lee Bailey tells of four people who could have bolstered Simpson’s case but never testified. He also gives an overview of the sensational trial from his own perspective.
Simpson was found not guilty. Most Americans are convinced that he is guilty, Bailey said, but the document might persuade some doubters that he is innocent.
Bailey wrote the document, “The Simpson Verdict,” in 2007 as a proposal for a book that never materialized. He published it on his website Sunday.
“It’s time somebody put out the real facts of the case,” he told The Associated Press.
In the document, Bailey said the defense team was prepared to call four people who never testified — a forensic scientist, an expert on battered women, a blood expert and the person whose possible testimony he says is the most important of the four: a man who might have seen the killers.
That witness, he wrote, saw a woman the night of the murders matching Nicole Brown Simpson’s description in an apparent confrontation with two men, neither of whom was O.J. Simpson. Upon hearing of the murders the next day, the witness recalled what he saw on a tape recording and wrote a detailed description and sketch of his observations.
But the defense team decided not to call any of the four to the witness stand out of fear that additional jurors would be dismissed and a mistrial declared if the eight-month trial didn’t soon end, Bailey wrote. Bailey said Monday he thinks the real killers were out to collect a drug debt and killed Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman after mistaking them for their targets.