Michelle Obama Attends Beyonce Concert
7 Weird Ways To Bug-Proof Your Picnic
One of O.J. Simpson's attorneys, F. Lee Bailey, says that there was strong evidence held back in the 1995 trial that would have proved Simpson's innocence in the infamous murders.
In a new 20,000-page manuscript, Bailey talks about four individuals whose testimony would have strengthened Simpson's case had it been presented to the jury. Years after the "Trial of the Century," Bailey is opening up and sharing more perspectives on the case that put the entire nation at a standstill.
The document is called 'The Simpson Verdict' and was written in 2007 as part of a book proposal. Bailey argues that it's time that the facts of the case be put before the American public so that others might learn more about what went on behind the scenes.
In his manuscript, Bailey mentions four individuals who did not testify at the trial. One is a forensic scientist and the others are a battered woman's expert, a blood expert and an eye witness. The eye witness claims to have seen the individuals who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
The witness is believed to have seen Nicole Brown Simpson arguing with two men, with neither of them being O.J. Simpson. None of the four witnesses were called to testify by the defense primarily because they feared that more jurors would be dismissed and that a mistrial would be declared because the trial being too long already; the O.J. Simpson trial lasted eight months.
Bailey says he believes that the killers were out to collect a drug debt and that they killed Ron and Nicole by mistake. He doesn't mention who might have actually owed the money.
Bailey goes on to argue that racism has fueled hatred toward Simpson over the years, and that he wrote the manuscript to help clear Simpson's name in the court of public opinion.
The O.J. Simpson trial was one of the most telling and provocative incidents in our nation's history. When the trial first began, everyone talked about it and everyone had an opinion.
Each day was spent mulling over the new details of the case, and every new rumor was mustered up by an overzealous media. It was unbelievable.
I remember the day I was walking across campus and someone told me that O.J. had been acquitted. As a student on a conservative campus like the University of Kentucky, one can imagine that many of my classmates were less than pleased with the verdict.
In addition to being a virtually unprecedented media circus, the Simpson trial was a compelling reminder that racial divisions continue to plague the United States. Just three years after the L.A. riots and the beating of Rodney King, the trial told America that a black man accused of killing a beautiful white woman is going to be dealt an entirely different style of justice.
Nearly every poll in the United States, split across racial lines, told a consistent story about how whites and blacks viewed O.J.'s guilt in completely different ways. Many of those racial divisions continue until this day, and we can only pray that we're making progress.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is the founder of the Your Black World Coalition and a Scholarship in Action resident of the Institute for Black Public Policy. To have Dr. Boyce's commentary delivered to your e-mail, please click here. 
Comments: (95)
Add a comment
By: Nigeln on 1/11/2011 1:11PM
I have always believe that OJ did not commit those murders and the case against him was fuel by racism. Those that felt he committed the murders have plotted against OJ to entrap him into the situation that he is currently in.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Fashionedbygod33 on 1/11/2011 1:57PM
I agree, I never believed he committed those murders either.
Report This
By: Mimi on 1/11/2011 3:55PM
I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT FAYE RESNICK AND NICOLE WERE DRUGGIES AND THAT FAYE KNEW MORE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAN WHAT SHE WAS TELLING.
http://walraven.org/simpson/pm_09.html
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/keyword/faye-resnick
I BELIVE THAT THE POLICE INCLUDING MARK FUHRMAN WERE TOLD TO SET UP O.J. BY PLANTING EVIDENCE TO TAKE THE FOCUS OFF OF A POTENTIAL DRUG HIT.
I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT FOR 1 MINUTE THAT O.J. DID THE KILLINGS BECAUSE NONE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED SAID OTHERWISE.
Report This
By: teabaggeredgar on 1/11/2011 3:57PM
You people have no common sense. O.J. did it and F.BAILEY knows he did it. Dont believe his manuscrit, because it is a bunch of S..T. What would happened if 1 of BAILEY kin was the murder victims.
Of course, most of COLORED people have no sense,MOST.
Report This
By: Tish on 1/11/2011 6:52PM
I knew OJ didn't do it,because family living in CA at that time called it out right a drug hit. OJ refused to pay her dope bill after paying many of them. So tea whatever, just like the state that you live in, we all know that you still try to grow that strange fruit. This is from an educated "Black Woman".
Report This
By: frank on 1/13/2011 12:08PM
sure it just a drug hit...o.j. didn't do it and that was so clear at his trial.....
Report This
By: ernest on 1/11/2011 1:45PM
are you kidding me? again the defense never proved that there was any drug connection between nicole ron and some mystery drug dealer. but as we let an abuser walk free b/c of his superstar status( yet again) we think of new shyt to free him.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: DueGee on 1/12/2011 5:17PM
This was no mystery drug dealer just because this was not brought to the fore in thre courtroom.
The authorities knew who these drug dealers were but didn't touch them.
Everybody who prosecutes and enforces the law is not doing things by the law, of whuich you are apparently ignorant to this fact.
The drug money makes friends in the most unlikely places, the Police Department.
DueGee
Report This
By: DueGee on 1/12/2011 5:25PM
Where do all of you uneducated ones come from....crawl back under a rock.
The defense does not have to prove anything, when you are accused the prosecution has to prove that you are guilty.
The person charged does not have to prove that they are innocent....YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
DueGee
Report This
By: DueGee on 1/12/2011 7:40PM
DueGee...
For Those Who Still Refuse To Accept OJ as an Innocent Man I present a portion of the following article
.................................................
O.J. Simpson: Proven Innocent, Assumed Guilty, Lived Foolishly
Scarlet Henderson,
REASON ONE: O.J. SIMPSON MOST LIKELY DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OR SKILLS TO CARRY OUT SUCH PRECISE KILLINGS WITH A KNIFE
The way that Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were killed shows that O.J. Simpson could not have been the killer. The murders seem to have been committed by more than one person using more than one murder weapon. It is obvious that the murders were committed by a very experienced professional assassin with very precise knowledge of the human anatomy, exsanguination and the vascular system.
Nicole Brown's neck was cut from ear-to-ear with her head almost severed from her body and she'd been stabbed numerous times in other areas.
Ronald Goldman was stabbed almost sixty times. Even the coroner describes many of the wounds as "taunting" wounds, indicating that he may have been strategically stabbed to torture him before he died.
The murderer knew exactly how to sever major arteries and how to damage the voice boxes of the victims, so that that they could not scream or speak.
The person who killed Nicole Brown knew enough to cut the carotid arteries, one on each side of her neck, then the jugular veins on either side of her neck, according to the autopsy report. An incision was also made to the cervical spine at C3. Whoever did this was well-versed in the most heinous type of torture and knew that damage to that part of the cervical spine (C1 to C7) would cause quadriplegia. The order in which the wounds were inflicted is not indicated, but it's obvious that they were precisely done to maximize suffering before death ("taunting wounds").
...................................................
Duegee
Report This