Media Starts Catching Up to F. Lee Bailey’s Insinuation of O.J. Innocence

If not for the tragic events that unfolded in Arizona this past weekend, attorney F. Lee Bailey’s Sunday, Jan. 9 three-part PDF website posting about a quartet of witnesses who were never called to testify in the O.J. Simpson trial would have begun making major headlines much sooner than today. The endlessly fascinating Bailey document was first put together as a 2007 book proposal.

Everyone from Gawker to U.K. tabloid The Daily Mail is now jumping all over the attorney’s 20,000-word posting, as well they should. Bailey claims that among the defense witnesses left on the sidelines towards the end of the legal proceedings, for fear of triggering a mistrial, was a nighttime dog walker whose experiences appear not to jive with the idea of O.J. having committed the crime:

Perhaps the most important witness in the Simpson case – who may well have seen the killers or their confederates – was Thomas Lang, who lived about two blocks south of Nicole’s condo at 875 South Bundy Drive in Brentwood… Indeed, so critical did I think that the testimony of Lang would be that I had my one and only disagreement with Johnnie Cochran about whether or not we should call a witness…

There was a female on the sidewalk with long, blonde hair, wearing black clothing, talking with a male person standing in the street… She had an angry look… Northwest of her, on the sidewalk near the entrance to Nicole Simpson’s property… was a male person. He was standing in a somewhat crouched position, facing toward the blonde woman, in what Lang thought to be a “menacing” posture.

The morning after Nicole’s murder, Lang sketched out a drawing of what he saw. Bailey calls Lang the “Defense Smart Bomb” in Part 3 of his posting and separately told AP Monday that he thinks the true killers may have been out to collect on a drug debt and mistook Nicole and Ron Goldman for their targets.