On F. Lee Bailey's new book: The Truth about the OJ Simpson Trial

I have just finished the Kindle version of Bailey's new book.  While well-written and interesting in parts, there were quite a few mistakes that he made regarding the evidence.  A few examples:

“Given the amount of blood that had hemorrhaged from Nicole, the assailant would have been drenched in blood.”  A common talking point that is pure speculation and was even rebuked by a defense team witness, Herbert MacDonnell, who famously suggested (and wrote a forensic essay on) the notion that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  We simply have zero proof that Simpson (or any other assailant) was covered in blood.

“The best, but not only, example of this (evidence being planted) was a certain sock which was recovered from Simpson’s bedroom carpet, and those blood samples found to contain EDTA.”

False and has been thoroughly discredited numerous times.  I wrote about it here.

It’s funny, because Bailey suggests that this is the strongest evidence supporting deliberately planted evidence, yet he spends less than two paragraphs in the entire book covering it. 

Later in the book he says, “Marcia Clark tried to diffuse Dr. Rieders’s testimony in this case by showing that he made a mistake in an old case.”   No, she diffused his testimony by attacking the specific issue.  Say what you will about Marcia Clark, but she went into detail about why Rieders’ argument had significant problems, notably getting him to admit that the unpreserved and preserved samples had the same amounts of EDTA (ppm or less…meaning likely none at all that could be technically detected).  

“Dr. Henry Lee testified that it looked to him as if the blood evidence appeared to show tampering.”  This did not happen, and it is an incredible stretch to suggest that Lee’s “something wrong” comment indicates this.  I believe that Lee was very cautious about how he worded his answers during this trial.

While talking about the sock evidence, Bailey repeats the notion that the Willie Ford “videotaped Simpson’s bedroom at 4:13 but the police evidence collector said he picked up the socks at about 4:30 or 4:40 pm.”  Again, this was fully discredited, even in part by a defense team witness!  Bailey of course doesn’t mention that.

In regards to the vial sample that Vannatter took to Rockingham, Bailey writes, “Why would a veteran detective return to the scene with evidence incriminating a suspect?”  Because the lead detective is supposed to give the evidence to the criminalist so that he can inventory it if he doesn’t have a Divisional Record number yet.   It doesn’t matter if he was at Rockingham, Bundy, or the Parker Center.

And here’s one that makes me think Bailey was sleeping during the trial.  It was in regards to the sock blood which contained Nicole’s DNA.  Bailey writes, “Cellmark didn’t submit its findings until November 17th.  This raises the question: How could police investigators know in the September that the blood drop on the sock would belong to Nicole?”  Because Gregory Matheson did PGM testing on the socks on September 20th and the results were leaked to the press where Tracie Savage reported on it the next day.

Sorry to wank on…but I’ll add more later.