THE TRUTH ABOUT THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL

Former criminal defense attorney Bailey gives an immodest account of his role in helping to acquit his “totally innocent” client O.J. Simpson in the “Trial of the Century.”

A 2015 poll, taken 20 years after Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman, found that most Americans believed he was “definitely” or “probably” guilty. Few are likely to change their minds after reading this vigorous but unconvincing argument that a timeline for the murders shows that Simpson had “no realistic opportunity” to commit them. Nor are readers likely to be swayed by the author’s claims that the case was marred by “sloppy police work” (a phrase used four times in the narrative) and other flaws amply documented by others. Bailey offers no compelling evidence that anyone except Simpson might have committed the crimes. He pays only lip service to chief defense counsel Johnnie Cochran’s idea that the killers were two “irate drug dealers” who, angered by an unpaid debt of a guest of Nicole’s, targeted the wrong people—and who may be conveniently beyond the reach of subpoenas since the author has heard they were “executed by the mob for their calamitous mistake in murdering two innocent victims in error.” Given such gaps, this book will appeal mainly to O.J. completists, especially those interested in turf wars on a legal dream team–turned-nightmare as seen by a general who isn’t too modest to flaunt his stripes. (Bailey notes that when Simpson raised the possibility of hiring the flamboyant lawyer Gerry Spence, the defense team’s Robert Shapiro said, “We’ve got the best, Lee Bailey. Why would you want to downgrade?”) As for Simpson’s culpability, William C. Dear offers a more credible argument in O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It, which suggests that a more plausible perpetrator was Simpson’s oldest son, Jason, a potential suspect Bailey doesn’t discuss.

An insider’s view of a controversial trial with effects that still reverberate.