I was looking through KBN archives recently and found an interesting article by Richard that covered F. Lee Bailey’s lecture at an Albany-area community college. The thing that really struck me about the article, however, was the date — October 21, 1967. It came almost exactly two years prior to Zodiac’s call requesting that F. Lee Bailey appear on a local television show. If Gaik was Z, I wonder if this could have been a subtle way to hint at his identity. The title of the article is "F. Lee Bailey: Lawyer Extraordinaire." Maybe the opening line of the article is what prompted Z’s phone call…"Society, by and large, doesn’t lose much if a guilty man goes free," said F. Lee Bailey, the 34-year-old Boston criminal lawyer.
The Knickerbocker News
Saturday, October 21, 1967
"F. Lee Bailey: Lawyer Extraordinaire"
by Richard Gaikowski
"Society, by and large, doesn’t lose much if a guilty man goes free," said F. Lee Bailey, the 34-year-old Boston criminal lawyer. "But an innocent man who is sent to prison loses very much." Mr. Bailey, whose clients have included Dr. Sam Sheppard, Dr. Carl Coppolino and Albert DeSalvo, the alleged Boston strangler, spoke last night at Hudson Valley community college. The lecture was part of the college’s convocation series.
The major tenet of American justice is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, but in practice the exact opposite of this theory is in effect, said the attorney who hosts the new ABC program, "Good Company." "The average man thinks the police would not prosecute without some reason," said Mr. Bailey who declared arrests often are politically motivated or result from poor police work. "Homicide is one of the easiest crimes an innocent man can get indicted on," he said.
"The government has unlimited funds to use for conducting the prosecution but a good defense will bankrupt the average man." A good defense in a murder case costs $50,000, he declared. Most prosecuting attorneys use the office as a stepping stone and are more interested in their win-loss record than in seeing justice done, he charged. If an accused person is found innocent he is still not "free, but is subjected to street corner gossip," said Mr. Bailey.
The attorney charged critics of recent court rulings designed to protect the defendant’s rights have not read the court decisions. Said Mr. Bailey: "The professional criminal always knew what his rights were. When arrested all he would tell (the police) is his name, rank, serial number and ‘I want my lawyer.’" It was the average citizen’s rights which the new decisions protect — "It it is your rights," said Mr. Bailey pointing to the audience. Mr. Bailey is highly critical of the average jury despite the success he has had in defending his clients. "Juries are noticeable lacking in intelligence because the best (the businessman, the professional, the executives) are excused because they don’t have the time," he said.
"The average jury woman is more intelligent because the wives of executives and doctors aren’t excused," he said. "Women are typically the best and worst jurors."
Mr. Bailey called the jury "the most powerful organ we have in this country. "The President, the Congress, the Supreme Court can’t send a man to jail except the Supreme Court in rare cases."
The decision of the jury is always final he said. Appeals and new trials are granted because of the judge’s mistakes, not a jury’s error, he said. Mr. Bailey’s view of various aspects of the law is a mixture of cynicism and idealism. Some examples follow: "Criminal law is about as exciting as it is cracked up to be. Any lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client."
"Our whole penal system is geared for producing criminals. Any 18-year-old who is convicted of a felony and is sent to prison will be a major criminal by the time he is 35." "Eye witnesses are the greatest source of wrong convictions." "I’ve never seen a jury trial where everybody was completely candid with the truth." Earlier Mr. Bailey told reporters at a press conference: "Politicians who are running for judge should be locked up. I see no correlation between a man’s ability to be a judge and his popularity."
"I’m against wiretapping because it is an invasion of privacy, like having a TV camera in the bathroom." "I’ve never heard a sound argument for capital punishment except that some people get satisfaction from having a couple thousand volts run through some poor guy." "The purpose of cross examination is not to secure information but to destroy information."
F. lee Bailey lived about a mile from me in Chelmsford Ma. He moved to Andover Ma when he first got into the money. He defended GEORGE Edgerly of Lowell/Dracut and got him off of murder. They found only some pieces of his wife in Stoney Brook in Dracut. He argued that without a head or body, that there was no proof she was dead. And he won the case. Edgerly walked free. He committed another murder 15 years later and went to prison for life. Edgerly was making a fortune submitting fake warranty work never done to GM. They sent an auditor and Edgerly killed him and dumped his body in the river in Beverly Ma. Bailey got the death penalty taken off the table for DeSalvo for the stranglings. He defended DR Shepard, another well known case. F lee bailey was a household name by then. There is no connection whatsoever between these two individuals. Bailey had a book out and he was in the Boston Strangler book. Everybody wanted him as their lawyer. He was like a hero to many in our area. If you get in trouble hire F Lee Bailey.
My point is that almost exactly two years prior to Zodiac’s phone call requesting Bailey or Belli, an article on Bailey written by Gaikowski appeared in the Knickerbocker News. That is what caught my attention. If such an article or letter to the editor had been written on the same date by Mr. X, Ted K, or other suspects, I would find it equally significant.
Well, Gaikowski was a professional writer. There are probably plenty of zynchronicites to be found if you compare publication dates and Z related events.
I’m not sure what the idea is here anyway: Gaikowski as Z requested Bailey on the show in order to commemorate his 1967 article? He wrote the 1967 article as a prelude to making the call in 1969? His request was a subtle hint to his identity? Does this make sense?
I honestly don’t think it does.
PS I suppose it’s also worth mentioning that while it’s possible that the call requesting Bailey (which was made to the Oakland PD) came from the real Z, it’s also possible (and far more likely, in my own opinion) that it came from Eric Weill, a mentally ill man who was obsessed with Melvin Belli and whose calls to the latter’s residence were traced to an Oakland institution where Weill was an inmate at the time.
According to Chronicle reporters Paul Avery and Duffy Jennings, the police were satisfied that Weill was responsible for both the calls to Belli’s home and the “Zodiac” call to the Oakland PD.
