No Jury Would Convict a Baby for a Crime the Simpsons
So…What Went Incorrect?
Evidence Collection
From the beginning, in that location were bug involving show drove. An important encarmine fingerprint located on the gateway at Nicole Brownish's house was not properly nerveless and entered into the chain of custody when it was first located. Although it was documented in his notes by Detective Mark Fuhrman, ane of the first to arrive on the scene, no further action was taken to secure it.
The detectives who took over Fuhrman'south shift patently were never aware of the print and eventually, it was lost or destroyed without ever existence collected. Other items of bear witness were besides never logged or entered into the concatenation of custody, which gave the impression that sloppy forensic collection had been carried out at the scene.
The prosecution had expert witnesses who testified that the evidence was often mishandled. Photos were taken of critical testify without scales in them to help in measurement taking. Items were photographed without existence labeled and logged, making it difficult, if not impossible, to link the photos to whatever specific surface area of the scene. Separate pieces of evidence were bagged together instead of separately, causing cross-contamination. Wet items were also packaged before allowing them to dry, causing critical changes in show. Police fifty-fifty used a blanket that came from inside the business firm to embrace Nicole Brown'due south body, contaminating the body and annihilation surrounding information technology. Beyond poor show collection techniques, sloppy maneuvering at the scene caused more bloody shoe prints to exist left behind past LAPD than by the perpetrator.
Securing the Evidence
Throughout the investigation, at that place were issues with how evidence was secured. In that location was virtually ane.5 mL of O.J. Simpson'south blood assumed missing from a vial of bear witness. The LAPD could non counter the idea of "lost blood" considering there was no documentation of how much reference blood was taken from Simpson as evidence. The person who drew the claret could but guess he had taken viii mL; only vi mL could exist accounted for by the LAPD.
To add together to the problem, the blood was not immediately turned over equally evidence but was carried around for several hours before information technology was entered into the chain of custody, allowing for speculation of when and how the one.v mL of claret may have disappeared.
The security of LAPD storage and labs was also brought under scrutiny when information technology was discovered that some pieces of testify had been accessed and altered by unauthorized personnel. Simpson's Bronco was entered at least twice past unauthorized personnel while in the impound thousand; Nicole Simpson's mother's glasses had a lens go missing while it was in the LAPD facility.
A Question of Planted Show
Non only were there many claims that the show was mishandled in the police lab but there were likewise claims that evidence was planted at the crime scene. Because the police force department did not have proper collection documents regarding Simpson'southward claret, information technology was argued that the police planted Simpson's missing blood on critical testify and in critical areas of the murder scene.
The defense team stated that EDTA was constitute in the samples of blood that were nerveless at the crime scene. EDTA is a blood logroller (anticoagulant) used in labs and mixed with collected claret. If evidence with Simpson'due south claret showed traces of EDTA, the defense claimed, and then that claret had to have come up from the lab, which meant that information technology was planted.
However, EDTA is also a chemical found naturally in human blood and chemicals such as pigment. At the time, tests were not readily available to differentiate between natural and contaminant EDTA or the differences in the level of EDTA in blood. Some believe that the positive EDTA results may have been due to contagion of the equipment used to run the tests.
A Question of Character
Detective Fuhrman was discredited by the prosecution when he was alleged to exist a racist and accused of planting prove. When asked if he had falsified law reports or planted bear witness in the Simpson case, he invoked his fifth Subpoena rights against self-incrimination. Fuhrman was accused of planting disquisitional testify, contaminating it with Simpson'due south blood, and falsifying police records. In Fuhrman's book, he stated that at one point he was even accused of killing Nicole Brownish and Ron Goldman himself. This put annihilation he touched in the investigation under scrutiny.
Understanding Forensic Scientific discipline
A major hurdle that the prosecution team failed to overcome was the lack of knowledge and understanding regarding forensics, specifically the relatively new scientific discipline of DNA. The jurors agreed that the Dna testimony was difficult to appreciate since expert witnesses were non able to put their bear witness in terms that the jury could sympathize.
This disability to understand cardinal bear witness fabricated the evidence essentially useless; even some seasoned lawyers found the scientific testimonies to be incomprehensible. It is reported that the Dna bear witness showed that the chance that some of the claret found well-nigh the bodies came from anyone but Simpson was i in 170 million. The adventure that claret establish on Simpson's sock could be from someone other than Nicole Brown was 1 in 21 billion. Blood samples found inside of Simpson's Bronco, which was discovered outside Simpson'due south home the next twenty-four hour period, were equally matched to Simpson and both victims. Such evidence should have resulted in an open up and shut case by today's standards but was not made clear plenty to empathise at the time.
What happened in the trial of O.J. Simpson that led to his acquittal?
The part of the jury is to listen to both sides of the example (prosecutor and defense). The jurors have to unanimously decide guilt or innocence. Whatever the outcome, the jurors must experience that their determination is beyond a reasonable uncertainty. This was particularly hard to achieve in this case. Going in, the public were already influenced past Simpson's likeability and star power as a pro football player and honey celebrity. Changing that initial perception was going to exist tough. While the affluence of evidence certainly provided more than plenty to practise so, the doubts cast by the sloppy constabulary work were plenty of a window. Additionally, some jurors accept since admitted that the verdict was retribution for the acquittal of white police force officers in the beating of Rodney King in 1992.
More data about the O.J. Simpson case can be establish here.
Dorsum to Crime Library
Source: https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/famous-murders/forensic-investigation-of-the-oj-simpson-trial/
0 Response to "No Jury Would Convict a Baby for a Crime the Simpsons"
Post a Comment