O.J. SIMPSON POLICE INVESTIGAION.   Term Paper ID:24612 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Argues that police effectively collected evidence but prosecution's presentation was sidetracked by defense team.... More...

9 Pages / 2025 Words 5 sources, 21 Citations, APA Format $36.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Argues that police effectively collected evidence but prosecution's presentation was sidetracked by defense team. Paper Introduction: The O. J. Simpson Police Investigation This paper will analyze the police investigation in the O. J. Simpson case. The discussion will center on whether the investigation was properly conducted and whether the evidence against this defendant was properly obtained by the police and other law enforcement agencies. The paper will also detail the types of evidence which were recovered at the crime scene, as well as how this evidence was documented and preserved. The analysis will show what was done with the evidence in the O. J. Simpson case and show how the evidence was properly obtained and therefore, how the investigation was, for the most part, properly conducted. Officially, the case was known as People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, a.k.a. O. J. Simpson, Los Angeles Count Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Nevertheless the defense team wanted to argue that the police hadmessed up the investigation. Officially, the case was known as People of the State of Californiav. For example, Charles Manson's prosecutor, VincentBugliosi, believes that "the LAPD did an adequate job" and that "even inthe areas that the LAPD officers or employees did not perform well, theirperformance was usually on the witness stand, no in the work they did inthis case" (Bugliosi, 1996, p. NewYork: HarperCollins. The receipts forthese items, dated May 27, 1994, show that they were all purchase just twoweeks before the murders (Bugliosi, 1996, p. In sum, the defense used a two-prong attack against the prosecution.That attack centered on the defense's arguments that the police departmentattempted to frame O. Orenthal James Simpson, a.k.a. Thesingle piece of evidence which drew the most attention was a black leatherglove. The defense would later come up with more far-fetchedtheories to account for the presence of the O. 112). However, more than one writer hassuggested that the Los Angeles Police Department did not frame O. J. On August 22,1997, Simpson's defense team had a chance to cross-examine theprosecution's witnesses about how they inventoried the blood evidence. Kennedy, T. (1996). Also, an FBI investigator testified that the blood sample foundon the back gate contained no preservative, (and had it been contaminatedwith Simpson's blood at the Department of Justice lab, it would have been)Abramson, 1996, pp. They obtained the evidence through the use of search warrants,advised Simpson of his Miranda rights before conducting a taped interviewwith him, and had more than one officer present at the time that the gloveand blood samples were collected. The District Attorney chose not to present the disguise, andthey did not fully argue the case as to why the DNA samples could not havebeen contaminated. After this cross-examination occurred, the defense attorneys attackedthe methods which the Los Angeles Police Department had used to obtaintheir evidence. Those elements were: A fake mustache, a goatee, abottle of spirit gum, a bottle of adhesive makeup remover (to remove thedisguise), and three receipts. Moreover, the defense's cross-examination revealed that there was nostandard size for the swatches, nor any uniform shape. References Abramson, J. There were other pieces of evidence which got a lot of attentionduring the trial. Not only was there blood everywhere, but theDNA tests proved that the blood belonged to O.J., Nicole and Ron Goldman. (1996). An FBI witnesstestified that the blood stains which were found on these socks was notcontaminated because it did not contain the preservative which was placedin the pristine sample provided by the defendant (Abramson, 1996, p. Since there are less than 57 billion people that could havecommitted these murders, this evidence rules out any other killer. Also, some people who have analyzed this case and other verylarge criminal cases conclude that in cases were there is a lot of physicaland scientific evidence, a few mistakes are expected, but do not mean thata defendant was framed. J. The samples of O. Simpson and that the case's evidence wasimproperly collected and preserved. 243-245). The O. O. J. Schiller, L. J.'s blood. "But there was only one DNA profile:" O. Simpsoncase. The swatchesweren't tagged. 267). New York: Norton. Thus, the defense had to argue that thepolice made a mistake by somehow contaminating the evidence. 1 9). The defense attorneys accused the police investigators ofbeing sloppy in their handling of the physical evidence. That argument is faulty because if theDNA had totally degraded then nothing would have showed up on the tests.The defense also argued that the DNA was somehow transferred and that therewas a failure of all five controls. Simpson's blood was also found at his own estate, in hisdriveway, foyer, and master bathroom. Beverly Hills: Dove. There was little chance that all fivecontrols failed. J.'s blood which the police found at the crimescene were collected on June 13, 1995, and were immediately tested by theLos Angeles Police lab. The problem occurred when the prosecutor's presented theevidence. J. The receipts were for the purchase of thedisguise material were from Cinema Secrets Beauty Supply, located at "44 Riverside Drive in Burbank" (Bugliosi, 1996, p. Both the early test of the blood found at the crime scene and thetest run the next day of O. In addition to the evidence which was presented at trial, theprosecution also collected some evidence which it chose not to introduce attrial. J. Theprosecution argued that O.J.'s blood was found outside Nicole BrownSimpson's home, and that blood belonging to both of the murder victims wasfound in O.J.'s car and home. Item 146 of the Los Angeles Police Department's property reportshows that the police collected several disguise elements from a bag foundin Simpson's Bronco. J.Simpson's. Darden, C. 343). 111). 1 6). Postmortem: The O. However, on cross-examination the prosecution showed that "Gerdes hadno experience or expertise collecting or analyzing evidence" (Darden, 1996,p. J.Simpson. Moreover, had the samples which were taken from the driveway and thewalkway been contaminated with Simpson's preservative-tinged blood thenthose samples should have shown a mixture of Simpson's blood and some otherperson's unidentifiable blood type (that of some other killer, whose bloodcould not be identified). sample matched. 1 3). The defense alsoclaimed the collection records were incomplete and that the policedepartment should have made and filed notes regarding which investigatorcollected each stain. 11 ). J. Mistrial of the Century. And some bloodstains arbitrarily merited three swatcheswhile others were given seven swatch collections. Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O J. Simpson with a 1 in 2 match(Abramson, 1996, p. Simpson's pristine blood sample with a preservative in it wouldhave been degraded" (Abramson, 1996, p. 186). Prosecutor Christopher Darden later asked the jury duringtrial, "how many cuts in how many states" is everyone supposed to believe?(Abramson, 1996, p. There were other blood samples which pointed to Simpson. They collected evidence which was very damaging to thedefense. (1995). The defense tried to confuse the jury, by claiming at firstthat the DNA had totally degraded. 1 7). 343). had provided tothem. Before long the defense attorneys astutely realized that they couldnot argue that the DNA was not that of their client, so they switchedstrategy and instead tried to argue that the police officers intentionallycontaminated the samples. Simpson did own and wear Bruno Magli's,but no matching pair was found among O. Both of these testsdocumented the blood and preserved the samples so that the lab tests couldreveal the person from whom the blood came. The paper willalso detail the types of evidence which were recovered at the crime scene,as well as how this evidence was documented and preserved. And, experts for the prosecution testified that there were strictcontrols used in the lab and that there was little possibility ofcontamination. (1996). Unfortunately, while this argument could accountfor the blood of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman which showed up in Simpson'sFord Bronco, it could not account for how Simpson's blood dropped onto thedriveway or walkway. J. The matching glove, aright-handed one, was first spotted by Detective Fuhrman at O. The police conducted a properinvestigation and were very thorough in searching both homes, the car, andcollecting the smallest pieces of evidence for trial, such as blood andclothing fibers. Four other drops of blood were tested with a slightly less precise,but still reliable DNA test called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), whichmatched Simpson's blood with a one in 24 , match. SimpsonGot Away With Murder. 1 7). The prosecution couldhave used this to show that Simpson had contemplated killing weeks beforethe murders but chose not to use this evidence, probably because theythought that they could win the case with the DNA evidence, especially onthe socks, and the last glove (which other receipts show Nicole Brown couldhave purchase at Bloomingdale's). 186-187). J. Another piece of evidence was harder for the defense experts toexplain. Later that same day, the police were given asample of O. The results of that test, which wasconducted with the most reliable type of DNA testing now known, said theblood sample produced a one in 17 million match of Simpson's DNA to theDNA in the blood found on the driveway. The biggestproblem with the defense's argument was that the "DNA found in the bloodsamples was heavily degraded, and there was no reason why swatches dippedin O. J.'s bed which DNAtests later revealed were soaked with O. Simpson tried to explain thisthrough his attorneys, who argued at trial that Simpson cut himself whilereaching for his cell phone before leaving on the flight bound for Chicago. Once the police hadcollected the bloodstains, they were delivered to the lab for testing, andfrom there they were dried and placed on a folder paper, called a bindle. The prosecution was able to rebut the accusations made by the Simpsondefense team by showing that even if the blood samples had been mixed up,it did not matter because the defendant's blood was everywhere. In Contempt. Thedefense attorneys learned that the Los Angeles Police Department had nostandard method of record keeping for their evidence collection.Apparently police criminalists Fung and Mazzola had collected blood stains"without recording the number of Gauze swatches they used for each"(Schiller, 1996, p. A bloody footprint at the scene was identified as beingcreated Bruno Magli's, an Italian shoemaker (Bugliosi, 1996, p. Simpson Police Investigation This paper will analyze the police investigation in the O. The blood drops which were found on the walkwaywere located somewhat near the two victims, "to the left of the bloodyfootprints leading away from Nicole Brown's home, and continu[ing] past therear gate and into the driveway" (Abramson, 1996, p. Simpson had stated in a prior 32 minute audio taped pre-trial interviewwith Detective Vannatter that the cut he made on his hand was made as hewas getting ready to go to Chicago (Bugliosi, 1996, p. New York: Random House. J. Some of the mostimportant evidence which the police investigators collected from the crimescene was the blood evidence. The discussion will center on whether the investigation was properlyconducted and whether the evidence against this defendant was properlyobtained by the police and other law enforcement agencies. However, there "were significant problems" with theargument that the sample had been intentionally switched ("even beyond theaudacity" of the alleged conduct) (Abramson, 1996, p. J. And, ifthe defense wanted to say that the stains found on the walkway and drivewaywere contaminated at the Los Angeles Police lab, then why were these othersamples, which were conducted by another lab: that of the Department ofJustice. However, the defense team, and particularly attorney Barry Scheck andexpert witness Dr. Lee, tried to insinuate that the samples had beenswitched in the lab. While the defense had criticized the way in which the policerecovered the samples (no tags, testing some samples more than others), theprosecution said it did not matter since all of the samples contained O.J.'s blood anyway. J. All three lab's reports identified the DNAin the blood drops as that of O. Police investigator Fung collected andpreserved the glove as evidence (Bugliosi, 1996, p. J.'s blood at the scene ofthe crime. 1 4). Other evidence which the police collected came from the Bronco.There were several drops of blood which matched the defendant, Brown, andGoldman. But Simpsonhad also claimed to have cut himself on a glass in his hotel room inChicago after the police called and told him that Nicole had been killed.And, during an earlier part of his half hour tape recorded interview withDetective Vannatter, Simpson admitted that he had cut his finger the nightof the murder, when he was "rushing to get out of [his] house" (Bugliosi,1996, p. Later the defense would argue that because officer Fuhrman was aracist, he might have contaminated the samples. Also, traditional blood tests were used to test thesamples found at the scene. Some of the stains were tested more because they werelarger, for example, the stain in the driveway was large enough that theclassic DNA procedure, Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Analysis(RFLPA) was employed in its diagnosis. However, officerFuhrman was never allowed into the police lab, which would have meant thatone of the lab technicians would have had to intentionally mix the samples(as Dr. Henry Lee implied during his in-court testimony), which is highlyunlikely. Simpson's blood, and on June 14, 1995, the Los AngelesPolice lab conducted a second test on the blood that O. J.'s home.When the 15 blood stains found on the glove were analyzed, O. The case was probably lost for reasons having more to dowith the way the prosecutors presented the case than the way the LAPDcollected and preserved its evidence. The analysiswill show what was done with the evidence in the O. Simpson's defense lawyers started toattack the methods which the police use to recover the blood evidence fromthe scene during the early phases of their client's trial. The District Attorney had good evidence but wassidetracked by the defense team who argued that the glove did not fit, andthat Fuhrman framed the defendant. Simpson'sblood was also found on the right-handed glove, along with Nicole's andRon's blood. The policeinvestigators had three independent labs test the blood samples: a privatelab in Maryland called Cellmark, the Los Angeles Police Department lab, andthe Department of Justice's lab. Detective Fuhrman was accused of planting this second glove.However, Fuhrman was not alone when he found the glove and he is not theperson who picked up the glove. J.'s things at his estate. A pair of socks were found at the foot of O. Simpson, Los Angeles CountySuperior Court Case BA# 97211 (Bugliosi, 1996, p. 1 ). American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of theSimpson Defense. This part of the police investigation wasproperly conducted because the prosecution decided not to rely on theresults of any one lab: if the results came back the same from eachindependent lab's technicians, then the results were more reliable becausethey had been cross-referenced. J. 316).Other evidence showed that O. One glove had already been found at Nicole Brown's home, but itcontained only the blood of the murder victims. Police photographs and swatches taken in front of Nicole's homerevealed that there were five drops of blood which were not in theimmediately area where the victims were found: four drops on the walkwayand one in the driveway. New York: HarperCollins. The largest of these stains matched Simpson with a 1 in 57 billionprobability. Scheck andone of the defense's experts, John Gerdes, claimed that the police lab wasa "cesspool of contamination" (Darden, 1996, p. 1 9-11 ). First,there were the three blood stains found on the back gate of Nicole Brown'shome. J. O J. did not kill the twovictims, then why was there no hair, blood, or other evidence from anunidentified person present in all the various types of evidence sampleswhich were collected? Simpson Case. Simpson. J. 113). J. But it isunlikely that Fuhrman planted the glove because blue-black fibers,identical to those found in the clothing Ron Goldman was wearing, werefound on the second glove (Abramson, 1996, p. The biggest problem with the defense team's hypothetical theorythen is that it does not explain why, if O. Thus, the defense started to argue that the evidencesamples could have been mixed up, and that swatches could have beenaccidentally placed in the wrong envelope and a stain which was collectedfrom one place at the crime scene might have actually been collected fromanother place at the scene (Schiller, 1996, pp. Therefore it could be said that the LAPD did their job in conductingthe investigation. (Fuhrman had initiallydenied knowing a woman called Kathleen Bell who had taped-recorded hisracial slurs years before)(Kennedy, 1995, pp. Simpson case andshow how the evidence was properly obtained and therefore, how theinvestigation was, for the most part, properly conducted. The traditional blood tests are not subject tocontamination and they all pointed to O. 1 ). (1996). 314). The LAPD documented the evidence by theuse of blood stain swatches, and placed other evidence in uncontaminatedcontainers. Bugliosi, V. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.