|
A barking dog alerted a neighbor to the crime scene. Sukru
Boztepe followed the dog back to the Brentwood condominium, saw the
horrendous bloodshed, and urged his wife to phone 911. That
set into motion the initial events in a convoluted series that made
up what many called "the Crime of the Century." It
also brought DNA testing in criminal cases to public awareness.
 |
|
Ronald Goldman & Nicole Simpson (AP) |
Nicole Brown Simpson, former wife of former football celebrity O.
J. Simpson, went outside her home late in the evening of June 12,
1994, and was met by an assailant who slashed her to death.
The killer also slaughtered the man who was with her, Ronald
Goldman, age 25. He had brought Nicole the eyeglasses that her
mother had left behind at the restaurant where he was a waiter.
They were both found dead, covered in blood, just inside the front
gate. |
|
He returned to Los Angeles and agreed to answer questions.
Investigators then noticed a cut on a finger of his left hand that
would prove to be problematic for him when they eventually charged
him with the crimes. First, he told several conflicting
stories about how he had gotten the cut, and second, the crime scene
indicated that the killer had been cut on his left hand and had
trailed blood outside the gates. That hardly seemed
coincidental. Nevertheless, another narrative eventually
overshadowed these problems.
Several droplets of blood at the scene failed to show a match
with either of the victim's blood types. Then Simpson's blood
was drawn for testing (after the droplets had already been
collected) and comparison between Simpson's DNA and that of the
blood at the scene showed strong similarities. Contrary to what
Simpson's defense team was to say after his arrest, this blood could
not have been planted after Simpson's blood was drawn.
The tests indicated that the drops had three factors in common
with Simpson's blood and only one person in 57 billion could produce
an equivalent match. In addition, the blood was found near
footprints made by a rare and expensive type of shoe—shoes that O.
J. wore and that proved to be his size.
Next to the bodies was a bloodstained black leather glove that
bore traces of fiber from Goldman's jeans. The glove's mate,
stained with Simpson's blood, was found on his property. There
were also traces of the blood of both victims lifted from inside
Simpson's car and house, along with blood that contained his own
DNA. In fact, his blood and Goldman's were found together on
the car's console.
Forensic serologists at the California Department of Justice,
along with a private contractor, did the sophisticated DNA testing.
Then other evidence emerged, such as the testimony of the limousine
driver who came to pick Simpson up for the ride to the airport: He
saw a black man cross the driveway and go into the house. Then
Simpson claimed that the driver had been unable to get him on the
intercom because he had "overslept." There were also
photos of Nicole and diary entries that attested to Simpson's
abusive and stalking behavior. In addition, when Simpson was
notified that he would be arrested for murder, he fled with his
friend, Al Cowlings, and hinted in a note that he might kill
himself. With him were a passport, fake beard, and thousands
of dollars in cash. Nevertheless, he pleaded Not Guilty,
offered a huge reward for information about the crime, and hired a
defense team of celebrity lawyers. Barry Scheck and Peter
Neufeld, from New York, were the DNA experts, renowned for their
work on the Innocence Project, which used DNA analysis to defend the
falsely accused.
The defense team was going to call for a pretrial hearing on DNA
evidence, to challenge it from every angle, but decided instead to
drop it. In part, they knew that whatever happened could set a
dangerous precedent and in part they realized that prolonging the
trial process could antagonize the jury. They wanted the jury
on their side. So they waived the proceeding, which many
defense strategists felt was a radical decision, and went on with
the trial. Barry Scheck felt confident that they could produce
challenges in court before the jury that would accomplish all they
wanted and also educate and persuade the jury.
The reliability of this evidence came to be called the "DNA
Wars," and three different crime labs performed the analysis.
All three determined that the DNA in the drops of blood at the scene
matched Simpson's. It was a 1 in 170 million match, using one
type of analysis known as RFLP, and 1 in 240 million match using the
PCR test.
Nevertheless, criminologist Dr. Henry Lee testified that there
appeared to be something wrong with the way the blood was packaged,
leading the defense to propose that the multiple samples had been
switched. They also claimed that the blood had been severely
degraded by being stored in a lab truck, but the prosecution's DNA
expert, Harlan Levy, said that the degradation would not have been
sufficient to prevent accurate DNA analysis. He also pointed
out that control samples were used that would have shown any such
contamination, but Scheck suggested that the control samples had
been mishandled by the lab—all five of them.
What hurt the prosecution's case more than anything else were the
endless explanations of the complex procedures involved in DNA
analysis. The defense kept it simple and thereby befriended
the jury. They then intimated that Detective Mark Fuhrman, who
had been at O. J.'s home the night of the murder, was a racist and
had planted evidence. They offered no proof of the latter
statement, but allowed it to flow from the former, which they did
manage to prove.
The evidence was damning, but the defense team managed to refocus
the jury's attention on the corruption in the Los Angeles Police
Department. Then Simpson made a clear statement of his
innocence, though he was not on the stand, and the defense attorneys
disputed the good reputation of the forensics labs, proving that the
evidence had been carelessly handled. Deliberating less than
four hours, the jury bought all of this and freed Simpson with a Not
Guilty verdict. They defended themselves in interviews after
the fact by simply stating that the prosecution had not made its
case. It may be that those attorneys made some serious errors,
but the doubt by the defense about DNA was ludicrous and did some
damage with the public to the credibility of this type of evidence.
However, when it was first used in England as a way to determine the
guilt of an offender, it proved to be quite impressive.
|