Throughout the
investigation process, the forensic practices and procedures carried out at the
scene of the crime and within forensic laboratories were extremely sloppy and
unprofessional. The amount of evidence that did not follow the correct
procedures when seized was extremely high, for example cross contamination,
loss of evidence within the audit trail. Because of this the evidence provided
was seen as unreliable and insufficient evidence and was not supportive enough
to present within court or even to add as evidence to their investigation.
Detective Robert Riske was
the first police officer to arrive at the murder scene of Nicole Brown Simpson
and Ronald Goldman. Detective Mark Fuhrman was next to arrive at the scene of
the crime, both Riske and Fuhrman did not prioritise what procedures needed to
be carried out at the scene, this led to critical mess ups within the
investigation. Firstly, full PPE was not worn by Riske or Fuhrman therefore
when using Nicole Browns house phone to call for ‘back up’, gloves were not
worn by either Fuhrman or Riske, therefore contaminating the phone and anything
else they had touched within the house. As other officers arrived at the scene,
they too were not fully equipped and wearing full PPE which led to critical
blood evidence such as footprints, being contaminated. Another example of PPE
causing contamination is when the media arrived before Scene of Crime Officers
and other authority figures, this increased pressure on Riske and Fuhrman. In
the panic they covered Nicole Brown’s body and Ronald Goldman's body with a
blanket which was taken from inside of Nicole Brown’s condo. By doing so, both
bodies were contaminated from the blanket meaning that any critical evidence
from the suspect that was left on their bodies was useless.
The crime scene was not
handled in a professional and organised manner in any way by Riske and Fuhrman.
The first attending officer (FAO) who was Riske, was responsible for setting up
a common approach path (CAP) and also cornering off the crime scene, as he did
not carry out either of these procedures, they should have been carried out
when other authorities arrived at the scene to prevent any contamination to
evidence at the crime scene and also to minimise to risk of unauthorised
personnel entering the crime scene. However as this was not done, this reduced
the reliability of the evidence taken from the crime scene due to a lack of
professionalism by the detectives. Also a log in sheet should have been used,
in order to document all personnel who entered the crime scene. This too was
not carried out at the crime scene which made it impossible to determine who
entered the crime scene and when they left. Therefore this reduces the
reliability off the evidence taken from the crime scene, as if unauthorised
personal entered the crime scene they most likely did not wear the correct PPE
and therefore contaminated evidence and also adds the suspicion to ‘planted
evidence’.
Another mistake that
occurred at the crime was the lack of communication from Detective Fuhrman and
Detective when handing over the crime scene to Detective Vannetter. This led to
vital evidence such as the bloody fingerprint, not being collected and
therefore this evidence could not aid the investigation to lead to a suspect.
As lead detectives at the murder scene, they should have ensured all practices
and procedures were carried out by Scene of Crime Officers when collecting
evidence to ensure that the reliability and condition of the evidence was not
damaged. Police officers at the crime scene should have ensured that the
evidence collected from the crime scene was collected with a professional
manner following all the correct procedures and then would be transported to
the forensic laboratories in the same condition it was seized in. As no care
was taken for evidence at the crime scene this was shown with the large amount
of evidence that analysts were unable to determine as potential evidence to aid
the investigation. An audit trail for the evidence was hardly used when
documenting evidence collected from the scene which also shows the lack of
professionalism by the SOCO’s.
On June 21st 1995,
Simpson holds up his hand in front of the jury wearing a similar pair of the
infamous gloves. There was a lot of evidence which pointed towards O.J. Simpson
as guilty such as:
- · a pair of Simpsons
socks were found with Nicole Simpsons blood on
- · blood from Nicole
Simpson, Ronald Goldman and Simpson was found within his car
- · African-American
hair fibres were found upon the body of Ronald Goldman
- · the missing
glove was found on Simpson's property
The prosecution team based
their argument solely on the facts and evidence produced from the crime scene
and O.J. Simpson’s house. However the reliability of the evidence was poor
allowing most of the evidence taken from the crime scene and Simpsons house to
be dismissed in court. This was due to the sloppy forensic work carried out at
the crime scene and Simpsons house, time was unaccounted for within both scenes
and evidence was not logged in to the chain of custody. By not following the
correct procedures this meant that this evidence was insufficient, thus meaning
that the evidence surrounding the prosecutions argument was defective.
One of the reasons for
this still not prosecuting O.J.Simpson as guilt was mainly due to the
technical vocabulary present in court which the jury was unable
to comprehend. Yet the main factor was the lack of evidence correctly collected
due to the dis-organisation and lack of professional care
towards the crime scene. Due to such contamination within the crime scene this
also brought doubt upon the DNA testimony evidence that was given in court.
Another factor that affected the result of the trail accusing Simpson
of the double murder was detective Mark Fuhrman. Fuhrman was questioned on
whether he tampered or planted any evidence in order to ensure that Simpson
would be found guilty for these murders. An example of this is when Fuhrman
turned up to O.J. Simpson’s house after the murder in order to ‘question him’.
Fuhrman jumped over a wall to find blood and the 'missing' glove. Also Fuhrman
did not have a warrant to enter the premises of O.J.
Simpson's property this evidence was not allowed to be used in
court. Yet Fuhrman was also known to have been racist on camera which also
gives Fuhrman incentive to plant evidence leading to a guilty
O.J. Simpson. Another example of an attempt to frame Simpson was by the
prosecution, in court Simpsons lawyer, Johnnie Cochran dared the
prosecution to have Simpson try on the glove.
Once demonstrated it was proved that Simpson's hand did not fit
in to the glove. However, this could have been due to the glove having to be
frozen numerous times to keep preserved and also Simpson wore a latex glove on
underneath which would have made the glove harder to get on. However, the glove
did not fit, this was the prosecutions main piece of evidence, and however from
Simpson trying on the glove, it was again further compromised. After the
final trial of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, Orenthal
James Simpson was found not guilty.
Most of the errors that occurred
during the investigation surrounding the double murder could have been
minimised. If the correct practices and procedures were carried out by the
forensic team and police officers, this would have meant that more evidence
could have been used surrounding the case. With more sufficient evidence the trail
could have been concluded in a completely different way. Yet Simpson’s defence
team, The Dream Team, were outstanding lawyers which led to Orenthal James
Simpson being acquitted for the murder charges of Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ronald Goldman. Other factors effected the conclusion of this case, such as the
race of the jury with was predominantly African American. At the time of the
trail a lot of police brutality and racism surrounding African Americans, thus
meaning the jury did not want to be responsible for allowing an African
American to go to jail for such a horrific crime. If these factors did not
occur during the trial the conclusion of the trail may have had a different
outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment