The Evidence in Simpson Case

219). DNA tests tied Simpson to crinkle drops found to the odd of those shoe prints (Moldea, 1997, p. 120), consistent with an injury to Simpson's left hand (Moldea, 1997, p. 61). Another blood drop found on the rear provide also matched Simpson (Moldea, 1997, p. 178).

Simpson's house provided another trove of physical evidence. Police found a bloody left-handed glove behind the guest house, which corroborated the story of Kato Kaelin, who heard common chord thumps there from inside the guest house around 10:45 p.m. (Moldea, 1997, p. 144). Officers found socks in Simpson's bedroom that were stained with blood from Brown (Moldea, 1997, p. 178). The Bronco yielded blood inside and out, both that of the victims and of Simpson (Moldea, 1997, pp. 96-102).

Moreover, Simpson did not have a verifiable alibi from 9:45 p.m. until 10:55 p.m. on the night of June 12, 1994. Tom Lange and Philip Vannatter, the jumper lead detectives, concluded that the killings took place amongst 10:15 and 10:40, and since Brown's house was only five minutes away, Simpson had ample snip to drive there, commit the crimes, and return (Moldea, 1997, p. 143). The police also discovered keys to Brown's house in Simpson's possession, which could explain how Simpson entered through Brown's locked back gate the night of the murders (Moldea, 1997, p. 210).

The defense attacked every part of the prosec

Most importantly, such mistakes earned Vannatter a chafe from Judge Lance Ito for his "reckless disregard for the truth" (Los Angeles Times, folk 19, 1995, A1). All of which served to destroy Vannatter's believability and bolster the defense's claim that Vannatter, afterward receiving Simpson's blood sample at headquarters, had brought it to the crime scene to establish evidence.

Brazil, J., & Rainey, J. (1995, October 5). Case sparks post-mortem on troubled crime lab. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.

So why did the jury acquit? As one police military officer said after the verdict, "I honestly believe if they had caught O.J. on film committing this crime, they still would have found him not shamefaced" (Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1995, A8).

Assuming the jury was predisposed to acquit, then the defense embossed enough questions (however illegitimate) to let them do just that.

Same goes for the lab. angiotensin-converting enzyme technician admitted that he did not change gloves before switching between samples. Poor lab design created the possibility (however slim) of cross-contamination between samples. gravelly security opened the possibility of tampering (Los Angeles Times, May 30, 1995, A1). new and former lab employees later admitted that the lab needed improvements. Staffing and accompaniment levels had remained constant while the lab's workload had tripled in recent age (Los Angeles Times, October 5, 1995, A1).

Many more examples could be offered, but these few institute the absurdity of the defense's theory. The police made mistakes, and the investigation revealed from serious flaws establish on lack of funding. But none of those problems compromised the process. So how did that point become obscured in the courtroom and in the media? First, the defense, with its seemingly undated resources, took apart the prosecution's case piece by piece. Could anyone withstand such intense scrutiny? Second, Judge Ito gave defense attorneys unlimited latitude, allowing them to employ
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!