Trial of O.J.Simpson

On May 4th, 1994, the Goldman family sues O.J. A lot of Simpson’s personal items, such as his trophies and cars were seized. On November 6th 1996, the jury was composed of nine Whites, one Black, one Hispanic, and an Asian. A photographer claims to have taken a picture of Simpson in 1993 wearing Bruno Magli shoes, which were the same ones that were worn by the killer of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. O.J completely denied the picture; which led the photographer to release to the jury over 30 pictures of Simpson in the shoes. Also, on November 11th, pathologists thought that the scars and scratches on O.J’s hands may have been caused by the victim’s finger nails when trying to resist being stabbed to death. However, Simpson claimed that he might have gotten the cuts and scars on his wrists by “rassling” with his son. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns171.htm)

Durning the case, much of the DNA evidence found on scene traced back to O.J Simpson. On scene there was a glove found that matched the glove found in O.J Simpsons yard. Robitaille states that the glove was huge evidence, “One dark, cashmere-lined Aris Light leather glove, size extra large, was found at the murder scene,

The sock was important because it appeared to have blood stains on it. For the prosecution’s case against Simpson, they had the blood stains analyzed by the Department of Justice serologist Gary Sims. He testified in the case that the blood found on the socks were what he considered to be “spatter stains or something along those lines” (Walraven, 1995). The blood was tested and was found to be a match for one of the murder victims, Nicole Brown Simpson. To counter this evidence, the defense for O. J. Simpson called Herbert MacDonell to testify about the blood stains that were found on the socks in Simpson’s bedroom. The defense wan’t trying to deny that the blood belong to Nicole, but rather how the blood ended up on the sock in the first place. Based on his experience in the field of bloodstain pattern analysis, he was able to present an argument that the blood stain was a result of a “compression transfer” (Walraven, 1995), rather than blood spatter, as the prosecution suggested. The compression transfer is said to be the result of someone placing blood onto the sock using some sort of device, and then removing it from the surface of the sock. The amount of blood present on one particular portion of the sock was also inconsistent with what you would find if spatter had occurred. Additionally, based on an identical spot of blood forming on the opposite side of the sock from, it was argued that the blood could have only come in contact with the sock while it was not being worn and in a relatively flat position. The theory of the sock was that the blood was planted on it, and that could have only have happened if it was not being worn at the time of the

There were lots of facts and evidence against OJ, but he, of course, had the best lawyers and attorneys that money could buy on his side. His lawyers and attorneys turned the murder case into a racial battle that took the spotlight off of what crimes had really been committed. In 1985, OJ and Nicole became married, but their marriage was far from “picture perfect.” OJ wasn’t just unfaithful, he was extremely abusive. Friends and relatives on each side would often notice bruises on Nicole’s body. OJ would even openly say at parties “I’m going to kill her.”

It was an argumentative and extremely controversial case that was converted to make people focus on race and tactic. In fact, within it’s popularity “the trial featured virtually uninterrupted news coverage and analysis” (Boan 1). O.J. Simpson (being a celebrity) created a spotlight for himself, and all of America was captivated to see if “the black man had the power and fame to fight back and win in court” (“If it Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit 1). Across the nation people became impassioned with Simpson’s case and it became “one of the most celebrated criminal trials in American history” (‘O.J. Simpson Trial 1). It’s popularity captured and brought to the surface many injustices that people faced legally. Effects similar to race were circumstantial through the people, and many African Americans appreciated the attention these topics were receiving. Reverse discrimination subsequently played a role in the case; opposing opinions ransacked the idea of Simpson’s innocence. Conflicting parties believed “O.J. [did] not indicate what [was] going on in the criminal justice system” (Levin 2). There was an excessive pushe to blame the case on race and people started to think there was no racial demeanor, race will not always work as a benefit or prove to be justified. Along with all the commotion “[m]any television networks devoted long stretches of time to speculation about the case and public opinion of it” (“O.J. Simpson Trial” 4). Credible viewpoints from both sides made the O.J. simpson case one for the people, inquisitively serving as entertainment for all of

Evidence collected included blood at the scene and hairs found on a cap at the scene and on Goldman’s shirt. Both

These claims raised the question that the DNA samples were contaiminated or not valid. It also raised the possibility that the blood from O.J Simpson could have been planted by the investigators. The defense argued that the cut found on Simpsons middle finger was not large enough to bleed the amount of blood found at the crime scene. Simpson claimed that he reinjured his finger in his hotel room the mornin after with a piece of glass. Possibly the biggest peice of evidence was that the bloodstains on the paper wrapping was supposed to be holding only dry blood samples not wet. When it comes to the shoes the defense argued that thousands of people have bought those shoes in size 12 and that it does not directly put Simpson at the crime scene.The hair found at the scene were black and coarse but all that means is that the attacker could have been black but the samples had no dandruf or skin cells on them to prove that they were Simpsons. The blue fibers could have been from a blanket used to cover Nicole Simpsons body at the crime scene.The glove behind guest house was thought to be planted by Detective Mark Fuhrman, a racist cop trying to frame Simpson for the murder and that the blood on glove may have also been planted by police. The defense also claimed that the bloody socks found at the crime scene were planted by police during the investigation. Simpson tried on the gloves from the crime scene which did not fit. The defense challenged the DNA results reverting back to the theory that the samples were handled poorly. The investigation team also found that there was genetic material of a third party on the steering

Keep in mind that the LAPD They also argued that Simpson was so crippled by arthritis that he couldn’t have possibly committed the murders. Another key element in the defense victory was when Mark Furhman took the stand. The prosecution disclosed tapes of Fuhrman during an interview with a screenwriter saying had sometimes planted evidence to help secure convictions. The defense suggested that Fuhrman had took blood samples and staged the bloody glove at the crime scene to frame Simpson. D

There was a witness Kato Kaelin, who gained national notoriety as a minor witness in the trial, he was staying in the guest house on the Simpson property and was there at the house the night of the murder, and also reportedly witnessed the events that took place. Kaelin did in fact come out and say that the former NFL running back did in fact kill his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. Another housekeeper, Rosa Lopez was a central witness on behalf of murder defendant O.J. Simpson testified Monday that she saw Simpson's car in front of his house about the time prosecutors believe he was two miles away after killing his ex-wife. An LAPD detective, Mark Fuhrman became one of the most controversial people in the Simpson trial. Fuhrman arrived at the

Orenthal James “O.J” Simpson was an African-American male suspect in the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. They were both found stabbed to death outside Nicole’s condominium in the Brentwood area in Los Angeles. After failing to turn himself in on June 17, he became a victim of a low-speed pursuit in a white Ford Bronco SUV. He was then arrested and sent to trial on October 3, 1995, were the jury’s verdict was “not guilty” for the two murders.

In reviewing this case, we believe that the defense is more valid than the prosecutors in this case. The evidence that was presented from the defense in this case carries a significant amount of weight that helped to draw us to the conclusion that Michael is innocent and that the event was just an unfortunate accident. As a jury, we reviewed the defenses owl theory, their take on the peterson’s financial situation, and their explanation of a possible burglary occurring in the home during the time of the incident. We found the evidence to be very compelling, effective, and notable in its defense of Michael Peterson. Going forward, we will try to use the information obtained to prove his innocence in the court of

“I want to put our family back together. I want our kids to grow up with their parents. I thought I’d be happy raising Sydney and Justin by myself since we didn’t see too much of you anyway.” (Simpson). “On June 13, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found murdered outside Brown 's Bundy Drive condo in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles. Evidence found and collected at the scene led police to suspect that Simpson was the murderer.” (Ferrell). O.J. Simpson was as charming and deceiving as they come. A true famous figure in the public’s eye has to be calm and collective; however, O.J.’s subconscious came out more throughout his marriage with Nicole Brown Simpson. “You beat me up, O.J. I won’t live my life wondering where the

Another cunning piece of evidence was the bloody glove found behind Nicole's house, that had fit O.J.'s hand and supposedly had blood in it, but when it was time to call the glove as evidence in the court room, there was no blood. This leads us into question about whether or not racism played a role in the lengthiest trial in United States history. With the help of a strong team of forensic experts, the lawyers were able to identify irregularities in the conduct of the investigation by LAPD detectives and forensic specialists. For example, one of the detectives Philip Vannatter, had carried a sample of Simpson's around with him for hours: and some of the blood taken from Simpson was unaccounted for. After much investigation, the defense team found evidence that Mark Fuhrman, the detective who allegedly found the bloody glove in Simpson's yard, was a raving racist who, contrary to his claim on the stand, frequently used the word “nigger” and had bragged about framing blacks, especially those involved

Through mistakes made within the investigative process of the case, the outcome of the case was affected. On the collection of evidence many pieces were contaminated causing flaws in this evidence. When packaging blood swabs the cotton swatches used were packed in plastic bags and then left in a hot truck. This blood was also contaminated as the technician who handled it still had the blood voluntarily given by Simpson on his gloves (Jones, 2009). Degradation of missed blood, which was left for three weeks after the initial run through, may have turned unusable by the time investigators examined it. It was weeks after finding the socks at O.J. Simpson’s house that the police noted the blood on them. Destruction of evidence may have been caused through the bodies not being taken to be autopsied till 10 hours after they were found. During evidence collection the majority was compiled by a Junior Detective, who was taped dropping blood swabs as well as wiping tweezers with dirty hands, this made the evidence highly contaminated (Deutsch, 1995). To conceal the body of Nicole Simpson a police officer place a blanket over the body, this was done to

O. J. Simpson was not found guilty of murder but was found liable (the equivalent of guilty) in the wrongful death case. “The reason for that is that the murder case was in the criminal system and the wrongful death case was a civil action” []. “For reasons such as different laws, procedures and a different burden of proof, it was possible for one jury not to convict O. J. of the murder charges and another jury to hold him responsible for the civil trial.” [] The 2 court systems are very different. “The differences lie in different laws, the different court system and different burdens of proof.”