The O.J. Simpson case and trial were prime examples of worst case scenario from beginning to end. This paper will focus on the investigative mistakes made by the police at the crime scenes. This will include the collection, handling, and processing of the evidence for the case. Then it will cover briefly what went wrong at trial that would give this man an acquittal.
From the beginning of the investigation into the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, one thing was fundamentally wrong. There were too many people at the crime scene. The lead detectives for the crime did not arrive until between 0400 and 0430. By the time they arrived at the scene, 18 others had signed into the scene already and none of those were criminalists or coroners (Jones 3). They were all just milling around the scene observing whatever was there, because policy prohibited anyone but the criminalists to collect evidence and the coroners to move the bodies. What was the purpose of having all those people on the scene when only a few of them were doing anything constructive? When detectives Phil Vannatter and Tom Lange arrived on the scene, the only people who needed to be there were the original two officers, who had secured the scene, the photographer, and detectives Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman. The last two, only because Vannatter and Lange were to replace them as lead detectives on the scene. Ultimately there was no real reason for all the others to be there.
Another mishap by the detectives was when, “to protect Nicole’s body from the prying lenses of telescopic cameras, and also to protect the evidence on her corpse, Lange arranged for it to be covered by a blanket from inside the house” (Jones 4). One is not supposed to use a blanket, sheet, or other object from the crime scene to cover any evidence because trace material from the cover can transfer to the evidence. If a cover must be used, it should be a new, clean sheet so that transfer remains minimal. The street was not included within the crime scene tape, and there may have been tire marks on the pavement that were evidence. Since Detective Lange was so concerned with the media, he could have widened the crime scene in such a way as to preserve its integrity. Who knows what evidence was lost to the blanket? The “LAPD/SID analysis of her body and clothing disclosed no foreign hairs or fibers” (Jones 10). However, the world may never know if whatever was found on her was because of her attacker or because of the blanket. It may also remain a mystery as to whether or not the blanket picked up any trace from her body as that was never raised as an issue.
“It is important to have clearly established departmental orders as to who is in charge of the crime scene, what the responsibilities are of the various personnel involved, what procedures are to be implemented, and, of most importance, who is permitted access to the scene” (Ogle 20). The detectives in this case were everywhere. There was no one person in charge of the crime scene throughout the investigation. When the commander told the detectives that they should get O.J. Simpson to take care of his children, this becomes evident. Vannatter and Lange were in charge of the crime scene. They decided to have their supervisor would watch the scene, to which he agreed, while Vannatter, Lange, Fuhrman, and Phillips all went to inform Simpson of the death of his ex-wife (Jones 2). How many people does it take to do this simple task? This is another case of too many people being present in a given situation. Fuhrman knew where O.J. Simpson lived. He and either Vannatter or Lange should have gone to the Simpson residence alone. If Fuhrman wanted his partner there, then let Phillips and Fuhrman handle informing Simpson. There was no reason why all of them had to go and leave the original scene in the hands of a fifth party.
Later the same thing happened when Lange, who had established himself as lead detective at the Nicole’s house, left the crime scene again to be involved in the interview of O.J. Simpson at the police station. He did not need to be there since his partner Vannatter could handle it. Since he left the crime scene again, this time without replacing himself, blood evidence was missed on the back gate that could have been caught on the final walk-though (August 11). These actions called into question why the blood was not collected on June 13, but July 3 several weeks after the crime scene had been released and others had access to it.
This leads to the theory of the planted blood that the defense had a field day using. When O.J. Simpson went for his interview with police at the police station, he submitted a blood sample for analysis. The nurse forgot to write how much blood he took from Simpson on the vial, but testified that he took around 8cc’s. The lab could account for only 6.5cc’s. It was later established that the old nurse had guessed at the amount of blood taken, basing his guess on how much he usually took from patients. However, “because of Simpson’s muscular arm, Peratis had to use a different syringe device that routinely draws out a bit less blood. ‘Good luck if you can fill the vial up all the time,’ Peratis said. It looked like it was enough blood to test. I said, “Officers, is this enough?” I heard a “Yes.” I withdrew the needle'” (August 7). This may have been a simple mistake, but it may very well have cost the state its case.
A misconception used to further the blood planting scenario was that the media saw Vannatter handing the vial of blood in an envelope to Dennis Fung, who was the criminalist in charge of collecting the evidence for the case. The question raised was why did he not turn the blood in to the lab instead of driving all the way out the crime scene to give it to the criminalist. The reason was that the LAPD policy stated that a number had to written on all evidence before it could be given to the lab. The only person who knew this case’s number was Fung because he was the person in charge of collecting evidence. Therefore, the only person Vannatter could give the blood to was Fung (Jones 4).
Another part of the planting evidence plot was that criminalist Fung planted the socks found at the foot of Simpson’s bed. This theory arose because the videographer assigned to the case had forgotten to check the time on the video camera before video taping the scene. Fung had collected the socks from the bed before the camera was rolling and he logged the evidence in with the time in which he took it. Unfortunately, the time he wrote down indicated that he had collected it after the time the video camera indicated that there were no socks on the bed. Therefore, compromised evidence resulted from the cameraman’s error. Of course, during the civil trial, this theory was disproved, because when the Nicole’s blood from the sock was compared to Nicole’s blood from the test-tube. The blood in the test-tube was more deteriorated than that of the sock, and since the blood in the test-tube was preserved with EDTA, there was no way that the blood had come from the same samples (August 1).
A challenge that arose in the criminal case was to the arrest warrant issued to Detective Vannatter. The challenge stated that he had gotten the warrant under false pretenses, which was not true. However, he did make three mistakes when filling out the application. The first was that he stated “that Simpson’s trip to Chicago was ‘unexpected'” (Jones 8). The trip had been planned, but Vannatter did not know that. He assumed based on his interview of Arnelle Simpson and Kato Kaelin that the trip was unplanned. His second mistake was he “omitted that Simpson had voluntarily agreed to return to Los Angeles” (Jones 8). He did not know that the trip was voluntary because he did not confirm this with the detectives who actually spoke with Simpson on the telephone. The final mistake that Vannatter made with his warrant request was that he assumed the red spots he found on the Bronco and the driveway were blood without having the theory proven (Jones 8). He should have been more careful when it came to this warrant application.
There are conflicting theories when it comes to the initial interview conducted with O.J. Simpson. Douglas Linder from the University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law states, “the interview was remarkably inept. Officers did not ask obvious follow-up questions and whole areas of potentially fruitful inquiry were ignored” (“Investigation”). While this is true to the extent that the police did not heavily question Simpson at the time of this interview, the opposing view seems more credible. “…Most observers overlooked the fact that their talk with Simpson was just that and not an official interrogation, which would have occurred if there had been hard evidence at that time linking Simpson to the murders” (Jones 4). In other words, the detectives questioning him did skip some of the tougher questions, because he was not an official suspect at the time. He was not under arrest, nor was there enough evidence to arrest him at the time. Not only that, his attorneys were not present at the time of the questioning. “Simpson’s attorneys were quite relaxed about the officers carrying out an interview with their client, even to the point of leaving Simpson and heading out to lunch” (Jones 4). Several sources hinted at the last, and if it were true, the officers may not have been able to carry out a complete interrogation even if they wanted to.
The police were not the only people who screwed this case. Jill Shively was a witness that could place Simpson in his Bronco right after the murders. However, she perjured herself by saying that she had not discussed this case with anyone and then showing up on a Television show to talk about it. She had been paid approximately $5,000 to do the show. The prosecutors refused to allow her to testify at the trial (Jones 9).
The prosecution screwed the pooch when they filed the claim in downtown Los Angeles instead of filing it in Santa Monica, where it should have been. Their reasoning was that they were certain to find more black jurors in the downtown area, so the locals would not claim racism, if Simpson were convicted, and start rioting as they had with the Rodney King verdict. They also messed up by not asking for the death penalty. If they had asked for the death penalty, they could have gotten a death qualified jury, which was more likely to convict Simpson (Linder “Investigation”). There were a few other mistakes made by the prosecution, most of which were because of the switch of the lead prosecutor for the case made right before the trial started. No one was to blame for the switch as it occurred when the original lead prosecutor was hospitalized due to the stress that this case had caused him.
The final player in the downfall of this case was Judge Lance Ito. The man was a screwball. He made flip-flop decisions that were not based on law, but on his personal feelings at the time. For instance, he allowed the defense to mention, unlawfully, witnesses during its opening statement, of which the prosecution had not been notified. He recognized his mistake almost a week later and informed the jury to disregard that information. He allowed the prosecution to re-open its opening statements, but refused to allow a continuance so that the prosecution could properly question these supposed witnesses. He said Vannatter’s warrant mistakes were done willfully, yet permitted the use of all evidence found as a result of it. He also, essentially, permitted the defense counsel to run his courtroom.
All of these facts added to the fact that the jury had low education and the evidence was complex, created a no win situation for the prosecution. These mistakes virtually handed O.J. Simpson his acquittal. There is no doubt in this author’s mind that Simpson murdered those two people in cold blood that night. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about it now.
Works Cited
August, Bob. “Answers.” The Real O.J. n.d. 30 Nov. 2006. < http://www.bobaugust.com/answers.htm>.
Jones, Thomas. “Notorious Murders/Most Famous: O.J. Simpson.” Crime Library: Criminal Minds and Methods. 2005. Court TV. 30 Nov. 2006. .
Linder, Douglas. “The O.J. Simpson Trial.” Jurist. 2004. University of Pittsburgh School of Law. 30 Nov. 2006. < http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials10.htm>.
Ogle, Robert. Crime Scene Investigation and Reconstruction. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 2004.
