THE O. J. SIMPSON MURDER CASE ESSAY

OJ Simpson was a star African American, football player accused of two counts of murder after the death of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and waiter Ronald Goldman in JUNE 1994. In the end Simpson was acquitted after a trial that lasted more than eight months. The case was officially titled the people of the state of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson (Linder, 2000). The prosecution believed it had solid evidence against Simpson but the defendant’s defense team led by star advocate Johnnie Cochran and other attorneys
including Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld who specialized in DNA evidence were able to convince the jurors that there was reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence (which was relatively new during the time of trial).
The prosecution led by Marcia Clarke a deputy district attorney and co-counsel Christopher Darden. The prosecution argued that Simpson had killed his ex-wife in a jealous rage. Linder (2000) argues that the prosecution backed their case by presenting a wide range of criminal trial evidence. The evidence presented included a 9-1-1 call made by Nicole Brown to the police expressing fear for her life. In this context, Simpson is heard yelling at the back and hair evidence consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, the location of a crime. Moreover, there was hair consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt, the second murder victim, and fiber evidence. The fiber evidence comprised of cotton fibers was consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on the glove at Rockingham. Similarly, the fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.
Glove evidence that is the left glove found at Bundy and a right-hand glove found at the accused's residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL. Further evidence presented highlighted the fact that Nicole Brown bought a pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's. The evidence also proved that Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June 1994. Shoe evidence: first, shoe prints found at Bundy were identified by FBI shoe expert, William Bodziak as being extremely rare and expensive size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints. Second, bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet was consistent with a Magli shoe. These were very expensive shoes that could only be afforded by a select few such as star athletes, in fact, it was testified that only 299 pairs were sold in the United States. The rarity of these shoes and the fact that several photographs showed Simpson wearing Brno Magli shoes provided very strong evidence for the prosecution.
The most important evidence, however, was the DNA evidence. Learning from this case requires an acknowledgment of the strengths and weaknesses of the application of DNA evidence in this case. According to Thompson (1996), it is evident that DNA analysis proved Simpson as being guilty in a conclusive manner that the court declined. Such ignorance of the incrimination capacity of DNA evidence jeopardized its use raising concerns regarding the fairness in the ruling of the case. The case and the trial system involved revealed crucial misdeeds in the handling of biological evidence. This case revealed concerns of handling biological evidence for DNA analysis. Such concerns involved include collection and handling of biological evidence and potentiality of cross-contamination.
The blood evidence that was presented by the prosecution was as follows: First off, the killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy (crime scene). Second, blood dropped at Bundy was of the same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of the population would match). Third, Simpson had fresh cuts on the left hand on the day after the murder. Fourth, blood found in Bronco and blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home (Thompson, 1996; Linder, 2000).  And last and most importantly blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.
The DNA evidence was supposed to be the most important of the evidence that was presented by the prosecution, in the hope of getting a guilty conviction. Statistics showed that only 0.5% of the population out of millions could have the same DNA profile out of any other person selected at random (Thompson, 1996). Such statistics revealed rarity of the DNA evidence and provided incriminating evidence against OJ Simpson. DNA fingerprinting of the blood found on socks that were discovered in Simpson’s Rockingham estate master bedroom identified the blood as belonging to Nicole brown. The profile matched that of the murder victim with the possibility of matching any other person selected at random from the population being one in 9.7 billion meaning the profile was very rare.
However the defense led by advocates who specialized in DNA, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld discredited the prosecutions DNA evidence. According to Walker (2014), they argued that their client was a victim of police fraud and they termed Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPDs) evidence collection and handling procedures as being sloppy and that these procedures contributed to contamination of the DNA evidence. For example during the trial, DNA evidence that was collected by LAPD crime scene expert, Dennis Fung came under scrutiny. The defense argued and sought to dismiss the DNA evidence on the basis that he had missed a few drops of blood on the fence near the bodies and that he admitted in court to have gone back several weeks later to collect them. Fung also later admitted to having collected some of the evidence without using rubber gloves. For sure this could have led to contamination of the DNA evidence as argued by the defense. The
Samples extracted from the bloody shoe prints leading away from the Bundy condominium where the murders took place were tested for DNA matches. Butler, (2005) argues that Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism tests of the samples showed matches between Simpson’s blood and that of the bloody shoe prints. It however later emerged that one of the criminalists tasked with the testing of the samples was a trainee, and that she had carried around a vial of Simpson’s blood in her lab coat pocket for nearly 8 hours before handing it in for tests. This helped the defense prove that the DNA evidence had been handled so incompetently by the police criminalists that it rendered the delivery of reliable DNA results very unlikely. Later during the trials Gary Sims, an untainted and professional criminalist from California’s Department of Justice testified before the court, that a glove found at Simpson’s residence was a DNA match for Ron Goldman’s DNA profile.
Conclusion
Perhaps OJ Simpson committed the two counts of murder as alleged by the prosecution, that was however not proven in court. However what we do know is that there was very strong and almost water tight DNA evidence that if was handled correctly could have proven that Simpson was guilty of the murders. This case brought to the forefront not only the importance of DNA evidence in criminal trials but also the crucial nature of having procedures and handling DNA evidence in the right procedure so as to prevent contamination of the evidence. DNA evidence handled in the right way provides concrete proof when supported by population statistics. The evidence is even stronger and almost impossible to challenge if it was handled using the right collection and storage procedures.



References
Butler, J. M. (2005). Forensic DNA typing biology, technology, and genetics of STR markers. Amsterdam, Elsevier Academic Press.
Linder, O. D (2000). The trial of O. J. Simpson: The Incriminating Evidence. Famous American Trials. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html
Thompson, W. C. (1996). DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson trial. U. Colo. L. Rev., 67, 827.
Walker, C. (2014, June 12). O.J. Simpson Trial 20 Years Later: Advanced Forensic Science Might Leave Little Doubt as to Simpson’s Guilt. All Things Crime. Retrieved from http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2014/06/12/o-j-simpson-trial-20-years-later-advanced-forensic-science-would-leave-little-doubt-as-to-simpsons-guilt/