Timeline
Dr. Robert Huizenga
testified on July 14, 1995 that Simpson was not physically capable of carrying
out the murders. Simpson was a 46-year-old former professional football player
with chronic arthritis and had scars on his knees from old football injuries.
During cross-examination, the prosecution produced into evidence an exercise
video that Simpson made a few weeks before the murders titled O.J. Simpson Minimum Maintenance: Fitness
for Men, which showed that, despite some physical conditions and
limitations, Simpson was anything but frail.
Dr. Huizenga admitted afterwards that Simpson could have committed the
murders if he was in "the throes of
an adrenaline rush."
Dr. Michael Baden,
a forensic pathologist testified August 10, 1995 and challenged the
prosecutions timeline and claimed the murders happened around 11:00pm. Dr.
Baden testified that Ron Goldman and
Nicole Brown "struggled long and hard" with the killer. He claimed
that Nicole Brown was still conscious and standing when her throat was cut and
that Ron Goldman was still standing
and fighting his assailant for at least five and possibly up to ten minutes
after his Jugular vein was cut. Dr. Baden also stated that Simpson had told him
during his physical examination that he had cut his finger earlier that day of
the murders while in his Bronco looking for his cellphone. He testified that LAPD coroner Dr. Irwin Golden had made
more than 30 mistakes during his autopsy of the two victims, which diminished
the credibility of their findings. If Baden's testimony was accurate, the
murders took place closer to 11:00pm, which is crucial since that is when
Simpson has an alibi.
During cross-examination, Dr. Baden admitted to not knowing
that Simpson had already claimed he cut his finger the day after the murders,
not the day of, contradicting Baden's testimony. Dr. Baden also admitted to not
knowing that Simpson and Ron Goldman
had never had contact with each other and if his theory was correct, it would
be impossible for Goldman's blood to be in Simpson's Bronco. When the
prosecution then showed him that Goldman's blood was in Simpson's Bronco, Baden
backed off all of his claims of a long struggle. He admitted that the murders
could have occurred in less than one minute and the stabbing wounds are
consistent with a single knife being used, implying a single attacker committed
the murders. He also added that, despite the errors made, "Dr. Golden's autopsy of the victims was better than most he had
seen."
After the trial, Baden stated that testifying for Simpson
was a mistake as it later harmed his reputation. He stated he lost credibility
with his peers because the prosecution and the media portrayed him as a "hired gun" that sold himself
to Simpson and deliberately gave misleading testimony and then intentionally
allowed him to be discredited afterwards in order to collect a $165,000
retainer. He credited the acquittal to the jurors not understanding the DNA evidence
because they did not believe Simpson had enough time to commit the murders
despite the victims blood being found in Simpson's Bronco.
Compromised and
contaminated
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld argued that the results
from the DNA testing were not reliable because the police were "sloppy" in collecting and
preserving it from the crime scene. The
compromised claim was supported by the fact that Fung and Mazzola had admitted
to making several mistakes during the collection of evidence. These mistakes
included not always changing gloves between handling evidence items, packaging
and storing the evidence items using plastic bags, rather than paper bags as
recommended, and storing evidence in the police van, which was not
refrigerated, for up to seven hours after collection in southern California in
June. This, Scheck and Neufeld argued,
would allow bacteria to degrade all of the "real
killer(s)" DNA and thus make the samples more susceptible to
cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab.
The prosecution responded that none of the admitted mistakes
made by criminalist Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola changed the validity of
the results, which all of the evidence samples were testable and that most of
the DNA testing was done at the two consulting labs, not the LAPD crime lab
where contamination supposedly happened. The prosecution maintained that, as
all of the samples the consulting labs received were testable, while Scheck and
Neufeld's theory predicted that they would have been inconclusive after being "100% degraded", the claim
that the evidence was "compromised"
by the entire DNA being lost to bacterial degradation was not credible. The prosecution also denied that contamination
happened in the LAPD crime lab. The argument given was that if the police contaminated
the "real killer(s)" blood
with Simpson's blood as suggested, the result would be a mixture of both blood
types. However, the results showed that only Simpson's DNA was present. The prosecution also noted the defense
declined to challenge any of those results by testing the evidence
themselves. Marcia Clark called Scheck and Neufeld's arguments a "smoke screen."
The contamination claim was made by microbiologist Dr. John Gerdes. He testified on August 2, 1995 that Forensic PCR DNA matching is not
reliable and "The LAPD crime lab has
a substantial contamination problem. It is chronic in the sense that it doesn't
go away." Gerdes testified that
because of the LAPD's history of contamination, he would not consider any of
the PCR DNA matches in this case reliable because the tests were carried out by
the LAPD. He also claimed that the consulting labs’ PCR DNA matches were not
reliable, as the evidence they tested went "through
the LAPD" for packaging and shipping. Gerdes believed only three of the DNA matches
to have been valid, which were the same three the defense alleged to have been
planted by the police.
During cross-examination, Dr. Gerdes admitted there was no
evidence that cross-contamination had occurred and that he was only testifying
to "what might have occurred and not
what actually did occur". He accepted that the victims' blood was in
the Bronco and Simpson's blood was at the crime scene and neither was due to
contamination. He also conceded that nothing happened during "packaging and shipping" that
would affect the validity of the results at the two consulting labs. The
prosecution implied that Gerdes was not a credible witness: he had no forensic
experience, had never collected evidence nor done any of the DNA tests, had
testified in 23 trials, always for a criminal defendant charged with rape,
murder or both and every time had said the DNA evidence against them was not
reliable due to contamination. They also suggested that it was not a
coincidence that the only three evidence samples he initially said were valid
were the same three the defense claimed were planted. Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee testified on August 24, 1995 and admitted
during cross-examination that Gerdes's claim was "highly improbable".
Barry Scheck's eight-day
cross-examination of Dennis Fung was
lauded in the media. However, Howard Coleman, president of
Seattle-based forensic DNA laboratory
GeneLex, criticized Scheck's cross-examination as "smoke and mirrors" and stated "Everything we get in the lab is contaminated to some degree.
What contamination and degradation will lead you to is an inconclusive result.
It doesn't lead you to a false positive."
Defense forensic DNA
expert Dr. Edward Blake, founder of the California-based
Forensic Science Associates and the first person to pioneer the use of DNA
evidence in court, revealed after the trial that he had not testified because
his review of the case found no criticism of the testing conducted by Gary Sims, Renee Montgomery or Dr. Robin
Cotton at the two consulting labs.
Police conspiracy
allegation
The defense initially only claimed that three exhibits were
planted by the police but eventually argued that virtually all of the blood
evidence against Simpson was planted in a police conspiracy. They accused prison nurse Thano Peratis, criminalists Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola,
and Colin Yamauchi, and Detectives
Philip Vannatter and Mark Fuhrman, of participating in a plot to frame
Simpson. In closing arguments, Cochran called Fuhrman and Vannatter "twins of deception" and told
the jury to remember Vannatter as "the
man who carried the blood" and Fuhrman as "the man who found the glove."
EDTA
The only physical evidence offered by the defense that the
police tried to frame Simpson was the allegation that two of the 108 DNA
evidence samples tested in the case contained the preservative
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA. Ironically, it was the prosecution
who asked to have the samples tested for the preservative, not the
defense. The defense alleged that the drop of blood on
the back gate at the Bundy crime scene, which matched Simpson, and the blood
found on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom, which matched Nicole Brown, were planted by the
police. In order to support the claim, the defense pointed to the presence of
EDTA, a preservative found in the purple-topped collection tubes used for
police reference vials, in the samples. On July 24, 1995, Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist who had analyzed
results provided by FBI special agent
Roger Martz, testified that the level of EDTA in the evidence samples was
higher than that which is normally found in blood: this appeared to support the
claim they came from the reference vials.
FBI special agent
Roger Martz was called the defense on July 25, 1995 to testify that EDTA
was present in the evidence samples, yet instead said he did not identify EDTA
in the blood, contradicting the testimony given by Dr. Rieders the day before. Initially, he conceded the blood samples "responded like EDTA responded" and
"was consistent with the presence of
EDTA" but clarified his response after hearing during the lunch break
that "everyone is saying that I
found EDTA, but I am not saying that". When the defense accused their
own witness of changing his demeanor to favor the prosecution, he replied "I cannot be entirely truthful by only
giving 'yes' and 'no' answers". Martz stated that it was impossible to
ascertain with certainty the presence of EDTA, as while the presumptive test
for EDTA was positive, the identification test for EDTA was inconclusive. Martz
also tested his own unpreserved blood and got the same results for EDTA levels
as the evidence samples, which he said conclusively disproved the claim the
evidence blood came from the reference vials. He contended that the defense had jumped to
conclusions from the presumptive test results, while his tests had in fact
shown that "those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood".
No comments:
Post a Comment