Friday, January 24, 2020

The O.J.Simpson Murder Trial (Part IV)




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