Over the past week, there have been several news specials,
e.g., Dateline NBC, 20/20, Geraldo Rivera and others, which have
used the fifth anniversary of the Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown
Simpson slayings to rehash the trial and boost their ratings.
My son Wesley saw me shaking my head while watching one of these
programs and asked me if I thought that O.J. did it. I told him
the absolute truth. I don't know. I wasn't there.
I also was not one of the millions of Americans glued to the
television screen for nearly two years watching the trial so all
I know about the case is based on the newspaper reports and trial
transcripts that I've read. One thing I am sure about is that
before I'd accuse anyone of being a cold blooded killer who got
away with murder, I'd want to be 100% sure of the facts.
I know there are some readers out there who are wondering if I'm
blind or just plain stupid not to acknowledge the overwhelming
evidence against O.J. and I admit that, superficially, the case
looks convincing. However, I have so many unanswered questions
that before I could draw any conclusions I had to examine the
evidence carefully.
The case interests me only because I'm a mystery buff and I love
solving riddles. I've never been much of a football fan and I
think that O.J. is a terrible actor. Yet the popular consensus is
that his acting talents are so prodigious that no one he met on
the plane to Chicago had any clue that he had just committed a
double homicide.
Everyone who believes Simpson guilty cites the overwhelming blood
evidence as the most important factor in his or her reasoning.
Police found O.J.' s blood at the crime scene and the victims'
blood in his Bronco. There was bloody shoe prints that were made
by expensive shoes (Bruno Maglis) that O.J. apparently owned.
Nicole's blood was found on his sock and of course a bloody glove
was found at O.J's house.
It certainly sounds persuasive and if the LAPD had been the NYPD,
the evidence would be indisputable. Unfortunately, the manner, in
which the blood samples was collected and retained reeked of such
gross incompetence that the test results, were rendered
unreliable.
If the blood samples from the crime scene had been tested before
samples of O.J.'s blood were drawn, the case would indeed be
airtight. However, I cannot imagine any New York City cop walking
around with an unsealed sample of the suspect's blood in his
pocket for nearly three hours before delivering it to the lab.
Yet this is exactly what LAPD Detective Vannatter did. Why?
The most puzzling aspect of this case is the voluminous amount of
blood at the blood scene and yet the relatively minor amount that
incriminated Simpson. If O.J. did brutally slay Ron and Nicole,
he somehow escaped getting much blood on his person. His Bruno
Maglis allegedly left definite prints in the blood and yet not
one trace of blood was found on the pedals of the car.
Considering the very tight time frame between the murders and his
flight to Chicago, he managed to get rid of bloody clothing, a
weapon and clean up the car very thoroughly. This puzzles me.
Testimony that 1.5 millimeters of blood was missing from the vial
containing O.J's blood sample raised serious questions in the
minds of the jury. The defense team effectively tied in the
missing O.J. blood with the possibility that someone in the
police department may have planted evidence at the crime scene.
The LAPD already had a reputation for cover-ups in the minority
community so this wasn't entirely implausible.
Tissue samples and blood were found under Nicole's fingernails
but did not match O.J's DNA. Isn't that usually how police
identify a murderer? Yet the prosecution dismissed its
importance.
If one assumes that Orenthal James Simpson was guilty then
everything fits nice and neatly into the equation. But if he is
assumed innocent, then all the evidence is in fact circumstantial
and questionable and the possibility exists that he was framed.
If so, by whom?
The jury heard testimony that the most damaging pieces of
evidence was discovered by Mark Fuhrman, a detective with a
history of making disparaging remarks about mixed couples. This
detective had even tried to get a medical discharge from the
department because he considered himself a genocidal racist. Is
it conceivable that Fuhrman discovered the second glove at the
crime scene, bagged it in plastic, and dropped it at O.J's house?
In the jury's eyes, it was certainly a possibility. Why was the
blood on this glove wetter than the other glove?
In addition they learned that the blood on the gate at Bundy (the
crime scene) and the blood on O.J's sock were not observed upon
original inspection. In fact, definitive testing did not take
place until weeks after the murders and the samples were kept in
a lab area easily accessible by police personnel.
I was not surprised by the acquittal but I certainly was shocked
at how the media handled the reading of the verdict. Split
screens showed the reactions of the black and white community and
subsequent stories analyzed the differences to death. They
concluded that the jurors were stupid. The black community was
racist and rejoicing that a killer had escaped justice, etc.,
etc.
Those who dared to question the evidence were mocked and
considered moronic. The racial polarization of America was at its
peak following the O.J. verdict and the media had a lot to do
with this.
I just can't understand why it's so easy to accept shoddy,
sloppy, tainted and contaminated evidence as valid if it points
to Simpson's guilt. What is this fascination with this case
anyway? Is it really about race? After all, wealthy white men
have escaped justice in cases with legitimate airtight evidence
and the nation did not come to a halt. I am also interested in
hearing from the 29% of whites who believe O.J. is innocent. What
are their reasons?
Is it celebrity? I'm sorry but O.J. was only a marginal celebrity
at the time of the murders. All I know is that any open minded
individual carefully analyzing the evidence would be left with a
reasonable doubt. Simpson may indeed be guilty but based on the
prosecution case as presented I honestly would not vote for a
guilty verdict. The jury was right.