The OJ Simpson Trial
Nicole Brown Simpson, wife of OJ Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered on the night of June 12, 1994. Mr. Simpson was arrested and charged on June 17, 1994. The arraignments were on June 20 and July 22.
It has been said that people that didn’t watch the trial though the verdict was a sham and people that did watch the trial thought the jury came to the only conclusion possible.
Domestic Violence Misfire
Originally, the prosecution intended to present Mr. Simpson’s background of domestic violence. Six months into the case the prosecution abruptly decided to abandon the domestic violence portion of the trial.
Simpson’s movements the night of the Murder
Mr. Simpson attended a recital the night of the murder and returned home. The prosecution carefully established that Mr. Simpson commented on Mrs. Simpson’s tight black dress, even though relations with the Brown family were cordial.
Kato Kaelin said he and Mr. Simpson went out to McDonalds for supper (OJ’s treat) and Mr Kaelin didn’t see him after 9:30 PM. At 10:54 PM Allan Park met Mr. Simpson for a prearranged trip to the airport for a scheduled flight.
Mr. Kaelin stated that he heard a bump on the back wall of the guest apartment Mr. Simpson was gratuitously providing for him. Mr. Park said he saw a “tall African American shadowy figure resembling Simpson approach the front door but not approach the building. The prosecution theorized that Mr. Simpson say Mr. Park and went around back to climb over the fence behind his guest apartment falling against the apartment causing the bump and loosing the glove in the process.
Mr. Park also testified that he shook Mr. Simpson’s hand but did not see any cuts to Mr. Simpson’s left hand.
Mr. Park took Mr. Simpson to the Airport. Mr. Simpson took the flight to Chicago and stayed at the O’hare Plaza Hotel. Mr. Simpson ask for a Band-Aid for his cut finger while at the hotel. There was a broken glass in the room sink.
Both the plane’s pilot and another passenger testified that they did not notice a cut on Mr. Simpson’s left hand.
For some reason four detectives, Tom Lange, Philip Vannatter, Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman, were sent to the Simpson estate to notify Mr. Simpson of the murder and take him to the station to pick up his children.
They claimed to buzz the Simpson’s intercom for thirty minutes before Mark Fuhrman scaled the wall to open the fence gate. They could see the drop of blood on Simpson’s Bronco (they were there for 30 minutes with nothing else to do).
Mr. Fuhrman interviewed Mr. Kaelin whom heard the thump on his wall, whereby Mr. Fuhrman looked around the grounds, finding the blood stained glove, providing probable cause to arrest Mr. Simpson.
On June 13 Mr. Simpson was taken to the station for questioning. Mr. Langue noticed the cut on Mr. Simpson’s left hand. Lang told Mr. Simpson about blood inside the Bronco. Mr. Simpson said he had cut himself on June 12, but didn’t remember the circumstances. Mr. Simpson voluntarily submitted to a blood test with the blood sample taken by Mr. Peratis, a male nurse.
Mr. Simpson hired Robert Shapiro the lead defense attorney the next day.
On June 17 the DNA results were returned and the detectives notified Mr. Shapiro whom went to tell Mr. Simpson to turn himself in by 11:00 AM that day. More than 1,000 reporters were notified and awaiting Mr. Simpson’s arrival at the police station.
At about 7 PM local time the infamous low speed chase consisting of more than a dozen police cars and nearly a dozen news helicopters. Apparently, I was the only American that did not watch the chase on Television. It may have been the most watched live event on Television that year.
The trial
Opening statements of the OJ Simpson trial began on January 24, 1995. The trial ended on October 3, 1995 with Mr. Simpson’s acquittal of all charges.
The trial began on January 24, 1995 at the downtown Los Angeles superior court building. Lance Ito was the judge. Racists touted moving the trial from Santa Monica to LA downtown as a factor in the trial’s outcome. As you will see, only a highly prejudiced jury would have adjudicated differently after listening to the actual trial day after day.
The defense
The defense team was Robert Shapiro (lead), Johnnie Chochran, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardasian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, Gary Uelmen, Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck. In my opinion, Barry Scheck was the star of the trial. In the final statements Mr. Scheck discussed the DNA evidence, explained the advantages of DNA evidence, the disadvantages of DNA evidence and the problems with the DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson trial blood drop by blood drop. Johnnie Chochran’s theatrics did little more than give less attentive watchers an excuse to complain about the trial. Remember, I do not contend that OJ was innocent, but the prosecution certainly didn’t prove its case. It wasn’t even close to proving its case.
The prosecution
The prosecution team was Marcia Clark (lead), William Hodgman and Christopher Darden. Some have proffered that the DA selected Marcia Clark as lead attorney because the trial was to be about domestic violence. A dismissed juror was interrogated after being dismissed after about six few months into the trial. She told the prosecution that the jury wondered about all the domestic abuse testimony during a murder trial. The gulf between domestic abuse and murder was too wide to cross. From then on the prosecution concentrated on DNA evidence. Months and months of DNA evidence were presented. The louder they holler and the more they repeat, the more likely the lie.
The participants
It was obvious from the beginning that everyone wanted to participate in the OJ Simpson trial. From before the beginning of the Simpson trial, there were crowds inside and outside the courthouse. It was a common topic of conversation and media speculation. It seemed that everyone had a strong opinion.
The trial
Media coverage of the trial was terrible, particularly Dan Abrams whom acted as if he would have had OJ lynched if possible. His righteous indignation was palpable. It seemed that his daily assaults on Mr. Simpson were because of his ‘inside knowledge’. There is some speculation that Abram’s inside guy was Mark Fuhrman because it seemed that most of the bias in his reporting reflected Fuhrman’s angst about being only a peripheral character in the daily drama. Mr. Abrams knew nothing special, except his own bias entering the trial. After a short time, it was obvious that Mr. Abrams didn’t actually watch much of the trial himself and was working for ratings rather than reporting the news. A practice he seems to have perpetuated in the decades since.
The judge
In my opinion the judge was inconsistent. There were times when he seemed to favor the defense and time when he seemed to favor the prosecution. He seemed to be bullied by the press, the prosecution, the defense and an unknown factor, which might have been the elected District Attorney. I believe the Judge’s biggest decision was allowing the nurse that originally took OJ Simpson’s blood to testify the last time.
The lies
It seemed during the trial the Prosecution seemed to try very hard to allow a sympathetic jury anything to justify a guilty verdict. It is commonly know that many jurors believe that a defendant is probably guilty or there wouldn’t be a trial. This is a result of the arrest -> arraignment -> grand jury -> trial process. The trial wouldn’t have begun without jumping through so many hoops.
The problem is that when a prosecutor begins pulling evidence from the air, making inferences they don’t connect and condone outright lying on the stand they lose that advantage and usually can’t get it back. In Tennessee, the home of the liar’s championship there is a saying, “The first liar doesn’t have a chance.” That was true in this trial. I personally thought Mr. Simpson was guilty before the trial. Before the prosecution was finished I was convinced they would do or say anything to convict him but still thought there was a lot of evidence. After the defense finished I was convinced that the police and prosecution was riding Mr. Simpson on a rail whether he committed the crime or not. I’m not convinced of his guilt, but I am convinced that the prosecution didn’t prove his guilt. Mark Fuhrman was the only one policeman convicted of a felony because of his participation in the trial, but I think there were probably more.
California law at the time stated anyone that alters evidence to convict an innocent man gets the sentence the innocent man would have received if found guilty. I think more than one cop and possibly a prosecutor or to should have been worried.
There were a number of incidents that reeked of potential lies and definite efforts to occlude the truth.
Plaintive (sic) howl
There was much testimony that could have been branded as attempted lies by the prosecutor. The prosecution presented witnesses that heard a ‘plaintive howl’ of an unknown dog in an unknown location. A subsequent witness testified a dog approached them when they noticed the dead bodies. The howling dog and crime scene dog were never connected. That was an attempted lie by the prosecution. The judge should have never admitted the ‘plaintive wail’ evidence. It seemed to be a very long stretch to me.
The glove
When the glove was introduced, a limo driver testified that he saw a dark tall African American man on the street. Kato Kaelin testified that he heard a bump on his wall in the night. The defense tried to connect the bump on the wall and the undetermined man on the street with OJ Simpson dropping the glove. That testimony was a stretch at best. The limo driver was not convincing. Kato successfully played the part of a ditzy itinerant. Mark Fuhrman played the part of the ‘at any cost’ aggressive detective. We later learned that Mr. Fuhrman spent his spare time trying to break into the movies as a writer and an actor.
The nurse
If you didn’t see Mr. Peratis’ testimony, you probably have misconceptions about the trial. The first time he testified that he filled the blood vial completely. He was adamant. Mr. Peratis testified a second time to state that the vial wasn’t quite full when he took blood. . Having Mr. Peratis testify a second time to explain to explain that his previous testimony was mistaken was a major mistake by the prosecution. The male nurse’s performance caused a great deal of problems for the district attorney. They felt it was necessary to explain the condition of the blood on the back gate of the murder scene. The police collected the blood on the back gate days after the murder and days after Mr. Simpson’s blood draw were pristine even though the blood was setting in open air and in sunlight. The blood on the back gate was the primary proof that Simpson was at the murder scene. Catching a defendant in a lie can ruin a defense. Catching the prosecution in a lie can ruin a prosecution. For me this was the lie that broke the camel’s back.
There was other blood evidence connecting Mr. Simpson to the murder. Mr. Simpson’s Bronco and clothes seemingly connected Simpson to the murder scene. After the first apparent outright, bald-faced lie the other DNA evidence seemed to be without merit because the evidence was collected and /or analyzed after the Peratis blood draw.
This led to discounting the prosecution’s blood and DNA evidence by many including myself. It was perceived as Peratis saying, “I know I lied the first time but I’m telling the truth this time.” I certainly felt that was the case. It should be noted that the judge tried unsuccessfully to save the prosecution from themselves but let him testify “Not on the facts of the matter.” This moment probably lost the trial.
The lies
The shadowy African American man, the conveniently appearing glove, the perceived glove size and the testimony of Mr. Peratis mostly accumulated right at the end of the trial. When Mr. Scheck reminded the jury (and me) of these problems with the prosecution’s case the only reasonable verdict was not guilty.
When Mark Fuhrman took advantage of his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid examination by the defense the case was ruined. You have to wonder how many times in his career he told a suspect, ”If you have nothing to hide you don’t need a lawyer.” He was taking the fifth because of his lie regarding racial slurs but his testimony and the glove evidence were forever tainted.
Mr. Simpson’s ruin
If you think that Johnny Cochran made a positive contribution to the trial you are ignorant of the facts. His only meaningful contribution, “If the gloves don’t fit you must acquit.” not only didn’t help with the case, it ruined the rest of O.J.’s life because outsiders thought this mindless quip had anything to do with the case, even though the gloves were actually much too small when you consider the video evidence that not only could Mr. Simpson fit his hands into his gloves but also put in hand warmer packages.
Prosecutor performance
In the end, the poor performance of prosecution lawyers was the key to the Simpson acquittal. When Marcia Clark began the trial with the testimony of an unknown dog, barking from an unknown location having a “plaintive wail”, the stage was set for Hollywood drama at its best. Ms. Clark’s irrelevance, combined with Darden’s righteous indignation and combativeness was a stark contrast to the down-to-business attitude of Simpson’s team. The judge held Mr. Darden’s in contempt of court because his actions were so outrageous.
George Clark, the DA’s DNA specialist, did a presentable job regarding the DNA evidence but the constant war of objections and sparring by Darden, and to a lesser extent Clark, gave the appearance of hiding something, reducing the effectiveness of the DNA evidence. The prosecution’s frantic antics overwhelmed even the judge whom held Darden in contempt for his constant belligerence. The DNA war was lost among the non-DNA lawyers. In the end, the lead prosecution lawyers lost the case through ineptitude and personal demons better left outside the courtroom.
Barry Scheck, the standout best lawyer of the trial, won the case with a day-long summation that examined all the evidence and successfully countered prosecution arguments without exception.
The prosecution’s closing did not match their evidence. Even without the DNA lies and diversions relying on the “We all know,” approach to DNA infallibility was laughable. The evidence presented by Mr. Clark was excellent, but the closing’s explanation of collection problems regarding DNA evidence bordered on deranged.
This is all before considering police bungling of the investigation, particularly the maverick actions of Mark Fuhrman whom did not come off as above board, especially after taking the fifth when asked about the planting of a glove on Mr. Simpson’s property.
To be fair, it seemed that the prosecution didn’t want Mr. Fuhrman involved in the case. Mr. Fuhrman was reportedly is the only person convicted of a crime due to the OJ Simpson case. The District Attorney allowed him to ‘plead out’ to perjury, a felony receiving a $200 fine and three years probation. His felony charges were expunged 18 months later. He would later say that he had to plead out, “because of racial bias in Los Angeles.” Mr. Fuhrman later became an author promoting the conspiracy theory that the Warren Commission caved to political pressure and ignored the facts as told by John Connolly.
Mr. Fuhrman wrote a book about the Simpson case and other true crime subjects. He also became a television cable news consultant.
The result
I realize that this summary is not consistent with the public’s perception of the trial, but it is factual. I find it amazing that so many people discount the jury verdict. OJ Simpson case is a strong reminder that popular opinion is a powerful tool.
My perspective
I will repeat again that I don’t know if OJ Simpson was the murderer, but I am certain that the prosecution did not prove he did. I do not know if the police colluded to create OJ evidence, but I’m not convinced they didn’t. I am a grey-eyed blond (more or less) so I don’t share OJ’s race. I did not admire him for his football exploits. I consider his acting ability to be a farce, he was hired to lampoon himself and cashed every check.
I think there is a distinct possibility that the police attempted to frame OJ. If so they only failed because of the LA Prosecutor’s office.