DNA evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case
The detective documented what happened and hand-delivered the sample to criminalist Dennis Fung, who was at Rockingham collecting evidence at approximately 5:30 pm.
[16] The blood of both Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, taken at autopsy by Deputy Medical Examiner Irwin Golden, was booked immediately into evidence by Detective Vannatter.
Detective Vannatter's decision to take the blood directly to Simpson's home rather than booking it into evidence was criticized after the trial for even making evidence-planting possible.
In response, juror Carrie Bess said that she thinks the blood belonged to Simpson's children; juror Marsha Rubin-Jackson said that she thinks Simpson's blood was left there next to the bloody footprints prior to the murders happening; and jury foreman Amanda Cooley said that she had no explanation for that incriminating evidence and stated that it did not factor into her decision of reasonable doubt.
She defended herself stating she had just moved to LA recently and had worked at the Kern County Police district as a criminalist for eighteen months.
[23][31] He was the first scientist to handle and perform PCR analysis on several key evidence items, including the glove and the sock from Simpson's bedroom in his Rockingham home.
[32] During cross-examination he testified that during preparation for PCR testing that a reference card is created using Simpson's donated blood for comparison to the evidence items.
Her results suggest he changed his clothes prior to meeting the limousine driver as evidence by his sock he left in his bedroom having Nicole Brown Simpson's blood on it.
The contamination claim likewise would spread EDTA to the evidence samples which could be tested for as it was a preservative found in the reference vials of Simpson and the two victims.
His claim that “you can no longer have any scientific confidence in” a newly available RFLP match linking Ron Goldman to Simpson's Bronco because the tow-truck driver had stolen items from it was also mentioned as proof he was pandering.
Now the prosecution had a new RFLP match to Goldman's blood in the Bronco that couldn't be explained by contamination or fraud, so Gerdes made that claim instead.
[75] When Judge Ito instructed Gerdes to narrow his testimony to facts about this case during cross, journalist noted his demeanor changed as his contamination claim became more dubious.
[77][78] He also admitted that contamination for the results at Cellmark's and the state department could only have occurred at the crime scene since LAPD packaged and ship most of the evidence they tested directly there.
[90] During cross-examination the claim was immediately debunked when the prosecution gave Rieders a fax copy of the EPA article he referenced during his testimony and had him read it out loud to the jury demonstrating he misread it and it does say "parts-per-million" of EDTA is normally found in blood.
The prosecution also produced an article from the FDA showing that not only is EDTA still used in food (which Rieders denied), it is found in the French fries and Big Mac that Simpson ate approximately one hour before the murders.
[96][97][98][99] Dr. Rieders would testify to the same claim at the civil trial on December 20, 1996, but admitted during cross-examination "this might not be blood from a purple top tube" and that the results could be false positives as Martz would later demonstrate.
FBI shoe-print expert William J. Bodziak testified on September 15 that what Lee thought were a second set of shoe prints were actually just impressions left in the concrete from when it was poured.
[115][116][117][118] Dr. Henry Lee testified again during the civil trial but stated clearly "I never meant to imply there was scientific fact to show that any LA police officer planted or did anything, cheating, with any evidence when I said 'somethings wrong'.
[122][123][124] Scheck claimed that one drop of blood on the back gate at Nicole Brown's Bundy Drive home was planted by the police.
LA County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi concurred with the prosecutor's argument, noting as well that Fuhrman did not know whose blood was on it at the time either.
[139] Defense attorney Robert Shapiro published The Search for Justice (1996), in which he states that he does not believe the police planted blood evidence against Simpson as suggested at trial.
[citation needed] Lead Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran published Journey to Justice (1996), writing that Simpson is a victim of Detectives Lange, Vannatter, and Fuhrman's police fraud to plant blood evidence against him.
[7][8][9] Prosecutor Marcia Clark published Without a Doubt (1997) after the trial, stating that the jurors did not understand the DNA evidence because they were unfamiliar with it and were deliberately confused by the defense about it.
He concurs with other critics that the jury did not understand the blood evidence because of a combination of factors, including unfamiliarity with it, relative lack of education, and deliberate confusion by the defense about its reliability.
[151] CSI: Crime Scene Investigation premiered in 2000 and ran for 15 seasons popularizing forensic science with the public, especially the reliability of DNA testing.
[152] Defense attorney Robert Kardashian stated during an interview afterwards that he had doubts about Simpson's innocence specifically because of the blood evidence and later severed ties with him and testified for the Goldmans during the civil trial.
[154] Defense attorney Barry Scheck stated in an interview that he and Peter Neufeld only attacked the way the DNA evidence had been collected and preserved but not the reliability of the results.
[157] Defense forensic DNA expert Ed Blake revealed after the trial that he didn't testify because his review of the case found no criticism of the testing conducted by Gary Sims or Dr. Robin Cotton.
This would be despite the fact that jurors mention his testimony in justifying their reasonable doubt on several occasions, especially in their immediate post-trial interviews and in their co-written book, Madam Foreman (1995).
In media portrayals, the DNA section of the trial is shortened to just the important clips, whereas the jurors had to listen to 8 hours a day for nearly 9 weeks of technical terminology that was difficult to follow.
