Criminal trial against OJ Simpson
The criminal case against OJ Simpson (officially: The People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson ) was a court case in 1995 in which the former American football star and actor OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and the waiter Ronald Goldman were indicted. The eight-month trial was broadcast live on US television and - not least because of the accusations of racism that emerged in the course of the trial - received great media attention worldwide. The process has been described by parts of the US press as the process of the century . On October 3, 1995, Simpson was acquitted of the murder charge. However, in a subsequent civil lawsuit against Simpson, the victims' families were awarded $ 33.5 million in compensation.
prehistory
OJ Simpson was married to Nicole Brown from 1985 to 1992. Born in Frankfurt am Main , the daughter of a German and an American had met the football star in 1977 at the age of 18 while she was working as a waitress in a nightclub in Beverly Hills . Simpson divorced his first wife, Marguerite, in 1979 and married Brown six years later. Simpson and Brown have two children together: Sydney Brooke Simpson (* 1985) and Justin Ryan Simpson (* 1988). During their relationship, Simpson made generous gifts to his humble partner. Among other things, he gave Brown two condominiums in good locations. Nicole Brown's family also received financial support from Simpson. For example, Simpson paid the high tuition fees for two of his wife's sisters.
The seven-year marriage has reportedly experienced repetitive abuse and domestic violence . In the year of the marriage, police officer Mark Fuhrman , who was later involved in the murder investigation, was called to the Simpsons property due to a family dispute. Fuhrman claims to have found Simpson in a highly excited state. He smashed the windshield of his own car with a baseball bat. Nicole Brown sat on the hood of the car and cried. Since Brown did not want any further investigation, Fuhrman and his colleague left the premises.
During an argument at a New Year's party, Simpson hit his wife so hard that his handprint could be seen on her back. In another incident in 1989, newly called police officers reported that Brown ran out of the house wearing only light clothes and yelled that her husband wanted to kill her. There were scrapes , scratches and bruises on her face . Simpson made no admission to his guilt ( nolo contendere ) in the subsequent court summons for domestic violence, so he pleaded neither “guilty” nor “not guilty”. In total, the police were called to the Simpsons house at least nine times for similar incidents. The public prosecutor's office in the 1989 trial called for a month's imprisonment due to the severity of the mistreatment . Simpson's violence problem is "deeply rooted" and he is a danger to his wife. However, the court did not order detention, only psychological care.
In an undated emotional letter presented as evidence in a later civil lawsuit against Simpson, Nicole Brown describes her marriage as in dire straits and portrayed repeated psychological and physical abuse by Simpson. In 1992 she filed for divorce because of “irreconcilable differences” . Avoiding litigation, the parties agreed on October 15, 1992, to make a one-off payment of $ 433,750 and $ 10,000 a month in child support to Nicole. In the year after the divorce, his ex-wife alerted the police about Simpson's threats of violence. She said Simpson broke into her home and threatened her. The emergency call recordings, in which Simpson can sometimes be heard screaming in the background, were published during the process.
Brown and Simpson made several attempts to resume their relationship. An undated letter, apparently written after the couple separated, shows Brown's efforts to achieve reconciliation. With a sometimes highly emotional choice of words, she explains how much she still loves her ex-husband and blames herself for the relationship problems. Brown describes himself as controlling in the relationship. She was depressed and in a kind of midlife crisis , but wanted to be with Simpson again and raise the children together.
"I always knew that what was going on with us was about me. [...] I'm the one who was controlling. I wanted you to be faithful and be a perfect father. I was not accepting to who you are. [...] I sank into a depression that I couldn't control. I also agree with you now - that I went through some sort of mid life crisis - 'that 30's thing,' you called it […] I want to put our family back together! I want our kids to grow up with their parents. [...] I want to be with you! I want to love you and cherish you, and make you smile. I want to wake up with you in the mornings and hold you at night. I want to hug and kiss you everyday. I want us to be the way we used to be. [...] "
Sequence of events
On the evening of June 12, 1994, Nicole Brown visited the "Mezzaluna" restaurant with her mother and children. They left the restaurant around 8:00 p.m. Brown and her children then returned to their townhouse at 875 South Bundy Drive in the posh Brentwood neighborhood . One of Brown's sisters called the "Mezzaluna" because Brown's mother Juditha had left her glasses in the bar. The waiter Ronald "Ron" Goldman, an acquaintance of Brown, agreed to return the glasses to Brown's property that same night. He left the restaurant around 9:50 pm.
Shortly after midnight, the bodies of Goldman and Brown were found in the entrance area of Brown's property after passers-by noticed Brown's apparently disturbed dog with blood-smeared paws and he led them to the crime scene. The two victims were murdered with multiple knife stabs. Brown's neck injuries were so severe that the head joint and both carotid arteries were severed and the victim was almost beheaded. Goldman was killed according to a reconstruction of the crime after several minutes of fighting with the perpetrator by a cut in the neck and several stitches in the upper body. The investigators assumed that the attack was against Simpson's former wife and that Goldman, who was added, was a random victim, as he might have observed the course of events. In the following hours the crime scene was secured by detectives Mark Fuhrman and Philip Vanatter and the first evidence was secured. At 5:00 a.m., the same officials went to Simpson's villa at 360 North Rockingham Avenue, located in the same district, and found evidence there, according to Fuhrman's statements, including traces of blood in Simpson's Ford Bronco .
According to his chauffeur Allan Park, Simpson, who was not formally suspect at the time , left the city in a limousine at around 11:15 p.m. and was on board American Airlines Flight 668 on its way to Chicago . He had no alibi for the time of the crime, but said he was at his home on North Rockingham Avenue preparing for the flight to Chicago. The distance between the homes of Simpson and his ex-wife is approximately two miles.
Suspicion of OJ Simpson and arrest
Due to the known history of domestic violence between OJ Simpson and his ex-wife and the fact that Simpson had no obvious alibi, he quickly came into the focus of the investigation as a possible suspect. On June 13, 1994, at the request of the police department, he returned to Los Angeles and was picked up from his home by the police and then questioned for several hours. Although Simpson was neither arrested nor formally considered a suspect at the time, he was handcuffed by the police when he was picked up . He spent the following four days up to June 17, accompanied by his girlfriend Paula Barbieri, at the house of his friend and lawyer Robert Kardashian .
In the days up to June 17, the evidence of a possible perpetrator of the Simpsons increased. In particular, traces of blood attributed to him and the victims were found both at the crime scene and in his home. His previous attorney Howard Weitzman then resigned and was replaced by Simpson by Robert Kardashian . Kardashian said on behalf of his client that he was innocent and was at his home at the time of the crime. On June 17, Simpson was officially filed for a double suspicion of arrest against Simpson. However, he did not turn himself in, but fled with his friend Al Cowlings in his car, a white Ford Bronco , on Interstate Highway 405 (Simpson's own car of the same model had been in police custody since the night of the crime). In the house of his attorney Robert Kardashian he left a letter, which Kardashian read publicly and interpreted as a "suicide note". Simpson's getaway vehicle was quickly located and tracked by the police in what was widely referred to in the media as a car chase , even though Simpson's vehicle was traveling at low speed and the police made no move to stop or park it in the street. The chase was broadcast live on TV, for which the broadcast of the NBA finals taking place at the same time was interrupted. During the chase he threatened suicide and told police officer Tom Lange on his mobile phone that he had nothing to do with the murders. Eventually Simpson drove to his home on North Rockingham Avenue. In the meantime, snipers had taken up positions there and had been ordered to use firearms at their own discretion if Simpson posed a danger to the emergency services or other people. However, after lengthy negotiations, Simpson was arrested without resistance. When he was arrested, a passport, $ 9,000 in cash and a fake mustache were found, which from the police point of view suggested that Simpson had left the country and wanted to go into hiding. Simpson said he wanted to visit his ex-wife's grave.
After his arrest, Simpson was classified as suicidal and his cell was also lit at night and checked at short intervals. In a later interview, Simpson explained his seemingly apathetic condition when he was brought before the magistrate. Because of the Simpsons fame, a placement in solitary confinement was arranged, where Simpson claims to have spent his entire 16 months in pre-trial detention .
process
On June 20, 1994, the first Simpsons hearing was held in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The charges were double premeditated murder ("1st degree murder") under Section 187A of the Criminal Code of the State of California. Simpson pleaded "not guilty" on both counts. The court refused to be released on bail because of urgent suspicions. After a one-week legal process delay, Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell ruled on June 30th that the available evidence was sufficient to support a formal murder charge. Simpson then offered a reward of US $ 500,000 for clues about the "real culprits".
The actual criminal trial began on July 22, 1994, under the presidency of Judge Lance Ito . Contrary to an unwritten law that a confession in court can only be "guilty" or "not guilty", Simpson pleaded "absolutely, 100% not guilty". Subsequently, the process location was by the court of Santa Monica in the city center moved from Los Angeles. Generally, processes in the US legal system take place in the judicial district in which the crime to be tried took place. The reason given for the move was the high media interest, safety concerns and earthquake damage to the courthouse in Santa Monica. According to process observers, the relocation had far-reaching consequences for the later selection of the jury members , as the proportion of possible black jurors in the city-center districts is significantly higher than in affluent Santa Monica, which could be an advantage for Simpson, who is also black.
Accuser
The prosecution was represented by prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden . Clark, then 40, an experienced lawyer who had already won 19 homicide convictions, was appointed the lead prosecutor. Darden, 38, had served in the prosecution for 15 years, specializing in the prosecution of violent crimes. The prosecution decided not to seek the death penalty possible in the state of California for certain murder crimes, such as double homicide , but to seek a life sentence with no pardon .
defender
Simpson hired a number of star lawyers, some of them nationally known, for his defense. According to unanimous assessments, the team deployed was recognized experts. In the media, Simpson's legal counsel has been described as a dream team that brings together the best defense attorneys who are “available for money”. His team included his friend and business partner Robert Kardashian , lawyers Robert Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey , who had represented celebrities on several occasions, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz and Barry Scheck, who specializes in DNA analyzes . Simpson appointed black attorney Johnnie Cochran , who had represented black defendants in a number of high-profile cases, as the main defense attorney . In addition to his lawyers, Simpson hired a number of paralegals, private detectives , criminologists , psychologists , forensic scientists and DNA experts during the process . He is said to have spent several million US dollars on his defense. His total fortune at the time was estimated at $ 10.8 million.
jury
In the US legal system has any defendant who is accused of a crime, according to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States the right to a trial before a jury ( English trial by jury ). A jury decides on the guilt or innocence of the accused , in which ordinary citizens of the judicial district in which the offense occurred are sworn in as a jury . Is the charge of murder , the prosecutor must show the jury evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, so that no reasonable doubt exist anymore (about his guilt english guilty beyond reasonable doubt ). Consist only possible doubt ( english possible doubt ) that would not be considered essential when viewed through a rational person as the accused is yet to condemn, otherwise every ever so convincing evidence could be considered by weak evidence or theoretical objections in doubt .
The defense attorneys only have to prove that there are reasonable doubts about the guilt of the accused in order to obtain an acquittal. The defense does not have to refute the motive for the offense or provide evidence of the defendant's innocence (e.g. an alibi). It is sufficient to damage the evidence and evidence submitted by the prosecution for the guilt of the accused in a way that (a reasonable person English reasonable person ) substantial doubt as to the guilt of the accused made. The presiding judge has no influence on the decision on guilt or innocence. He acts as a moderator of the process and decides on the admission of evidence or the admissibility of questions in the examination of witnesses. The jury's decision must be unanimous. If it does not do so ( English hung jury ), the process is considered to be inconclusive ( English mistrial ) and must be repeated with another jury or canceled entirely. If the jury arrives at a guilty verdict , the judge decides on the sentence for the accused. An acquittal is final, the public prosecutor has no appeal .
In a jury trial, laypeople without judicial or litigation experience decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused. As ordinary citizens, juries can be more shaped and influenced in their assessment of legal issues than professional judges by their personal life situation and their own experiences . Certain jurors may also be more suitable than others for assessing a complex set of facts (e.g. dubious DNA evidence). In addition, the jury should be impartial, i.e. not biased in its attitude towards the accused, and its composition should be representative of the community in which the trial takes place. The choice of jury is therefore very important. The defense and public prosecutor's office examine the individual jury candidates extensively and must agree on the selection of the jury under the supervision of the judge. Both prosecutors and defense counsel can deny a jury if they can provide reasonable grounds for denying them.
When selecting the jury, the question of ethnicity and gender of the jury members was particularly relevant. The main prosecutor, Marcia Clark, pushed for a high proportion of women because, in her opinion, they would more likely identify with a victim of domestic violence. The defense was keen to reach a high percentage of black jurors, as it was believed that they would be more positive about a black defendant and more receptive to allegations of racism and prejudice by Los Angeles Police Department investigators. The short-term relocation of the processing location from Santa Monica , an affluent suburb with a predominantly white population, to downtown Los Angeles with a higher minority proportion benefited the defense. In the original jury pool, 40% were white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian. The jury, which was accepted by the defense and prosecution after two months of negotiations, included eight black women, one black man, one man of Latin American descent, one Asian man and only one white woman. So the defense accepted a high proportion of women, the prosecutors a high proportion of black jurors. For this concession to the defense, which Clark accepted against the express advice of her adviser for the jury selection Donald Vinson, the prosecution in the media and legal experts were partly sharply criticized.
Jurors in a jury process must not learn any information about the case from the media during the process and must not speak to any other person about the case, so that their impartiality is not impaired and their decision is based, if possible, only on the evidence presented in the process (judicially approved) . Due to the great media interest and the high profile of the accused, the jury was screened from the public by order of the presiding judge and billeted in a hotel for the duration of the entire trial. Visits, telephone calls and correspondence were monitored. Such shielding ( English sequestration ) is provided for by the law of the United States if there is a high risk that jury members could be unreasonably influenced, bribed or threatened in their daily life and thus restricted in their objectivity.
Strategy of prosecution
The prosecution did not provide direct evidence of the guilt of the accused. Despite intensive questioning of all neighbors, no eyewitnesses were found for the crime. The investigators also found neither the murder weapon nor Simpsons fingerprints at the crime scene. Even so, the prosecution claimed that the burden of proof against Simpson was overwhelming ( an ocean of evidence ). In order to obtain a conviction, the lead prosecutor Marcia Clark focused on the present motive for murder , Simpson's lack of an alibi and the forensic evidence found by the investigative authorities .
Motive for murder
The public prosecutor pointed out that Simpson had repeatedly visited his wife, with whom the two children lived, even after the divorce, and had harassed and persecuted some of them violently. Several incidents of domestic violence were recorded by the police during the marriage. Even after the divorce, the victim repeatedly felt compelled to report to the police about threats from her ex-husband, with recordings of the emergency calls in which Simpson can sometimes be heard screaming in the background. The "fuse" ( fuse ) that eventually the murder of his ex-wife had done, had burned for some time. On the evening of the crime at a dance performance of his daughter, there was an argument between the two, because Brown Simpson had only a few moments spent alone with his daughter. In addition, his girlfriend Paula Barbieri turned him away on the evening of the crime and did not take several of his calls. Simpson had stated in his police interrogation the day after the night of the crime that he had been to a reception with Barbieri the day before the crime and that he had not spoken to her on the evening of the crime. On the same evening, Simpson also told his roommate Kato Kaelin that the relationship with his ex-wife was now over for good. Simpson never got over the separation from his wife and was still possessive and jealous even after the divorce. When she finally threatened to turn away from him, in his anger and desperation he made the decision to kill his ex-wife.
Missing alibi
Through the autopsy of the murder victims and the time the bodies were found shortly after midnight, the time of death of the victims could be narrowed down to a possible period from 9:00 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. Prosecutors believed the murder occurred around 10:15 p.m. They reconstructed this point in time on the basis of testimonies about the sudden onset of dog barking at the crime scene around this time and the time when Ronald Goldman had left the Mezzaluna pub to hand in Brown's mother's glasses at the victim's house. For the time before 9:40 p.m. and after 10:55 p.m., Simpson's alibi is undisputed according to an agreement ( stipulation ) between the defense and the public prosecutor's office. Testimony from his roommate Kato Kaelin and his chauffeur Alan Park show that he was staying at his home on North Rockingham Avenue. In the intervening period, however, Simpson's whereabouts are uncertain. He himself stated that he was in and in front of his house and prepared for his planned flight to Chicago. There was therefore a 75-minute window for Simpson to drive to his ex-wife's house on South Bundy Drive, commit the murders, return and change his clothes before leaving for the airport. The driving distance between the two locations is less than 10 minutes with normal traffic. During the investigation, the police officer Philip Vannatter drove with a colleague what he believed to be the most likely route between the two places of residence under normal traffic conditions and in compliance with traffic regulations and made a video of this, which was admitted as evidence in the trial. The one-way travel time was 5 minutes and 22 seconds.
In line with the theory of the prosecution, a witness actually called by the defense testified in the course of the trial that at around 10:45 p.m. he saw a white " Chevrolet Blazer , Jeep Cherokee or Ford Bronco " in close proximity to Nicole Brown's apartment , which accelerated unusually quickly , and moved south from Brown's apartment. The windows of the vehicle were darkened (which also applies to Simpson's Ford Bronco). The witness also stated that at about 10:40 p.m. from the front yard of Brown's house he first heard the voice of a younger man saying, "Hey! Hey! Hey!" followed by an excited sounding voice from an older man.
Forensic evidence
The core of the prosecution was based on the forensic evidence found at the scene of the crime, in Simpson's car and in his home on North Rockingham Avenue. Traces of blood were found at all three locations, which were assigned to Simpson and the two murder victims using the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) DNA analysis methods . In addition, items of clothing smeared with blood, in particular part of a pair of gloves , were found both at the crime scene and in front of and in Simpson's house. A trail of blood leads from the crime scene to Simpson's residence and leaves no doubt about his guilt, according to the prosecution. In addition, hair and fiber traces were found on the clothes found at the crime scene and on Simpson's estate, as well as on the clothes of the murder victims, which, according to a forensic analysis, correspond in structure to Simpson's hair and the fibers of the floor mats of his Ford Bronco.
Defense strategy
The defense was confronted with overwhelming circumstantial evidence against their client. From the start, their strategy wasn't aimed at proving the Simpson's innocence. Rather, the goal of his lawyers was to sow doubts that would force an acquittal according to the Reasonable Doubt Standard. Simpson's defense did not present a conclusive alibi. References to another possible perpetrator were only marginally discussed. Instead, defense attorneys focused on questioning the theory behind the prosecution of Simpson's motive, the timing of the murders, the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and most importantly, the forensic evidence. The "ocean of evidence" of the prosecution turns out to be a small trickle on closer inspection :
"When you see people tell you about mountains of evidence and oceans of evidence, their ocean soon becomes little streams, their mountains become molehills."
Doubts about the motive
Contrary to what the prosecution said, the defense lawyers claimed that Simpson was by no means jealous and frustrated on the day of the incident. Domestic violence had been a long time ago, with the last physical violence incident in 1989. In fact, it was Brown who wanted a reconciliation with her ex-husband, as indicated in one of her letters to Simpson from 1993, in which she writes that she still loves her ex-husband, is returning to him and I want to stay with him forever. Simpson has a happy relationship with his new girlfriend Paula Barbieri. Barbieri also supported him during the process and did not end the relationship, although he has been in prison for months. After the trial ended, Barbieri basically confirmed that he had continued to be in a relationship with Simpson during the trial, but ended the relationship shortly after his acquittal. Simpson's lawyers also presented a video from the evening of the murders, which shows their client, according to the defense attorney, loving goodbye to his children and members of the victim family in a calm and relaxed mood.
Doubts about the timing of the night of the crime
The prosecution assumed the murders occurred around 10:15 p.m. At the time, Simpson's whereabouts were unknown. The defense tried to challenge the prosecution's timing. If the murder had happened just 30 minutes earlier or later, Simpson would most likely have been eliminated as the perpetrator, as testimony before 9:40 p.m. and after 10:55 p.m. shows his presence at his home. If the murder had happened 30 minutes earlier, at 9:45 p.m., Simpson would have had only five minutes to drive through the evening traffic and murder his ex-wife after 9:40 p.m. In addition, he would have had to stay on the premises for about another half hour after the murder in order to also be able to murder Goldman, who was demonstrably added much later. If the time of the murder had been 30 minutes later, around 10:45 p.m., Simpson would have had only 10 minutes for a fight (several minutes according to experts), the two murders, returning to his house, and washing and changing. At around 10:55 p.m., Simpson called his driver, Allan Park, over the intercom in his house, who could not see any signs of battle or blood on Simpson's body or clothing on the later drive to the airport.
The defense presented a number of witnesses from Brown's neighborhood who said they had not heard a dog bark or seen a stranger on Brown's property at the time the prosecution assumed the crime was committed. The witnesses Danny Mandel and Ellen Aaronson testified unanimously that they walked past Nicole Brown's house around 10:25 p.m. on the evening of the crime and had neither heard the barking of dogs nor seen traces of blood on the path through the front yard of Brown's house or anything else not having noticed anything conspicuous. A person familiar with Nicole Brown of honor from the immediate vicinity stated that it was "unusually quiet" (on Tatabend in the area around Brown's house to 22:25 exceptionally quiet been). Simpson's neighbor Rosa Lopez also testified that she saw a white Ford Bronco outside Simpson's house at 10:00 p.m. It was also disputed between the prosecution and defense how long Ronald Goldman stayed in his nearby apartment after leaving the "Mezzaluna" at around 9:50 pm in order to change before the errand to Brown's house. The prosecution assumed that he had left his apartment quickly and therefore arrived at Brown's house at 10:15 p.m. The defense pointed out that there was no evidence for Goldman's brief stay in his apartment and that he could only have arrived at the scene much later.
The determination of the time of the offense was a particularly hotly contested point in the process between the indictments. The exact time of the offense is of enormous importance, as the instructions to the jury before the judgment is reached in murder trials expressly indicate that "reasonable doubts" as to whether the accused was at the scene of the offense must lead to an acquittal regardless of any other evidence.
"Evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission of the alleged crime for which he is here on trial. If, after a consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, you must find him not guilty. "
In addition, the jury is expressly instructed to believe the version that suggests the innocence of the accused and to discard the incriminating version ( In dubio pro reo ) , if two equally reasonable statements are made about a particular issue .
"[I] f the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt, and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt. "
Simpson's attorneys argued that the prosecution's inability to pinpoint the time of the murder and Goldman's arrival raised "reasonable doubts" about the possible presence of her client at the scene, given that Simpson had no alibi on the evening of the crime. With only a slight shift in the timing of the prosecution, Simpson could not have been at the scene. The defendant should therefore be acquitted.
Doubts about the credibility of witnesses
Simpson's attorneys tried from the start in a targeted manner to cast doubt on the integrity and reliability of witnesses for the prosecution ( witness impeachment ). Investigator Mark Fuhrman, a main witness who claimed to have found the bloody glove on Simpson's property and thus established the most important link to the crime scene, was under particular pressure. In the course of the trial, Fuhrman was found to have made racist statements about black people. He was also accused of placing the glove on Simpson's property specifically to accuse Simpson of the crime. Other police officers have been charged with incompetence, inaccuracy and carelessness in the investigation.
Doubts about the forensic evidence
The defense's main point of attack was the forensic evidence presented by the investigators. Simpson's lawyers tried to question the integrity of the investigators and the reliability of the evidence. Traces were wrongly or insufficiently secured, blood samples in the police laboratory were contaminated and DNA was destroyed by incorrect handling. Allegedly Simpson hair and fiber traces from the Simpsons Ford Bronco floor mats found on the victims' clothing could plausibly be explained by the fact that Nicole Brown's dog was found with blood-smeared paws at the scene on the evening of the crime, and by investigators the following day was not consistently kept away from the crime scene. Since Simpson was regularly in front of Brown's house to pick up his children, and the children were occasionally passengers in Simpson's Ford Bronco, Brown's dog could carry hair and fibers to the crime scene - the front yard of Brown's house. In addition, the investigators arriving at the scene first used a blanket from Nicole Brown's house to cover the bodies of the murder victims, which were clearly visible from the sidewalk. This measure alone could contaminate the crime scene with a multitude of possible hairs and fibers.
It was also unclear who was in possession of Simpsons blood and incriminating clothing found at the scene at what time; the handling of the evidence was altogether suspicious. In addition, Simpson's attorneys accused Los Angeles Police Department investigators of previously convicting Simpson as the only possible perpetrator from their point of view, and of having deliberately placed traces of blood and other evidence at the crime scene and at and in his home for opportunistic or racist motives to have.
Incriminating evidence
The prosecution cited a number of pieces of evidence at the trial to support their murder theory. The defense attempted to present evidence to the contrary or to damage the integrity of the evidence. It was not uncommon for the prosecutor to consider the same evidence to be incriminating and Simpson's lawyers to exculpate.
Past incidents of domestic violence
According to the testimony of Police Officer Detective John Edwards , an emergency call was made early in the morning at around 4 a.m. on New Year's Day 1989 from 360 North Rockingham Avenue, the OJ Simpsons estate, and a woman could be heard screaming. The emergency call center suspected a case of violence and sent Edwards and his partner in a patrol car to check on things. After Edwards arrived on site and spoke to Simpson's maid, a woman wearing only a bra and sweatpants , who had obviously been hiding in the bushes earlier , ran up to him and yelled several times in hysterical tones, "He's going to kill me!" . When asked by the police officer, the woman said that “he” meant OJ Simpson. Then OJ Simpson appeared in a bathrobe in the driveway and yelled that he no longer wanted this woman in his bed and that he had two other women. Simpson's tone of voice was extremely loud and had " rabid " ( rabid ). Edwards identified the woman as Nicole Brown. According to the officer, Brown showed clear signs of abuse such as bruises, open wounds on his face and choking marks on his neck. Edwards told Simpson that he was arrested for domestic violence ("spousal battery"), should get dressed and follow him to the police station. Simpson then fled in his Bentley . Edwards chased him in his police car but was unable to catch up with him. At the station, Brown told Edwards that the argument arose because her husband had sex with his personal secretary. Brown also complained that the police had been called eight times for domestic violence and still never took action against her husband.
As a result of the 1989 incident, Police Officer Mark Fuhrman wrote a letter to the District Attorney on January 18 describing another alleged episode of domestic violence that allegedly occurred in 1985: he was called to Simpson's property in 1985 on suspicion of domestic violence been. There he found a woman crying who was sitting on the hood of a Mercedes car . The woman had light hair, but he could not identify her more precisely because she was covering her face with her hands. The windshield of the car was said to have been splintered. The visibly excited OJ Simpson was walking up and down in the courtyard. When asked who broke the window, the woman replied that OJ Simpson smashed it with a baseball bat , to which Simpson also said yes. He is allowed to do this because the car is his property. However, the woman refused to file a complaint.
On October 25, 1993, Nicole Brown dialed the emergency number twice, about 10 minutes apart, and requested a police patrol. Her ex-husband broke into her house and was screaming. He went mad, took her phone book and wanted to beat her up. A short time later, Simpson could be heard shouting in the background, including a man named "Keith". This is a smelly bastard ("shunk"). The unanimous opinion is that this is Keith Zlomsowitch, the owner of the Mezzaluna restaurant, with whom Brown had a brief affair at the time. The second emergency call was classified by the responsible dispatcher as "potentially life-threatening". The local police officer reported trespassing and classified the incident as "domestic violence". However , there was no further prosecution .
Denise Brown, the sister of the murder victim, reported as a witness of an incident in 1977. Simpson suddenly grabbed his then girlfriend Nicole Brown in a crotch and shouted to the bystanders that "this is" was his property. When she later approached him at home, he freaked out and forcibly threw her and her sister out of the house. You should have spent the night in a hotel. She also said that Simpson called her sister a "fat pig" after she was pregnant.
Police officer Ronald Shipp, friend of Simpson, testified in his hearing that Simpson confided in him the day after the night of the murder that he had dreamed of killing his wife. In addition, Simpson told him he was "insanely jealous" ( pathologically jealous ) with respect to Nicole Brown. In an intensely conducted cross-examination , the Simpsons defense attorneys tried to cast doubt on Shipp's credibility. Simpson's attorney Carl E. Douglas questioned Shipp about false statements he had made, addressing the fact that Shipp had spoken to a writer about Simpson before sharing his information with prosecutors or the police. Douglas pointed out that Shipp had taken acting classes and suggested that Shipp wanted to increase his notoriety through his statements in the Simpson trial. Upon further interrogation, Shipp admitted that he had alcohol problems and was receiving psychological treatment. In the documentary OJ Simpson: Made in America , Shipp said a number of Witnesses related to Simpsons withdrew after he was publicly dismantled by Simpson's attorneys.
During the course of the trial, the jury was also presented with the contents of a locker in which Nicole Brown had kept documents that documented incidents of domestic violence over several years. These included newspaper articles, photos of their injuries, and handwritten letters from Simpson apologizing for the assault. The locker also contained a will that Nicole Brown had made when she was 30 years old. Prosecutor Chris Darden took this as an indication that years before the murder, Brown feared that Simpson might try to murder her.
Autopsy results
Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were murdered with a knife in an extremely brutal manner. Investigators and coroners assumed that the perpetrator did not want to leave any doubts about the death of the female victim, especially when it came to the murder. According to the investigation, the fatal cuts in the neck were inflicted on Brown after she was beaten and therefore passed out or at least defenseless. The cuts were so deep that she was almost beheaded . The male victim, on the other hand, was killed by multiple stab wounds in the head, heart and lungs and had injuries that indicated defensive actions. From this, the prosecutors concluded that - in keeping with Simpson's alleged motive - it was an act of relationship and that 25-year-old Goldman was an accidental victim. Investigators found no evidence of burglary, theft or rape. The circumstances of the act would therefore not be appropriate to a robbery or a sexual offense . Brown and Goldman had no drugs in their blood except small amounts of alcohol.
The duration of the fight between the perpetrator and especially the young Ronald Goldman, described as athletic, was disputed between the prosecution and the defense. Forensic doctor Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran testified on the witness stand that the 1.85 m tall and over 90 kg heavy Simpson was able to quickly overpower his much smaller and lighter opponents. The fight lasted in all probability only about a minute. This was in line with the prosecution's theory of murder, as Simpson may have had little time for the act before leaving for Chicago. The defense denied this hypothesis.
Items of clothing found
A black Aris Light glove, size XL (the left part of the couple) and a black knitted hat were found at the scene. The investigators assumed that the perpetrator used the glove to avoid leaving fingerprints and put on the knitted hat as a camouflage. A blood-soaked second glove, apparently belonging to the specimen at the scene, was found behind Simpson's house on North Rockingham Avenue. 12 hairs in good condition were found in the knitted hat, but without usable DNA traces. The criminalist Douglas Deedrick showed at his testimony, however, that an analysis of the characteristics of the hair cuticle and the hair fiber trunk made it possible to assign the ethnicity of the person concerned. It was hair from a person of African descent . The further forensic hair analysis also showed a clear match when comparing the individual structure of the hair structure with that of the defendant. In addition, Deedrick testified that traces of fiber on the Simpsons Ford Bronco floor mats could also be clearly identified and also found in the knitted hat. In contrast to numerous other issues in the course of the trial, the defense in Deedrick's case did not call its own expert to the stand and did not provide any other evidence against Deedrick's analysis.
However, traces of blood were found on the glove on Simpson's property, which could almost certainly be attributed to Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. In addition, fiber traces of Ron Goldman's clothing were found. It was based on credit card bills to prove that Nicole Brown two pairs men's gloves in the same brand in 1990, the New York department store Bloomingdale's had bought. TV footage also shows that Simpson wore gloves like this when working as an NFL commentator. An expert from the manufacturing company summoned to the court stated that these pictures showed the exact same model that was found at the crime scene and on Simpson's property. With these enormously incriminating evidence, from the investigators' point of view, a clear connection between Simpson and the crime scene was established.
A pair of black cotton socks was also found in Simpson's bedroom, and Nicole Brown's blood was also found on them. This means that traces of blood from the victims were now also found on clothing in Simpson's house. The traces of blood could not be seen with the naked eye, so, according to the theory of the prosecution, Simpson did not take the socks to the airport in the hurry like the other blood-smeared clothes that were worn during the crime.
Bruno Magli shoe prints
Bloody shoe prints were found at the crime scene in front of Nicole Brown's house, which FBI expert William Bodziak could assign to a model from the luxury brand Bruno Magli. The shoe size (US 12) is the same as that of Simpson. The said model by Bruno Magli was only sold 299 times in Simpsons shoe size in the USA. No other shoe prints were found at the crime scene. Simpson said he was wearing Reebok shoes on the day of the tattoo . Although the prosecutors stated that the Bloomingdale's department store, frequented by Simpson, had the shoe model in question in their range, they were unable to prove that Simpson actually owned such a pair. The defense countered that around 9% of the US male population wore size 12 shoes and that in a wealthy city like Los Angeles, large numbers of people could have afforded designer shoes. The shoeprints could be used in the prosecution's closing argument, but they could not be directly linked to Simpson.
After the trial ended, however, older photographs emerged showing Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli-branded model associated with the crime scene, which was confirmed by FBI expert Bodziak. In one photograph, the distinctive sole pattern of the shoe prints was even clearly visible. Simpson's attorneys warned that such photographs could have been falsified and part of a conspiracy against their client. However, at least one of the photographs was published in a sports magazine in 1993, long before the murder, which means that this hypothesis can be considered refuted. In the subsequent civil lawsuit, in which the families of Goldman and Brown Simpson sued for damages, the shoe prints were consequently admitted as evidence. That process resulted in Simpson being found guilty.
The defense presented forensics expert Henry Lee, who testified in his testimony that there was evidence of a second perpetrator at the scene (or that the perpetrator had changed his shoes during or after the crime, which is very unlikely). In addition to the Bruno Magli shoe prints, there is at least one other shoe print as well as other “prints” of unclear origin that could be shoe prints. Some of these prints were assigned to the shoes of the investigating police officers. Other prints were verifiably from the time after the crime, which could be proven by photos from the night of the crime. In one case, there was evidence of a permanent shoe print in the material of the paved path, which was probably caused by a worker during the construction work before the construction material was completely dry. The defense expert had obviously overlooked this, for which he was heavily criticized by the prosecution, especially since he personally visited and inspected the crime scene. Lee thereafter declined to stand as a witness for the defense.
Cuts on Simpson's hand
On his return from Chicago shortly after the night of the murder, Simpson was interrogated by police and photographed. The investigators noticed a deep cut on the swollen middle finger of Simpson's left hand. The hand also had other minor wounds and two abrasions. In his interrogation with the police on June 13, 1994, Simpson made various statements about the origin of the cuts. At first he testified that he no longer knew exactly how and when he cut himself. He later claimed that he broke a glass at the Chicago hotel on learning of his wife's death and cut himself on it. But it is also possible that only an older wound was opened again as a result. When asked if he remembered bleeding in his house and his Ford Bronco, he said he bled in his house that night while pulling his cell phone out of the Bronco. He plays golf and injures himself and keeps bleeding.
The prosecution assumes that the cut stems from the night of the crime. Simpson lost his left glove in the fight (which showed no damage on the middle finger) and then cut his left hand in the fight with Goldman. However, Simpsons driver Allan Park said he did not see any cuts or battle marks when he picked up Simpsons for the drive to the airport. However, it was dark in front of Simpsons property, he had been under time pressure because of the imminent departure time and did not pay special attention to Simpsons hands. Airport employees also said they did not notice any cuts on Simpson's hand.
The cuts and Simpson's statements about them were assessed by process observers as particularly stressful. The renowned public prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi warned that as an adult one seldom sustains major cuts. The fact that such an incident could not be remembered just days later is very suspicious. Likewise the fact that such a rare event coincides almost exactly with the night of the crime. Four drops of blood were found at the scene to the left of the bloody shoe prints, suggesting that the perpetrator sustained an injury to the left side of his body, most likely his left hand, while fighting Goldman. A DNA analysis assigned the drops of blood with a probability bordering on certainty to Simpson.
Traces of blood
Simpson's blood was found on the scene, on the door and on the fittings of his Ford Bronco, as well as in the driveway and on Simpson's property. The traces of blood outside Simpson's house led to his Ford Bronco parked crookedly on the curb. Blood was found in the foyer, bedroom and bathroom of his home. According to the prosecutor, this trail of blood from the crime scene to Simpson's house alone proves his perpetration.
The blood traces could be assigned to Simpson with a DNA analysis with a probability bordering on certainty. Genetic markers in the blood found agree with those of Simpson. A DNA expert said that, statistically, one in 170 million people had such a match, about one or two people in the total US population. DNA of similar high quality could not be saved in all blood traces (DNA can be destroyed by the influence of sunlight, temperature or bacteria). Regardless of the DNA analysis, proteins were found in the blood at the crime scene that only occur in the same form in 0.5% of the population, including Simpson. At Simpson's driveway, genetic characteristics were found in the blood that apply to one in 410 people in the US black population, including Simpson.
Nicole Brown's DNA was on a sock found in Simpson's bedroom. According to experts, the genetic markers in the traces of blood found matched statistically with one in 6.8 billion people in the world, including Brown. Traces of Simpson, Brown and Ronald Goldman blood were found in Simpson's Ford Bronco.
In his interrogation on June 13, 1994, Simpson stated that he had paid a visit to his ex-wife the week before. However, he also testified that he did not bleed during this visit, which rules out contamination of the crime scene from this visit. In addition, the traces of blood at the crime scene were obviously fresh blood. Simpson also said he was injured and bleeding in his home on the day of the crime, but could not remember exactly how or where he cut himself. He also explained the cuts on his left hand. However, in a later interrogation, he claimed to have cut himself on a glass in the Chicago hotel.
Relieving evidence
Autopsy results
The defense appointed forensic scientist Michael Baden as an expert, who, according to his own statements, had already participated in 20,000 autopsies, including the autopsy of Martin Luther King . Baden testified that both victims would very likely have fought violently against the attacker. Goldman has over 20 stab wounds. His shoes also had a cut, from which Baden concluded that Goldman had even been able to kick in the course of the fight. The fight with Goldman could therefore have lasted up to 15 minutes. A stab wound in Goldman's chest caused only minor internal bleeding. Goldman's blood pressure was still present at that time, even if it had already dropped sharply due to his injuries, which can be reconciled with a fight lasting several minutes. Baden also contradicted the theory that Brown was unconscious or incapacitated during the fatal injuries. Brown showed injuries that were based on a defensive position and indicated that she had moved during her murder.
A prolonged battle would have weakened the theories of the public prosecutor's office on the timing and would have served the defense. Assuming 15 minutes of fighting time, Simpson would most likely have been eliminated as the perpetrator if Goldman had only reached the crime scene after 10:30 p.m. The prosecution assumed he would arrive at 10:15 p.m. but had no conclusive evidence.
The prosecution denied Baden's analysis. Slight internal bleeding from the chest injury is due to the fact that Goldman was lying on his side and therefore "bleeding out". In addition, the prosecutor pointed out that Baden had been called to witness on behalf of the Simpsons. An acquittal on the basis of his analysis in such a prominent trial is in his financial interests. Baden admitted that Simpson paid $ 100,000 for his analysis.
Found ice cream
The defense also cited a cup of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream , which was found by investigators in Brown’s house at around 12:30 am, as an indication of the victims’s later death . After leaving the mezzaluna, Brown had gone to an ice cream parlor on the way home with her children. It could not be determined whether the ice cream came from there or whether it had been in Brown's freezer from a previous purchase. According to the investigators, the ice cream had not yet completely melted, which, according to the defense, could not be possible if the person died around 10:15 p.m. The murder must have taken place later than 11 p.m. At this point, Simpson was verifiably on his way to the airport. How quickly Ben & Jerry's ice cream melts could not be clarified in the process. An expert from the company told journalists that ice cream contains natural stabilizers and additives that could delay the melting process. In addition, the melting time depends on numerous other factors.
Items of clothing found
In one of the most spectacular events of the trial, the defense succeeded in transforming the gloves that were extremely burdensome for their clients into an exculpatory indicator. On June 15, 1995, the witness Richard Rubin, who represented the manufacturer of the gloves, was heard. The prosecution requested Judge Ito that Simpson put on a pair of gloves of the same type and size to show the jury that the glove found at the scene would fit him. The main defense attorney Johnnie Cochran appealed against this. Such a demonstration would only be possible with the gloves on, if at all. The lead accuser Marcia Clark pointed out that Simpson would then have to wear latex gloves in order not to contaminate the evidence. After much discussion with the judge, the prosecution accepted that Simpson should try the actual evidence on with latex gloves. During the subsequent demonstration to the jury, Simpson had obvious difficulties forcing his hands into the blood-soaked gloves.
A representative of the manufacturing company stated later in the process that such gloves can shrink if they soak up moisture, which was denied by Herbert MacDonell, a forensics expert in the defense. The prosecution also achieved that Simpson - this time without latex gloves - had to put on new gloves of the same type and size in front of the jury. These fit him easily. Still, the episode of the mismatched gloves was viewed by numerous observers as a turning point in the process from which prosecutors finally lost the initiative to Simpson's defense attorney.
Main defender Johnnie Cochran made the unsuitable gloves and the knitted cap a central argument of his closing argument. If the gloves served as one of the most important indicators of stress, but Simpson did not fit at all, this could not be the culprit. The theory of the prosecution could not be correct. A knitted hat is not a camouflage for a celebrity like OJ Simpson. If a murder theory does not fit together, the accused must be acquitted. Cochran made this slogan ( If it doesn't fit, you must acquit ), which was particularly concise in the English original, as a leitmotif of his plea, alluding to the gloves , which he repeated again and again in different contexts.
"If I put this knit cap on, who am I? I'm still Johnnie Cochran with a knit cap. OJ Simpson in a knit cap from two blocks away is still OJ Simpson. It's no disguise. It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. "
After the trial ended, it was revealed that, according to his defense attorney, Robert Kardashian, Simpson had suffered from arthritis during the trial and had discontinued the anti-inflammatory drugs prescribed for it a few weeks before trying on the gloves. According to then District Attorney Gil Garcetti, this, along with a suspicion that blood-soaked gloves would shrink, would be another possible explanation for the Simpson's gloves to not fit.
Unidentified fingerprints
Gilbert Aguilar, an LAPD expert on fingerprints, testified that he had seized a total of nine fingerprints at the crime scene, which did not match Simpson and could not be assigned to any other person. Simpson's fingerprints were not found at the scene. The police and prosecutors did not pursue this, however, but focused their investigations fully on Simpson. The defense criticized this approach. The unknown fingerprints are an indication that other people were at the scene and could point to the real perpetrators.
Racism allegations against the investigators
The Simpson trial took place in a racial atmosphere from the start. Three years earlier, the black Americans was Rodney King after a security check by a group of predominantly white police officers arrested the Los Angeles Police Department and was brutally abused. The police officers involved initially denied any wrongdoing and could only be convicted through an amateur video. Nevertheless, the police were acquitted in a jury trial, which in 1992 led to weeks of race riots in Los Angeles with dozens of deaths and severely damaged the reputation of the police and justice in Los Angeles, especially among the black population. In the Simpson trial, a black suspect, white victims and mostly white investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department with European descent led to strong polarization of the US public. This became a critical factor in the process.
After initial reluctance, Simpson's defense attorneys made allegations of racism against the Los Angeles Police Department a key issue in the trial. According to the defense attorneys, Simpson had been prejudiced by the police on racist grounds from the start. The police never seriously looked for a perpetrator other than Simpson and even tried to incriminate him with false statements and falsified evidence. In particular, the investigator Mark Fuhrman came into the crosshairs of the defense. Fuhrman was an important witness for the prosecution as he was the first investigator to arrive to find a black glove on Simpson's property that revealed DNA traces of the murder victims. The Simpsons defense attorneys accused Fuhrman of having actually found the glove at the scene and deliberately laying it on Simpsons property in order to be able to attach the murder to their client for racist motives.
In the course of the process, numerous indications emerged that indicate that Fuhrman, at least in earlier times, represented racist views. Shortly after the trial began, real estate agent Kathleen Bell contacted Simpson's lawyers, claiming she knew Fuhrman from chance encounters at a U.S. Marine recruitment center in 1985 and 1986. You can remember him well because of his remarkable size and build. At that time, Fuhrman made several disparaging remarks about people with dark skin in her presence. Among other things, he said that whenever he sees a "nigger" with a white woman in a car, he always pulls the car out of traffic. If there isn't a reason, he'll find one anyway. Fuhrman also said that all blacks should be gathered in one place and bombed.
"Between 1985 and 1986 I worked as a real estate agent in Redondo Beach [...]. At the time, my office was located above a Marine recruiting center […]. I saw Mr. Ferman [Sic!] There a couple of times. I remember him distinctly because of his height and build. Officer Ferman said that when he sees a 'nigger' driving with a white woman, he would pull them over. I asked would [Sic!] If he didn't have a reason, and he said that he would find one. Officer Ferman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all 'niggers' gathered together and killed. He said something about burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used, however, I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. "
The witness Natalie Singer also reported similar statements by Fuhrman. For example, Fuhrman said in her presence that only "a dead nigger is a good nigger". In addition, the police officer told how he hit black suspects "to relax" with blows and kicks. Fuhrman had expressed his disparaging views of blacks emphatically and in a way that was marked by hatred, arrogance and contempt. The witness Roderic Hodge made a similar statement. When he was arrested in 1987, Fuhrman said to him: "I told you, we'd get you, nigger!" Fuhrman's language and tone of voice towards him were hateful and "ugly" when he was arrested.
Fuhrman tapes
In cross-examination by the prosecution and defense, Fuhrman denied having represented racist views in the past. He was not aware of the witness Kathleen Bell, nor did he make the incriminating statements attributed to him. In addition, Fuhrman denied in the questioning of Simpsons defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, calling black Americans "niggers". He could testify under oath that he had not used this expression in the past 10 years. That he did it and that he had forgotten it is not possible.
"BAILEY: Do you use the word 'Nigger' in describing people?
FUHRMAN: No, sir.
BAILEY: Have you used that word in the last 10 years?
FUHRMAN: Not that I recall, no.
BAILEY: I want you to assume that perhaps at some time, since 1985 or 1986, you addressed a member of the African American race as a nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part?
FUHRMAN: No, it is not possible.
BAILEY: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person as a nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman?
FUHRMAN: That's what I'm saying, Sir. "
Shortly after Fuhrman's testimony, Simpson's defense attorneys presented screenwriter and film producer Laura Hart McKinny as a witness. McKinny stated that he had professional contact with Fuhrman from 1985 to 1994. During this time she conducted several interviews with Fuhrman for a film project about the work of the police in the USA . During this time he advised her on her work on film projects. With Fuhrman's knowledge, she made tape recordings of all interviews with a total length of 12 hours. Fuhrman said in their conversations that he had falsified reports in his work as a police officer, ignored exculpatory evidence and mistreated arrested black suspects. In addition, he said he made derogatory comments about black people in the interviews and used the word “nigger” a total of 41 times. Excerpts from the tape recordings were shown in the presence of the jury and confirmed McKinny's statements. Fuhrman was thus convicted of making a false statement .
Since Fuhrman played a major role in the immediate investigative work at the crime scene and on Simpson's property that night, he was one of the prosecution's main witnesses. Essential pieces of evidence, particularly the blood-stained glove found on Simpson's property, had been seized by Fuhrman. Fuhrman therefore played a central role in the prosecution's strategy at this point. After McKinny's testimony, Simpson's attorneys alleged that Fuhrman's credibility had been destroyed by his proven false testimony, and later proceeded to demonize Fuhrman . Among other things, Simpson's lawyers called Fuhrman a "genocidal racist", "Los Angeles' worst nightmare" and "greatest liar since Ananias ". In his closing argument, Johnnie Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler , which was met with bitter protest from the Jewish Goldman family. Fuhrman himself was well aware of the importance of his testimony. In his last interview, which took place shortly after the murder in July 1994, he stated to McKinny that he was the central witness of the trial. Without his testimony and the evidence he has secured, the prosecution will lose the case. The glove is "everything" in the Simpson murder.
The prosecution dropped its witness after the accusations of racism were confirmed and even went on to attack Fuhrman publicly. In her closing speech, chief prosecutor Marcia Clark said that Fuhrman was a racist, should never have been a police officer and that one wished there was no such person on earth.
The "Fuhrman tapes" also endangered the entire further course of the process, as Fuhrman speaks derogatory manner on one of the tapes about the wife of the presiding judge Lance Ito. Ito's wife Capt. Margaret York was working in a senior position in the Los Angeles Police Department at the time and was formerly a manager of Fuhrman. On one of the recordings, Fuhrman can be heard making fun of York's appearance, alluding to the fact that she only got her position because of gender-specific preferences. This led to a motion for bias ("recusal motion") against Judge Ito, as his neutrality was now restricted. However, the prosecution withdrew this motion in view of the uncertain legal consequences for the further course of the trial. Ito himself also came to believe that he did not have to declare himself biased.
Charges against Mark Fuhrman
Beyond damaging Fuhrman's credibility, Simpson's attorneys sought to back up their theory that Fuhrman had placed evidence at the crime scene and on Simpson's property in order to obtain a conviction. Since Fuhrman had now been proven racist statements, the defense could point to a clear motive which Fuhrman could have led to falsely blame Simpson for the murder. For this purpose, Fuhrman was again called to the stand by the defense. This time Fuhrman was accompanied by his own lawyer. Fuhrman was asked by Gerald Uelmen, one of Simpson's attorneys, whether his statements in the trial were true, whether he had falsified police reports. Fuhrman replied, apparently on the advice of his own lawyer, that he wanted to invoke the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution , according to which no one should incriminate himself in court. Simpson's defense attorney replied whether this applied to all questions raised by the defense attorneys, which Fuhrman answered in the affirmative. Even so, Simpson's attorney insisted on asking Fuhrman directly whether he had falsified evidence in the Simpson trial, whereupon Fuhrman again exercised his right to refuse to give evidence .
"UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, what the testimony you gave in this case completely truthful?
FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th Amendment privilege.
UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report?
FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th Amendment privilege.
UELMEN: Is it your intention to assert your 5th Amendment privilege with respect to all questions that I ask you?
FUHRMAN: Yes.
UELMEN: I have only one more question, Detective Fuhrman. Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?
FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th Amendment privilege. "
Fuhrman was then charged with perjury by the Los Angeles Attorney's Office . In contrast to the German legal system, testimony in US courts is only given under oath . He stated in court that he would not admit to his guilt ( nolo contendere ), so he pleaded neither “guilty” nor “not guilty” and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 3 years and a fine of 200 US dollars.
Investigation errors and allegations of manipulation
Since the presentation of the "Fuhrman tapes" at the latest, the defense made accusations of investigative errors and manipulation of evidence the focus of their strategy. The investigators, in particular Mark Fuhrman and Philip Vannatter, had chosen Simpson as the only suspect from the start and tried to incriminate him by manipulating evidence in order to be able to achieve a conviction. In addition, errors were made in the investigative work and the forensic analysis of the evidence, which led to a false image of the burden of proof against Simpson.
Accusation of prejudice
Parts of the investigative team were previously involved in investigations into allegations of domestic violence against Simpson. Mark Fuhrman had been called to Simpsons house for an 911 call back in 1985 and found a car with a broken windshield , a frightened Nicole Brown and Simpson with a baseball bat . Brown stated that her husband wanted to kill her. Fuhrman said the incident was "indelibly engraved on his mind" because Simpson was so prominent. This incident, coupled with Fuhrman's obviously racist attitudes, led to Fuhrman prejudging Simpson and showing a motive to accuse him of murder.
On the very night of the crime, Fuhrman and Vannatter drove from Brown's estate to Simpson's house. They said they were concerned for the well-being of Simpson and other residents. They wanted to clarify with Simpson how to proceed with his children who were sleeping in Brown's house at the time of the crime. Nobody answered the door at Simpson's estate. Fuhrman climbed then on the boundary wall of the property, questioned Simpsons daughter Arnelle and went to the first crime scene in the garden of Simpsons property, although it still not at this time warrant existed. He said he had found the bloody glove and various blood stains in and around Simpson's house. To justify this approach, Vannatter said it was unclear what was going on in Simpson's house. The investigators were concerned about the welfare of the Simpsons. It was possible, for example, that a hostage-taking could have occurred. Simpson's attorney Robert Shapiro asked Vannatter in a preliminary hearing whether it was not legal to call for reinforcements when a hostage-taking was suspected and why Vannatter had not done so. He had no explanation for this, whereupon Simpson's lawyers demanded that all evidence from the night of the crime be discarded because of an unjustified house search . Since the search of the property was illegal, all evidence found there could not be used in court ( fruits of the poisoned tree ). The presiding judge declined on the grounds that investigators had a valid reason to enter Simpson's property, namely to make an arrangement for Simpson's children. Any evidence of a criminal offense found here, such as the traces of blood, can be used in court.
The day after the crime, Simpson returned from Chicago to his Brentwood home and found the investigators at work. He then accompanied the police officers to a voluntary interrogation without a lawyer at the Los Angeles Police Department. He was handcuffed by the police, although he was not formally considered a suspect or accused at the time . The police later said it was an oversight.
The public prosecutor and the police never looked for another perpetrator. Brown had been with drug addicts . A possible group of perpetrators from the drug milieu could also have a motive for the murder. In the proceedings, Judge Ito forbade any reference to other groups of perpetrators with reference to the implausibility of the theories of the defense.
The public prosecutor's office and trial observers countered that Simpson had also had private conversations with various LAPD police officers. Witnesses interrogation revealed that police officers were frequent guests at Simpson and were allowed to use the tennis court and swimming pool on his property. Police officer Ronald Shipp also testified that Simpson was a celebrity guest at an LAPD Christmas party. He also regularly signed autograph cards for police officers. There can therefore be no question of a prejudice or even a negative attitude of the LAPD towards Simpson. This is also supported by the fact that in several suspected cases of domestic violence, to which police officers of the LAPD were called, in the past only one case, on New Year's Day 1989, was taken against Simpson by the police.
Accused of placing blood stains and clothing
Probably the most serious allegation of the defense was that Fuhrman had deposited the bloody glove on Simpson's property in order to be able to present it later as clear evidence of Simpson's guilt. The glove was actually located next to the second copy at the scene of the crime and was then picked up there by Fuhrman or Vanatter and placed on Simpson's property. Fuhrman was the first police officer to find the glove on Simpson's property. No investigator had seen the glove before him. Fuhrman stated that the glove was "moist and sticky" when he found it. However, this was several hours after Simpson's departure for Chicago. The blood on the glove should have dried by then.
Investigators also found a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom that were found to have Nicole Brown's blood. An almost identical pattern of blood staining was found on both sides of one sock. Henry Lee, a world-renowned forensic expert and defense witness, testified that if Simpson had actually worn the socks, such a pattern could only have occurred if Simpson had a hole in his ankle. Rather, it is consistent with a subsequent dripping of the sock with a drop of blood.
The defense also presented a video evidence from the investigators showing no socks on the floor of Simpson's bedroom. However, in photos taken by the investigators, two black socks can be seen on the bedroom floor. However, the video was recorded before the photos, which the defense interpreted as an indication that the blood-stained socks were subsequently placed there. Nicole Brown's DNA was later found on the socks. The prosecution, referring to the testimony of Fung and Mazzola, said the video was made after the evidence was taken to prove that the police did not steal any items from Simpson's house. The time display in the video was not adjusted accordingly.
Missing blood
On June 13, 1994, when Simpson was interrogated by police, he also consented to have blood drawn for test purposes. The nurse Thano Peratis later testified that he had drawn Simpson's blood and that it looked like 8 ml. Simpson's defense attorneys found, however, in the further course of the proceedings that only 6.5 ml of Simpsons blood was to be found in the corresponding container. The tests carried out required significantly less than the missing 1.5 ml. Simpson's defense attorneys then claimed it was possible that the missing blood (around 30 drops) was used to link Simpson to the crime scene and to attach the crime to him. Criminalist Collin Yamauchi said he spilled some of Simpson's blood in the laboratory.
FBI expert Gregory Matheson stated that a blood container does not always contain the exact maximum amount of blood. It is also not always the case that after several months the volume still corresponds exactly to the amount withdrawn. It is also possible that small amounts of blood would be spilled or otherwise lost when taking samples for test purposes. Thano Peratis also corrected his statement. He only estimated that he had drawn 8 ml of blood. After thinking again, he thinks he has only lost 6 to 6.5 ml. Because of his heart problems, he also has difficulty with his memory. Peratis' second testimony was - unlike in US court cases for witnesses - not sworn and was presented to the jury via video recording, since his presence in the courtroom was not possible due to his health problems. A further cross-examination by Simpson's lawyers was also not possible for this reason.
EDTA residues
Detective Dennis Fung said he noticed three weeks after the night of the crime that traces of blood on an iron gate at the back entrance to Brown's apartment had not been secured. The traces of blood are documented in photos from the immediate taking of evidence. Thereupon he returned to the crime scene in order to secure the - according to his testimony still present - traces of blood. A DNA analysis showed that it was - again with a probability bordering on certainty - Simpson's blood. Despite the delayed securing and the associated greater risk of the existing DNA being decomposed by sunlight and other environmental influences, the concentration of usable DNA was sometimes more than 100 times higher in the subsequently secured blood trail than in other traces secured shortly after the crime.
After examining the results of the investigation, the defense presented the renowned forensic toxicologist Frederic Rieders, who stated in his interrogation that the traces of blood that were subsequently secured and the traces of blood on the socks from Simpson's bedroom contain traces of the anticoagulant EDTA . EDTA is used by the Los Angeles Police Department to prevent blood drawn from clotting and was also used for the blood drawn from Simpson. The fact that the sock or the varnish of the door contains EDTA and that this could explain the test results has been refuted by several control examinations. Dr. Rieders did not conduct any tests of his own, but only testified about his own interpretation of the FBI's analysis results. Simpsons defense attorneys alleged that the traces of blood that were subsequently secured came from the blood drawn by Simpson and that they were placed on the scene to incriminate Simpson. The FBI-appointed toxicologist special agent Roger Martz confirmed the evidence of EDTA, but he did not directly detect EDTA. In the analysis results he only found "indications of the presence of EDTA". The tests he carried out were unsuitable for direct evidence of EDTA. Such “indications” could also appear in the presence of other substances. In addition, contamination of the test instruments is possible.
Rieders and Martz unanimously stated that the amount of EDTA found in the traces of blood was too low for it to have been prepared blood from a suspect. Such blood samples would be provided with much higher concentrations of EDTA to inhibit blood clotting. However, EDTA can be broken down by exposure to sunlight . Martz also stated that he had tested his own blood for EDTA and also found traces of the anticoagulant there. EDTA is an artificial substance that does not actually occur in nature, but is contained in many products and foods and can get into the human body in this way. EDTA can also have been on the skin of a bleeding person and thus get into the blood, for example if food containing EDTA was consumed recently. The amount of EDTA typically found in the blood of a person in the USA has not been established.
In cross-examination, the public prosecutor's office also attempted to cast doubt on Rieders' credibility by referring to a murder case in which Rieders, on behalf of the public prosecutor, used the same analytical methods that were used in the Simpson case to detect EDTA to find clues in the alleged murder victim found poisoning with oleandrin and oleandrigine, which resulted in a suspect being charged with murder. However, in a second analysis at another laboratory with supposedly better analytical methods, these poisons were not found, whereupon the charges were dropped.
In her closing statement, Chief Prosecutor Marcia Clark also pointed out that the first police officer to arrive at the scene had already testified in his testimony that he had seen traces of blood on the iron gate of the back entrance, i.e. before the arrival of the officers accused of defending the placement of traces of blood, Fuhrman and Vanatter. The prosecution also argued that no evidence of EDTA could be found in other traces of blood from the crime scene assigned to Simpson, but this would have to be the case if all traces of blood attributed to Simpson were placed by allegedly corrupt police officers.
Errors in the taking and analysis of evidence
The approach of the investigators in securing and handling the evidence as well as the analyzes of the criminalists were sharply criticized by Simpson's lawyers. The criminalist Dennis Fung, who is responsible for securing evidence at the crime scene, disregarded basic rules of investigative work. Fung was cross-examined for a total of 9 days - longer than any other witness. He had secured evidence with his bare hands and without gloves. Fung denied doing so, but his testimony was disproved by a video from the Evidence Day. He had stored certain traces of blood for several hours in an unrefrigerated police vehicle that had been standing in the blazing sun. Fung delegated part of the taking of evidence to his assistant Andrea Mazzola, who was only a trainee at the time. These have mixed up blood samples and not labeled correctly. Mazzola admitted that some samples had not been cataloged directly. In addition, Simpson's defense attorneys demonstrated an in-house police training video in which Mazzola demonstrates evidence-holding techniques and makes various mistakes. During the preservation of evidence, Brown's dog was not kept away from the crime scene. Fung's investigative work was also sharply criticized within its own ranks. Marcia Clark called Fung a "bloody idiot" after the trial. Overall, the way in which evidence is preserved leads to a high risk of contamination of the crime scene and various pieces of evidence.
After Simpson's interrogation on June 13, 1994, Philip Vannatter received his voluntary blood sample. According to his own statements, he had the blood container in his possession for several hours because the detective in charge had stayed at the scene and he had to give him the blood sample for cataloging as evidence. Vannatter transported the sample in an unsealed envelope. The handover to Fung did not take place until several hours later, when Vannatter also arrived at the scene. During the time Vannatter had Simpson's blood sample, he was also at Simpson's estate. It was not possible to determine whether and when exactly Vannatter had passed the sample on to Fung. Fung's assistant Mazzola said that when the sample left the scene, it was in a plastic bag that she took to the police laboratory.
Simpson's Ford Bronco, in which traces of blood attributed to him and both murder victims were found, had been in police custody since June 13, 1994 . Two days later, unknown perpetrators broke into the vehicle. The perpetrators' motives are unknown.
A LAPD criminalist said he spilled blood while analyzing Simpson's sample. He also handled a total of 23 samples at the same time, instead of only 15 as recommended. John Gerdes, a defense DNA expert, stated that the LAPD had "persistent and chronic" problems with the contamination of evidence.
Defense conspiracy theory
The Simpsons defense attorneys argued with reference to Fuhrman's racist remarks, the evidence of EDTA in traces of blood at the crime scene and the inconsistencies in the evidence that their client was the victim of a conspiracy by the investigators. Fuhrman and Vannatter had manipulated evidence against Simpson in order to attach the crime to him. Fuhrman wanted this because of his racist attitude, Vannatter wanted a clear conviction in order not to lose the prominent case. The two investigators knowingly disregarded the basic rules of police work and repeatedly lied under oath. This is how Simpson's blood stains at the crime scene and the bloody glove on Simpson's property can be explained. Vannatter carried Simpsons blood with him and distributed it on his estate and at the crime scene. This also explains why Simpsons blood sample was missing 1.5 milliliters. Fuhrman brought the bloody glove from the crime scene to Simpsons house, contaminated the Simpsons with the blood carried by Vannatter, placed it on the property, and then presented it as evidence found there. Fuhrman and Vannatter are " demons of evil" and "twin devils of deception".
The Fuhrman and Vannatter conspiracy, combined with the negligent securing of evidence and investigative errors by Fung, Mazzola and other police officers, led to the prosecutor's “ocean of evidence”. Police witnesses admitted in cross-examination that part of Simpsons blood was spilled during the analysis. The DNA traces of a possible other perpetrator are no longer detectable at the crime scene because they have decomposed due to incorrect storage and untimely securing of the samples. Simpson's traces of blood at the crime scene were either deliberately placed or the result of contamination from the incorrect work of the criminologists and analysts involved. They would have contaminated various blood samples with Simpsons DNA through incompetence and carelessness in securing evidence. If the source material is already faulty, the analysis based on it can only produce “garbage” (“garbage in, garbage out”). The LA Police Department is a "cesspool of contamination". All samples were backed up by the LAPD and passed on through the LAPD. This is the "black box" in which the contamination occurred. Therefore, all analyzes that were partially carried out by other bodies (e.g. the Justice Department of California) are falsified.
- Criticism of the theory of defense
The Simpsons defense attorneys' conspiracy theory has been sharply criticized by prosecutors and numerous trial observers. Commenting on Simpson's criminal case, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi noted that Fuhrman and Vannatter exposed themselves to extreme risk by manipulating evidence. For a double homicide, the death penalty can be imposed under California law. At the time of the investigation, it was not yet clear that the prosecution would not apply for this. Section 128 of the State of California's Criminal Code also provides the death penalty for false testimony in court that results in the execution of an innocent person . Even if there is no execution, perjury threatens to lose one's job , pension and imprisonment for several years . Since Nicole Brown's blood was found on the socks in Simpson's bedroom, Vannatter or Fuhrman should have collected Nicole Brown's blood and placed it on the socks in addition to the Simpsons blood container in Vannatters possession. Regarding the EDTA traces, Bugliosi noted that only a few Simpsons blood traces were found at the crime scene. In particular, no evidence of EDTA was found in the traces of blood found near the victims. Dozens of traces of blood at the crime scene, in Simpsons Bronco and on his estate were assigned to him or the victims. A single drop of blood from a suspect on the scene is enough for a conviction.
Bugliosi further argued that Fuhrman and Vannatter worked in different departments and did not know each other personally before the Simpson murder. In addition to Fuhrman, 14 other police officers were at the scene on the night of the crime, some of them even before Fuhrman. No one said they saw a second glove or noticed any manipulation by Fuhrman or Vannatter. In addition, Fuhrman should have transported the glove to Simpson's property in the presence of other officials and deposited it there. This can hardly be done without being noticed. Other police officers should have covered his manipulation of evidence. Vannatter had only come into possession of Simpson's blood sample on June 13, 1994, when the murder was already widely reported in the media. He should have committed his manipulation of evidence despite the presence of hundreds of onlookers, media representatives and dozens of police officers. In general, it makes little sense, especially for Vannatter, to place Simpson's blood on his property, since he himself had interrogated Simpson that morning and Simpson had stated that he cut himself at home that night and bled in and in front of his house. Vannatter could have added more to these already existing traces. The conspirators should also have eliminated or concealed all other traces of the “real perpetrator”, provided the perpetrator was not so skillful as not to leave any usable blood or DNA traces behind despite two extremely brutal murders. The assertion by the defense that Fuhrman and Vannatter had, hand in hand, possibly with the knowledge or even the help of other police officers, ensured that the Simpsons were targeted, is downright absurd against this background. Against the background of the numerous additional circumstantial evidence , Simpson's guilt is clearly proven. An acquittal of the Simpsons can only be justified if one believes the claim that all the Simpsons blood at the scene as well as the blood of the victims on Simpson's property can be traced back to a conspiracy or to contamination. The jury apparently found such a conspiracy to be more credible than the prosecutor's simple theory that a jealous man with a long history of domestic violence murdered his ex-wife.
The chief prosecutor Marcia Clark also made a similar statement in her closing statement. At the time of the investigation, Fuhrman and Vannatter could not have known whether there had been any eyewitnesses for the murder or whether the "real" perpetrator could be clearly convicted in some other way. In addition, they should have been sufficiently certain that OJ Simpson had no alibi for the time of the crime - a Sunday evening - which is rather unlikely for a celebrity like Simpson, who generally spends little time alone. Your manipulation of evidence, especially the placement of the glove, could otherwise have become clear at a later date. The police officers would have exposed themselves to an irrational risk. This is especially true for Vannatter, who was about to retire . Had there been widespread contamination with Simpsons blood in the LAPD laboratory, Simpsons DNA should have contaminated blood samples from other cases as well. However, they only appear in samples related to the Simpson case. In addition, the analyzes were not only carried out in the LAPD. Various institutes, the FBI , and the California State Department of Justice were also involved. All analyzes would come to the conclusion that Simpsons blood was found at the crime scene. The probability that all the DNA analyzes carried out in the Simpson case were falsified is negligible.
Important testimony
- Allan Park (limousine driver)
Allan Park was the driver of the stretch limo that was supposed to pick up Simpson that night at 10:45 p.m. at his property on North Rockingham Avenue and drive him to the airport. Park was a hugely important witness for the prosecution as he was the first person Simpson saw after the suspected timing of the murders. He was largely unanimously regarded as a credible witness by those involved in the process. His statements about the times of certain incidents are particularly reliable, because it was important to him as a driver to be on site at the agreed time - especially since his customer was a celebrity. It is therefore credible that he looked at the clock particularly often and was able to remember the times well. He also made several phone calls from his cell phone shortly before and after arriving at Simpson's property. Connection data is available for these calls.
Park said in his interrogation that he arrived at Simpson's property at 10:22 p.m. He had approached the house from the south on North Rockingham Avenue. There he was looking for the right house number, which is partly written on the curbs on North Rockingham Avenue . He did not notice a parked car, especially a white Ford Bronco, in front of Simpson's house. North Rockingham Avenue is a relatively narrow street. Park should have avoided a car parked on the street or curb with great certainty. He had then controlled the sedan into the Ashford Street in front of the entrance to Simpson's estate, so the headlights of the sedan ausleuchteten part of the driveway up to the front door. Then he waited and smoked a cigarette. At 10:40 p.m. he then rang the intercom at Simpson's. There was no light in the house and no one opened the door. Then he made several phone calls and rang several more times. At 10:52 p.m. his boss called him back and told him to wait until 11:15 p.m. as Simpson was often late. During this conversation he had seen a dark-clad black person about 1.83 m (6 ft) and 91 kg (200 lbs ) in weight walk across the driveway and into the house. Simpsons height is 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in ). Then lights went on in the house. He then told his boss that there was someone at home and hung up. According to the connection data, the conversation ended at 10:55 p.m. The connection data of Park's telephone calls match his information at the time of the calls. Then he rang again. This time, Simpson answered in about a minute. He said he overslept and had just come out of the shower.
Park drove the limo to Simpson's front door to load Simpson's luggage. Simpson had five pieces of luggage. With one of these pieces of luggage, a dark cloth bag, Simpson insisted on bringing it into the car himself and not having Park or Kato Kaelin take it in like the rest of his luggage. Park saw no cuts or other injuries on Simpson. On the way to the airport , Simpson complained several times that it was too hot for him. According to the park, it was a mild summer night. On his flight to Chicago, Simpson checked in with only three pieces of luggage.
On the night of the crime, investigators found Simpson's Ford Bronco parked at an angle on the curb in front of his courtyard entrance, as if the driver had parked in a hurry. From this and from Park's statement, the investigators conclude that Simpson was not at home at the suspected time of the crime , but only returned from the crime scene to his house at around 10:50 p.m. That would have given him enough time to commit the murders between 10:15 p.m. and 10:40 p.m. The prosecution suspects the murder weapon and his bloody clothing to be in the bag that Simpson conspicuously wanted to invite himself. He disposed of these in a trash can at the airport.
- Kato Kaelin (Simpson's guest)
Kato Kaelin , a hitherto largely unsuccessful actor , lived at the time of the murders as a house guest in a guest room in Simpson's back house . Kaelin had previously lived as a lodger with Nicole Simpson, but was only platonic friends with her. Simpson then offered Kaelin to live in the guest room on his property for free instead - presumably because of concerns that he and his ex-wife might get closer. Kaelin was originally a prosecution witness. During the questioning of witnesses the prosecution, however, requested Kaelin to a "hostile witness" ( "hostile witness" to explain), confronting negative on the merits of the objectives of the public prosecutor. This assumption was based on the fact that Kaelin lived with Simpson for free and hoped that his relationships would benefit his acting career. Kaelin's testimony was crucial as he was the last person Simpson had seen before the alleged crime and the only person who was at Simpson's property at the time of the crime and could have confirmed his presence there. He could have provided Simpson with an alibi, but stated that he had not seen Simpson on the night of the crime between 9:35 p.m. and 11 p.m. and could not provide any information about his whereabouts during the period in question. Like the limo driver Park, Kaelin also reported that Simpson insisted on loading a cloth bag into the limousine himself before leaving for the airport. He wanted to help, but Simpson expressly refused. The bag, as well as the dark clothes Simpson wore that evening, was never found.
- Keith Zlomsowitch (friend of Nicole Brown)
Zlomsowitch, an acquaintance of Nicole Brown, was the manager of the Mezzaluna restaurant and had a brief affair with Brown in 1992. During a preliminary hearing in front of a grand jury , Zlomsowitch stated that he and Nicole Brown had been followed and downright stalked by Simpson . Simpson had already come to her table on their first date, when Zlomsowitch had gone to a restaurant for dinner with Brown, and said in a threatening tone "I'm OJ Simpson and this is still my wife" . Simpson was also present in the same restaurant on the couple's second date. In April 1992, Simpson observed him and Nicole Brown having sex in the living room through a window facing the garden in Brown's house. The following day, Simpson appeared again at Brown's house and told him that he had seen him and Brown the night before. In an interview broadcast by US broadcaster Fox News in 2018 , Simpson confirmed the incident.
Alternative theories on perpetration
Simpsons lawyers and the media have put forward various theories about possible other perpetrators, with the vast majority of commentators and trial observers not believing that there is any credible evidence for any of the theories. In the trial against Simpson, his lawyers tried to refer to possible other groups of perpetrators, but this was rejected by Judge Ito with reference to the implausibility of this theory. In the closing argument, Simpson's lawyers were allowed to argue to the jury that another perpetrator could be responsible, but no specific group of perpetrators could have been named from which an alternative perpetrator could have come.
Contract killer of a drug cartel
The defense claimed that the brutal actions of the perpetrator or against Brown with the procedure of professional assassins from the drug scene could match. Faye Resnick , a friend of the victim, used cocaine and was in debt to a Colombian drug dealer. It is possible that a contract killer was actually targeting Resnick and accidentally killed Brown because of her similar appearance. However, the presiding judge did not allow this theory to be presented to the jury, as it was speculation and the defense could not provide any material evidence for the correctness of their assumptions.
Serial killer
The media speculated about a possible perpetrator of a sadistically motivated serial killer . A documentation of the Discovery Channel claimed that for multiple murder in the death row seated Glen Rogers had declared relatives and police over he had killed Brown and Goldman on behalf Simpsons. Rogers had been painting Simpson's house for a short period of time before the murder and claims to have known his ex-wife as well. The Goldman family called this theory irresponsible. Nothing indicates any other perpetrator than Simpson. The serial killer theory played no part in the trial.
Simpson's son is suspected
Private investigator William C. Dear claimed to have evidence that the murder of Simpson's first marriage son, Jason, was committed. OJ Simpson was therefore at the scene to prevent his son from murdering, to help him leave the scene after the murder or even to deliberately leave evidence that points to himself in order to protect his son from prosecution. Jason was mentally disturbed and had frequent fits of anger. Two of his friends reported assaults and sometimes life-threatening domestic violence that they had experienced in their relationships with Jason Simpson. On the night of the murder, Nicole Brown actually booked a table in the restaurant where Jason worked as a cook. However, she and her company never appeared there and instead went to the "Mezzaluna". This made Jason so angry that he drove to Brown's house and murdered her. This theory also played no role in the legal proceedings. Jason Simpson was quickly sorted out as a possible suspect because he was at work at the time of the crime. Dear claimed Jason tampered with his stamp card and left the restaurant early.
judgment
On October 3, 1995, Simpson was acquitted of the murder charge ( murder of the first degree ) in both cases by the twelve-member jury and immediately released from custody. The jury also denied a conviction for a murder of the second degree . The jury reached its unanimous opinion after a consultation time of less than four hours, a very short period of time given the complexity and duration of the process. Remained open whether to acquit the jury of its right, a defendant regardless of the evidence or the applicable laws ( English Jury Nullification made) use or after the presumption of innocence ( pro reo in dubio has) decided in favor Simpsons because a jury has to its decision to the Court do not justify. An acquittal by a jury in a US criminal case is final and immediate. The public prosecutor's office has no appeal.
Reactions
The verdict in the Simpson case was broadcast live on all leading American TV channels and became one of the most-watched events in American television history to date, with 150 million viewers. Due to the high media interest, the Simpsons acquittal led to violent reactions in the American public, which, according to observers, were often very different in the black and white populations. Television images of public live broadcasts of the judgment often show shocked white and ecstatic black viewers within the same audience. According to surveys, only about 20% of blacks believed Simpson guilty at the time the verdict was pronounced, compared with over 60% of whites.
In a statement read by his son Jason, Simpson reaffirmed his innocence and offered condolences to the families of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. He said he was pleased that the "nightmare" that began with the murder of his wife had finally come to an end and announced that he would make every effort to find the real culprit (s). In addition, he wanted to take care of the upbringing of his two children from his marriage to Brown.
Fred Goldman, the father of the murder victim, violently attacked the Simpsons attorneys towards the end of the trial, particularly for their racial focus. He referred in particular to Simpson's main defender Johnnie Cochran and his Hitler comparisons in the defense's closing argument. This is "absolutely sick" and should be locked away.
Simpson's own lawyers made differentiated statements in various interviews about the acquittal of their client. Robert Kardashian, a personal friend of the Simpsons, expressed doubts about Simpson's innocence in an interview with Barbara Walters the year after the acquittal. For a long time he closed his eyes to certain things. The traces of blood at the crime scene and on Simpson's property are very stressful despite all the inconsistencies. Kardashian also alleged that Robert Shapiro told him he believed Simpson was guilty. Shapiro tried to convince Simpson to plead guilty and to come to an agreement with the prosecutor on a lower prison sentence. In spite of everything, however, if he were on the jury, he would continue to recognize “not guilty” due to “reasonable doubts”. About Kardashian's attitude towards Simpson had already been speculated at the end of the trial, after Kardashian had left a thoughtful impression after the verdict - in contrast to the visibly relieved main defender Johnnie Cochran. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld appeared to Charlie Rose in October 1995 convinced of Simpson's innocence and defended the acquittal. It has been proven that the investigators made serious mistakes, lied and manipulated evidence. Robert Shapiro stated in an interview in 2016 that one has to distinguish between moral and legal justice. The acquittal had brought about justice in the legal sense.
Kathleen Bell, who had brought Simpson's defense attorney to racist remarks by Fuhrman, said in an interview with the news broadcaster CNN after the acquittal that she felt "terrible" and hoped her testimony had no significant influence on the jury. Close to tears, she added that she did not know how she could ever apologize to the victims' families.
- Members of the jury
In an interview in the documentary OJ Simpson: Made in America in 2015, juror Carrie Bess stated with regard to Nicole Brown that she loses all respect if a woman "lets her ass spank without need". ("I lose respect for a woman who take [sic!] An ass-whuppin 'when she don't [sic!] Have to.") In addition, the acquittal was also "revenge" for Rodney King . This was the attitude of 90% of the jury members.
After the acquittal, the juror Lionel Cryer showed the sign of the organization Black Power when leaving the courtroom . Years later, he still stated that he believed Simpson was innocent.
Juror David Aldana said in an interview with CNN news channel 20 years after the verdict that he still believes evidence was placed on the scene by police. Simpson wanted to be accused of the crime. He believed with all his heart in its innocence.
- Book and interview on the hypothetical course of events
Simpson tried to publish a book in 2006, in which the hypothetical course of the crime should be described from the perspective of the perpetrator, but he continued to assert his innocence. The ghostwriter of the book was the author Pablo Fenjves, who lived in Nicole Brown's immediate neighborhood at the time of the crime, and who had also appeared as a witness in the Simpson trial. In one recorded in the same year and in 2018 by the US broadcaster Fox News broadcast television interview he also made very concrete details of how he had planned the crime and performed when he was the perpetrator. In the interview, Simpson described large parts of the course of the crime from a first-person perspective . The information partially matched the results of the investigation by the public prosecutor's office, but also deviated considerably from it in parts. For example, Simpson stated that the hypothetical perpetrator had an accomplice named "Charlie". However, the Goldman family obtained the rights to the book and interview as a result of the judgment against Simpson in the civil suit and stopped publication in both cases. Simpson's book was published by the Goldman family in 2007 under the title If I Did It - Confessions of the Killer . According to a court order, all proceeds go to the Goldman family.
There was controversial discussion in the media as to whether what Simpson described as hypothetical in his book and the interview could be regarded as a confession . This view was represented, among others, by the Goldman family and thus justified the publication of the book.
Subsequent civil lawsuit
The year after the acquittal, the victims' families filed a civil lawsuit against Simpson to sue him for damages for the two murders . It is much easier to get a conviction in a civil case. In contrast to the murder trial, the restrictive “Reasonable Doubt Standard” does not apply to a guilty verdict under California law, according to which a guilty verdict is only possible if there is “no reasonable doubt” about the guilt of the accused. Rather, a predominantly clear evidence against the accused ("preponderance of the evidence") is sufficient for a conviction. The jury's decision does not have to be unanimous. 9 out of 12 jurors can bring about a conviction if they are convinced of the guilt of the accused. This time there were 9 white jurors on the jury in the civil case that was heard in Santa Monica . A testimony of the accused can be obtained differently than in the murder trial, which Simpson observes harmed. In addition, additional evidence, such as the Bruno Magli shoe prints, could be used. The civil trial ended with a unanimous conviction and the award of US $ 33.5 million in damages to the victims' families.
Simpson's owner-occupied Florida real estate and a $ 4 million pension fund were protected by law from seizure , so Simpson was able to maintain a high standard of living despite being sentenced for damages .
Impact on California Law Enforcement
The errors in the preservation of evidence uncovered in the course of the trial, the controversial handling of the police with the previous incidents of domestic violence and the racism allegations against Mark Fuhrman led to far-reaching changes in the prosecution of violent crimes in Los Angeles and the state of California after Simpson's acquittal. Many police officers and public prosecutors were downright shocked by the fact that despite the evidence against Simpson, which the majority regarded as extremely promising, no conviction could be obtained. In the media, a controversy, at times fierce , developed over whether the LAPD had a systemic problem with incompetence and racism.
Allegations of assault on spouses or partners were often not followed up until the trial of Simpson, if the victim waived prosecution and the alleged perpetrators were often released directly. Penalties and sanctions against the perpetrators were often mild. After the Simpson trial, police and prosecutors moved to pursue domestic violence incidents with much greater emphasis. Laws against violence in partnerships have been tightened and offers of help for victims of domestic violence have been significantly expanded. Chief Prosecutor Marcia Clark and Simpson defense attorney Carl Douglas agreed that after 1995 the LAPD introduced an informal rule according to which alleged perpetrators in incidents of domestic violence must be arrested without exception if traces of violence are evident on the victim.
The LAPD also revised the guidelines and training content for preserving evidence and inspecting the crime scene with the aim of further professionalising the investigators and reducing possible sources of error. The infrastructure for evidence analysis has also been greatly expanded and improved, including an analysis center financed by the state of California and costing over 100 million US dollars. In addition, the experience of the law enforcement authorities in the Simpson trial contributed to the fact that the then relatively new method of DNA analysis became a core topic in the training of criminologists, with uniform standards and due diligence for the collection, safekeeping and analysis of DNA samples have been defined.
The Simpson trial also showed an audience of millions across the country through the "Fuhrman tapes" that racist tendencies still existed in parts of the police and were sometimes tolerated or not taken seriously. During the trial, the Los Angeles Police Chief announced a "non-negotiable" zero tolerance strategy against racism and other forms of discrimination in the police force.
Trivia
About a year after the acquittal, it was revealed that Simpson had undergone a polygraph test shortly after the night of the murder and failed. His test result was -22, which indicates an "extreme intent to deceive". The test was canceled on the advice of his attorney, F. Lee Bailey. Bailey justified this by saying that such a test could not be properly carried out so soon after the death of a loved one. Simpson himself stated that he reacted very emotionally to the questions and therefore did not pass the test. The test played no part in the legal proceedings.
As early as 1981, Mark Fuhrman had applied for leave from the police force and a stress-related early retirement . He said he had problems with his aggressiveness and hated “niggers”. The request was denied and Fuhrman was asked to resume his duties. Simpson's defense attorneys also accused him of collecting Nazi memorabilia and painting swastikas on other police officers' lockers . These allegations and Fuhrman's pension application played no significant role in the legal proceedings.
To illustrate the process-relevant locations, Judge Ito and the jury ordered a site inspection of Simpson's property and Nicole Brown's house. According to a later statement by Simpson's defense attorney Carl Douglas, Simpson's house originally had numerous photos and illustrations that showed Simpson almost exclusively with white celebrities and members of the upper class . Simpson's lawyers had these photos removed before the site visit and replaced them with images of Simpson with black people and family members. Some of the new images came from the possession of his main defender, Johnnie Cochran.
Simpson threatened to kill himself at least twice before he was arrested. Upon his return from Chicago, he confided his suicidal thoughts to Robert Kardashian in his home. A few days later, during his escape in his friend Al Cowlings' Ford Bronco, he spoke to Kardashian again on his cell phone and said he was holding a gun to his head and had already pulled the trigger, but the trigger had not worked. In addition, before his escape, Simpson left his lawyer a letter that was widely regarded as a suicide note. Trial observers described the content of the letter as highly stressful. Simpson wrote that he had nothing to do with the murder of his wife, but made no move to find the real culprit or to prove his innocence. During the trial, the prosecution failed to use the letter as evidence, which was widely viewed as a grave error.
Simpson has declined in the last few weeks of the trial to face prosecution witnesses himself. The reason he gave was that he did not want to extend the process any further, especially in the interests of the jury and his children.
Simpson's attorneys lodged a total of 50 objections (approximately one every 3 minutes) during the approximately 2.5-hour closing remarks ( “rebuttal” ) of chief prosecutor Marcia Clark. In some cases, these objections resulted in interruptions of several minutes. Trial observers suspected that this noticeable accumulation was a deliberate strategy in order to disrupt the flow of arguments of the public prosecutor's office at their last opportunity to present themselves to the jury. The appeals were almost exclusively dismissed by Judge Ito. However , Ito did not make use of the further sanctions provided for in US law, such as the imposition of custody or fines for disregarding the court (“contempt of court”).
After the acquittal, Simpson was given sole custody of the two children from their marriage to Nicole Brown, although a civil lawsuit for damages for the victims' families was still pending. The custody verdict continued after his conviction in the civil process.
The witness Kato Kaelin , who lived with Simpson as a "house guest" and spent part of the night of the crime with him, became a TV star after the trial, among other things with a reality format in which Kaelin traveled through the USA and tried to to stay with various celebrities as a "house guest".
Several of the lawyers involved in the process concluded some very high-value book contracts after the process. For example, Chief Prosecutor Marcia Clark reportedly earned $ 4.2 million from her book about the trial. Mark Fuhrman finished his police service, moved to the small town of Sandpoint in the state of Idaho and worked from then on as a crime writer . In a TV interview on the 20th anniversary of his acquittal, he said the Simpson trial had ruined his life.
Simpson's friend Al Cowlings, the driver of the white Ford Bronco during Simpson's escape, admitted a press conference during the trial in which he pointed out a paid phone number ($ 2.99 per minute) about the information recorded for the public about his relationship Simpson and his first wife Marguerite could be reached. According to his publicist, the action raised over $ 1 million.
On September 8, 1995 - about a month before Simpsons acquittal - the waiter Michael Nigg was shot dead in his car by unknown perpetrators in an attempted robbery in the Hollywood part of the city . Like Ronald Goldman, Nigg had worked at the Mezzaluna restaurant and was friends with it. A link to the Goldman murder was never made, however. The murder case remains unsolved to this day.
Web links
- Largely complete documentation of all process videos (uncommented) , accessed on July 5, 2017
- CNN : Main page for reporting on the Simpson Trial , accessed July 23, 2015.
- CNN : Litigation Log Collection , accessed July 24, 2015.
- Collection of materials on the OJ Simpson Trial, University of Missouri School of Law , accessed July 24, 2015.
- Prosecution witness list , accessed July 27, 2015.
- Defense witness list , accessed July 27, 2015.
- Copies of the closing arguments from the defense and public prosecutor's office: [3] [4] [5]
- General statistics on the murder trial
- List of participants in the Simpson process
- Excerpts from the "Fuhrman tapes"
- Testimony from OJ Simpson on June 13, 1994
- Audio: Testimony from OJ Simpson on June 13, 1994
- Transcript of telephone conversations between Simpson and the police during his escape (not cited as evidence in the trial)
- List of Possible Reasons for Appeals During Witness Hearing in the U.S. Legal System (Not Exhaustive)
Documentaries and television films
- Ezra Edelman (2016): OJ Simpson - Made in America
- Ryan Murphy , Anthony Hemingway , John Singleton (2016): American Crime Story - The People v. OJ Simpson (TV series, 10 episodes)
- Vincent Bugliosi (1999): Absolutely 100% Guilty
- CNN : The People vs. OJ Simpson - The Case for the Prosecution
- CNN: The People vs. OJ Simpson - The Case for the Defense
literature
- Fred Goldman, Kim Goldman : If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer. Beaufort Books, 2007, ISBN 978-0-8253-0588-7 .
- Marcia Clark: Without a Doubt. Viking Verlag, 1997, ISBN 978-1-63168-068-7 .
- Vincent Bugliosi : Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away with Murder. Norton Verlag, 1996, ISBN 978-0-393-04050-0 .
- Jeffrey Tobin: The Run Of His Life: The People v. OJ Simpson. Random House, 1996, ISBN 978-0-8129-8854-3 .
- Lawrence Schiller , James Willwerth: American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the OJ Simpson Defense. Random House, 1996, ISBN 978-0-679-45682-7 .
Individual evidence
- ↑ CNN, October 3, 1995: Trial of the Century ends with acquittal , accessed July 23, 2015
- ^ Judgment in the OJ Simpson civil lawsuit on compensatory damages (“damages”) i. H. v. $ 8.5 million, accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ verdict in the OJ Simpson civil trial on punitive damages ( "punitive damages") i. H. v. $ 25 million. Accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: OJ Simpson Fast Facts , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: The Victims , accessed July 23, 2015
- ↑ The Defense’s opening statement , January 25, 1995.
- ^ Hearing of witnesses from Mark Fuhrman 9.-16. March 1995. Retrieved July 23, 2015
- ↑ Los Angeles Times: Police Records Detail 1989 Beating That Led to Charge , accessed July 23, 2015
- ↑ Nicole's letter to OJ (introduced as evidence in civil proceedings on January 13, 1997) , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ Jeffrey Toobin: The People VOJ Simpson , February 18, 2016, Chapter 1 “Drop Dead Gorgeous,” items 253-255 (kindle ebook).
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, June 23, 1994: Nicole Simpson's 911 Calls , accessed July 23, 2015.
- ^ Letter from Nicole to OJ Simpson , accessed July 15, 2017.
- ↑ CNN: OJ Simpson trial: Night of the murders timeline , accessed July 23, 2015
- ↑ witnesses of Sukru Boztepe, February 8th 1995th
- ^ Nicole Brown Simpson autopsy , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ Ronald Goldman autopsy , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ ABC News: Prosecution opening statement , accessed July 26, 2015.
- ↑ The Attorney Depot: The OJ Simpson Murder Saga: 20 Years Later , description of the incident from 12:00 pm, accessed on July 23, 2015
- ↑ Dough Linder: The Trial of Orenthal James Simpson , accessed July 23, 2015
- ↑ Google Maps , accessed July 23, 2015.
- ^ New York Times: Robert Kardashian, a Lawyer For OJ Simpson, Dies at 59 , accessed July 23, 2015.
- ↑ OJ's Suicide Note , accessed July 29, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: OJ Simpson Murder Trial: The Arrest , accessed July 23, 2015.
- ^ OJ Simpson escape video , accessed July 23, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: 5 surprising facts about OJ Simpson's slow-speed chase , accessed July 23, 2015.
- ^ The OJ Simpson Tapes , accessed January 29, 2016.
- ↑ CNN : Video of OJ Simpsons demonstration to the magistrate , accessed June 22, 2019.
- ↑ Fox News , 2018: OJ Simpson - The Lost Confession? .
- ↑ PENAL CODE SECTION 187-199 ( Memento of the original dated May 12, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed July 25, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: Simpson Trial 1994 , accessed July 25, 2015.
- ↑ Selection of the Jury , accessed on July 25, 2015.
- ^ The Life and Career of Marcia Clark Criminal Defense Attorney , accessed July 25, 2015.
- ↑ Christopher Darden on Encyclopedia.com , accessed July 25, 2015.
- ^ Short biography of Christopher Darden , accessed on July 25, 2015.
- ↑ CA Penal Code 187: "Capital murder" , accessed January 26, 2016.
- ^ New York Times: Prosecutor in Simpson Case Won't Seek Death Penalty , accessed July 28, 2015.
- ^ Dream Team Trumpets Its Victory to the Court of Public Opinion , accessed July 25, 2015.
- ↑ Short biographies of those involved in the litigation, including the defense lawyers , accessed on July 25, 2015.
- ^ Simpson Legal Fees Could Run Into Millions , accessed July 25, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: OJ Simpson Trial: Jury Instructions , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ California State Jury Trial , accessed July 28, 2015.
- ^ How Courts Work: Sentencing , accessed July 28, 2015.
- ^ Double Jeopardy Clause , accessed July 28, 2015.
- ↑ Jury Selection and the Cross-Sectional Ideal , accessed on July 27, 2015.
- ^ The Simpson Trial Jury , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ New York Times: Figuring Out the OJ Simpson trial , accessed on July 27, 2015.
- ^ He warned against black women jurors , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ^ Oj Simpson Jurors Told To Pack , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ Definition of Sequestration , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ Closing argument by the public prosecutor's office.
- ^ New York Times: Coroner Says Time of Death Is Imprecise , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ Testimony of Pablo Fenjves and Eva Stein, 7-8. February 1995.
- ↑ Chicago Tribune: On Stand, Kaelin Admits Simpson Sought His Help On Alibi , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: Simpson alibi conflicts with limo driver's testimony , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ^ Hearing of a witness from Philip Vannatter, March 20, 1995.
- ^ UPI , July 12, 1995: Defense witness may have seen Bronco , accessed June 26, 2019.
- ↑ witnesses of Robert Heidstra 12 July 1995th
- ↑ Famous-trials.com: OJ Simpson trial: The DNA Evidence , accessed June 24, 2019.
- ↑ The defense's closing argument .
- ^ New York Times: Simpson's Lawyer Tells Jury That Evidence 'Doesn't Fit' , accessed July 30, 2015.
- ^ Letter from Nicole to OJ Simpson , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times: Relationship With Simpson Is Over, Barbieri Says , accessed July 27, 2015.
- ^ Testimony of Allan Park , accessed July 28, 2015.
- ↑ The hearing of Danny Mandel and Ellen Aaronson, July 11, 1995.
- ↑ Famous-trials.com: Testimony of Denise Pilnak , July 11, 1995, accessed June 26, 2019.
- ↑ Brown's apartment ( 875 South Bundy Drive ), the Mezzaluna restaurant ( 11750 San Vicente Boulevard ) and Goldman's apartment ( 11663 Gorham Avenue ) were within a few hundred meters. Today's numbering and buildings no longer correspond exactly to the state at the time of the crime.
- ↑ CNN , September 22, 1995. [1]
- ↑ CNN , September 22, 1995. [2]
- ↑ Defense plotting to impeach key witness , accessed on July 30, 2015.
- ^ Closing argument by Barry Scheck, September 28, 1995.
- ↑ USA Today, October 18, 1996: List of the evidence in the OJ Simpson double-murder trial - Crime scene hairs and fibers , accessed June 28, 2019.
- ↑ USA Today: List of Circumstances in the OJ Simpson Trial , accessed July 30, 2015.
- ↑ CNN: Prosecutor's Forensic Evidence List , accessed July 31, 2015.
- ↑ John Edwards' hearing, January 31, 1995.
- ↑ Memo by Detective Mark Fuhrman on 1985 Domestic Dispute at Simpson's Home , accessed July 12, 2017.
- ^ Hearing of a witness from Mark Fuhrman, March 9, 1995.
- ^ Emergency call recording during the taking of evidence on February 2, 1995.
- ^ Nicole Browns emergency number , accessed July 13, 2017.
- ↑ The term “skunk” (skunk) can also be found in some copies .
- ↑ Hearing of a witness from Detective Robert Lerner, February 3, 1995.
- ↑ Denise Brown's hearing, February 6, 1995.
- ^ Shipp Tells Alcohol, Other Problems , accessed July 12, 2017.
- ↑ Ronald Shipp's testimony, February 1, 1995.
- ^ AP , February 3, 1995: Simpson Jury Is Shown Contents of Safe-Deposit Box , accessed June 25, 2019.
- ^ Coroner lays out detailed theories of killings , accessed July 29, 2015.
- ↑ witnesses Douglas Deedrick, June 29, 1995 u. 5th July 1995.
- ↑ UPI , July 5, 1995: Bronco fibers resemble those on evidence , accessed June 25, 2019.
- ↑ AP , June 16, 1995: Bloomingdale's Glove Buyer Identifies Murder Evidence , accessed June 22, 2019.
- ↑ CNN , September 12, 1995: Expert: Simpson's gloves match evidence , accessed June 22, 2019.
- ^ The Trial of OJ Simpson: The Incriminating Evidence , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Simpson's Shoe Size Fits Bloody Prints Left at the Crime Scene , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ List of the evidence in the OJ Simpson double-murder trial , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ^ OJ Simpson's Stunned Reaction to Photo of Him Wearing 'Ugly' Bruno Magli Shoes in Deposition Tapes , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ BBC - OJ Simpson the Untold Story , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ FBI Expert Says Simpson Wore Bruno Maglis in Photo , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Lee bolsters theory of multiple attackers , accessed on 25 January 2016th
- ↑ FBI Agent Says Simpson Defense Expert Lee Erred , accessed January 25, 2016.
- ^ Experts Parry Cross-Country Over Footprints in Simpson Trial , accessed January 25, 2016.
- ^ OJ's Statement to the LAPD , accessed July 10, 2017.
- ↑ American Justice: Why OJ Simpson Won , accessed January 15, 2016.
- ↑ Jury Takes Close Look at Simpson's Hand , accessed January 15, 2016.
- ↑ Famous-trials.com: Simpson trial: The DNA Evidence , accessed June 24, 2019.
- ↑ Big Odds Tie Oj Simpson To Scene , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ↑ LAPD Chemist Testifies defendant is among 0.5% of people whose blood matches one drop. , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ^ Hearing of witnesses from Dr. Robin Cotton, May 11, 1995 , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ^ Victims Put Up Long Fight, A Witness for Simpson Says , accessed July 30, 2015.
- ↑ Truth May Be Eternal, but Mystery Often Fascinates More , accessed January 22, 2016.
- ↑ Trial Run Melts Oj's Ice Cream Defense , accessed January 22, 2016.
- ↑ Minutes of the hearing of witnesses from June 15, 1995 , accessed on August 2, 2015.
- ↑ AP Archive : Simpson trying on gloves , accessed June 20, 2019.
- ↑ The hearing of Richard Rubin, June 16, 1995.
- ↑ Defense witness testifies on glove shrinkage , accessed January 27, 2016.
- ^ Evidence, June 21, 1995. Video (1:14:30)
- ^ CNN: Key moments from the OJ Simpson trial , accessed August 2, 2015.
- ^ Oj Simpson Tries On Bloody Gloves He Indicated They Were Too Small , accessed August 2, 2015.
- ↑ Excerpt: The defense's closing argument on items of clothing found , accessed on August 3, 2015.
- ↑ ABC News September 24, 2015: OJ Simpson: What You Didn't Know About His Defense , accessed February 25, 2018.
- ↑ Chicago Tribune June 9, 2016: Ex-DA says arthritis meds could have affected OJ Simpson glove try-on , accessed February 25, 2018.
- ↑ Fingerprints Don't Link OJ to Scene , accessed January 27, 2016.
- ↑ CNN Documentation: The Beating of Rodney King , accessed August 25, 2015.
- ↑ National Public Radio: The Jury Is Still Out On Why OJ Simpson Was Acquitted , accessed August 25, 2015.
- ^ Letter from Kathleen Bell to OJ Simpson's Lawyer , accessed July 24, 2015
- ^ Letter from Cathleen Bell to Simpsons Defense Attorney , accessed August 24, 2015.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times: Ex-detective disparaged interracial couples and bragged about making up charges, two women say , accessed August 25, 2015.
- ↑ Minutes: Roderic Hodge's hearing , accessed on January 17, 2016.
- ↑ Transcription: Cross-examination Detective Mark Fuhrman, Mürz 1995 , accessed on January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Video: Examination of witnesses by Detective Mark Fuhrman , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Video: Laura McKinny 1 witness hearing , accessed on January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Video: Laura McKinny 2 witness hearing , accessed on January 14, 2016
- ↑ Fuhrman tapes: Excerpts , accessed on January 14, 2016.
- ^ Witness hearing Laura McKinney , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Lawyer's Family Tragedy Inspires Hitler Reference , accessed January 16, 2016.
- ↑ Families' Anger Erupts Outside the Courtroom , accessed January 16, 2016.
- ^ New York Times: Racial Epithets by Detective Fill Simpson Courtroom , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Excerpts of Marcia Clark's Closing Arguments , accessed January 21, 2016.
- ^ New York Times: Prosecutors drop demand that Ito step down , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times: Fuhrman Invokes 5th Amendment, Refuses to Testify , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ^ OJ Simpson Trial: Transcription of the hearing of September 6, 1995 , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ^ Mark Fuhrman pleads the 5th during the OJ Simpson trial. , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Chicago Tribune: Fuhrman Bargains Out Of Jail Time , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Memo by Detective Mark Fuhrman on 1985 Domestic Dispute at Simpson's Home , accessed July 23, 2015
- ↑ The OJ Simpson Murder Saga: 20 Years Later , accessed January 23, 2016.
- ↑ Philip Vannatter Dies , accessed January 23, 2016.
- ^ Author of Nicole Simpson Biography Finds She's a Prisoner of Her Own Book , accessed January 23, 2016.
- ↑ Ronald Shipp's testimony, February 1, 1995.
- ^ The OJ Simpson Case: The Sock Evidence Reconstructed , accessed January 23, 2016.
- ↑ Defense Keys On Missing Blood To Suggest Simpson Was Framed , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ↑ CNN: Key Testimony , accessed January 28, 2016.
- ^ FBI agents take center stage at Simpson trial , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ↑ Simpson lawyers switch emphasis to police errors , accessed January 26, 2016.
- ^ UPI , June 1, 1995: Expert: Blood on gate not degraded , accessed June 28, 2019.
- ↑ Closing argument of the defense, Dr. Barry Scheck, September 28, 1995.
- ↑ Examination of witnesses Dr. Fredric Rieders , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ↑ FBI Disputes Simpson Defense on Tainted Blood , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ↑ Minutes: Witness hearing of Dr. Frederic Rieders , accessed January 24, 2016.
- ^ Hearing of a witness from Robert Riske, February 9, 1995.
- ↑ Oj Simpson Criminalist assailed Dennis Fung reeled Under Intense Questioning , accessed on 25 January 2016th
- ↑ Profile Dennis Fung , accessed on January 25, 2016.
- ↑ Criminalist Assailed At Trial Of Oj Simpson The Defense Continued To Press Andrea Mazzola , accessed January 25, 2016.
- ^ Prosecutor Marcia Clark on Key Players in the OJ Simpson Trial , accessed January 26, 2016.
- ↑ In Battle Over Blood Work, Simpson Defense Takes a Last Shot at Evidence Collector , accessed January 25, 2016.
- ↑ CNN: OJ Simpson - The Arrest , accessed January 25, 2016.
- ↑ CNN: Key Testimony , accessed January 28, 2016.
- ↑ CNN: Witness hearing protocols , accessed January 28, 2016.
- ^ A flood of fury fills the court , accessed January 28, 2016.
- ↑ Comments on the Simpson Trial , accessed January 28, 2016.
- ↑ Contamination At Police Lab Cited In Oj Simpson Trial , accessed January 28, 2016.
- ↑ California Penal Code Section 128 ( Memento of the original from May 27, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed January 28, 2016.
- ^ Minutes: Allan Park's hearing , accessed on January 31, 2016.
- ↑ Simpson's property at 360 North Rockingham Avenue on Google Maps - the current development and house numbering no longer corresponds to the condition at that time , accessed on January 31, 2016.
- ↑ IMDb : OJ Simpson - Biography , accessed June 24, 2019.
- ↑ Examination of Kato Kaelin, March 27, 1995.
- ↑ ABC News November 11, 2015: OJ Simpson 1995 Trial Witness: 'OJ Simpson Is Guilty , accessed December 23, 2017.
- ^ New York Times , July 31, 1994: Grand Jury Testimony Says That Simpson Spied on Wife's Dates , accessed June 22, 2019.
- ↑ Grand Jury Testimony - June 21, 1994 , accessed June 29, 2019.
- ↑ Fox News , 2018: OJ Simpson - The Lost Confession? .
- ^ CNN: What the jury didn't see , accessed July 29, 2015.
- ↑ Documentary: Serial killer, not OJ, killed Simpson and Goldman , accessed July 29, 2015.
- ↑ Discovery Channel Documentation: My Brother the Serial Killer , accessed July 29, 2015.
- ^ The Telegraph: OJ Simpson - Was he innocent all along? , accessed July 29, 2015.
- ↑ BBC: OJ Simpson: The untold story , accessed July 29, 2015.
- ^ Announcement of the judgment , accessed on January 13, 2016.
- ↑ BBC: OJ Simpson verdict: 'Not guilty' , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Gerald F. Uelmen: Jury-Bashing and the OJ Simpson Verdict Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 1996, pp. 475, 478 (English)
- ↑ Simpson's Verdict Drew Best Ratings In Tv History , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ^ OJ Simpson: A Study of Black and White Relations , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ Audience Reaction on Oprah Winfrey's Show , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ^ Washington Post: Black and white Americans can now agree: OJ was guilty , accessed January 14, 2016.
- ↑ AP Archive : OJ Simpson'S lawyers and family press conference , accessed June 27, 2019.
- ^ Victim's Father: Cochran Is 'Sick' , accessed January 21, 2016.
- ↑ OJ's friend says he doubts Simpson's innocence , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ^ Robert Kardashian, Longtime Friend of OJ Simpson Doubts Innocence Part I , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ^ Robert Kardashian, Longtime Friend of OJ Simpson Doubts Innocence Part II , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ Charlie Rose: Interview with Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, October 6, 1995 , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ Fox News interview with Robert Shapiro, May 27, 2016 , accessed October 19, 2017.
- ↑ CNN: Kathleen Bell Interview , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ The craziest moments and quotes from OJ Simpson: Made in America , accessed July 10, 2017.
- ↑ "OJ Simpson: Made in America" - 4 Winners, 4 Losers , accessed July 10, 2017.
- ↑ OJ Simpson Juror: Not-Guilty Verdict Was 'Payback' for Rodney King , accessed July 10, 2017.
- ↑ OJ Simpson juror who raised fist as he left court was a former Black Panther , accessed on 10 July 2017th
- ↑ Juror tells CNN OJ was framed , accessed July 10, 2017.
- ↑ Fox News , 2018: OJ Simpson - The Lost Confession? .
- ↑ Reuters , July 31, 2007: Goldman family gets rights to OJ Simpson book , accessed June 22, 2019.
- ↑ New York Times , March 12, 2018: The OJ Simpson Interview on Fox: Gripping, Gross or Both? , accessed June 22, 2019.
- ↑ Today Show, September 14, 2007: Goldman family defends publication of 'If I Did It' , accessed June 22, 2019.
- ↑ Why OJ Simpson Lost The Civil Trial , accessed January 21, 2016.
- ^ OJ Simpson & Company - 10 Years On , accessed January 30, 2016.
- ^ Vox , June 12, 2016: Marcia Clark: I prosecuted OJ Simpson. Here's what I learned about race and justice in America , accessed June 30, 2019.
- ^ Vox Media , April 6, 2016: OJ Simpson's trial changed the LAPD - and our views on domestic violence , accessed June 30, 2019.
- ↑ Build Series, June 7, 2016: Ezra Edelman, Marcia Clark & Carl Douglas Full on "OJ: Made in America," accessed June 30, 2019.
- ↑ Las Vegas Sun, June 9, 2014: OJ Simpson case taught police what not to do , accessed June 30, 2019.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2014: Simpson murder case brought change to LAPD, DA's office , accessed June 30, 2019.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2014: Barry Scheck on the OJ trial, DNA evidence and the Innocence Project , accessed June 30, 2019.
- ↑ PBS : The OJ Verdict - The Trials Significance and Lasting Impact , accessed June 30, 2019.
- ↑ CNN , August 16, 1995: Stormy day rocks OJ trial , accessed June 30, 2019.
- ↑ Kardashian: Oj Flunked Lie Test , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ Extract from the examination of witnesses in civil proceedings , accessed on January 21, 2016.
- ^ Bailey Says He Halted Polygraph Test of Simpson , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ^ A Portrait of the Detective in the 'OJ Whirlpool' , accessed January 30, 2016.
- ↑ INTERVIEW - The Man Who Spoke for OJ , accessed January 30, 2016.
- ^ Simpson Attorneys Plan To Intensify Fuhrman Attack , accessed January 30, 2016.
- ↑ Build Series, June 7, 2016: Ezra Edelman, Marcia Clark & Carl Douglas Full on "OJ: Made in America," accessed June 30, 2019.
- ^ Robert Kardashian, Longtime Friend of OJ Simpson Doubts Innocence , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ Kardashian: Oj Flunked Lie Test , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ 9 bizarre facts about the OJ Simpson Murder Case , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ OJ's "Suicide Letter" , accessed January 17, 2016.
- ↑ Simpson Won't Take The Stand , accessed January 30, 2016.
- ↑ Trial protocol September 29, 1995 , accessed on June 29, 2019.
- ^ OJ Simpson wins full custody of his two children , accessed January 19, 2016.
- ^ How the OJ Simpson Trial Changed Kato Kaelin's Life , accessed January 21, 2016.
- ↑ Viking to Pay $ 4.2 Million For Book by Marcia Clark , accessed January 21, 2016.
- ↑ An Interview with Mark Fuhrman , accessed January 30, 2016.
- ↑ Mark Fuhrman: OJ Simpson Trial Ruined My Life ( Memento of the original from June 27, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed July 12, 2017.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times: Cowlings Sets Up Dial-a-Simpson Line , accessed July 5, 2017.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times: This is what happened to all the important people in OJ Simpson's life , accessed July 5, 2017.
- ↑ Deseret News September 12, 1995: Goldman friend is slain resisting robbery , accessed December 21, 2017.
