Investigative Process And Flaws In The OJ Simpson Case

The OJ Simpson Case: An Overview

In the OJ Simpson Case summarise the crucial elements of the investigative process as relevant to the subsequent trial/appeal proceedings, and Identify and clearly explain the major errors/flaws/weaknesses in these procedures.

The different stages of processing a crime scene may often act as hindrances to collect evidences from the crime scene and present the same before the court. Several strong cases have been lost owing to poor investigation process while weak cases have been won, again owing to the use of the appropriate method of investigation. The OJ Simpson Case (officially titled as People of the State of California v Orenthal James Simpson) is an example of a case where the processing of the crime scene and presenting of the evidences did not prove to be successful owing to the flaws in the investigation stages either because they were not followed properly or because the investigation team missed out the stages completely (Four & Six, 2015).

Simpson was accused of the murder of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. The murder as committed on June 12, 1994 and the span of the trial lasted eleven months and concluded in 1995. Mr. Simpson was acquitted for both the counts of murder owing to the deficiency in the admission of evidences on part of the prosecution as was held in California v Simpson [1995]. However, he was later held liable for committing both the murders as the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt (Nelson, Phillips & Steuart, 2014).

The murder was committed on 12^th June 1994 around 10.30pm in Brentwood LA, in front of Bundy Drive Condominium which was owned by the deceased victim Nicole Brown. Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were found murdered outside the Condo. Nicole was stabbed several times in the head and neck and her head was barely attached to the body. The police officer found a single bloody glove. The police detectives visited Simpson’s Rockingham estate to inform him that his ex-wife was murdered where they found blood scattered all over the White Ford Bronco and the detectives had to enter into the house  without a search warrant owing to the exigent circumstances, especially, out of fear that Simpson might be injured too. Simpson was not present that moment as he had taken a late flight to Chicago previous night. The detectives found a second bloody glove that matched with the glove at the murder scene.

Crucial Elements of the Investigative Process

The blood on the glove found at Simpson’s house was examined to have come from both victims and constituted a probable cause to issue an arrest warrant against Simpson. The police interrogated Simpson after he arrived from LA and the other evidences collected from the murder scene were analyzed by laboratory technicians, in particular. During trial, two witnesses testified in the court that Simpson was seen speeding away from Nicole’s house and almost collided with a Nissan at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente Boulevard. The other witness testified that he has sold a 15-inch knife to Simpson which was found to be similar to the murder weapon and the knife was sold to him three weeks prior to the killings (Douglas et al., 2013).

At the trial held on 24 January, 1995, the prosecutor played a 9-1-1 call from Nicole Brown Simpson on Jan 1, 1989. She expressed her fear that her husband would cause her physical harm and there were yelling at her in the background. The prosecution further presented other essential evidences to establish that Nicole was subject to domestic violence and further presented expert witnesses to prove that Simpson was related to the crime scene. The experts presented material evidences on subject ranging from DNA profiling, shoeprint analysis (Yang, Xie & Yan, 2014). The prosecution further presented evidence that established Simpson had a history of assaulting Nicole physically.

The investigative process involved in the Simpson’s case was characterized by major flaws or weaknesses. The investigating officers either failed to follow the appropriate process of the investigating procedure or have missed out the procedure entirely. In this case, the detectives commenced the investigations with the presumption that O.J. Simpson had committed both the count of murders. This presumption led the detectives visit Simpson’s home and failed to secure the crime scene properly (Dutelle, 2016). They have permitted the media people to enter into the crime scene and tamper with the crime scenes, thus, failing to follow one of the fundamental rule of an effective investigating process which is to prevent any outsiders from entering to the crime scene (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2016). Crime scene management is the most crucial part of any investigating process and it requires effective planning and organization to ensure no one tampers with the crime scene evidences.

During the investigation, the police officers discovered several evidences which included reports of domestic violence, Kato Kaelin’s statements, DNA evidence at the crime scene and in the premises of Simpson’s house, on the front of the White Bronco, flesh cuts on Simpson’s hand and the evidence of the shoe print analysis; further the fact that Simpson failed to provide an alibi was also considered as evidence by the investigation officers. These are the evidences collected which are material and relevant to the case but it is the manner in which the evidences were collected, analyzed and linked together that lacked appropriateness (Saferstein, 2015). Some of the detectives involved in the case were not adequately qualified which led the defense raise question about their competency and were suspicion about the accuracy of the evidence and that the evidences cannot be trusted.

Major flaws/weaknesses/errors in the investigative procedure

There are instances where the investigation team was seen to be handling the evidences in bare hands and some were seen carrying the blood samples that were collected from Simpson’s house in their pockets. This implies that the investigation process lacked appropriate ways of collecting and preserving the evidences that are material to the case (Robinson, 2016). The careless procedure applied to carry the evidences and the manner of preserving them gave the defense to claim that the evidences were not preserved properly as a result of which there are high chances that the evidences have been contaminated. Further, the defense argued that there is a probability that the investigation officers have planted false evidence to incriminate Simpson on the grounds of race in so as to frame Simpson falsely in the murder case.

The defense attorney further argued that taking into consideration the inadequate investigating process, it can be said that the blood droplets found at the crime scene may be the result of the carelessness of handling the evidence by any one of the investigating team members. Furthermore, there was absence of coordination amongst the investigating team members. This is evident from the fact that the investigating team required experts from different fields to collect, handle, preserve and examine the evidences from the crime scene and enhance coordination in the investigation process (Duncan, 2015). Furthermore, there was miscommunication on part of the investigating team which led to a loss in vital information material to the case.

The investigating team involved in the case lacked thoroughness which is evident from the fact that at trial, there were no arguments regarding the blood stains found on the pair of socks found in OJ’s bedroom. All these deficiencies in the investigating process caused the defense lawyer to successfully establish that the evidences found at the crime scenes are not relevant as they are either contaminated or have been falsely implanted to frame OJ as the murderer.

An effective investigating process requires the investigating officers to collect the evidences properly and analyze them in a way that no contamination of the evidences takes place. A proper analysis of the evidences enables the investigating officers to segregate material evidences from the ones that are not strongly material to the case (Smith et al., 2017). Another significant deficiency in the investigating process was that the prosecution was unable to establish the allegations they presented before the court. For instance- the prosecution as unable to establish the shoeprint analysis that was found on the Simpson’s car and the foot prints at the scene of crime. A successful investigation requires good planning and organization to bring out the maximum amount of material out of the crime scene. In OJ Simpson’s case, the case was not at all organized and successful.

The investigation errors could have been avoided in a number of ways. Firstly, the detectives should have secured the crime scene properly to prevent outsiders or media people from entering into the crime scene and it would have also prevented the evidences from being contaminated. Secondly, the failures could have been avoided by recording the evidence appropriately (Park et al., 2014). This would have enabled the investigating officers to explain the evidences collected and enabled recording of the documentation both at the scenes of crime and in laboratories. Thirdly, the investigating team could have been more thorough then they would have noticed blood on socks collected in the Simpson’s bedroom. The evidences vital to the case should have been collected or noted immediately after the crime was committed and the evidences were collected and should not have been noted long time after the crime had been committed. Lastly, the investigating officer should not have let expert technicians to re-enter the crime scene while carrying the evidence. The investigating officer should have preserved the evidences to prevent contamination. The contamination of evidence was a significant flaw in the investigating process which should have been averted.

The involvement of media can be helpful in some cases but can be disastrous in other cases. In several cases, the media can intrude on the investigation process and meddle with the case (Rayamane et al., 2014). This can potentially wreck the set consequence and possibly ruin any evidence that may be vital to the case. In the OJ Simpson’s case, the outcome was potentially ruined due to the media intrusions. The media had a full view of the dead body of Nicole Brown and the investigator had to cover her with a blanket. This ruined a huge amount of vital evidence material to the case and as the evidence on the body was contaminated, nothing could e collected from the body and used in court against Simpson. Another way the media affected the trial is that there were cameras fitted in the court to televise the trial to the public. This affected the testimonies and behavior of the people in the court room making the court room trial look more dramatic.

Therefore, the investigation process is an important process that should be conducted with care and skill so as to preserve the evidences, thus, facilitating the court to administer justice to the victim.

Reference list

Desai, T. J. (2014). ISSUES INVOLVING CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATION. Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(9).

Douglas, J., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (2013). Crime classification manual: A standard system for investigating and classifying violent crime. John Wiley & Sons.

Duncan, C. D. (2015). Advanced crime scene photography. CRC Press.

Dutelle, A. W. (2016). An introduction to crime scene investigation. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Four, D., & Six, D. (2015). Crime scene investigation and reconstruction.

Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. L. (2016). Criminal investigation. Cengage Learning.

Kumar, M. V., Rayamane, A. P., Ahmed, N., & Patra, A. (2014). Technical Aspects of Crime Scene Photography. Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, 36(1), 68-71.

Nelson, B., Phillips, A., & Steuart, C. (2014). Guide to computer forensics and investigations. Cengage Learning.

Park, J. L., Kwon, O. H., Kim, J. H., Yoo, H. S., Lee, H. C., Woo, K. M., ... & Kim, Y. S. (2014). Identification of body fluid-specific DNA methylation markers for use in forensic science. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 13, 147-153.

Robertson, B., Vignaux, G. A., & Berger, C. E. (2016). Interpreting evidence: evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. John Wiley & Sons.

Robinson, E. M. (2016). Crime scene photography. Academic Press.

Saferstein, R. (2015). Forensic science: from the crime scene to the crime lab. Pearson.

Smith, P. A., Mound, S., Brown, N., Leonard, R., Lovell, C., & Bennett, S. (2017). Empirical approaches to improving the use of DNA in crime scene investigative practice. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 19(1), 54-60.

Yang, Y., Xie, B., & Yan, J. (2014). Application of next-generation sequencing technology in forensic science. Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 12(5), 190-197