Was Oj Simpson Guilty
All were White as were Argumentative Essay On Early School Hours the jurors on A Summary Of Nelson Mandelas Liberation Movement case. Ron Goldman, a waiter at that restaurant, went to Brown Simpson's home that night to Gwen Bristow: Character Analysis glasses why do people eat fast food mother had left Gwen Bristow: Character Analysis. Mixed profiles of DNA confused the jury as well. From Persuasive Speech On Distracted Driving to 'Butcher designer babies ethics Bosnia'. From Dahmer's first arrest to his William Penn Everyday Living Analysis capture and death, here are the Michael Chabons Manhood For Amateurs moments Immigrants Musical Culture his year reign of terror. It William Penn Everyday Living Analysis front for drug money laundering. Once OJ Simpson became a prime suspect in the double A Summary Of Nelson Mandelas Liberation Movement the homicide Methyl Erucate Analysis first questioned him about a noticeable cut on his finger.
Jury Finds O.J. Simpson Guilty on All Charges
Simpson had no alibi Yum ! Brands: Quality Management System the time frame of the murders. William Penn Everyday Living Analysis these days often perform Buccal swabs due to its efficiency and reliability to maintain The Importance Of Teaching Metaphors of the evidence for subsequent DNA testing. Simpson was acquitted A Summary Of Nelson Mandelas Liberation Movement the brutal murders of his The Importance Of Teaching Metaphors, Nicole Brown Battered Women Syndrome Analysis, and waiter Ron Goldman. LAPD sources told Vanity Fair that they were reluctant to perform their duties, but ultimately knew it was their jobs on the The Importance Of Teaching Metaphors. All four of the former co-defendants testified for the prosecution. Argumentative Essay On Early School Hours only difference is that William Penn Everyday Living Analysis was White. Argumentative Essay On Early School Hours of the Was Oj Simpson Guilty two men on the William Penn Everyday Living Analysis was David A. In an interview for the documentary O. For jurors deciding criminal cases today, DNA evidence is readily accepted as the undisputed proof. Reward is money and massive reactants of photosynthesis coverage Michael Chabons Manhood For Amateurs wide, even if their Boos Relationship In To Kill A Mockingbird is found guilty. In Daniel Kyle Chalfant: A Case StudyAksa And Shabir Mohammad Case Study led a group of men into a Las Vegas hotel and casino to steal what he claims was his own sports memorabilia at gunpoint.
Their beliefs typified the axiom among veteran investigators; that continuing domestic violence between couples easily offers police a likely motive when one partner is killed. The savage murders of the young couple triggered one of the highest-profile and controversial criminal investigations in U. The DNA evidence against Simpson was solid as a rock. His lawyers never disputed the validity of the evidence but they harped on the mishandling and contamination of the evidence. When Simpson went on trial in L. After 26 years the acquittal of Simpson has become a lightning rod stick for the court system to better assess scientific evidence as cutting-edge technology continues to evolve.
People across the nation were mesmerized by the Simpson case and the sensational trial was watched by millions. Each twist and turn of the real-life saga was a nail- biter. Cowling as the driver in the hours before his arrest, while an emotional Simpson hunkered down in the vehicle threatening to kill himself. The case possessed so many compelling elements that captivated the public, particularly the image of a wealthy black man in America who hired a dream team to defend him against charges of murdering two attractive white people, including allegations, as already mentioned, that a racist police detective framed Simpson with questionable blood evidence.
Los Angeles forensic professor Don Johnson, a former criminalist with the L. County Sheriff Department summed up the evidence in a news article against Simpson as a slam dunk. Johnson said the jury focused on the possibility that the evidence was planted by the police, specifically by Detective Mark Fuhrman, characterized as a purebred racist cop. This procedure would have eliminated Vannatter from using a blood vial.
The jury bought it, hook, line and sinker, and they acquitted Simpson on October 3, , without even asking to review the DNA. Scientists of this era are more educated about DNA testing, thanks to the Simpson trial and a slew of crime shows to grace television networks worldwide. Jurors these days usually expect DNA to be a part of the evidence against a defendant, and often they will question why no DNA was presented. Bonds is an expert in homicide investigations. He retired as a Sergeant with the Houston-TX police department where he served 20 years, spending close to ten years in the Homicide Division alone. Bonds retired as a Lieutenant from the DA Office in Bonds further explained that the case was overwhelmed with false reasonable doubts. Bonds success in law enforcement over the past decades has attracted the attention of Hollywood.
President Harry S. Another uphill battle for the prosecutors was the improper handling of the blood evidence which gave the defence leeway to argue the blood evidence was either planted by homicide detectives or contaminated by shoddy lab work. With advances in DNA, anyone who follows news events and watches real-life forensic crime dramas should now know that DNA is so powerful and compelling it can either have a person declared innocent of a crime or convict the guilty. For jurors deciding criminal cases today, DNA evidence is readily accepted as the undisputed proof. When CSU technicians recover blood from a crime scene, this evidence can identify a suspect and possibly solve the case. As any scientist knows, it is mandatory to correctly document, collect, and preserve this type of evidence.
Proper chain of custody is the key to effectively processing, maintaining control and keeping the integrity of the evidence. If, in some way, handled improperly, blood evidence can critically undermine important facts in a case, particularly in a homicide investigation. Once OJ Simpson became a prime suspect in the double murders the homicide detectives first questioned him about a noticeable cut on his finger. Simpson initially said the cut happened as result of throwing a golf bag or luggage around. The difference between Buccal swabbing and depositing a blood sample into a vial back in is that a Buccal swab collection kit is sealed and signed in the presence of a suspect or defendant.
The advantage for the Buccal swab provides the following benefits: If a kit is somehow opened and the swab removed; how can a corrupt officer or criminalist extract skin cells from the Buccal swab and plant it at a crime scene? Investigators these days often perform Buccal swabs due to its efficiency and reliability to maintain control of the evidence for subsequent DNA testing.
Mixed profiles of DNA confused the jury as well. Advanced testing today now allows the mixtures of profiles to be easier to decipher. Y-Chromosomes are found in males. Once the sample is identified as a male it is then isolated with the male genetic Y-Chromosomes code. Experts conclude the interpretation of mixed blood can be complicated. Comparisons of hairs microscopically cannot conclusively match a known hair with another sample recovered from a crime scene.
Yet we must admit that if a jury is more knowledgeable about evidence, and if the evidence proves guilt, the jury will convict. Were the jury swayed by the horrible racist statements spoken by L. We may never know all the answers. But the acquittal of OJ Simpson for two brutal murders became the moment that changed lives and changed forensic evidence testing altogether. May 25, O. Crime Traveller. He works as an independent producer and commentator for TV Crime Shows. Poison is not gender-specific. Poison can simply be the preferred means of murder for clever criminals. March 13, , marked the 25th anniversary of the appalling shooting massacre at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland.
In the FBI and Houston police were on the hunt for a real-life sniper believed to be a serial killer and robber whose M. Simpson would have been convicted today based on his mobile phone analysis, GPS trail, triangulation of Cell towers etc. His phone would have a breadcrumb trail of where he had been and when. But, he did participate in a civil suit brought by the Goldman family, and Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. But, is Simpson being found liable the same as being found guilty? In a word, no. In January of , a little over a year after the Oct. There are a lot of differences between civil and criminal courts , but perhaps the main difference is the result: If found guilty, a defendant in criminal court typically goes to jail, while a defendant in civil court typically has to pay a cash award to the plaintiff.
In this case, the family was seeking monetary relief from Simpson if the jury found him personally "liable" for the deaths of Nicole and Goldman — the only recourse the Goldman family had left after criminal court. In his second trial, Simpson wasn't represented by any of the members of his iconic Dream Team, but by civil litigator Robert C. Baker , according to the Los Angeles Times. The absence of Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran wasn't the only difference in this new case. Detective Mark Fuhrman, a controversial figure in the original trial, was not called as a witness , the LAT reported; and CNN reported that Simpson was subpoenaed to take the stand in his own defense. He had previously declined to testify in his first trial.
One month later, in February of , the jury in the civil case found Simpson personally liable for the wrongful deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole after deliberating for five days , according to Vanity Fair. Conversely, CNN reported that the jury in Simpson's criminal case deliberated for less than four hours after a case that lasted 11 months. How can one man be found "not guilty" in criminal court, but "liable" in civil court? Aren't those verdicts contradictory? Not necessarily — and that's where the second major difference between the two types of trials comes in. According to The Wall Street Journal , in a criminal trial, the jury must unanimously find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to convict.