Murder in Brentwood (20 page)

THE
 
BRONCO

1. Blood drop matching Simpson’s found on drivers door interior, and in two places on instrument panel.

2. Blood on the steering wheel matched a mixture of Simpson’s and Nicole’s.

3. Blood on center console matched Simpson’s.

4. More blood on center console matched both Simpson s and Goldman’s.

5. Blood on drivers side wall matched Simpson’s.

6. Blood on carpet matched Nicole’s.

7. Several blood samples on center console matched Simpson’s, Ron’s, and Nicole’s together.

Although most of the evidence consisted of undocumented personal belongings, the Bronco is irrefutably tied to Simpson. What makes the Bronco crucial to the case is that Simpson admitted driving it the day before, told Vannatter and Lange that he had bled in it, and it was not at the Rockingham estate when Allan Park arrived at 10:20 P.M.

Not only does the Bronco contain blood from Simpson, it also contains blood from Nicole and Ron. How could Simpson ever explain the presence of Ron Goldman’s blood inside his car?

The above is yet another piece of evidence that has the blood of all three parties. It is another unexplainable circumstance; it is another piece of evidence which Simpson or the defense team never successfully explained. One of F. Lee Bailey’s theories was that I not only supposedly daubed blood: on the exterior door, but then entered the Bronco and smeared blood in various places. The evidence says otherwise. Not only could I not isolate blood between Simpson and the two victims, but where the blood is and who it belongs to is consistent with how it was transferred there.

The blood on the steering wheel matched a mixture of Simpson’s and Nicole’s. We know his left hand was injured and ungloved, and the right hand was gloved and has blood from both victims’ and himself. The blood on the center console matched Simpson s and Goldman’s, more evidence that it was from the right glove. There were other blood samples that matched both victims’ and Simpson’s, clearly from the right-handed glove. Conversely, the one place where Simpson’s blood is absent of either victims is on the driver’s door interior surfaces and on the instrument panel-he had to turn on the headlights. His left hand is bleeding. The blood on the carpet matched Nicole’s, consistent with the evidence that the murderer walked in Nicole’s blood and left bloody shoeprints trailing toward the alley.

BLOOD EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM

1. Blood on the glove matched Ron’s.

2. Four blood samples on a sock. Two matched Nicole’s, and two matched Simpson’s.

3. Blood drops in the foyer matched Simpson’s.

4. Blood trail on the driveway matched Simpson’s.

The Rockingham estate provided the Rockingham glove and an unchallenged corroborative source of the deposit of the glove by Kato Kaelin. Although the theory of the planted glove got a lot of press, nobody seemed to care who caused the thumps that Kaelin heard. It certainly wasn’t me. And Kaelin had no reason to make it up. This at least was one aspect of his testimony that was irrefutable, and interestingly, he was never pressured to change it.

The reasoning was twofold. The defense wanted a reason to put me back behind Kato’s bungalow, when I would have had an opportunity to plant the glove. Knowing full well that my early interrogation of Kaelin, corroborated by other detectives, could not eliminate his statement, they had to use it to their advantage. Yet, they never answered the question: Who made the thumps on the wall? In a gated residence in an upscale community at the same time a limo was in the driveway and lights were on in the house, these thumps sounded so suspicious that Kato went out to investigate, and was even scared to walk down the path. Despite these suspicions, Simpson decided not to call the police or even his private security firm. Simpson was emphatic that he didn’t want Kato to call the police or Westec. Later, calling Kato from the limo, Simpson told him to turn the alarm back on, something he’ had never asked Kato to do before. If anyone but Simpson himself caused the thumps, wouldn’t he have wanted them investigated?

SIMPSON’S OWN EVIDENCE

Simpson’s own doctor testified that the defendant had seven abrasions and three cuts on his left hand. A left-handed glove was found at the Bundy scene. Is this more than a coincidence, considering all the aforementioned evidence?

Let’s review Simpson s various explanations of how these injuries occurred:

1. Rushing to get ready for his trip to Chicago, maybe cut on a coat hanger.

2. Retrieving his cellular phone from the Bronco before his departure for Chicago.

3. Chipping golf balls just before he left for Chicago.

4. Cutting himself on a broken glass in Chicago.

Looking at these possibilities, I see one stark contradiction. Most of these would be right-handed functions. After all, Simpson is right-handed. During any of these activities, he might have received a cut on his right hand. Simpson’s right hand did not have any cuts or abrasions. A right-handed glove was found at Rockingham.

How do we explain three cuts and seven abrasions on his left hand, but nothing on his right? I find it hard to believe that anyone cuts himself on a coat hanger. I never considered golf a dangerous contact sport. And picking up a cellular flip phone from a car seldom results in bloodshed. The only reasonable explanation is the broken glass in Chicago. Maybe he did cut himself in Chicago-but a total of ten different injuries from one broken glass?

If the only plausible explanation for Simpson’s cuts occurred in Chicago the morning after the murders, why did he admit to Vannatter and Lange that he bled in his Bronco, on his property, and in his house the night of the murders? Where did that blood come from? By Simpson’s own admission, he was either attacked by a golf club, assaulted by a coat hanger, a cellular phone bit him, or a broken glass flew across the room and cut his hand. This is the most accident-prone man on earth. Is there anyone else in America who, within twelve hours, could suffer three cuts and seven abrasions to one hand, bleed in his house, car, on his property, and in a hotel room in another state, yet not remember how he cut himself?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

While the defense attorneys dismissed a lot of this evidence as circumstantial, in fact it was much, much more than what usually convicts other defendants.

Vince Bugliosi makes the point that circumstantial evidence is not a chain, but a rope. “And each fact is a strand of that rope.... If one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished” (Outrage, p. 215). Such is the case with the circumstantial evidence against Simpson. The level of coincidence for all these events to have different explanations other than Simpson’s committing the murders is simply beyond reasonable belief.

There are only two kinds of evidence, circumstantial and eyewitness. Circumstantial includes physical and scientific evidence. With eyewitnesses, you have victim(s) or other people who viewed the crime or the suspect.

Having interviewed thousands of people who observed the commission of a crime, there’s one thing that I’ve learned. Eyewitness testimony is sometimes weak, conflicting, or confused. The circumstantial evidence that we had in this case had no agenda, no opinion, nothing to live up to, and did not have an ego. It was based on scientific facts that even the defense would have to admit were irrefutable. Had the defense found the same type of evidence to exonerate Simpson, their argument would have been completely reversed. But they had not one piece of eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence or even a believable story.

THE “ALIBI”

The most obvious alibi that Simpson could claim is that he was in Chicago or en route to Chicago at the time of the murders. This is why the defense tried to establish the time of death of both victims after 11:00 P.M. But they couldn’t. And Simpson had no alibi or even a consistent story about where he was and what he was doing between 10 and 11 P.M. on the night of June 12, 1994.

The defense’s attempt, through the flawed testimony of Rosa Lopez, to put the Bronco curbside on Rockingham prior to 10:00 P.M. is another example of their creating an alibi where one didn’t exist.

As Allan Park testified, he drove down Rockingham, and at 10:22 the white Bronco was not there. At 10:40 P.M., Park began ringing the buzzer at the gate, which caused a phone to ring inside the house, a phone that could be heard all the way out on the street and no doubt could be heard clearly throughout the house. Park continued ringing until shortly after 10:54 P.M. Park buzzed once again, and it was finally answered by Simpson, who claimed he had overslept and just gotten out of the shower. At this time, the Bronco was now parked on Rockingham.

As previously described, Simpson’s claim as to how he injured his hand is in actuality part of his alibi. After all, he was (a) playing golf, (b) getting his cellular phone from the Bronco, or (c) getting ready to leave for Chicago. I thought he had overslept. Did he cut himself sleeping, too?

Had Simpson been sleeping, does he sleep so soundly that he does not hear a phone ringing for fourteen minutes? Why did he hear the phone only after Allan Park saw the figure in the doorway?

The reason is obvious. Simpson wasn’t in the house. He never went out to the Bronco to get his cellular phone, he never chipped golf balls, and he did not cut himself packing. While Park was trying to ring him, Simpson was at the murder scene.

CONCLUSION

Together, there were 488 exhibits presented by the prosecution in the trial, and every piece of their evidence pointed to O.J. Simpson. While the defense made a lot of noise about Colombian hitmen and mysterious accomplices, they didn’t find one scrap of evidence indicating that anyone other than Simpson had been at the murder scene.

Confronted with all this evidence, I simply can’t believe how anyone could not conclude that Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While there were problems with the handling and preservation of evidence, the sheer mass of incriminating evidence makes it impossible to believe that all of it was either analyzed incorrectly or planted.

The prosecution was right in saying there was a mountain of evidence. In fact, there was a Mt. Everest of evidence-and all of it pointed to O.J. Simpson. All that was necessary was that the evidence be carefully documented, collected, and analyzed-and then used effectively at the trial. But it wasn’t.

Part Two

THE TRIAL

Chapter 14

THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

The prosecution just couldn’t keep it sharp and simple. It was like they were never sure how to say what they needed to tell us... mostly their presentation was truly pathetic; sloppy, badly organized, and rarely eloquent even when the evidence itself was powerful.

JUROR MICHAEL KNOX

OPENING ARGUMENTS in the trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman began on January 23, 1995. Because I was ordered not to watch the trial, I didn’t. Only later did I review transcripts of the opening statements. From the onset, this was not prosecuted as a brutal double murder, because the defendant was O.J. Simpson. There should have been fire and brimstone in Marcia’s voice during her opening statements. She should have pointed at Simpson and shouted his guilt, telling the jury to look into the eyes of the murderer.

Instead, she gave a testament to Simpson s status in the world, and expressed regret for prosecuting him. Reading some of Marcia’s opening statement, I could have sworn she was arguing for the defense. Its tough to make a believable accusation of murder when you’re busy smiling and apologizing. The jury wasn’t stupid. They knew who Simpson was, and they knew Marcia was a prosecutor. She didn’t have to apologize for doing her job. This was silly, unnecessary, and done just for the cameras.

Once the case was under way, this weak-willed attitude was directed not only to the defendant, but to the evidence itself. Several pieces of evidence were abandoned because they seemed too difficult to track down, prove, or explain. The prosecution had so much incriminating evidence, they were like little children on Christmas morning who just couldn’t figure out which package to open first. Yet, once all the packages were opened, they played with only a few of the toys. Throughout the trial, the prosecution used evidence selectively, ignoring anything that didn’t fit their neat theories or couldn’t be explained without more extensive investigation.

Twenty years of policework have taught me this: You have to listen to the evidence and follow where it leads. While you might have theories about the way a crime occurred, you never want to commit your case to a single chain of events until you have strong and convincing evidence that this is the only reasonable probability.

During the investigation, the Robbery/Homicide detectives did not pursue many potential leads because they were overwhelmed by the case and wedded to a certain chain of events. They locked themselves into specific theories about how the murders occurred, and their devotion to these theories blinded them to other possibilities. Their need to figure out exactly what happened made it impossible for them to discover what really did occur.

The prosecution made similar mistakes in the trial. Clearly, they, like just about everybody else involved in the case, were intimidated by the celebrity defendant. The first witnesses in the prosecution’s case were domestic violence witnesses. The prosecution didn’t think they could prove Simpson’s guilt unless they could show a strong motive and change the jury’s image of a popular sports hero and celebrity into a man capable of killing two people with a knife. This is why they presented the case against Simpson as a domestic violence case that involved murder, rather than a murder case in which the suspect was also a wife-beater.

They did not present the far more credible theory of a love triangle murder (even if the triangle existed only in Simpson s mind), because they didn’t think the jury would be sympathetic to a couple of victims who might have been sleeping together.

They did not think they could convince the jury that Simpson had opportunity unless they nailed the time of the murders down to the minute.