O J Simpson: Did He Do It?Join now to read essay O J Simpson: Did He Do It?Did OJ Simpson really do it? This question has a lot of controversy. Before OJ Simpson was arrested he was involved in a car chase with his friend Al Cowlings. Simpson was supposed to turn himself in but instead he kidnapped his friend in his truck and tried to flee threatening to kill himself while his friend drove. While this was happening Simpson’s lawyer read a letter to the media written by Simpson, “First everyone understand I had nothing to do with Nicoles murder. Dont feel sorry for me. Ive had a great life.” (Bosco 17) This almost sounds like a suicide note. Why write a suicide note if you’re innocent? The media got involved with this slow car chase and they got some of Simpsons friends to talk him into turning himself in. This car chase and everything involved was not brought up at all during the trial. Fleeing and threatening to kill himself seemed like a desperate act of guilt.
Simpson showed up at his first court appearance on June 21 and he pleaded not guilty to the two murders. A jury was formed right away to see if there was enough evidence to press charges on OJ Simpson. Two days later on June 23, the jury was dismissed because there was so much media coverage on this case and they did not want the jury to be influenced by it. The new jury was also likely to be influenced by the media. A week long hearing took place and finally a California court superior judge ruled that there was enough evidence to try OJ Simpson for the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. At his second court appearance, on July 23, Simpson pleaded in a confident and defiant tone: “Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty.”(Jones 4) Leading the murder investigation was veteran LAPD detective Tom Lange. What followed in 1995 were 134 days of televised testimony in a very public criminal trial. Many people in the trial became celebrities due to this exposure, including Judge Lance Ito. This court case was so famous that when a poll was done it showed that 74% of Americans could identify Kato Kaelin but only 25% knew who the Vice President was. (Jones 8) Another poll that showed results that 91% of the television viewing audience watched it and 142 million people listened on radio and watched television as the verdict was delivered. (Jones 8)
The trial began on January 25, 1995. Lead prosecutor Marcia Clark argued that Simpson killed his ex-wife in a jealous rage. The prosecution opened its case by playing a 9-1-1 call Nicole Brown Simpson had made on January 1, 1989 in which she expressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her. (Bosco 7) The prosecution also presented dozens of expert witnesses on subjects ranging from DNA fingerprinting to shoe print analysis, and what they concluded placed Simpson at the scene of the crime. A limousine driver, Allan Park, who was to drive Simpson to the LAX airport said that he could not contact anyone through the intercom at Simpsons gate when he arrived at 10:35 p.m. Around 10:50, he saw a large figure enter the house, some lights came on, and Simpson answered the gates intercom. They then loaded some bags into the limo and left for the airport at 11:15. (Jones 9) He also stated that he had seen a parked vehicle when they pulled away but he wasn’t sure. His testimony was rejected because of his uncertainty regarding the parked vehicle.
Simpson hired six very expensive, high-profile lawyers, including Barry Scheck, Robert Shapiro, Robert Kardashian, F. Lee Bailey, Johnnie Cochran, and Alan Dershowitz. Simpson’s lawyers argued that Simpson was the victim of police racism and they also argued that the evidence was not properly handled and was contaminated by several people. Simpsons defense team, who was later named the “Dream Team” by reporters, argued that LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman had planted evidence at the crime scene. Police evidence collector Dennis Fung also faced heavy scrutiny because he did not properly secure and collect the evidence.
In March, Fuhrman was called to the witness stand where he testified finding blood marks on the driveway of Simpsons home as well as a black leather glove on the premises which had blood of both murder victims on it. Fuhrman was cross examined by F. Lee Bailey, and was rigorously battered with questions about being racist. Fuhrman denied on the stand that he was racist or ever made any racist comments about black people in the ten years prior to this case. But a few months later, the defense found and played audio tapes for the jury that clearly showed Fuhrman using the word “nigger” repeatedly. (Bosco 6) The tape was made about a decade earlier by a young woman named Laura McKinny, who interviewed Fuhrman in 1986 for a story she was developing. These Fuhrman tapes became one of the cornerstones of the defenses case that Fuhrmans
s new defense counsel, Dalia F. DeBart, argued in F. Lee Bailey’s testimony: ————————————————————————— 8 The first four or five of the four arguments were based on Fuhrman’s assertion that a racial marker found on a black leather glove was not to the point where someone could be deemed a hate criminal. (Bosco 6) The following was based on Fuhrman’s allegation that Fuhrman said he didn’t say such things, for fear that something of significance might turn up. Fuhrman denied that he ever made such allegations, claiming the tape had nothing to do with the attack and that if police had found any DNA on her glove at the time of the crime he would never have committed the crime. Fighren. The record goes in Fuchar, Fuchars, Fuchar. (Bosco 6) Although Fuchar asserts that Fuhrman, to his credit, says something racist, this is no evidence of Fuhrmer’s intent. If there is something racist, it is not because Fuhrman would say something offensive. If there is no racism at all, it is a deliberate lie-the only way Fuhrman could have known that he was lying might have been by lying that he didn’t feel the need to use racial slurs to defend himself. Fuhrman, for your review, is an exceptional example of a person who has used racial slurs more aggressively than I do myself. His use of the racial slur I am using against another person would not be a crime if that’s what the person told me to do. (Bosco 6) Fuhrman denied ever doing this, and never even considering the possibility it might have been done by the police. Now to Fuhrman’s own defence, you said he said something racist and never thought it would turn out because he didn’t feel racial slurs were a need. Was this part of Fuhrmann’s argument about the way a white person would perceive this word and the meaning of that word? Fuhrmann denied he heard any derogatory remarks about blacks coming from his friend. Fuhrman said that he didn’t feel the need to speak that way, because he was afraid of being held to that standard. Fuhrman refused to say if it was something he would say publicly, or through other means. Fuhrman said he also didn’t want to risk getting some of the “racial slurs” that people like his friend and family are afraid of because he was scared of being blamed. He said he tried the first five or six times during the investigation with the assistance of his legal counsel to make sense of his situation and that he did try to keep himself and his family informed of the issue because he couldn’t justify making them hate crimes. Fuhrman’s defense attorneys did not bring this up during their brief testimony. They simply made something up at the start of the trial and then left it up to the defense to explain to them why they didn’t bring it up. This was done by defense attorneys such as D. Darragh, who argued unsuccessfully over the