Peter Moore: Crime scene blunders have repercussions

The American sports star, actor and convicted armed robber OJ Simpson has died. In 1995, in a televised trial, he was found not guilty of murdering his wife and her friend. Was this an appalling example of a miscarriage of justice or a reasonable verdict in the light of the evidence? It was probably both. 

Just after the case had made headlines around the world I was at a Police Surgeon conference. One of the speakers was an American lawyer who was involved in the case and so we heard the inside story. 

Two women were murdered and OJ Simpson escaped the scene leading to a televised car chase. 

We were shown the police photos. There was no attempt to seal off the crime scene or look for detailed forensic evidence. 

Close to one of the bodies was a large footprint. This should have provided important evidence. Could the police link this shoe to OJ? Was there trace evidence from the shoe? No. We were told that the first officer on the scene had walked from one body to the next and it was the officer’s footprint. This must have cross contaminated the scene and ruined much of the trace evidence. 

He then showed a picture of one of the bodies. Down her back were several drops of blood. These could not have been transferred directly from the fatal wounds. It was likely that the killer stood over her when blood dripped onto her back. Again this should have provided vital forensic evidence. The blood could even have been the killer’s blood. 

Amazingly both bodies were put into body bags, taken to the mortuary and washed down before being examined by any forensic scientist. To make it even worse they used body bags which had not been cleaned and so even if they found some trace evidence on the body there is no guarantee that the evidence came from this body.

The audience of police surgeons and forensic scientists would have laughed had we not been dealing with the tragic death of two young women. It made the Keystone cops look like Hercule Poirot. 

But why was a sophisticated western police force so incompetent? Sadly the answer lies in the inherent racism. The police saw it as an open and shut case. A black man killed two white women and then ran. All they needed to do was to arrest him and he would confess. Who needs detailed forensic evidence in such an obvious case? But this was a not an ordinary black man. Unlike most black people in Los Angeles, he could afford an expensive lawyer. He pleaded not guilty and there was very little objective forensic evidence. In the end the prosecution case rested on a pair of gloves found at the scene which did not fit his hands.

Some of the victim’s families sued in a civil case and won suggesting that he was guilty. 

In a criminal courts both here and in the US the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Although it is very likely he was a murderer with so little forensic evidence the jury were right to suggest that guilt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The incompetence of the investigation led to reasonable doubt.

In the civil case it only had to be proved on the balance of probabilities. On balance it is likely he was a murderer.

There is an important message for police forces around the world. Even in the most straightforward of cases it is vital to take care to collect all the forensic evidence. We have seen this in the recent case in Bradford when a woman pushing her baby was killed. The police immediately gave details of a man who was a person of interest. Although it appeared that the police were fairly sure who was responsible they still closed the area and systematically searched for trace evidence. 

After his sports career OJ Simpson found fame in the Naked Gun movies playing alongside Leslie Nielson, an incompetent detective. The final irony is that he also owed his short-term freedom to real life incompetent detectives.