DNA Fingerprint Identification - Research Paper Example

External Assignment Introduction The murder case of O. J. Simpson was regarded as a criminal case trialed against an individual d Orenthal James Simpson. The entire case was about him, a former sports celebrity of North America. He was considered to be involved in the murder of his ex-wife named ‘Nicole Brown’ and ‘Ronald Goldman’, his friend (A+E Television Networks, LLC., n.d.). The murder took place on 12th June 1994, when the dead bodies of the two were found in the entrance way of his ex-wife’s house. Based on the DNA evidences collected from the crime scene by the law and forensic authorities, Mr. Simpson was taken into custody suspected as a murderer (Associated Newspapers Ltd., 2012). The prime objective of this research paper is to review the above described case. Moreover, the research paper will also analyze about how the criminalist in this case handled the evidences and determine whether these were positively or negatively involved in the outcome of the case. Discussion Criminalist Approach to O. J. Simpson Murder Case In relation to the case of "People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson,” the forensic experts along with the criminalists gathered evidences specifically through DNA analysis techniques. During those days, DNA evidencing technique was quite popular and regarded as effective tool for law enforcement investigation departments in solving murder related crimes (Saferstein, 2010). The concept of DNA evidencing emerge with the idea that every individual possesses unique DNA structures except in the case of identical twins. DNA evidences can be extracted from multiple sources that include bones of victims, hair strands, teeth, blood and saliva sampling (James, 2012). During the trial of the ‘Orenthal James Simpson’ murder case, the first type of evidence, which came forward was about the DNA fingerprinting. This evidence was brought forward almost a year after the death of ‘Nicole Brown’ and ‘Ronald Goldman’ (Fingerprinting, 2014). Another law ignorance instance came up in front when Simpson refused to turn himself or surrender as per demanded by the local police forces (Hunt, n. d.). Moreover, through DNA analysis, the blood traces found in the crime scene were also confirmed to be similar to the blood traces found on the door of Simpson’s car (Associated Newspapers Ltd., 2012). Apart from these, the blood on the footprints matched with the shoe size of Mr. Simpson and on other articles found at the crime scene. Adding to this, the prosecution also brought forward the case evidence of a 9-1-1 call made by Simpson’s ex-wife as she feared that Simpson was tending to harm her physically (USA TODAY, 1996). Despite the presentation of all these overwhelming and factual evidences in front of the ‘Los Angeles Superior Court’, O. J. Simpson continued to plead himself as not being guilty. News also came up later about the claims made by prosecutorial attorneys of Mr. Simpson regarding certain sort of tampering with the DNA evidences by the lab technicians and scientists. Adding to that, ‘Johnnie Cochran’, who being a member of the defense team hired by O. J. Simpson also claimed about the faulty conducts made by the ‘Los Angeles Police Department’ (LAPD). The entire trial of O. J. Simpson was carried out in two courts. The first was the Los Angeles Court and the second one was the Santa Monica Courthouse (Chandler, 2013). Thus, the evidences relating to the case were handled in the above described ways and these were negatively involved in case outcome raising the controversy level at large. Impact of the Work of Criminalist and Forensic Scientists on the Case Outcome The efforts made by the criminalist and forensic scientists laid significant impact on the outcomes of this murder case. Previously, the defense team hired by Simpson made significant efforts towards convincing the jury that the LAPD and the lab scientists were mainly responsible for tampering the collected case evidences based on which Simpson was accused and thus must be declared as no-guilty (Chandler, 2013). The prosecution projected that O. J. Simpson was found driving off from the murder spot in his white Bronco car just five minutes after the murder incident was committed. As a reverse claim to this, the defense attorneys brought forward another witness who claimed to have seen a similar car like that of Simpson’s driving off from the crime scene at that same instance (USA TODAY, 1996). The defense attorneys also claimed that during the murder night, Simpson was alone in his house and did not went to his ex-wife’s place. Instead, Mr. Simpson was packing up for a trip to Chicago. As a reinforcing proof, the defense attorneys also tried to bring forward a Spanish housekeeping lady, who claimed that she saw Simpson’s car parked outside his house during the time of murder. However, through excessive cross-questioning to the lady by the prosecution side, she was forced to change her claim and thus her testimony was rejected from being taken into the jury’s notice. Later on, the Goldman and Brown family filed a compensatory charge against Mr. Simpson, which forced him to compensate both the families (Chandler, 2013). Moreover, the defense attorneys also stated that evidence tampering in Los Angeles is a common thing and adding to that, the LAPD Chief was considered as being racist and thus suspected of planting certain false evidences such as bloody gloves in the crime scene with the intention of diverting the case against Mr. Simpson (Chandler, 2013). In the context of the above described facts, certain evidences were revealed and a few of them were rejected. For instance, the evidence related to the similarity found in the murder weapon and the knife bought by Mr. Simpson was totally discarded, whereas the African-American hair strand found on the shirt of Simpson was considered as evidence (USA TODAY, 1996). Apart from this, the report about the help calls made by Simpson’s ex-wife about following and threatening her by Simpson was never raised in front of the court jury. Whereas, the bloody socks that were presented as murder evidences could not prove Simpson as guilty (Turner Entertainment Networks, Inc., 2014). Overall, the presentation of improper and falsified evidences finally resulted in proving O.J. Simpson as not being found guilty for the murder of his ex-wife ‘Nicole Brown’ and his friend ‘Ronald Goldman’. This projects the failure in following up of proper investigative procedure in this murder case. However, if proper evidence analysis would have been made, then the outcome of this case might have been different from the stated result (Associated Newspapers Ltd., 2012). Self-Opinion as a Criminalist Considering myself as a criminalist, I would have assumed that if proper evaluation and analysis of the DNA based evidences would have been done, then Orenthal James Simpson would have been surely found guilty for murdering his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman. However, due to the significant efforts made by the defense attorneys and through evidence tampering, a proper picturization of this murder case could not be achieved. Moreover, a proper summarization of the responses made by the initial investigation team also could not be attained since claims have been raised against the LAPD, laboratory scientists and technicians in terms of falsifying the collected evidences. In context to this case, if I was the criminalist, the entire situation could have been different. Initially, I would have conducted DNA analysis of the blood traces found on the vehicle of Mr. Simpson and the crime scene. The similarity found in the blood traces would have confirmed the presence of Simpson during the time of the murder. Next, I would have conducted a proper evaluation of the blood sample of Mr. Simpson with the blood traces found in the crime scene. The similarity relating to this case might have proved Simpson to be guilty (USA TODAY, 1996). However, this particular analysis was already practiced, but the authorities failed to justify it due to the claims made by the defense attorneys hired by Simpson in terms of tampering of the blood samples (University of Missouri, 2014). Afterwards, I would have tried to effectively link up all the testimonies made by every witness no matter for or against in order to obtain a clear picture of the case. Finally, I would have performed a lie detector test on Simpson in context to the case, which would have helped me in acquiring a clearer picturization of the entire happening. Conclusion As per the above analysis and discussion, it is to be affirmed that the judgment provided with reference to the case of Mr. Simpson murdering his ex-wife and his friend was totally flawed. The judgment would have been effective if the collected evidences were properly examined. Moreover, if the initial crime investigation police officers would have properly responded to the evidence collection process, then the evidence tampering would have been prevented. Due to the severe pressure laid down by the defense attorneys towards hiding of the original evidences, the case kept on stretching for a long duration. This extensively affected the families of both the murdered victims. References A+E Television Networks, LLC. (n.d.). O.J. Simpson biography. Retrieved from http://www.biography.com/people/oj-simpson-9484729 Associated Newspapers Ltd. (2012). OJ Simpson kept the knife he used to kill his wife Nicole and friend Ron Goldman and is now trying to sell it for $5 million. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219166/OJ-Simpson-kept-knife-used-kill-wife-Nicole-Ron-Goldman-trying-sell-5-MILLION.html Chandler, D. L. (2013). O. J. Simpson found not guilty in murder case on this day in 1995. Retrieved from http://newsone.com/2733566/o-j-simpson-acquitted/ Fingerprinting. (2014). DNA fingerprint identification. Retrieved from http://www.fingerprinting.com/dna-fingerprint-identification.php Hunt, D. (n.d.). O. J. Simpson facts & fictions: new rituals in the construction of reality. Southern California Studies Center University of Southern California, 2-4. James, N. (2012). DNA testing in criminal justice: background, current law, grants, and issues. Congressional Research Service, 1-3. Saferstein, R. (2010). Criminalistics: an introduction to forensic science. US: Prentice Hall PTR. Turner Entertainment Networks, Inc. (2014). The murder trial of O.J. Simpson. Retrieved from http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/billions_13.html USA TODAY, (1996). O. J. Simpson civil trial. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm University of Missouri. 2014. The trial of O. J. Simpson: the incriminating evidence. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html Read More