Free «O. J. Simpson's Guilt and Forensics» UK Essay Sample

O. J. Simpson's Guilt and Forensics

Forensic science has recently acquired attention regarding the high profile and new evidence approaches presented. It has also contributed to the examination of criminal cases in which advanced methods have been analyzed for determining either guilt or innocence, overturning previous sentences. Therefore, this specifically concerns DNA testing and sampling, which have promoted new powerful methods used by police investigators in different felony cases. Owing to the fact that DNA testing is insufficient or pertinent for solving a crime, there are still other advances in the spheres of forensics, such as palynology and entomology. Moreover, the progress in forensic science had an influence on the O.J. Simpson case, which put doubts on the relevance and accuracy of the DNA tests due to the negligence of laboratory workers, who promoted the testing results on the DNA evidence, such as a blood sample.

Brief Overview of the Case

The O. J. Simpson case refers to the double murder of Simpson’s wife and a waiter. However, Simpson hired a powerful advocating team that proved that the DNA results were falsified as e consequence of the misconduct of the lab personnel, who mishandled the blood samples results due to the dirty gloves used during the analysis. However, the DNA testing is not always the key in understanding the motives and truth of the business. Hence, there could be additional lab outcome and crime scene investigations, which are able to provide a new outlook on the case. One way or another, the role of forensic science should not be underestimated.

Rethinking the Case and Evidence Analysis

By means of palynology, which is the evaluation of spores and pollen in criminal investigations, researchers can contribute to the forensic DNA by either supporting or withdrawing the people where a specific place is established. Under certain circumstances, pollen evidence could connect a person with a particular location, despite the fact that it could cover a broad region spreading over miles (Hunter, 2006). While referring to O.J. Simpson’s case, the testimony proves that the killer hid in the bushes beyond the house. In this situation, pollen from flowers nearby could have dropped off the assailants’ cloth. If discovered and tested, the finder with the traces of pollen could have helped to find Simpson guilty or innocent.

The O.J Simpson’s case, which started to unveil two decades ago, was a blip in Scheck’s career, who is also known as the organizer of Innocence Project, that takes advantage of forensic and DNA evidence. His work and findings helped others to understand the testimony and contributeto the criminal investigations (Hunter, 2006). Gathering the benefits of forensic science, it should be stressed that testing and laboratory results have the right to existence for promoting the new justice and reconsidering the previous crimes. In fact, O.J Simpson’s case is a watershed one, but in terms of what people suspect. Hence, there are different methods of presenting laboratory outcome or DNA testing. The case should not undermine the reliability of the DNA test, the focus should be made on the evidence, which are gathered and processed (Owen, 2014). The forensic science concentrates on the crime scene degradation, and there could not be any real arguments. When the samples were collected from the crime scene, particularly the blood drops, they were admitted to be inaccurate in the process of checking the item, which destroyed the validity of DNA testing, accounting for the cross-contamination by modern standards. The DNA prosecutors, however, were aware of the fact. Overall, in the Simpson’s case, the key issues regarding cross-contamination were evident, leading to the way people should process crime scene evidence (Bell, 2008). Furthermore, Simpson did nothing beneficial for developing race relations; he rather aggravated the problem. It has also spawned the long-term debates concerning the manner, in which celebrities took advantage of their popularity. According to Morrison (2014), the Simpson’s case started to reject all the stereotypes, causing the development of the new prejudices.

Once again, a bloody glove left on the crime scene, with the DNA results was compared with the data given by Goldman, Brown, and Simpson. The right hand glove was not found at first, but afterwards it was discovered in the bushes behind the Simpson’s house. A pair of socks was detected in Simpson’s owner bedroom and was documented on June 13. The couple of weeks later, the blood drops were defined on the socks and possessed Nicole Brown’s DNA type. At the same time, there were inconsistencies regarding the stains and the reasons for the discovery detected after the socks were found (Skelton, 2011). However, the suggestion was made that it was possible that the blood was not left during the crime, but after it together with the Simpson’s one. DNA results, therefore, should correlate with the chronics and logics of the deduction method. In the Simpson’s case, a range of blood drops were ratified and defined, the drops related to different combinations of blood with those of Brown, Simpson, and Goldman. After all, the three stains were gathered from the gates of Brown’s house, and despite officer’s presence during the murder night witnessed the stains, which had been there originally, the supporting team stated that these were planted (Bell, 2008).. The expert also argued that the EDTA has been found in these drops, what was also assured by the prosecution expert. In addition, the prosecution developed a specific body of evidence, which underscore the facts and laboratory results presented in the case.

Role of Forensics in Understanding the Case

The defense failed to undermine the DNA results directly. On the contrary, the case presented the position regarding the members of Los Angles with racial motivations, who framed Simpson. Their attacks focused on the problem of potential contamination as well as evidence planting and alteration. If any of these variants occurred, a reasonable doubt could have been expressed for raising Simpson’s reasonable guilt (Skelton, 2011). The months of court’s endless trials and media attention, the jury took a break for acquitting Simpson.

In fact, the implications for forensic science played a significant role in the court trial, and the community was split over the conduct of the scholars, particularly the experts. There is no matter regarding the misconduct in terms of investigation. However, the negligence is inevitable in a serious, complicated case (Skelton, 2011). The key concern here increases the substantiality of such mistakes. Furthermore, the trial highlighted important aspects with respect to the sophisticated nature of the case (Morrison, 2014). Due to the complicated analysis of the DNA results, the procedures, aimed at explaining the background and other evidence found during the investigation, became more difficult. The concern in the case refers to the jury who disregarded the DNA evidence because it was too complex to understand and consider. The issue aggravated the advances in forensic science, but the latter should still be used during other trials because DNA testing stands at the core of evidence examination.

Conclusion

Certainly, the O.J. Simpson’s case undermines the proficiency, relevance, and effectiveness of DNA testing. However, this assumption is false since the accuracy of results depends on the proficiency of the forensic officers who are responsible for the productiveness and precision. Therefore, Simpson’s guilt could have been proved, but for the negligence of the blood biologists who failed to deliver the high quality outcome. The combination of the strong advocating group and the reasonable doubt is quite applicable, however, not in the case with evidence detection because the blood test could not be mistaken since DNA is always accurate and unique. Forensics should be the foundation of all criminal investigations to promote the trial process and facilitate the analysis of evidence and testimonies.

Most popular orders

Preparing Orders

0

Active Writers

0

Support Agents

0

 
 
 

Special Offer!Use code first15 and

Special Offer - 15% off

Get 15% off your first order

Close
We are online - chat with us!