Real Crime Stories/Paranormal Hauntings

The O. J. Simpson Murder Trial (Part V)

Police conspiracy allegation

The defense initially only claimed that three exhibits were planted by the police but eventually argued that virtually all of the blood evidence against Simpson was planted in a police conspiracy. They accused prison nurse Thano Peratis, criminalists Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola, and Colin Yamauchi, and Detectives Philip Vannatter and Mark Fuhrman, of participating in a plot to frame Simpson. In closing arguments, Cochran called Fuhrman and Vannatter "twins of deception" and told the jury to remember Vannatter as "the man who carried the blood" and Fuhrman as "the man who found the glove."

EDTA

The only physical evidence offered by the defense that the police tried to frame Simpson was the allegation that two of the 108 DNA evidence samples tested in the case contained the preservative Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA. Ironically, it was the prosecution who asked to have the samples tested for the preservative, not the defense. The defense alleged that the drop of blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene, which matched Simpson, and the blood found on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom, which matched Nicole Brown, were planted by the police. In order to support the claim, the defense pointed to the presence of EDTA, a preservative found in the purple-topped collection tubes used for police reference vials, in the samples. On July 24, 1995, Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist who had analyzed results provided by FBI special agent Roger Martz, testified that the level of EDTA in the evidence samples was higher than that which is normally found in blood: this appeared to support the claim they came from the reference vials.

FBI special agent Roger Martz was called the defense on July 25, 1995 to testify that EDTA was present in the evidence samples, yet instead said he did not identify EDTA in the blood, contradicting the testimony given by Dr. Rieders the day before. Initially, he conceded the blood samples "responded like EDTA responded" and "was consistent with the presence of EDTA" but clarified his response after hearing during the lunch break that "everyone is saying that I found EDTA, but I am not saying that". When the defense accused their own witness of changing his demeanor to favor the prosecution, he replied "I cannot be entirely truthful by only giving 'yes' and 'no' answers". Martz stated that it was impossible to ascertain with certainty the presence of EDTA, as while the presumptive test for EDTA was positive, the identification test for EDTA was inconclusive. Martz also tested his own unpreserved blood and got the same results for EDTA levels as the evidence samples, which he said conclusively disproved the claim the evidence blood came from the reference vials. He contended that the defense had jumped to conclusions from the presumptive test results, while his tests had in fact shown that "those bloodstains did not come from preserved blood".

Blood planting

The defense alleged that 1.5 mLs of Simpson's blood was missing from his reference vial. Prison nurse Thano Peratis stated during a preliminary hearing that he had withdrawn approximately 8 mLs of blood from Simpson. However, lab records showed only 6.5 mLs was accounted for. Gregory Matheson at the Los Angeles Police Crime Lab responded that Peratis never documented how much was actually drawn from Simpson so it is not a fact that any blood is actually missing. The prosecution then offered a video of Peratis stating he had made a mistake and believed he only drew approximately 6.5 mLs, as the records showed. The defense challenged the admissibility of this video because it was not under oath but Judge Ito allowed it because Peratis was hospitalized at the time and unable to appear in court. In closing arguments, the defense accused Thano Peratis of being part of a "cover-up" to protect Vannatter.

Back gate

The defense alleged that Simpson's blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene was planted by the police. The blood on the back gate was collected on July 3, 1995, rather than June 13, the day after the murders. The volume of DNA on that blood was significantly higher than the other blood evidence collected on June 13. The volume of DNA was so high that the defense conceded that it could not be explained by contamination in the lab, yet noted that it was unusual for that blood to have more DNA on it than the other samples collected at the crime scene, especially since it had been left exposed to the elements for several weeks and after the crime scene had supposedly been washed over. On March 20, 1995 Detective Vannatter testified that he instructed Fung to collect the blood on the gate on June 13 and Fung admitted he had not done so. The defense suggested the reason why Fung did not collect the blood is because it was not there that day; Scheck showed a blown-up photograph taken of the back gate on June 13 and he admitted he could not see it in the photograph.