MACRO ANALYSIS
KEY-LISTS:
- It was Simpson who murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
- Simpson had an established and existing motive to kill Nicole.
- The series of Simpson’s violence directed at Nicole.
- A history of violence shows that a person has an established motive to kill another.
- Simpson had beaten Nicole at his home on New Year’s night.
- A person who beats his wife inhumanely can kill her.
- Nicole had escaped from Simpson’s violence.
- Nicole was hiding to save her life from Simpson in the bushes in the darkness at about 4:00 a.m.
- Police officer Edwards testimony to this effect
- Nicole was covered in mud at about 4:00 a.m.
- Nicole was wearing a bra and pyjamas.
- A person who is physically tortured by her husband can hide herself to avoid violence.
- Simpson had inflicted injuries on Nicole.
- Nicole had cuts on her face.
- Nicole had a cut to the right side of her upper lip.
- Nicole had a swollen left cheek.
- Nicole had a bruise on the right side of her forehead.
- Nicole had incurred Simpson’s hand prints during the fights.
- Nicole had a hand print on the left side of her neck.
- Nicole had a hand print on the left side of her throat.
- This is the same hand that cut that same throat and same neck on 12 June in 1994.
- Christopher Darden testimony to this effect.
- A person who has grabbed a woman by the neck, hard enough, would leave an imprint around her neck in the shape of his hand.
- A hand print on the body usually shows physical abuse by another person.
- Nicole made a 911 call at the time of the violence.
- The 911 operator had recorded the background noise while Nicole was being beaten.
- Sharon Gilberts testimony to this effect.
- A person makes a 911 call due to spousal abuse when the situation becomes very serious.
- Nicole had known that one day Simpson would eventually kill her.
- Nicole framed the injuries Simpson had inflicted on her.
- This is a road map that Nicole left to let people know who had killed her.
- Nicole had photographs of her injuries as important evidence.
- A person takes photos of her injuries when she considers serious threats to her life.
- Nicole put these photographs in a safe deposit box along with her will and letters.
- Mike Stevens testimony to this effect.
- A person puts the things in a safe deposit box which are important to her.
- Simpson humiliated Nicole in public in 1989
- Simpson had grabbed Nicole’s crotch in front of a bar full of strangers.
- Denise Brown’s testimony to this effect.
- This is very crazy conduct.
- Simpson had caused criminal damage to Nicole’s property.
- Simpson had broken Nicole’s Mercedes windshield in 1985.
- Nicole was very upset and panicked.
- Detective Mark Fuhrman testimony to this effect.
- Nicole had cried as a result of her husband’s violent behaviour.
- This situation shows where a vulnerable person has no means to protect herself from her violent husband.
- Simpson kicked Nicole’s door down in 1993.
- A person who intentionally causes criminal damages to another’s property when he intends to harm her.
- Simpson had interfered with Nicole’s private life on different occasions.
- Simpson had stalked Nicole.
- Simpson had looked through Nicole’s window.
- Mr Colby testimony to this effect.
- Simpson had walked down the sidewalk towards Nicole’s window.
- It was around 11:00 p.m. on 28th April 1992.
- This is very obsessive conduct.
- This is a crazy act when a person comes up to another’s window at 11:00 p.m.
- Simpson had become crazy to get back with Nicole.
- Simpson had attempted to convince Nicole to take him back
- Simpson had tried to give Nicole the impression that next time things would be better.
- A person who is pathologically jealous can attempt to get his wife back in order to torture her in future.
- The series of violence carried out by a person, shows that he is a very violent person
- Simpson had an innocent explanation for the violence that took place between them.
- Since 1989 to Nicole’s death no physical violence had taken place between them.
- Johnnie Cochrane testimony to this effect
- A married person can have an amicable fight with his wife in their marital life.
- Simpson did not have any motive to kill Nicole.
- Simpson was not in a murderous rage.
- Simpson sounded even happier than usual at 9 p.m on June 12th
- Simpson’s doctor testimony to this effect.
- A person can not kill another when he is not in a murderous rage.
- Simpson had loved his wife.
- Nicole was mother of his children.
- Simpson had wanted to ensure a better future for his children.
- Simpson testimony to this effect.
- Simpson and Nicole were in a very healthy 17 year relationship.
- Simpson and Nicole had been having dates in order to start their family life again.
- A person who loves his wife can not hold any motive to kill her
- Simpson’s opportunity in time and place was almost exclusive.
- The suitability of time and place make it easier for a person to carry out killings when he intends to kill another.
- Simpson knew the perfect time to attack Nicole.
- Simpson had up to date knowledge when Nicole would be home alone with the children.
- Marsha Clark testimony to this effect.
- Simpson knew when the children would be safely out of the way.
- Simpson knew about the children’s bed time.
- A person who has frequent access to another’s home would know the other persons movement.
- The children were asleep at the time the murders were committed.
- Robert Riskes testimony to this effect.
- Simpson was outside his Rockingham residence at the time the killings took place.
- Simpson’s Bronco was not parked at his Rockingham residence.
- Bronco was not seen between 9:30-9:45.
- Charles Cale testimony to this effect.
- Bronco was not present at Rockingham between10:22 p. m – 10:30 p.m.
- Allan Parks testimony to this effect.
- The time frame is reasonable for a person to carry out the killings.
- Simpson attempted to call from his Bronco.
- Simpson tried to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone at 10:02 p.m.
- The real evidence to this effect.
- This attempt shows that a person is in the car rather than in his home.
- Simpson was not at his home at the time Allan rang the bell.
- Simpson had taken a long time to respond to his home intercom.
- A person who was present at home would respond to the intercom within a reasonable time.
- There was no response from Simpson’s intercom at about 10:40, 10:43, 10:49 p.m.
- Simpson answered the bell at about 10:55 p. m after Allan had rung the bell four times.
- Simpson lied about his presence at home to Allan Park at about 10:55 p.m.
- A person lies about his presence at home to another when he wants to hide something very serious.
- Simpson was seen on the driveway wearing dark clothes.
- Simpson had walked across the driveway into his residence at about 10:54 p.m.
- First downstairs and then upstairs lights came on inside the house.
- Simpson thumps on the wall at the Rockingham home.
- Three thumps on the wall outside the room at about 10:51 or 10:52 p.m.
- Kato Kaelins testimony to this effect.
- A person tries to get into the house without being seen can thump on the wall.
- Ronald had upset Simpson’s plans.
- Simpson had taken longer to carry out the killings than the anticipated time frame.
- A person can take longer time than expected if he plans to kill one individual but instead he has to kill two.
- Simpson had to return in a hurry from Bundy to Rockingham.
- Simpson knew that Allan would be waiting for him outside his home.
- It was not Simpson who had the opportunity time and place to commit the murders.
- There was not enough time for Simpson to kill two athletic people.
- The killings were carried out at about 10: 40 p.m.
- The struggle between the killer and the victims had lasted from five to 15 minutes.
- Nicole’s dog had started to bark between 10:35 and 10:40 p.m.
- Michael Baden’s testimony to this effect.
- A dog can bark at the time of the killings.
- There were three thumps on the wall at the Rockingham home between 10:40 and10:45 p.m.
- Simpson had a word with Allan Park at about 10:55 p.m. from his home.
- The series of reasons suggest Simpson had insufficient time to carry out the killings.
- Simpson didn’t go back to the alley for a second time to look for a missing hat and glove.
- A person who has to walk slowly from the scene and return to the crime scene in order to look for a missing hat and glove can take longer time.
- Simpson didn’t drive more than five minutes to Rockingham after committing the murders.
- None had heard or seen Simpson during the drive.
- There were no bloody clothes found at Simpson’s house.
- No murder weapons were found at Simpson’s house.
- A person sometimes needs to hide his bloody clothes and knives after committing the murders, along the way.
- It is impossible for a person to carry out the killing of two athletic people within this little limited time frame.
- Collected evidence exclusively inferred that the killer was Simpson.
- Simpson’s blood was consistent with the killer’s blood.(See micro analysis)
- The hairs found were consistent with Simpson’s hairs.
- The hairs collected from the crime scene are consistent with a person who kills the victims.
- Simpson’s hairs were found on Ronald’s shirt.
- Hairs were transferred due to contact between Simpson and Ronald that night during the murders.
- Simpson and Ronald didn’t have any contact before the murders were committed.
- Hairs from one person do not appear on another person’s clothes without any contact.
- The hairs were unsoiled on Ronald’s shirt.
- There were no stray hairs lying around in the soil
- The hairs were not contaminated.
- An unsoiled hair can be transferred to a person when he has contact with another.
- Nicole’s hairs were found on Ronald’s shirt
- Ronald got Nicole’s hairs on him from Simpson.
- The hairs were initially transferred onto Simpson from Nicole due to the attack on her.
- A person who has already got hairs on him from one of the victims can transfer them onto the second victim at the time when the killing takes place.
- Hairs were found on Simpson’s cap.
- There were nine naturally shed hairs found inside the cap.
- The hairs were in good condition.
- There can be hairs inside the cap from the person who wears the cap.
- The hairs may not be Simpson’s hairs
- Fragments of hair found inside the cap were not consistent with Simpson’s hairs.
- The hairs were from someone of black origin rather than Simpson.
- Deedrick’s testimony to this effect.
- The hairs were chemically treated.
- A person who has worn the cap left the fragments inside the cap.
- Fibres were found on Simpson’s cap at Bundy residence.
- Fibres were consistent with the carpet from the Bronco.
- Fibres found on a cap at the crime scene can have been transferred from the carpet of the killer’s car.
- The fibres were from the trilobal cross section.
- The fibres were of an unusual nature.
- The blue black cotton fibres found were consistent with Simpson’s black cotton sweat suit.
- Simpson was wearing the dark blue to black cotton sweat suit with long sleeves on the night in question.
- The blue black cotton fibres were found on Simpson’s socks.
- Simpson left cotton fibres over those socks by wearing that sweat suit.
- There was some contact between the bottoms of Simpson’s sweat suit and his socks, whilst pulling his pants up.
- Fibre from one piece of clothing can be transferred to another, when a person wears cotton sweat suit.
- Cotton fibres were found on Ronald’s shirt.
- Cotton fibres were consistent with Simpson’s sweat suit.
- Simpson left fibres from his sweat suit on Ronald’s shirt when he had attacked him
- Fibres from one person’s clothes can be transferred to another person’s clothes during the attack.
- Blue black cotton fibres were found on a glove at Rockingham.
- The cotton fibres were consistent with Simpson’s sweat suit.
- The glove was in Simpson’s pocket.
- The glove picked up the fibre when it fell out from Simpson’s pocket.
- A person who is in a hurry after committing the murders can put gloves in his pocket.
- Whilst a person was running down a pathway with a glove in his pocket, the glove can pick up fibres from his clothing.
- Fibres found on the glove at Rockingham were consistent with the carpet from the Bronco.
- Simpson had left gloves at the crime scene.
- Simpson had lost a left glove at Bundy and a right one at his residence.
- Gloves can be left at the crime scene by a person in a hurry after committing murders.
- The glove size was extra large.
- The extra large size fit Simpson well.
- Nicole bought a pair of Aris Light extra large gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale’s.
- Simpson had worn Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.
- The gloves are smaller now than when they were new.
- Blood had soaked into the gloves.
- Rubin testimony to this effect.
- A pair of gloves can shrink when soaked in blood and had time to dry out.
- The gloves were not Simpson’s.
- The gloves didn’t fit Simpson.
- The gloves were smaller.
- The gloves would not fit a person who is not involved with the killings.
- Simpson’s blood stained shoe prints were found at Bundy.
- The bloody shoeprints go all the way down the walkway.
- The shoe prints were all from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.
- The Magli casual shoes are very expensive costing 160 dollars.
- The Magli shoes are worn only by a rich man who wears cashmere lined gloves.
- A person who kills his victims can leave blood stained shoeprints at the crime scene.
- The impression of the blood stained shoeprints on Bronco’s carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe.
- Simpson had worn a size 12 shoe.
- Less than ten percent of the male population wears size 12 in U.S.A.
- The men who wear size 12 tend to fall within the height range of 5-11 to 6-4.
- Simpson is 6-2.
- A person who is 6-2 in height, wears a size 12 Magli shoe, with similar footprints found at the crime scene, can be the same person.
- The LAPD had collected evidence unprofessionally in order to convict Simpson.
- Unprofessional police investigations can lead to convict an innocent person.
- A piece of white paper near the Ronald body was not collected.
- The white paper had prints on it
- The prints on the paper could give some crucial information in relation to the murderer.
- Several shoeprints were not colleted from the crime scene.
- The shoeprints were made in the concrete surface of the walkway.
- The shoeprints were blood stained.
- The shoeprints were caused by a second assailant.
- The shoeprints were distinctly different in style and size from the other shoeprints found on the Bundy grounds.
- The image of the shoeprints was never adequately analyzed by the forensics team.
- No chemical-enhancement techniques were used to develop the shoeprints.
- The unprofessional investigation of the police only can ignore the chemical enhanced techniques to develop the shoeprints.
- The second murderer had left more footprints and other kinds of evidence.
- The proper collection of the shoeprints left by the killers at the crime scene could have changed the direction of the investigation.
- The evidence in relation to ice cream was not collected from the crime scene.
- A fair investigation can not ignore the crucial evidence from the crime scene.
- The piece of evidence could lead to the possible sequence of events at the time of the killings.
- The ice cream was partially eaten and melted.
- The ice cream was in a Ben & Jerry container.
- No photographs at that time were taken of the ice cream.
- No other records were kept to show the amount and condition of the ice cream.
- The evidence of ice cream could assist in determining the real murderer.
- The person who bought the ice cream.
- The person who had eaten it.
- Some crucial blood evidence was not collected from the crime scene.
- The blood evidence on the rear gate at Bundy was not collected until three weeks after the murders.
- The photographs of the blood were not taken until the day after the murders.
- The blood evidence can lead to the real identity of the person who has opened the gate.
- The droplets of blood on Nicole’s body were not collected
- The droplets of blood were from the murderer.
- The origin of the droplets of blood was from an area directly above the victim.
- The killer who was standing directly over Nicole’s body had deposited drops of blood.
- The person who has deposited blood on the victim’s body is the real killer.
- The evidence of drops of blood on Nicole’s body was not analyzed by the LAPD.
- The blood droplets were later washed from Nicole’s back at the Los Angeles morgue.
- Examining the blood droplets could have revealed the identity of the murderer.
- Simpson’s reaction over the deaths was suspicious.
- Simpson was not shocked by the news of his wife’s death.
- Simpson didn’t ask any questions about the cause of the deaths.
- Detective Phillips’s testimony to this effect
- Simpson’s conduct after the murders had shown his consciousness of guilt over the deaths.
- A person who has carried out the killings asks none of the questions that an innocent man can ask.
- A person whose partner, the mother of their two children has been killed would show some emotional reaction when hearing this message from detectives by phone.
- Simpson was very shocked by the news of his ex-wife’s death.
- Simpson had kept repeating himself after hearing the news.
- Arnelle Simpson testimony to this effect.
- Simpson had lost control of himself.
- A person can react completely differently when he gets the information of his wife’s death.
- A person can be very upset when he gets the news that his ex-wife has been killed.
The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson
MICRO ANALYSIS
KEY-LISTS:
- Simpson’s blood was consistent with the killer’s blood.
- Simpson had fresh cuts on his left hand at the time the killings took place.
- A person who is struggling with another in order to kill him can get cuts on his hand.
- Simpson lied about his hand cuts.
- Simpson didn’t cut his hand by getting the cell phone out of the Ford Bronco.
- Marsha Clark testimony to this effect.
- Simpson’s blood was found at several critical locations.
- A person who is involved with the killings only leaves the blood at the crime scene.
- Simpson blood found at the Bundy crime scene.
- A person who is involved with killings can confirm his presence at the crime scene if his blood is found there.
- Simpson’s blood found to the left of the blood stauned shoeprints.
- Police officer Robert Riske’s testimony to this effect
- The drops of blood leading away from the crime scene.
- Blood match with Simpson DNA.
- Phillip testimony to this effect.
- Simpson’s blood match makes him one in 57 billion people on the planet.
- There are only five billion people on the planet.
- A person whose DNA matches the blood collected from the crime scene, can be the real killer.
- Simpson’s blood found at Rockingham.
- Simpson’s blood droplets found on his driveway.
- The droplets leave a trail from the Rockingham gate to the front entrance of the house.
- Phillip Vannatter’s testimony to this effect
- Blood can drop from cuts as a person enters the house through the driveway.
- Simpson’s blood found in the foyer and bedroom of his home
- Simpson reopened the cut on his finger after he had returned home from the scene.
- Simpson was in a hurry as the limo driver was waiting downstairs.
- A person is in hurry to get changed, in order to get out of their home can leave blood in the foyer and bedroom.
- Simpson’s blood found in the Bronco.
- Lee Bailey testimony to this effect
- Simpson had cut his hand long before he went to the Bronco.
- Simpson was bleeding in his bathroom at the time of cleaning and changing his clothes.
- It was before Simpson went down to the limo.
- There weren’t any bloodstains on the staircase at Simpson’s home.
- A person who is going downstairs can leave bloodstains on the staircase if he is bleeding.
- Simpson had cut his left hand at the Bundy crime scene.
- Drops of blood from Simpson were found to the left side of the blood stauned shoe prints at Bundy.
- Real evidence to this effect.
- Simpson lost his left glove at Bundy.
- A person who has cut himself on the left hand at the crime scene can leave his left glove behind.
- A person lies about his cuts when there is something very crucial to hide.
- Simpson’s blood traced on the rear gate handle.
- Blood found on the door on the driver’s side at the doorsill window.
- Blood found on the door was consisting of three or four red-stained lines.
- Police Detective Mark Fuhrman testimony to this effect.
- The stains were not visible in the dark when the Bronco’s door was closed.
- A person who opens the driver’s door after having a fresh cut can leave blood on the door of his car.
- Blood found inside the Bronco
- The blood on the console between the front seat’s
- Dennis Fung testimony to this effect
- The blood was inside the driver’s door
- A person doesn’t have blood on the interior driver’s door of the car, on the dashboard and on the console, unless he gets into the car with fresh cuts.
- The LAPD had planted Simpson’s blood at several locations in their zeal to convict Simpson.
- The LAPD had performed their duties in a racist manner.
- Simpson was handcuffed by placing his hands behind his back before he had been charged with anything
- Police officer Donald Thompson testimony to this effect.
- A person who is handcuffed, without being charged, can be seen racially discriminated.
- Police officer Mark Fuhrman had acted in a racist manner.
- Fuhrman had made racist statements on several occasions.
- Laura McKinny’s testimony to this effect.
- A racist person can plant evidence to convict an innocent person.
- Fuhrman was preoccupied with a view, since 1985, that Simpson beats his wife.
- Johnnie Cochrane testimony to this effect.
- Fuhrman didn’t want to be taken off this case.
- A person who is racist can act in rage in order to undermine the available evidence.
- Fuhrman had planted evidence in order to find Simpson guilty.
- A small red blood stain had been planted slightly above the exterior handle on the Bronco’s driver door.
- The stains were not visible in the evening when the Bronco’s door was closed.
- Fuhrman was strolling alone outside the house when the other detectives were ringing the doorbell at Ashford.
- A person who has intentionally separated himself from other colleagues to search for evidence, can interfere with that evidence.
- A right-hand leather glove covered with blood had been planted at Rockingham crime scene.
- There was a small amount of blood smeared on the glove.
- It was similar to the glove at the Bundy murder scene.
- The glove was found wet with blood at 6 a.m. after seven and a half hours.
- It was a usual summer night.
- There was no dew that night.
- The glove has enough time to dry unless a person plants it to make this case.
- There was no blood found on the dried leaves or ground where the glove was found.
- There is at least some blood to be seen on the dried leaves or ground when a blood soaked glove drops.
- Fuhrman was alone outside the Rockingham crime scene for eighteen minutes.
- Fuhrman didn’t have notes in order to justify what he did for those eighteen minutes.
- A person who is alone for eighteen minutes to carry out investigation at the scene has enough time to plant evidence.
- The blood evidence collected from Simpson was handled in a very shoddy manner.
- The blood sample provided by Simpson was used to plant evidence.
- A blood sample can easily be used to invent evidence when it is mishandled.
- Blood was planted on the rear gate at Bundy.
- A small quantity of the blood had been used to smear on the rear gate at Bundy.
- The blood on the rear gate was missing from the LAPD photographs.
- The crime scene photos taken the day after the murders did not show any blood sample on the gate handle.
- The photo was taken three weeks after the murders where the blood smear on the gate handle was visible.
- There was 1.5 cc’s of blood missing from a blood sample provided by Simpson.
- The blood taken from Simpson on June 13th was between 7.9 and 8.1 cc’s of blood.
- Thano Peratis testimony to this effect.
- Only 6.5 cc’s of blood for all of the testing was consumed.
- Blood can have been planted at the crime scene to convict an innocent person when there is a substantial amount of blood missing from a blood sample.
- Phillip Vannatter didn’t pass the blood sample to the serology section of the LAPD’s crime lab for storage.
- Vannatter had taken the blood sample to the Bundy scene.
- Dennis Fung’s testimony to this effect.
- Vannatter had walked around the crime venue before giving the blood sample to Fung.
- The blood quality on the rare gate was poor for DNA tests.
- There was less blood on the gate for DNA test.
- The blood was unprotected for an extra three weeks.
- Barry Scheck’s testimony to this effect.
- The blood sample had been uncovered from the hot sun and other environmental forces.
- A blood sample, which is unprotected from the hot sun and other environmental forces for three weeks, can be unsuitable for DNA tests.
- The blood evidence on the bedroom socks had been planted.
- Simpson’s blood had been planted on both of his socks.
- No blood was found outside of the sock.
- There was no blood found on the carpet.
- The tests found both the location and the condition of the bloodstains on the socks extremely questionable.
- Herb Macdonald testimony to this effect.
- It is impossible not to have blood outside of the socks unless the blood is planted by somebody.
- Nicole’s blood had been planted on the inside of one of Simpson’s socks.
- The LAPD had claimed weeks after the crime that the blood was found both of the blood traces.
- There was nothing mentioned in their original crime scene notes about the blood presence.
- Notes didn’t include the overall condition of the socks.
- There was no close-up photographic documentation taken before the LAPD collected these socks from the carpet.
- Police can not ignore investigating blood traces at the crime scene unless they have intention to convict an innocent person.
- The LAPD was in a great rush to eradicate the crucial blood evidence.
- A fair investigation can not eradicate blood evidence from the crime scene.
- Crime scene investigators were unable to collect all relevant samples of the blood.
- The technicians and police had used bath towels to mop up large quantities of the blood which covered the entranceway.
- The total blood sample was not properly documented.
- A blood sample was not properly stored in a refrigerator.
- The LAPD technicians had deposited gloves and other materials on Ronald’s body.
- There was debris thrown on top of a victim’s body.
- Some of the police detectives had walked over the blood sample without using any of the required coverings and gloves.
- Many of the blood samples were inconclusive for DNA analysis.
- The blood samples were sitting in a hot van for hours
- The blood samples in total were not properly stored.
- Some of the blood samples were affected by the bacteria and fungi.
- The LAPD crime scene technicians had not collected blood sample by transferring blood onto a moistened cotton swab.
- The LAPD crime scene technicians had collected the blood sample by transferring the blood onto pieces of cotton swatches.
- The blood swatches were dried overnight.
- The blood swatches had not been properly dried out before being packaged.
- The LAPD had used incorrect procedures for the investigation of the crime.
- The LAPD didn’t obtain a search warrant before searching the Simpson’s property
- LAPD had carried out a search of the white Ford Bronco.
- LAPD had searched the Rockingham home.
- No search warrant was obtained for both of these searches.
- Fuhrman had maintained incorrect notes taken at the crime scene.
- Fuhrman had incorrectly noted that the Bronco was parked at an angle.
- Gerald testimony to this effect
- The Bronco was parked in a perfectly straight and normal fashion.
- Fuhrman had incorrectly reported the incident stating ‘possible GSW’, meaning that the victims had suffered gunshot wounds.
- Fuhrman had omitted some important facts from his notes.
- Fuhrman did not mention about the ice cream in his notes.
- Fuhrman didn’t mention in his notes about the shoeprints.
- Fuhrman didn’t take notes about the victims’ body conditions.
- A police officer who carries out an incorrect procedure to investigate the crime scene is likely to plant evidence to convict an innocent person.