Talk:Murder trial of O. J. Simpson/Archive 2

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on O. J. Simpson murder case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/home_15.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512011845/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209115654/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/jurypage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209205952/http://newpaltzjournal.com/?p=1205 to http://newpaltzjournal.com/?p=1205
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070302-000001&page=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spokesmanreview.com/ap/story_pf.asp?ID=1475260
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/31/arts/television-review-now-a-film-about-you-know-what.html?pagewanted=all
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205021959/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in O. J. Simpson murder case
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of O. J. Simpson murder case's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "philly": From Courthouse (TV series):  From Mark Fuhrman:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The Story of OJ
The song does not mention the trail at all, he really isn't mentioned outside of a single line "I'm not black im OJ" which ties into the racial complexities of the case and sense in the black community prior to the case that OJ distanced himself as much as possible, but that is a whole thing and my point is that the article mistakenly says it is about the trail itself 141.158.60.103 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions
I have seen that Lee Harvey Oswald has been named as John F. Kennedy's killer on Wikipedia; I suggest the same be done to O.J. Simpson and name him as the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Various sources (Vincent Bugliosi, Jeffrey Toobin) have resulted in the consensus that reliable sources state that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. The legal contexts of "burden of proof" and "presumption of innocence" apply to someone who is being tried for a crime. Although Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law, reliable sources firmly establish his culpability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.66.241 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Other Theories section revisited (NPOV concern)
The other Theories section opens with "Although no one else was charged, and evidence points to Simpson's guilt, the murders continue to be the subject of research and speculation." a sentence I find problematic from a NPOV standpoint. There are lots of reasons why if someone else (or a group of someones) had been involved in the murders (either as the real/actual killer or an accomplice with Simpson), the LAPD would not have charge charged them. Many positing alternate theories argue that the either the LAPD framed Simpson or conducted a shady investigation that led them to miss evidence of other's involvement or ignore evidence because they did not want to undermine their public position that Simpson acted alone. As far the statement "... and evidence points to Simpson's guilt" goes, that seems to be close to saying that he is guilty even though he was found not guilty. Last I checked, Wikipedia policy is not to proclaim guilt if a person if found not guilty by a court of law. That does not mean his is innocent as we all no, but it does not Wikipedia should not state that position. We can state that many people believe he got away with murder and that the president ate trial was more convincing of his guilt. We also have to acknowledge though that others feel differently and think he was framed or that he was at least not the sole perpetrator in the murders in this opening sentence. I believe the section should start with something more along the lines of "While many people over the years have stated they believe the evidence points to Simpson indeed being the real murderer and having acted alone, some people have posited alternate theories for the murders in which either one or more other suspects committed the murders or in which Simpson did not act alone.". --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. More broadly, the phrase "evidence points to.. [such and such]" does not belong in *any* wikipedia article for any reason, and sentences that begin with "even though [such and such]" should be limited to situations that which there is widespread agreement of its exceptional remarkability.

I've removed the whole first part of said sentence to make it begin with, "The murders continue..." Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Expansion and clarification of the glove section

 * I'm really doing a lot more to this article than I initially intended as Wikipedia has become somewhat of a hobby for me now. I'm going to include a picture of the glove, a timeline of the pre-trial events concerning the glove and then the prosecutions theory concerning the glove and the crime, the defenses reasonable doubt theory concerning the glove and the allegations of fraud concerning Fuhrman at trial and afterwards post-trial comments concerning the glove - for instance the jurors, dream team attorneys, and prosecutors comments. I'll publish it here first, wait a while for any feedback and then added it to the article.Samsongebre (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Rockingham Glove

Officer Robert Riske and his partner, Officer Michael Terrazas, were the first members of the LAPD to see the crime scene as he was responding to a 911 call reporting a possible burglary. They found a knit cap, an envelope and a left handed bloody glove next to the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in what turned out to be a double murder. After searching the area for other victims or the perpetrator, Riske notified West Los Angeles Division homicide detective supervisor Ronald Phillips who arrives with Detective Mark Fuhrman who was suppose to be the lead detective initially before the case was then transferred to Homicide Special. Lt. Spangler took command of the scene and detective's Philip Vannatter and Tom Lange took over the investigation. All five of the officers who were there that night testified to only seeing one left handed glove at the crime scene.

____

Expansion of DNA evidence section
Hello! Im new to wikipedia and I'm interested in expanding the DNA evidence section to be more complete. Im using the template on the main page to make sure my links are cited. That section is clearly lacking the full depth of information available at the time and I think it should be summarized here. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC) (Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment to sign please.)
 * Well, WP:BOLD suggests you just go ahead. If any of us do not like it we will revert. Then we can discuss it here. If you want to discuss it beforehand you need to tell use exactly what you are going to change. It does seem odd that there was six days of testimony and just a small section about it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the idea. I would like to break section into two parts where the names and dates of those testifying along with their summarized results. Then do the something with the defenses cross examination followed by the prosecutions rebuttal. The CourtTV.com link has a day by day breakdown of the trial and will be my primary source. The reason why I'm suggesting this is because often the "Dream team" is said to have discredited the DNA evidence but it is always oversimplified and never explained how. Also, in media portrayals and reenactments of the event, often Simpson is suggested as being guilty partly because the producers aren't able to show how the dream team was able to raise the reasonable doubt they are so frequently credited with doing. (Samsongebre (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC))
 * Wow, That sound ambitious. How about you create Draft:DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case. Just click on the link and start typing. This way we can see a draft. Articles created in the draft space become eligible for deletion after 6 months has passed since the last edit. If it wind up being big enough, perhaps it should be its own article and we will just link to it in this article. Be sure to avoid any editorializing or synthesis, but you can include any critiques from reliable sources. You can of course just copy the exsisting section if you want to use it as a starting point. Let us know here if you need help. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I've begun the drag article and am currently researching reliable links and learning how to edit it. I took your advice and copied the current DNA evidence section to the draft article. Regarding editorializing, would it wrong to use language like "debunked on cross examination" versus "refuted" or "challenged"? One of the conspiracy allegations about EDTA in the blood was so completely proven wrong that I would like to use that language it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs)
 * Well done on getting a good start. The ideal is every fact or conclusion is cited. Verifiability states Wikipedia does not publish original research. but in the next paragraph mentions All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. (emphasis added.) Yes it would be good to have a citation to support everything, but it is not likely to be challenged it is not crucial. See WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again. I've finished the introduction part to the article and am now moving on to the first half: prosecution case and witnesses. Once I've finished the article I'll publish and just like in the O J article. Afterwards, if everything is okay, I'll expand the DNA section within the this article. Samsongebre (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I've finished the article and am just proof reading it now. Im planning on publishing it tomorrow and adding it to the main Simpson page.(Samsongebre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you have submitted it for review. No matter what happens now, I'd like to say you did an amazing job of pulling all this information together. I really did not expect it to be so much. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ive regenerated the article with all of my citations and everything in it. I've gone through it all again and removed the copyrighted material. Is there any thing I need to do now before submitting it for review? Samsongebre (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, your smart enough to make a backup. Honestly I have never been able to write an article this long nor this in-depth. I am guessing the sections with chunks of the transcripts might be a problem, but I am not sure if WP:COPYVIO applies. At a quick glance I noticed links to Excerpts of Testimony in the O.J. Simpson Trial at the top say Any use of these transcripts must be credited to West Publishing Co. and you do not. The use of WP:PRIMARY sources may be seen as WP:SYNTH. The WP:LEAD is too long. Four paragraphs is more usual. I think WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE might apply as the article, especially at the end, project the point of view that the DNA should not have been held in doubt. I expected whoever reviewed the thing to point these things out with more certainty then I, not just delete the thing outright. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've rewritten the draft article taking into account all of your feedback. I believe it is ready for publication. I don't see the link to submit it for review so if you could help me out with that id appreciate it. Any feedback is also appreciated as well. Samsongebre (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi- I am sorry but I have restored the version. The content wasn't up to scratch I'm afraid. The sourcing needs work and the grammar and spelling were poor. Could I suggest you post the additions here first? We can then review and proofread prior to publication. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The information I added to the main article comes directly from my Draft:DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case article. I should have sourced what I added so I will make sure to do that next time. If you feel that spelling or grammar could be improved feel free to make changes but facts should stay the same. Samsongebre (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This is my proposed change to the DNA evidence section on the main article. Please excuse any grammar or spelling errors. I haven't had to write a research paper like this in a very long time. I appreciate all feedback. After a few days I'll add it to the main article.

-

DNA Evidence
The prosecution presented a total of 108 exhibits, including 61 drops of blood, of DNA evidence allegedly linking Simpson to the murders. With no witnesses to the crime, the prosecution was dependent on DNA as the only physical evidence linking Simpson to the crime. The volume of DNA evidence in this case was unique and the prosecution believed they could reconstruct how the crime was committed with enough accuracy to resemble an eye witness account. Two different types of DNA matching, along with conventional serology, were used in the Simpson case: Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, and restriction fragment length polymorphism, or RFLP.

Renee Montgomery of the California State Department Lab testified May 23, 1995 to her results from D1S80 DNA matching and reconstructed the prosecutions theory of how the crime happened that night. Marcia Clark stated in her opening statements on January 24, 1995 that there was a "trial of blood from the Bundy Crime scene through Simpson's Ford Bronco to his Bedroom at Rockingham".
 * Simpson's DNA found on blood drops next to the bloody foot prints near the victims at the Bundy Crime Scene.
 * Simpson's DNA found on a trail of blood drops leading away from the victims, towards and on the back gate at Bundy.
 * Simpson, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown's DNA found on blood on the outside of the door and inside Simpson's Bronco.
 * Simpson's DNA found on blood drops behind his home leading from the area where his Bronco was parked at Simpson's Rockingham home to the front door entrance.
 * Simpson, Brown and Goldman's DNA on a bloody glove found behind his home.
 * Nicole Brown's DNA found on blood on a pair of socks in Simpson's bedroom.

Gregory Matheson, chief forensic chemist at the Los Angeles Police Crime Lab, testified May 1, 1995 that serology testing verified all of the above matches with the chance of error being 1-in-200 or 0.5%.

Dr. Robin Cotton, Lab director of Cellmark Diagnostics, testified on May 8, 1995 to RFLP DNA matching that the chances the blood found next the to bloody foots prints coming from someone other than Simpson was only 1-in-9.7 Billion and the chances of the blood found on a sock in Simpsons bedroom coming from anyone else other than Nicole Brown was only 1-in-6.8 Billion.

Gary Sims of the California Department of Justice Crime Lab testified on May 16, 1995 using DQ Alpha DNA matching that the chances of the blood found in Simpsons Bronco coming from anyone else other than the two victims was only 1-in-20 Billion.

Defense Response
Scheck and Neufeld planned to argue that mistakes made during evidence collection rendered the results unreliable but neither of the defense forensic DNA experts, Dr. Edward Blake or Dr, Henry Lee, would support their claim. The defense also approached two academics renowned for their skepticism of the reliability of DNA fingerprinting, Harvard professors Richard Lewontin and Daniel Hartl, and both declined to support their theory.

Scheck and Neufeld claimed 100% of the "real killer(s)" DNA was lost from bacterial degradation due to Fung and Mazzola collecting and packaging the evidence items using plastic bags, not paper bags, and then storing them in the police van without being refrigerated for up to seven hours after collection. They then claimed that the matches the prosecution reported were all due to contamination in the LAPD crime lab by Collin Yamamuchi.

The prosecution countered by making several arguments. First that scientists have gotten analyzable DNA for PCR testing from mummies and even dinosaur fossils that are thousands or millions of years old so the prosecution claimed that the time was too short for the DNA to have completely degraded. Next they showed that the PCR test is so sensitive that even a few molecules of DNA would be detected and the prosecution argued that the chances of all 108 exhibits being that uniformly degraded was very unlikely. Lastly, the prosecution showed that most of the blood evidence was tested at the two consulting labs and not the LAPD crime lab were the contamination allegedly occurred. Since all the samples they received were testable despite no contamination being alleged at those labs, the prosecution argued that effectively negates Scheck and Neufelds “compromised” evidence claim.

The contamination claim was made by a non-forensic DNA expert, Dr. John Gerdes. He testified that the matches the prosecution reported were the result of cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab by Collin Yamamuchi with DNA from Simpson’s reference vial being transferred to all but three of the exhibits. However, he admitted during cross-examination that there was no evidence that contamination had occurred with any of the 108 DNA evidence items. The only evidence of contamination he produced was a "hint" of a single allele consistent with Simpson being found in the reference vials of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. The prosecution pointed out that this claim was misleading because Gerdes's believed contamination happened from an evidence item to the reference vials, not from the reference vials to the evidence items as Scheck and Neufeld were claiming happened in the LAPD crime lab, and it is also only a mixture (two different blood types together) and not a   false positive (one blood type being completely degraded and a different blood type contaminating it and being matched to the defendant), as Scheck and Neufeld were suggesting. Dr. Gerdes claim was also disputed by Dr. Robin Cotton Who testified that what he said was contamination was actually a DNA cross-hybridization event. Contemporaneous critics called Dr. Gerdes's testimony "smoke and mirror's" and Dr. Henry Lee testified at the criminal trial for the defense that the contamination claim was "highly improbable".

Dr. Gerdes's admitted at trial that three evidence items had sufficient amounts of DNA to rule out the possibility they were contaminates. Scheck and Neufeld alleged those items were planted by the police but eventually after the compromised-contamination claim was discredited, they eventually claimed that virtually all of the blood evidence against Simpson was planted before reaching the lab.

Scheck and Neufeld made the following allegations that the DNA evidence was planted:

Bundy Crime Scene

 * Simpson's blood at Nicole Brown's home was the result of the police sprinkingly some of Simpson's DNA on the crime scene. That claim was refuted when the prosecution showed the blood was photographed being there prior to Simpson's blood being taken from him. Scheck then claimed during closing arguments the police "tampered" with the swatches in the evidence locker room, switching out the swatches that had the "real killer's" blood with swatches that had Simpson's blood without providing any physical or eye witness evidence to support his claim.

Back Gate at Bundy Crime Scene

 * Simpson's blood on the back gate at Browns home was planted there by a rogue police officer. This blood was collected on July 3rd, not June 13 like the other blood evidence at the crime scene. The defense witness Dr. Fredrick Rieders testified the blood contained the preservative EDTA which appeared to support the claim it was planted from Simpsons reference vial which also contains EDTA. The defense also alleged that a photo of the gate taken on June 13 doesn’t appear to show it having blood on it. The prosecution countered that a different photo of the gate taken on June 13 shows the blood was there. The defense witness, FBI Special Agent Roger Martz, demonstrated that the blood drop actually doesn't have EDTA present. Officer Robert Riske, his partner Officer Michael Teraza, Lt. Frank Spangler, Detective Mark Fuhrman, Detective Tom Lange and Detective Philip Vannatter all observed the night of the murders the blood on the back gate was already there prior to the blood being taken from Simpson. Fuhrman also documented it in his notes that night as well.

Simpson's White Ford Bronco

 * Blood collected from the Bronco that matched Simpson, Brown and Goldman on June 13 was planted there by Mark Fuhrman. They claimed that Fuhrman found the glove at the crime scene and then transported it to Simpson's home and then rubbed it against the Bronco to frame him. No physical or eye witness evidence was ever presented to support this claim. The prosecution countered that Fuhrman never at any point touched the glove or the Bronco and was never inside the Bronco. Fuhrman went to Simpson's home with four other officers, not by himself, and they never intended to go onto Simpson's property, they only intended to inform him about his wife's murder and to give him a ride to the police station to pickup his two children who were there now. Fuhrman also reported the blood on the Bronco immediately to the other officers after noticing it on the door.
 * Blood Collected from the Bronco later on August 26 that matched Simpson, Brown and Goldman was planted there a second time by a rogue police officer. The prosecution countered that photos from June 13 show blood was already present when the car was impounded and Dennis Fung admitted that he did not collect all of the blood that was present on June 13 which is why he went back on August 26 to collect the rest. None of the blood from Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman's reference vial was ever said to be missing and the photos from June 13 prove that blood was already present before the autopsy blood was taken on June 15.

Simpson's Rockingham Estate

 * Blood found on Simpson's Socks that matched Nicole Brown was planted there by a police officer, presumably Detective Vannatter. The defense offered as evidence of this that the blood on the sock contained the blood preservative EDTA which is used in the reference vial for Nicole Brown. The prosecution countered that the socks were collected by Dennis Fung on June 13 and a presumptive test of blood was positive then and Detective Vannatter did not handle Nicole Brown's reference vial until June 15, after the socks were already collected and in the evidence locker room. FBI Special Agent Roger Martz demonstrated that the blood on the socks actually does not contain EDTA.
 * Glove found at Simpson's Rockingham estate that had Blood from Brown, Goldman and Simpson was planted there by Detective Mark Fuhrman. No physical or eye witness evidence of this was offered by the defense. The prosecution countered that Fuhrman never touched the glove, the four detectives never intended to go on to Simpson's property when they went to Rockingham, they only meant to inform Simpson of his wife's murder and transport him to the police station to pick up his children. The other two officers who arrived at the crime scene before Fuhrman and the other five officers who were there with him at the time only saw one glove at the crime scene. Fuhrman did not know if Simpson had an alibi, if there were any witnesses to the murders or whose blood was on the glove and he only went down that back walkway where he found the glove after Brian "Kato" Kaelin said he heard three large "thumps" in that area earlier that night.


 * The above section is what I want to add to the Simpsons main article. Below is additional information that Im considering adding but possibly to a new section. The Conspiracy allegation regarding the blood maybe too large of a section and require a separate article be generated.Samsongebre (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

--

Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee published Blood Evidence: How Dna Is Revolutionizing The Way We Solve Crimes (2003) and devotes the last two chapters to explaining Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld arguments about the DNA evidence in the Simpson case. He starts off by noting that Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld had established national reputations for doubting the scientific underpinnings of DNA testing and challenging their admissibility in court. However, Forensic DNA experts had established the validity of DNA matching with the courts by the time of the Simpson case, making the chances of a favorable ruling from Judge Ito during an admissibility hearing virtually zero. It was only recently before the trial, in 1992, they accepted the validity of DNA testing and founded the Innocence project.

Lee writes that neither of the defenses's forensic DNA experts, Dr. Henry Lee or Dr. Edward Blake, considered Scheck and Neufeld's reasonable doubt theory about the blood evidence plausible. In hindsight, Dr. Lee opines that Scheck and Neufeld's claim that "the blood evidence is only as good as the people collecting it" was an obfuscation tactic to conflate the validity of the evidence with the integrity of the LAPD and then attack the latter because both Scheck and Neufeld knew that defense's forensic DNA experts reached the same conclusion as the prosecution's: the mistakes made during evidence collection did not render the results unreliable.

Lee opines that the jury did not understand the significance and precision of the DNA evidence in this case based on their comments after the trial, including some of them claiming that the blood at the crime scene that matched Simpson had "degraded" and could possibly have been from Simpson's children or from one of the criminalist who collected the evidence instead. Dr. Lee attributes this misinterpretation to Scheck and Neufeld's deliberate obfuscation and deception about the reliability of the results. Lee believes the jury thought Scheck and Neufeld were trustworthy because of their work with the Innocence Project and suggests that is the reason why they considered their arguments reasonable without understanding them. After the trial, the jurors faced harsh criticism for doubting the DNA evidence while Scheck and Neufeld ironically received praise. Lee opines that the scathing criticism of the jurors for doubting the DNA evidence maybe the reason why Scheck and Neufeld were the only DNA experts from the criminal trial who chose not to return for the civil trial.

Expansion of defense case section to include a police conspiracy section
Hello! My research into expanding the DNA section of this article has lead me to conclude that a "conspiracy theory" section should be added as well, possible to the defenses case section. Publications at the time often mention the conspiracy angle of the defenses claim but this article does not for some reason. We should also be aware of the NPOV policy that the claims the defense put forward at trial be documented here in this article exactly as they were claimed at trial. We shouldn't just simply the allegation to just "police fraud". Samsongebre (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

My proposed addition to the defense case section. Please forgive any spelling or grammar errors. All feedback in appreciated


 * I shall correct the grammar but please continue to seek consensus prior to inclusion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Defense Case
Simpson hired a team of high-profile defense lawyers, initially led by Robert Shapiro and then subsequently by Johnnie Cochran. The team included F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Uelmen, Carl E. Douglas and Shawn Holley. Two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, were hired as well. Simpson's defense was said to have cost between US$3 million and $6 million; the media dubbed the group of talented attorneys the Dream Team.

Alternate theory of who committed the murders
Simpson's defense sought to show that one or more hit men hired by drug dealers had murdered Brown and Goldman – giving Brown a "Colombian necktie" – because they were looking for Brown's friend, Faye Resnick, a known cocaine user who had failed to pay for her drugs. However, Judge Ito barred testimony about Resnick's drug use. She had stayed for several days at Brown's condo until entering rehab four days before the killings. Ito stated that the defense had failed to provide sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence that the scenario was possible, indicating: "I find that the offer of proof regarding motive to be highly speculative." Consequently, he prohibited Christian Reichardt from testifying about his former girlfriend Resnick's drug problems.

"Compromised, Contaminated, Corrupted"
The defense team's reasonable doubt theory was summarized as "compromised, contaminated, corrupted" in opening statements. They argued that the DNA evidence against Simpson was "compromised" by the mishandling of Fung and Mazzola during the collection phase of evidence gathering, and that 100% of the "real killer(s)" DNA was lost from the evidence samples. The evidence was then "contaminated" in the LAPD crime lab by Collin Yamamuchi, and Simpson's DNA from his reference vial was transferred to all but three exhibits. The remaining three exhibits were planted by the police and thus "corrupted" by police fraud.

The compromised claim was supported by the fact that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola had admitted to making several mistakes during the collection of evidence. These mistakes included not always changing gloves between handling evidence items, packaging and storing the evidence items using plastic bags, rather than paper bags as recommended, and storing evidence in the police van, which was not refrigerated, for up to seven hours after collection. This, Scheck and Neufeld argued, would allow bacteria to degrade all of the "real killer(s)" DNA and thus make the samples more susceptible to cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab. However, the prosecution countered that most of the DNA testing was done at the two consulting labs, not the LAPD crime lab. The prosecution maintained that, as all of the samples they received were testable, the claim that the evidence was "compromised" by all the DNA being lost to bacterial degradation was not credible. The argument given was that if the police contaminated the killer’s blood with Simpson’s blood as suggested, the result would be a mixture of both blood types. However, the results showed that only Simpson's DNA was present.

The contamination claim was made by microbiologist Dr. John Gerdes. He testified on August 2, 1995 that Forensic PCR DNA matching is not reliable   and "The LAPD crime lab has a substantial contamination problem. It is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away." Gerdes testified that because of the LAPD's history of contamination, he would not consider any of the PCR DNA matches in this case reliable because the tests were carried out by the LAPD. He also claimed that the consulting labs’ PCR DNA matches are not reliable, as the evidence they tested went "through the LAPD" for packaging and shipping. Gerdes believed only three of the DNA matches to have been valid, which were the same three the defense alleged to have been planted by the police. The prosecution countered by having Gerdes admit during cross-examination that there was no evidence that cross-contamination had occurred and that he was only testifying to "what might have occurred and not what actually did occur". Defense forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee testified on August 24, 1995 and admitted during cross-examination that Gerdes’s claim was "highly improbable".

The defense declined to challenge any of the results by testing the evidence themselves. As the prosecution had proven the DNA on the evidence items was not 100% degraded, the defense could feasibly have tested the evidence items themselves for the "real killer(s)" DNA, yet they declined to do so. ''

Defense forensic DNA expert Ed Blake revealed after the trial that he had not testified because his review of the case found no criticism of the testing conducted by Gary Sims, Renee Montgomery or Dr. Robin Cotton at the two consulting labs.

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 massive police conspiracy. They accused prison nurse Thano Peratis, Dennis Fung , Andrea Mazzola , Detective Philip Vannatter , Detective Mark Fuhrman , and Collin Yamamuchi of participating in a plot to frame Simpson.

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. Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist, testified on July 24, 1995, using results provided by FBI special agent Roger Martz, that the level of EDTA in those evidence samples is higher than that which is normally found in blood, which appeared to support the claim they came from the reference vials. However, FBI special agent Roger Martz was called to testify by the defense on July 25, 1995 and said he did not identify EDTA in the blood, contradicting the testimony given by Dr. Rieders the day before. Martz stated that, although the presumptive test for EDTA was positive, the identification test for EDTA was inconclusive, so it was impossible to ascertain with certainty the presence of EDTA. 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".

The third exhibit allegedly planted was the bloody glove found at Simpson’s property by Detective Mark Fuhrman. Unlike the sock and the back gate, the defense provided no physical or eyewitness evidence to support their claim that the prosecution could then refute. The prosecution claimed that the glove contained blood from Simpson and the victims, hair from both victims and fibers from Ron Goldman's clothes; the Bronco and the socks found in Simpson’s bedroom also had Brown's blood on them. Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey suggested that Fuhrman found the glove at the crime scene, picked it up with a stick and placed it in a plastic bag, which he then concealed in his sock when he drove to Simpson’s home with Detectives Lange and Vannatter. Bailey suggested that Fuhrman had then planted the glove in order to frame Simpson, with the motive either being racism or a desire to become the hero in a high-profile case. Bailey also suggested that Fuhrman used the glove like a paint brush to plant blood onto and inside the Bronco. Dr. John Gerdes testified on August 8th 1995 that Simpson’s blood on the glove could have been the result of cross-contamination in the LAPD crime lab. The prosecution responded by pointing out that the defense did not claim that the blood on the glove contained the preservative EDTA, as they had with the sample found on the back gate, which the defense also claimed to have been planted.

Prosecutor George Clarke, who specialized in DNA evidence, wrote that it was difficult to refute the defense's corruption claim about the glove deductively because the DNA results would be the same whether planted or not, so the prosection used inductive arguments instead.

During redirect, Prosecutor Marcia Clark made numerous points to support the contention that Fuhrman did not plant the glove, including Lt. Frank Spangler's testimony. Spangler testified that only one glove was found at the crime scene, by him and the other two officers who were there first, and that he had been with Fuhrman for the duration of Fuhrman’s time at the scene. Spangler stated that he would have seen Fuhrman purloin the glove if he had in fact done so. Marcia Clark went on to add that Fuhrman did not know whether Simpson had an alibi, if there were any witnesses to the murders, whose blood was on the glove, and whether Brian "Kato" Kaelin had already searched the area where the glove was found and would therefore have been able to confirm that it had not been there prior to Fuhrman’s arrival. Johnnie Cochran responded by accusing the other officers of being involved in a "cover-up" to protect Fuhrman.

The prosecution responded by returning to the Bundy crime scene to show that those blood drops were photographed hours before Simpson's blood was taken and thus could not have been planted. The blood was sent to the consulting labs for testing, not the LAPD crime lab, so cross-contamination could not have happened. It was argued that the DNA linking Simpson to the crime had a 1-in-9.7 billion chance of error.


 * (you will need a serious source for this and saying things like 'meaning' is dodgy territory- this has to change). -- I removed all of the opinionated language(i.e., debunked, refuted..etc) and instead just listed the witnesses, dates and summarized the facts from their testimony using neutral language. I used the trial transcripts for my research but I don't want to quote them verbatim because that would be copyright infringement. I removed all the rational/emotional argument stuff as well. Instead I'm just going to list all of the points Marcia Clark made during fuhrmans redirect


 * alright everybody I think this is exactly why Im going to add to the main article. I took all your feedback into consideration. I tried to add Citations to every sentence but some information from the citation is split up over two sentences so I added the citation after the second sentence. Im also going the info to the DNA section listed above as well. I removed all opinionated language. I've also removed any inferences as well, instead just saying "the defense alleged" and the prosecution responded"...etc.


 * A LOT OF WORK NEEDED BUT I HOPE THIS HELPS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

---alright sir I think this is exactly why Im going to add to the main article. I took all your feedback into consideration. Citations added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs)


 * Reverted this. Per WP:Undue and WP:Fringe, why should we give this much weight to conspiracy theories? If we are to cover conspiracy theories to such an extent, a separate article is best. For example, the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. But then again, 9/11 conspiracy theories are a WP:Notable topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, Samsongebre, I had thought that the material was just random conspiracy theories. I now see that it's about what the defense argued. So I now find the material appropriate, although it needs some tweaking. By this, I mean, for example, WP:REFPUNCT fixes and trading out poor sources or mediocre sources for better sources. This 2014 "O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It: The Shocking Truth about the Murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman" source, from Skyhorse Publishing, is a poor source. I'm sure that some of the wording in the section needs cleanup as well. The headings should be in sentence case, per MOS:HEAD; so I will fix that.


 * And, NEDOCHAN, keep in mind that other people watch this article and may also object or support changes and that what can be added or excluded from this article is not be based solely on your say so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Samsongebre, review/study our WP:Reliable sources guideline. The National Enquirer is not a reliable source in terms of what Wiipedia considers a reliable source. It's overwhelmingly tabloid journalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn Most people don't realize how prominent the conspiracy allegations in the Simpson case were. Thats why I took the time to research and add it to this article. I've removed the link to the national enquirer but the photo I would like to leave. The photo of Judge Ito on this page also comes from the same source.Samsongebre (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn Ive removed the link to the OJ is innocent book. The other two links mentioned in the same sentence also cover the same facts. The purpose of this addition is not to change peoples minds about Simpson one way or the other but to include the defense's arguments in this article. Most of the article consists of just the prosecution case and only has two paragraphs devoted to the defenses case.Samsongebre (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn - I've gone over the sources and only six books from Google Books are referenced. I know four of the authors believe Simpson is guilty which could be a WP:BIASED concern, but I'm only sourcing facts about the case from them, not their opinions, and they have 'a reputation for fact-checking' so they are reliable per wiki policy WP:Reliable sources. If there is anything you would like me to do to improve it, let me know. Otherwise I'll add it back to the main article tomorrow. Thank you for showing me WP:Reliable sources, it really helps me in refining my addition.Samsongebre (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blood Evidence: How Dna Is Revolutionizing The Way We Solve Crimes ,
 * The Run of His Life: The People V. O.J. Simpson ,
 * Justice and Science: Trials and Triumphs of DNA Evidence ,
 * O.J. Unmasked: The Trial, the Truth, and the Media ,
 * Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder ,
 * Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing
 * Flyer22 Reborn - I've fixed all your concerns and restored the article additions. It doesn't make sense for this article to have six sections devoted to the prosecutions case and evidence and only two sentences to describe the defenses case and supporting evidence. Most of the sources used are CourtTV.com and newpaper articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs)


 * Samsongebre, I am aware that your goal is to include more of the defense's arguments in this article. This is why I stated, "I had thought that the material was just random conspiracy theories. I now see that it's about what the defense argued. So I now find the material appropriate, although it needs some tweaking." You stated, "Most people don't realize how prominent the conspiracy allegations in the Simpson case were." I'm sure that those familiar with the trial know what was argued.


 * I didn't revert you here. Davey2010 did. And your addition here still had heading issues until I tweaked them. Again, read what MOS:HEAD states about sentence case for headings. You also need to fix the punctuation for some parts. Again, read WP:REFPUNCT. Commas, for example, are placed before the references (not after them). I'm sure that there are still other issues with your addition, including possible undue weight.


 * In the future, do not just keep reverting to your addition after leaving a comment on the talk page. That is not how WP:Consensus works. If Davey2010 is fine with your latest addition, then I suppose it's staying for now, because I do not feel like thoroughly assessing what you have added or debating it. Also, be more consistent when it comes to signing your posts (using four tildes beside your comments). And there is no need to copy and past such a large proposed section to the talk page. It would have been better for you to have copied and pasted it to your sandbox and linked to it on the talk page while discussing. But since you've posted it here and people have replied in these sections, you should not remove the sections from the talk page now; this is per WP:TALK. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks . By hook or by crook I think we have worked together to get to a stage where has improved the article. Good work.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn, NEDOCHAN and -  Have only just this minute got in, I have no idea what the issue was and obviously haven't read any of the above - I just saw an editor add content that was previously removed - If whatever the problem was has been fixed then I'm more than happy for it to be reinserted in the article, Many thanks Flyer, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your support in this project for me. Flyer22 Reborn, NEDOCHANSamsongebre (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Editorializing and trivial or unnecessary text
MisterCake, regarding this and this, additions such as "curiously" and "ostensibly" fall under WP:Editorializing. You removed "curiously" after I pointed to WP:Editorializing, but "ostensibly" was there and left in after you reverted me.

You also included the following: "In 1985, detective Mark Fuhrman responded to a family dispute at Simpson's estate, and found Brown crying next to a car with a windshield Simpson had shattered with a baseball bat." Exactly why is this needed?

You also included the following: "Simpson had been training for the lead role in a movie and action series akin to the A-Team called Frogmen, in which he played 'Bullfrog' Burke, a trained killer and Navy SEAL." This is trivial. And if it's to be included, it, per MOS:Paragraphs, certainly does not need its own section.

You also added, "The front door was left ajar." Where is the source for this?

You also added, "The glasses had only one lens." Not sure why this is needed, but I do know that this Xlibris Corporation source is self-published, which is against WP:Self-published.

And there is no need for extra subheadings when the material fits fine in the section it's in, especially when the material is a little bit of material. Again, see MOS:Paragraphs. Unnecessary subheadings simply cause the article to look bigger than it is from the table of contents.

If you reply, there is no need to WP:Ping me since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Self published is a fair point. As to the rest: Don't really think it is editorializing but yes I granted the point on 'curious'. Is it not curious that one lens was left? What's the explanation for that? Scheck made a deal out of it in closing argument, with a whole board showing it. They wanted to argue that e. g. there was money in the envelope taken, along with the lens as a souvenir, by the perpetrators and LAPD ignored this; or, it was taken as a souvenir by LAPD, showing their evidence was compromised. Ostensibly is also because (obviously) there is the defense and prosecution side to this story, and the thing the defense was most confident was a lie was that the four most important detectives of the case went to alert OJ rather than to investigate him as a suspect. I would say most who know about the case don't believe that. Fuhrman and OJ's domestic violence are also obviously relevant to the case. It's the first time they cross paths, and the 1985 incident is supposedly why Fuhrman was asked to come with them to Rockingham. He was the one who knew how to get there quickly thanks to that case. For the defense, it's when he began to dislike OJ. If the 1993 incident is included, the 1985 and New Years 1989 incident should be included. To say Frogmen is trivial is a bit surprising. He had experience acting as a trained killer with a knife. It's probably why the knit cap was at the scene (supposedly Frogmen sometimes wear a cap because of heat loss through the head when coming out of the water). Also no screams were heard, perhaps due to "silent kill" training. The sub headings seem to help navigation and 'wikification' to me, and looks better than a wall of text without separation by category. The source for the door being ajar would be Riske's testimony, and can certainly find one.  Cake  (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * MisterCake, I'm interested in following this site's policies and guidelines. The WP:Editorializing guideline is straightforward. "Curiously" is obviously editorializing, just like "interestingly" is.


 * As for headings, MOS:Paragraphs is clear that a little bit of content usually does not need its own subheading. Too many unnecessary subheadings can also make an article look bigger than it is from the table of contents. I'm not vehemently against mentioning "Frogmen," but I am against unnecessarily giving it a heading. And your beliefs about how it's relevant is a personal opinion. It would be better if a WP:Reliable source tied it to the murders the way you have.


 * Regarding your latest edits, I've interacted with you before and I'm not sure if you tend to lean toward the "not guilty" side of things when the public thinks that a person is guilty even after the verdict comes back as "not guilty," but be careful to not let your POV affect your editing. Samsongebre should also be careful of this. It can be hard to do if one has strong passions on the topic, but editors should try to keep bias out of their editing. Avoid poor sources such as conspiracy theory sources unless they are specifically used for a section about conspiracy theories. But even then, they should pass our WP:Reliable sources guideline. And, in that case, it's better to use reliable sources that refer to certain authors' conspiracy theories rather than use the conspiracy theory sources directly. Make sure that sources you use are not self-published. Per WP:YESPOV, do not present an author's opinion as fact. Instead, use "According to" or similar. It would also be best that when you cite a source, use some type of WP:Citation template rather just adding "Toobin, Run of his Life" and the page number. And regarding this, what source is "Lee, Tirnady, Blood Evidence"? This is why providing full details about a source is best. It's important to include the publisher.


 * Again, no need to ping me. Samsongebre, I don't need to be pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see that you filled the bare references with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lee is Henry Lee, and that book is cited several times. But yes, the sources could be better, with templates, etc. And yeah I would agree about POV - though it seems to me the article is heavily POV on the guilt side for a verdict that came back not guilty. Seems like it should present why the jury thought he was not guilty. As for my personal opinion like most I think he did it, but very hard to say the trial made it beyond a reasonable doubt. I would say whatever bias I have as a result of that seems to affect my edits than the previous editors, as I don't have strong feelings either way. Just reads like a book trying to retry the case sometimes, arguing against the defense. Also, what do you think about injecting the list of evidence presented to the jury into the prose? That seems to happen as an article matures. Some of it fit too well in Samson's defense section. And yeah I know about sourcing things, this is a talk page, and it was removed despite a source. And it was background but not about the marriage.  Cake  (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On the topic of balance, we have to be careful not to artificially balance. If more sources focus on the prosecution, his presumed guilt, or beliefs about how the jury got it wrong, so should we.


 * I'm not sure if your "I would say" sentence currently has a typo in it or not. Do you mean that you "wouldn't say"? I ask because you go on to state "as I don't have strong feelings either way." Whatever the case, as long as we are aware of any bias we have and actively look to not let it affect our editing (at least not much), that's good.


 * As for turning this list into prose, I have no objections. Per WP:Prose, prose is preferred. The "Evidence not presented to the jury" list should also be turned into prose. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I butchered that sentence. I meant I wouldn't say it would affect my edits more than the previous editors. I meant that while I think he did it, I also don't think the jury was a bunch of morons or that the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Cake  (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Think it looks good now as far as sections go, not to say within those sections things couldn't be clarified or rearranged. Need something about the discovery of the blood in the Bronco and on the driveway. Also, isn't a little odd to have a picture of him and Sydney? Kinda gruesome details between father and mother for that. Why I changed it to the one where she is cropped out. Cake  (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Setup, balance, and bloating
So MisterCake and Samsongebre, we can see above on the talk page (near the end of the section) that Samsongebre stated, "Most of the article consists of just the prosecution case and only has two paragraphs devoted to the defenses case." But look at how the article is now. That is what it looks like without the Template:TOC (which is used because, like I stated in the section above, too many subheadings can clutter the table of contents; in addition to sometimes making an article look bigger than it is, they can make the article more difficult to navigate through). Looking at the current text, there are now significantly more sections devoted to the defense case. But it can be argued that this is simply a superficial setup since the "Defense case" section has a lot of material that challenges the defense's case. Therefore, I think that a lot of the material about what the prosecution or defense argued should be in standalone "Evidence" and "Arguments" sections, with subsections for them. Some text can also be split into a "Witness testimony" section. The article should be careful to not include every little thing, or everything in excessive detail. This is per WP:DIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not meant to give a blow-by-blow/day-by-day account of the trial. It's meant to sufficiently summarize what happened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not stating that we should get rid of the "Prosecution case" and "Defense case" headings, but they can be reduced to summaries while the "Evidence" and "Arguments" (or similar) sections addresses the arguments and rebuttals. Or the "Prosecution case" and "Defense case" sections could simply be changed to "Prosecution" and "Defense," or "Attorneys and jury," and note who the lead prosecutors and defense attorneys are, when they were assigned to the case and other relevant material that doesn't go into excess, and include jury material (such as when jury selection began and how they were selected). This would obviously mean that the current "Jury" section would be integrated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was trying to stick to how the sections were given. However, much of the prosecution case is better suited elsewhere. For example, the abuse of Nicole, or testimony of Alan Park. While the defense was stuff one had not heard before until they presented their case, much of the prosecution case had already happened. If you take that into consideration, I think the article is fairly balanced. And yes I know, I don't wish to give every detail. However in this case there was a "mountain of evidence", and the defense pretty much shot down all of it, such that there was the not guilty verdict most find baffling at first blush. So, yes, don't want to explain too much, but there's also a lot to explain even in a summary article. Also agreed that it was hard to decide what to do with the prosecutions rebuttals of the defense. For one, they weren't very good, and some don't even make sense, hence the not guilty verdict. For example, that Fuhrman couldn't have planted blood from the reference vials - they didn't claim he planted blood from the reference vials. They made it quite simple, Vannatter is the man who carried the blood - Fuhrman is the man who found the glove. Then there's simply the issue of a lot of prosecution stuff in the defense section which might confuse the reader. I'd have to see evidence and arguments but it sounds like a good idea - though within arguments one might have a prosecution section and defense section and have the same issue.  Also unfortunately still a lot to cover. There's nothing about the discovery of blood on the Bronco or the driveway. For example, one should explain the blood in the Bronco were transfer stains. Aside from the obvious, this is why the claim is Fuhrman using the glove like a paint brush rather than Vannatter dropping the blood onto it. Also the blood on the driveway makes for a lot of mileage from the defense. It seems to say there were two OJs. One jumping over the wall and the side of the house where he dropped the glove, another coming in through the driveway like normal where he left the blood drops.   Cake  (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * talk it sounds like you maybe a little biased towards the defense in this case. The purpose of this article is to just list the facts from the case, and not to render an opinion. For instance we can say that the defense claimed Vannatter was the made who had the blood but the prosecution demonstrated that he never had the opportunity to plant it at the bundy crime scene because he never went there, he went to Rockingham and handed it over to Fung immediately upon arriving. Likewise, the blood on the back gate was witness, documented and photographed by the police before the blood was taken from Simpsons arm. WE can mention it was collected almost three weeks later but the previous evidence proves it was already there. All but one of the defenses allegations of fraud were deductively refuted using timeline alone except one - Fuhrman planting the glove at Rockingham. The prosecution could only provided inductive arguments to disprove that claim. There is a lot of material here so we need to be selective with the main article and then generate supporting articles to flesh out the details not in the main article. I think the main article should just mention the primary arguments for both the prosecution and the defense and the main points made during cross-examination challenging it. More detail can be added to the generated article. For instance - the defense alleged Detective Vannatter planted Simpson's blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene because he carried Simpson's blood for several hours after thanos peratis withdrew from him and then drove it directly to Simpson's home rather than book it directly into evidence and 1.5mL's of Simpson's blood was allegedly unaccounted for and the evidence was collected from the back gate 19 days after the rest of the evidence at the Bundy crime scene. The defense also presented a photo of the back gate taken on June 13 which doesn't appear to show blood on the back gate. The prosecution countered that a different photo of the back gate shows the blood was there prior to Simpsons blood being take from his arm. Officer Riske, the first officer to arrive at the crime scene, notice the blood first and pointed it out to detective Fuhrman who documented it in his notes from that night. Multiple other officers who were there that night also testified seeing blood on the back gate. Thanos peratis never documented how much was taken from Simpsons so it is not a fact that any blood is actually missing and Peratis latter clarified that he made a mistake in estimating the amount he withdrew.Samsongebre (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except I'm not and it doesn't sound like anything except projection; I'm not going to take being called biased from the guy who pretends they didn't show Fung touching the envelope on video (like a trillion people saw this on their television, and you can still see it) and reacted like this because he scored a point. "All but one of the defenses allegations of fraud were deductively refuted" is literally opinion, and it's opinion the jury who actually saw the trial rejected. Also the inductive claim is not even true "If Fuhrman didn't know where he was, he wouldn't have planted the glove; Fuhrman didn't know where he was, therefore he wouldn't plant it" isn't inductive. That's another cope. "The jury didn't understand we needed inductive arguments." As the article states, it's a fact that Peratis said 8 CCs under oath, "well it could've been 7.9 or 8.1", then 'clarified the mistake' while not under oath, with a seemingly silly excuse that he couldn't see the numbers. The defense and more importantly the jury's inference from that was apparent. All of what you say is a lot more biased attempt at re-doing than trial than is the guy who added the bit about Frogmen - as if that were favorable to the defense. Cake  (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding Fung, the link you provided says that Fung denied that what he was holding was an envelope and specifically stated my fingerprints are not on it and the defense never refuted that so it the that whole statement is spurious. If you want to include you have to add the part about Fung denying it and saying his fingerprints aren’t on it. By deductively disproven by timeline I mean the blood at the crime scene was photographed and collected, except the back gate, prior to Simpson’s blood being taken from him, and the blood at Simpson’s home and the Bronco collected -except some of it for the Bronco, before the autopsy blood was collected from the victims. So in either case, there was no opportunity to plant blood because the reference vials were not created yet. We can include all of the allegations the defense made just so long as we include the prosecutions rebuttal otherwise it is one sided and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm taking this article off my watchlist. It's getting worse and worse and does not have enough watchers to counter the problematic editing and extensively debate the matters here on this talk page. And despite stating above that "the article should be careful to not include every little thing, or everything in excessive detail," this edit shows Samsongebre stating "will include a section on Barry Scheck's cross exam of Fung and Mazzola." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And by "not have enough watchers", I mean ones devoted to addressing the problems with the recent editing at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Singular
I've massively condensed the coverage of Singular's book - a lot of the stuff in there was WP:SYNTH, uncited, didn't accurately reflect the sources, or was cited only to theunredacted.com, which I don't think is a good source for controversial claims involving multiple WP:BLPs (especially clearly WP:BLP-sensitive claims about Fuhrman). That said, I don't think we should remove it entirely - Singular's claims are not commonly accepted, but the more cautiously-worded cut-down version isn't WP:FRINGE, and the possibility of what he outlines and speculates about regarding Fuhrman played a major role in the trial, to the point where the jury accepting that possibility may have contributed to the not guilty verdict. Actually, while editing it, I realized that the most important point of note about Singular is probably that the outline of his book came up in the trial. Also, should it be covered under "other theories" (as a theory about the trial) or under "books" (as, well, a book about the trial)? --Aquillion (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for huge cultural impact
I'm sure there have been serious arguments about why the case had such a gigantic impact on the popular mind. A presentation of such arguments would greatly add to the article. -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Prosecution case needs cleanup
Flyer22 Reborn I would appreciate it if you made this article semi-protected again. I also research some of the changes that mistercake made to this article and I don't think they are a reliable editor. For instance he is adding bad information and then falsely citing it as coming from reliable sources which is WIKI: VANDALISM. I also want you to know that I agree with you that I don't want this article to include irrelevant material from the case. Just the main pain points accepted at trial. Mistercake's biased editing has seriously screwed up the prosecution case and DNA evidence section and I would like fix it succinctly if I gain consensus.Samsongebre (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC) --- The prosecution began making opening statements on January 24, 1995. They prosecution argued that Simpson's history of domestic violence against Brown proved he had motive. Christopher Darden said "he killed her out of jealousy" and "because he couldn't have her." Darden said Simpson had a documented history of abusing Nicole. Simpson and Nicole met when she was only 18 and working as a waitress. Darden said Simpson began controlling Nicole financially then by making her sign a prenup before they wed and then refusing to let her work while they were married. There were 59 separate incidents of domestic violence, including eight times the police were called to Simpson's home. Darden said they would provide photographs of Nicole's injuries and witnesses who will testify to seeing the abuse. After Nicole Brown moved out of Simpson's home with their children and started working again, Darden said Simpson began stalking Nicole and wearing disguises so people would not recognize him. On the night of the murders, Simpson attended a dance recital for his children with Nicole and witnesses said Simpson was angry with Nicole that night about a tight black dress that she wore. After the recital, Simpson returned home and received a message from his then girlfriend Paula Barbieri ending their relationship. Darden said that was the motive for why Simpson went over to Nicole Brown's home that night, to reconcile their relationship. When Nicole refused, Simpson killed her in a "final act of control". Goldman then came upon the scene, was ambushed and killed by Simpson as well.

Lead prosecutor Marcia Clark stated during opening statements that there is a "Mountain of evidence" proving that Simpson is guilty "without a doubt". She stated the prosecution had collected over 450 pieces of evidence in this case pointing to Simpson's guilt. Multiple expert and other witnesses would establish the timeline of the murders to be approximately 10:15pm to 10:30pm. She said Simpson had no alibi that and several witnesses would refute his claim that he was home sleeping that night. There was a witness who saw Simpson's Bronco speeding away from Nicole Browns home at the time of the murders. Another witness would testify to not seeing Simpsons Bronco parked outside his home at the time of the murders where it was later found that night by the police. The gloves worn by the murderer were recovered, with one found at the crime scene and the other glove found at Simpson' home. A witness who lived at Simpson's home would testify to hearing "thumps" on his bedroom wall that night coming from right outside where the police found one of the gloves at Simpsons property. She said they have evidence that Nicole Brown had purchased a pair of those gloves for Simpson in 1990 and photograph of Simpson wearing them as well. Clark said the "blood will speak for itself" and there was a "trail of blood from Bundy through Simpsons Ford Bronco and into his house in Rockingham is devastating proof of his guilt."

Johnnie Cochran made opening statements for the defense. He said "This case is about a rush to judgment, an obsession to win at any costs." He said the defense would provide an alibi witness for Simpson who would testify he was home that night. Another witness would testify to seeing a group of four men at Nicole Browns home the night of murders. He said the DNA evidence in the case was "compromised, contaminated, and ultimately corrupted." Cochran stated that Simpson was the victim of a police frame-up and mentioned that a specific officer played an important role in this, Detective Mark Fuhrman.

During the opening weeks of the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Simpson had a history of physically abusing Nicole. Darden argued that Simpson killed his ex-wife in a jealous rage; the prosecution opened its case by playing a 9-1-1 call from Nicole Brown Simpson on January 1, 1989, in which she expressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her, and he could be heard yelling at her in the background. Other material related to domestic violence was presented including another 9-1-1 phone call that Nicole made on October 25, 1993, expressing the same thing and Simpson also could be heard shouting in the background, less than eight months before the murders. The prosecution called Brown's sister, Denise, to the witness stand. She tearfully testified to many episodes of domestic violence in the 1980s, when she saw Simpson pick up his wife and hurl her against a wall, then physically throw her out of their house during an argument. Simpson's lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued that only a tiny fraction of women who are abused by their spouses are murdered.

According to the prosecution, Simpson was last seen in public at 9:36 p.m. that evening when he returned to the front gate of his house from McDonald's with Kaelin. Simpson was not seen again until 10:54 p.m. – an hour and eighteen minutes later – when he got in Park's limousine. Brown's neighbor Pablo Fenjves testified about hearing a "very distinctive barking" and "plaintive wail" of a dog at around ten to fifteen minutes after 10:00 p.m. while he was at home watching the news on television. Eva Stein, another neighbor, testified about very loud and persistent barking, also at around 10:15 pm, which kept her from going back to sleep. The prosecution used this for the time of the murders. The prosecution alleged that Simpson had driven his Bronco during the required five minutes to and from the murder scene. They presented a witness in the vicinity of Bundy Drive who saw a car similar to Simpson's Bronco speeding away from the area at 10:35 pm.[13]

In closing arguments, Darden ridiculed the notion that police officers might have wanted to frame Simpson.[5] He questioned why, if the LAPD was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on domestic violence calls against Brown between 1986 and 1988 but did not arrest him; they only arrested him on charges of abuse in January 1989, when photos of Brown's face were entered into the record. Darden noted the police did not arrest Simpson for five days after the 1994 murders.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Always fun to accuse me of vandalism with no examples, and of bias while I've added info to both sides and while your mission is to refute what the jury believed (the one who decides what was 'demonstrated'). The article was a mess before I got here because it's an attempt to retry the case. If we are anal about primary sources, and calling that vandalism, then the trial transcript presumably should not be cited. "Bad information" lol so not false.   Cake  (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Student Question and Evaluation for Course
The main thing I struggled with this article was the overall organization to it. I saw some mentions in the talk about better organizing the prosecution versus the defense. As someone new to Wikipedia, what are ideas of how the headings can be used to better organize the timeline of events, and the information vital to the trial? Bchestn1 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bchestn1/Evaluate_an_Article

More bloating and bloating of this article
Checked in on this article again. , why are you continuing to bloat this article after what I stated in the this section? I clearly stated, "The article should be careful to not include every little thing, or everything in excessive detail. This is per WP:DIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not meant to give a blow-by-blow/day-by-day account of the trial. It's meant to sufficiently summarize what happened." This type of editing is also per WP:Summary style. You have not listened, and you keep adding just about any everything to this article. And that is despite the fact that your DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case article was accepted for creation. So much of what is in the "Prosecution case" and "Defense case" sections should be significantly trimmed and moved to that spin-off article of yours. And speaking of the spin-off article matter, I mentioned at WP:LAW that you keep "expanding and expanding the article with no end in sight. I don't know if Samsongebre is trying to force a spin-off article or what, but Samsongebre's previous spin-off was rejected." This was before I knew that the "DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case" article had been accepted. And regarding what you stated here? "WIKI:LENGTH" is not an actual redirect/shortcut, and we do indeed remove content just to shorten an article. Otherwise, WP:SIZE wouldn't exist. Same goes for WP:Summary style. We wouldn't spin out articles, per WP:Spinout and WP:Split, when an article becomes too long or a topic should have its own article as to not overwhelm the main article.

I took this matter to WP:LAW and pinged John B123, Girth Summit, NEDOCHAN, and User-duck because I am concerned about your edits to this article. I see that Sundayclose is now watching the article; so I'm also pinging Sundayclose this time. In addition to all of the bloating, you have been known to engage in WP:Synthesis and add questionable sources. There is also the WP:Due weight policy to keep in mind. So many of your edits are being added unchecked, and I hate to think of what this article will be like a year from now, or even months from now, because of your edits. Reverting you doesn't help much because you will either revert or start posting long texts on the talk page, including text proposals (which would be better posted to your sandbox, with a link to that sandbox on the talk page), which tends to make others not want to converse in those talk page sections. I'm not sure what is the best course of acting to take regarding your edits to this article, but something needs to be done. Maybe reverting you would be the best course of action, with editors asking you to make your case on the talk page before you add substantial material. Making your case on the talk page does not mean browbeating editors into accepting your edits. It means that you propose and wait and see what others think. If WP:Consensus is against the material, you don't add the material. Consensus may also be for adding some of the material, but not all of it. You don't WP:Edit war. If multiple editors revert you, you should stop reverting. Edit warring can also get you blocked. I'm thinking over solutions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I will start cutting in a day or two. A lot of the DNA material will be moved to the DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SIZE "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". That is the page I meant to cite, not WIKI:LENGTH. Also, on Wikipedia:Content removal it says "When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained removal of content is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted." So any removals you plan to make to this article should be discussed here first otherwise it will be reverted.

Honestly, I thought you and the other editors would be appreciative of everything I've done here. If you go back to the article a year ago and look at it then you should instantly notice how much critical information was left out. For instance, the contamination claim wasn't even mention even though that is how the defense primarily raised reasonable doubt at the DNA evidence. The Blood planting claim as evidenced by EDTA was not even mentioned either despite that being the primary way they attempted to scientifically prove police fraud. I suspect the supports of the verdict edited that information out likely because the claims were disproven and disowned by the people who made them and including them in the article would only remind the public about how much of the defenses arguments were contrived. The other editors, including yourself, thought I was making up the Police Conspiracy allegation when I added that in because you apparently weren't aware of it even though that was the *MOST* important part of the defenses case: that Simpson was the victim of a conspiracy (i.e., multiple people trying to frame him) and not just one person (Fuhrman) as the old article suggested. Many of the editors of this article are more concerned with keeping the article short rather than keeping it accurate which makes it very difficult to gain WP:CONSENSUS if they are not interested in the doing the research like I have. If we start removing claims that were made at trial all we are doing is creating gaps that will confuse people.

Flyer22 Frozen I suggest you point out which claims in the article you consider to be bloating here and we discuss it first before removing it. Do not remove anything from the Prosecution Case or Defense Case section without first stating the reasons why. Per WP:SIZE "Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles" which I already once with the DNA evidence section so maybe we can do that with some other parts of this article as well.Samsongebre (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing you on this matter. I stand by what I stated above. What I stated above is how Wikipedia works. And rather than try to understand that, you have continued to bloat, bloat and bloat. No, I'm not grateful. I have no reason to be grateful for your edits. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And this is not about trying to keep the article short. It was never short. And not including the excessive amount of detail you have included, as though this is article is an O. J. Simpson book, does not make the article less accurate. Furthermore, as noted, a lot of what you added can go into the spin-off article you created. Or another can be created if necessary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And "Do not remove anything from the Prosecution Case or Defense Case section without first stating the reasons why."? I have already stated why. Look at how much of that material is about DNA evidence. We have a spin-off article, which you created, for that! Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * All that stated, in my sandbox, I can make a draft of what I plan to cut (and/or move to the spin-off article) and summarize, and then post a link to it here for feedback. I would rather not start a WP:RfC on the matter, but I might need to do that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * More: Having read all of your above "07:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)" post now, it is not true that I thought you were "making up the Police Conspiracy allegation." I already knew that was a part of the case, and the article already addressed conspiracy theories and alternative theories before you showed up. I'm not stating that you haven't improved the article. I am stating that you have bloated it. As for the "Content removal" section of WP:SIZE, I have addressed that there. That section relied on an essay (WP:Content removal) and contradicts the entire WP:SIZE page. We do remove contently solely to reduce length. But, yes, that content is saved elsewhere if valid to retain. Essays do not have the same weight as our policies and guidelines, and even WP:Content removal doesn't state "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the whole “Background section” before removed and folded into the main articles for Simpson and Nicole Brown. The domestic violence portion of the article covers most of that relevant information. Just start the article off with the “Murders section”

We can condense the “suicide note”. The only relevant part was where he apologizes to the family of Ron Goldman presumably for his murder.

The Bronco Chase has a lot of info that isn’t necessary for the “Trial article” we could probably spin that into its own article and then just link it here with short summarized version of what happened here.

The DNA evidence was the heart of the prosecutions case and discrediting it was the bulk of the defenses case so I don’t know how you are going to reduce it here without leaving gaps in the article but I look forward to seeing your draft. All the original article said concerning DNA evidence was “what should have been their strong point became a weak link amid claims they handled it with a degree of incompetence to make delivery of accurate results almost impossible.” Clearly someone who supported the verdict wrote that but when the details from the trial are explained its clearly not true.

The only police fraud allegation the original article mentioned was Fuhrman planting the glove. All the other claims were omitted and I suspected the reason why is they were all disproven. They were all claims made at trial and if you remove them the result will be gaps in the article but I look forward to seeing your draft of proposed changes.

These are my ideas for shortening the length of the article without removing content. I maintain the trial section should not be altered because it will lead to gaps of missing information from the case.Samsongebre (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The “Flight to Chicago” section can be removed since most of that info is mentioned in the “Timeline” section of the prosecution case making it redundant and unnecessary.Samsongebre (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The lede has a whole paragraph listing the names of attorneys on Simpson’s defense team that can be removed. That same info is mentioned in the Defense Case section of the article making it redundant.Samsongebre (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Media Coverage section should have it own separate page since that is a big and often discussed about subject. That section and the “Other Theories section” could be spun off into separate articles and then linked here with short summaries. Most of the stuff in The “alternate theories” section is contrived but interested people can read it and be amused just in a separate article.Samsongebre (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Samsongebre, I started a draft page at User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/O. J. Simpson murder case. We can work on it together; this includes proposing things on the talk page. You can copy your above suggestions there. Someone who I just got through working on a draft with and who may be willing to help with this as well is Crossroads. Others are also obviously free to work on the draft. We shouldn't transfer the draft material over to the live article until there is consensus to do so. Let's not edit war on the draft page, just like we shouldn't edit war on the actual article.


 * I'll mention now, though, that the lead is meant to summarize the article; this is per WP:Lead. We need to have an adequate lead. As for the Trial section? To repeat, the "Prosecution case" and "Defense case" sections are too long. So much of that material is about DNA evidence and can be easily significantly downsized and moved to the aforementioned spin-off article you created. You seem to think it's impossible to downsize a lot of the content without leaving out important detail. It's not. Spin-off articles, like the one you created, are for the in-depth material. As for more spin-off articles? I don't yet see a need for more spin-off articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll probably have more to say later, but I want to emphasize WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We don't need every detail here, because encyclopedias don't include every detail. We use reliable sources to support our coverage, and readers who want all the details can then use Wikipedia to find sources that go into full detail. Crossroads -talk- 02:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I did encourage Samsongebre to contribute to Wikipedia and was a bit surprised and pleased with his enthusiasm and hard work and willingness to adhere to Wikipedia standards. I do appreciate his contributions. This was not a simple trial. It was long and complicated. To do it justice, it will need a lot of article space. When there is a sub-article, it is always difficult to decide what in the sub-article should be kept in the main article to ensure a full summery is presented. The objective is to convey to the reader what happen as simply as possible. This might entail examining each factoid for its worth. That is a lot of work and I would not want to do it. But keep in mind we are here to do volunteer work. If you are not willing to do the work then it falls to someone else who is willing. Samsongebre seems willing, so please do not try to discourage him and instead encourage him to do better. Calling his work "bloat" is not helping. Working with him to find a consensus does help. Please keep that up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I advised him before. And I am trying to work with him now. When based on our policies and/or guidelines, I don't find calling material bloat offensive any more than I find citing WP:DIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE offensive or Crossroads pointing to WP:NOTEVERYTHING offensive. Something like WP:NOTEVERYTHING is about bloat and it's what this article is facing at the moment. It's just as important to be honest with newbies and other types of less experienced editors about editing that is not best for articles as it is to encourage them to do better. They need to listen and learn. They shouldn't be enabled to keep going in the wrong direction. Letting him continue to expand and expand the article in a way that contrasts WP:SIZE, WP:Summary style and WP:NOTEVERYTHING is the wrong direction. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As for "Samsongebre seems willing"? Clearly, per above, that conflicts with the suggestion to significantly trim the "Prosecution case" and "Defense case" sections via moving a lot of the DNA evidence to the spin-off article about DNA evidence if not already covered there (at least for a start). If already covered there in needed detail, then all we need to do here at the main article is trim it in a way that adequately summarizes the material and points to the spin-off article for further detail. An example of this approach is this recent edit to the Black Death article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No need whatsoever to over-complicate the task. The reason it's so long is that masses has been added to it in a short period of time. It's a labour of love and that's fine but the article is not a biography, it's an encyclopaedic summation. Start another article by all means but this one is anomalous to Wikipedia, as it's quite simply too long to read. Just cut it down.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And as for the 'don't delete content purely for length' argument: no. It's not deleting information, it's deciding that ADDED info is NOT NECESSARY. Very different. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)