Oj Simpson's gloves.?

Question

Remember how OJ tried on those gloves at his trial (I assume they were the gloves the killer used) and they didn't fit which I guess played some sort of role in the not guilty verdict. I was just thinking why couldn't they just take the fingerprints from the inside of the glove and try to find a match.That may be a stupid question, but I have no idea how fingerprinting works and what materials can or cannot be tested.

Answer 1

The major reason why O. J. Simpson got off for that crime was because the investigation was mishandled. Evidence was not handled properly and the State of California could not prove that the evidence collected was not tainted. If the investigators made such basic and simply mistakes then do you think they would have had the intelligence to check the inside of the glove for fingerprints?

CSI these people were in name only and a lot of them got fired, including Marsha Clark the DA who headed the investigation.

Taking fingerprints from inside of a glove could be difficult, especially if the glove is fur lined inside or is wet, which I think was true in both cases. Even the best CSI personal wouldn't be able to get finger prints from that. Of course they could have collected DNA. Back during the investigation DNA work wasn't as effective as it is now days, but if the glove was tested for Simpson's DNA and it was positive then it would have supported the case much better.

The case can't be retried due to law so Simpson will never be at risk. The police and the District Attorney felt that they had the criminal so their is no reason to waste time and conduct expensive tests on a glove that won't yield any usable proof.

It isn't always as easy as it seems on TV. For example DNA takes hours to harvest, set up, and process. Then it must grow and this can take days. With the backlog in cases it can take over a month to analyze a sample. In some cases it can take years (like when the case is cold). DNA is not like fingerprinting, we don't have a good database on it. So if a DNA sample is found and cultured then it may not give you your criminal. There has been a lot of resistance to building a national DNA registry because so much other information can be obtained from DNA. Typically when an investigation is complete all the DNA involved in the investigation is destroyed. Of course once it is analyzed and coded then that coding remains a part of the police record.

In several episodes of Miami CSI I have seen a case proven when DNA is matched from a past case with a current suspect. But, the problem is you have to have a suspect, and you have to have legally obtained a DNA sample; either with their permission or under a court order. Incidentally the same is usually true with fingerprints. Sure habitual criminals will be in the database but matching a fingerprint through the database can take days. If you increase the search range; like to all those who have had a security clearance then the computer can take weeks to sort through the possible matches.

Once a print is taken and added to the database then it can still be fooled. A fuzzy print, a smudge, or a bad image can result in no matches. Even when a match is possible usually a range of matches are returned. Rarely is one single suspect found in the search.

Things are nice and simple on TV and designed to be finished in time for the end of the show, but real investigations take longer, are not so sure in their results, and are more complex. What you see on TV is merely a simulation of what happens in real life.

Answer 2

Truthfully, the glove didn't have much to do with the verdict. Poor prosecuting techniques, poorly explained science (DNA was a relatively new thing at the time, and the experts did a poor job of explaining it to the jurors), distraction, and ignorant jurists were the problem.

That said, it is difficult, often impossible to get fingerprints off of cloth, because it is porous and made of fibers. On top of that, the glove was wet and blood-soaked (and may have shrank, explaining why it didn't fit... not to mention that O.J. obviously didn't try hard AND had another glove on under it when he tried it). So the fingerprints probably were not there.

In any case, thanks to science classes and shows like CSI, people are better educated on DNA and what it means. Odds are very good that if the trial happened now, O.J. would be convicted. Oh well. Too little, too late.

Answer 3

No, no, no.

Here are two points to consider...one a fact, the other speculation.

1. the jury was restricted, as per typical criminal law cases, to decide upon ONLY certain evidence and testimony.
Despite what you or I saw, heard or read during the trial, they had a very narrow field of information from which to choose.
They made the correct choice based on what they were allowed to see, hear and read...which was worlds apart from the information we had.
I think O.J. is guilty as guilty can get.
But the prosecution was pathetic and didn't allow enough damning evidence to find its way to the jurors.

2. The Glove!
It was made of leather, wasn't it?
And what happens to leather when it gets wet?
It shrinks.
The glove was covered in blood...a liquid.
It shrank.
The prosecution, once again, did a piss poor job in refuting Cochran's so-called evidence ("if it does not fit, you must acquit").
Someone on the prosecution team should have been smart enough to figure that out.

Answer 4

Don't think finger prints would show on the the inside of gloves. But he did have on rubber gloves when he tried them on this and the fact leather shrinks it's no wonder to me they would not go on. Having worked hard in the rain have had mine shrink up if you keep wearing them they will be OK it's only when you put them away wet that you almost cannot get them back on unless you soak them in water again. All the smart attorneys that were there probably never did a days work in their life so none of the thought of this.

Answer 5

If the gloves have a rough out interior and most do, then you can't get prints.
They might be able to get some eliel cells for DNA.
Just a point. Leather can be shrunk by running them through the dryer and then re-softened.

Answer 6

He had arthritis, and his arms have been swollen. Plus, it became right into an excellent appearing job. "We" weren't all duped in this; the jury became into. study Bugliosi's super "Outrage" to work out how the prosecution thoroughly bungled this occasion.

Answer 7

1

Answer 8

Excellent question!
Watch here (min 20)
Dick Gregory | Will the Real O.J. Please Stand Up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAAB-5UfjAk