Nicole Brown and the Domestic Violence

I often hear people downplay the domestic violence aspect of this case.  Of course an abuser doesn't always commit murder, but when analyzing the the totality of evidence, one should never discount its relevance.  I believe that it is highly relevant to OJ's motive.  Here are numerous pieces of evidence (culled from the trial testimony itself, commentary of the detectives and lawyers involved in the case, and Nicole's personal diary).  

1) The famous New Year’s incident of 1989 where police were called to the residence, in which Nicole ran out of the house screaming “He’s going to kill me, he’s going to kill me!” to the officer on the scene.

2) Nicole’s 911 phone call in which she claims Simpson broke in the back door (though at that point she said that he had not yet hit her).  Nicole said in the phone call,  “I don’t want to stay on the line he’s going to beat the shit out of me.”

3) According to Officer Terry Schauer of the West LAPD Division, he had received a “screaming woman-call” on Mulholland from Marquerite Simpson, who refused to press charges even though she was beaten by her husband, OJ.  Another LAPD officer, Richard Deanna, had a similar story as far back as 1969 with Marguerite.

4) In 1993, Brown told Kris Jenner, “Sooner or later, he’s going to kill me.”  Brown allegedly wanted Jenner to help her make a tape recording of his behavior and put it in a safe-deposit box.

5) In 1990, Brown told Jenner (after she encouraged Brown to leave OJ), “I can’t leave…If I leave, he’ll kill me.”

6) D’Anne Purcilly-Lebon, a close friend of Nicole, recounted to detectives in 1993 that Brown had said to her, “Everywhere I go, he shows up.  I really think he’s going to kill me.”

7) Denise Brown testified that once at Rockingham, in the mid 80’s, OJ had picked up Nicole, threw her against the wall, and then picked her up and threw her out the front door.

8) When the LAPD informed Lou Brown’s death, Denise, in the background, immediately begins to scream, “I knew he’d do it! I knew that motherfucker would kill her!  I knew it! OJ did it! OJ killed her! I knew that son of a bitch was going to do it!”

9) Three weeks before the murders, Nicole told Juditha Brown, “He’s following me again, Mommy. I’m scared.  I go to the gas station, and he’s there. I go to Payless shoe store, and he’s there. I’m driving, and he’s behind me.”

10) Judith also claimed that a month before the murder, Nicole had said that Simpson had told her, “If I ever see you with another man, I’ll kill you.”

11) According to Denise Brown, two weeks before her death, Nicole said that Simpson was continuing his threats said, “I need to get a recorder or put this down on paper.”  She claims that Simpson additionally said to her, after their most recent breakup, “I have no reason to live now.”

12) In her safety deposit box, Nicole kept a series of pictures of her bruised face and her diary.  Her diary contains the following statements.  There were many more than what is listed here.

* “OJ threw me against the wall in our hotel and on the floor.  Put bruises one my arms and             back.”

* “..beat me for hours as I kept crawling from the door.”

* “smashed my car with a baseball bat after visiting Tammy Hughe.”

* “Chased me, grabbed me, threw me into walls - threw all my clothes out window.  Bruised             - Al Cowlings calmed you down.”

* ”Pipson Idea…OJ hit me off sofa at Pips.  Wine closet - beat me so bad.”

* “Called me whore.  Hit me while he fucked me.”

On Brian Heiss' new OJ video

 

Brian Heiss, the popular video blogger who believes that OJ is innocent, has put up a new video. I have just watched through it and naturally I have my issues with what I believe are misleading statements.  Direct quotes from his videos are in green with my responses below.

When Mr. Simpson was examined and photographed by LAPD on June 13th 1994, there were no bruises anywhere on his person.  

This is incomplete, however.  The LAPD did photograph the cuts on his hands.  And Simpson’s personal physician, Robert Huizenga, testified to seeing 3 cuts (in two parts) and 7 abrasions on his hands and arms area on June 15th, less than 72 hours after the murder.  I believe that if the assailant were attacking Goldman with a knife, his hands and wrists areas would be precisely the places where wounds would be, not his torso, head or other part of the body. If someone were attacking me, where would I try to stop them from? Probably the hands/wrist area.  This would be consistent with Simpson's wounds. 

Now, is it possible that because Vannatter and Peratis did not see the abrasions/bruises the day after the crime, that OJ was wounded between then and the time Huizenga analyzed him?  Possibly, but I feel like it's probably more likely that Vannatter and Peratis just missed them.  After all, how would Simpson have gotten the wounds during that time period?  And I suspect bruises are easier to miss than a couple of medium-sized cuts.

...travel home without getting any blood in his Bronco, there was only 1/8th of one drop of blood ever found in Mr. Simpson’s Bronco, 

There were no less than 12 blood stains collected and tested from the Bronco, with OJ’s, Ron’s and Nicole’s all positively identified with PCR and RFLP testing.  And these were only representative stains; obviously a criminalist does not collect every single stain in a situation like this. There were stains collected from the driver door interior, the instrument panel, the carpet, the steering wheel, and the center console.  This is exceptionally incriminating.  As for the amounts (1/8 of a blood drop), I am curious about the source on this claim.  Heiss has continually noted the minute DNA amounts in nanograms, though there are also problems with this analysis.  

and the world’s most renown criminalist agree that the assailants would have been covered in blood.  

This is pure speculation, in my opinion.  Even Henry Lee, the defense star witness, acknowledged with a "yes" under cross-examination when asked if there is a lot of scientific literature that suggests that “you can’t really say that someone didn’t participate in a crime just because they are not covered in blood even if it is something like a stabbing.” 

And Herbert MacDonell, another blood expert for the defense (!), wrote about this in his own paper the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence: “The complete absence of bloodstains on a defendant or his clothing is frequently assumed by many to be definitive evidence that the defendant did not directly participate in a violent act.  This misconception is fostered by those who have insufficient knowledge and experience in bloodstain pattern interpretation or by those who hope that such an opinion would aid in their client’s defense.”

However, there was no blood found in Simpson’s plumbing washing machine drain traps…where did the blood go?

There was a positive result for blood with the phenolphthalein test in the sink and drain and on the lip of the circle of the washbasin in Simpson’s bathroom.  Does this not qualify as “plumbing”? In a prior video, Heiss concluded that there was “no blood in pipes in OJ’s bathroom” after mentioning the negative result of the sink trap.  Is that supposed to exculpate him?  Remember, Simpson's blood was found at the Bundy murder scene, in OJ's Bronco, on a sock in his bedroom, on the Rockingham glove, on the Rockingham trail, in the Rockingham foyer, and in the master bathroom floor (item 14)!  But somehow blood not being in a sink trap suggests he wasn't bleeding?  

On F. Lee Bailey's new book: The Truth about the OJ Simpson Trial

I have just finished the Kindle version of Bailey's new book.  While well-written and interesting in parts, there were quite a few mistakes that he made regarding the evidence.  A few examples:

“Given the amount of blood that had hemorrhaged from Nicole, the assailant would have been drenched in blood.”  A common talking point that is pure speculation and was even rebuked by a defense team witness, Herbert MacDonnell, who famously suggested (and wrote a forensic essay on) the notion that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  We simply have zero proof that Simpson (or any other assailant) was covered in blood.

“The best, but not only, example of this (evidence being planted) was a certain sock which was recovered from Simpson’s bedroom carpet, and those blood samples found to contain EDTA.”

False and has been thoroughly discredited numerous times.  I wrote about it here.

It’s funny, because Bailey suggests that this is the strongest evidence supporting deliberately planted evidence, yet he spends less than two paragraphs in the entire book covering it. 

Later in the book he says, “Marcia Clark tried to diffuse Dr. Rieders’s testimony in this case by showing that he made a mistake in an old case.”   No, she diffused his testimony by attacking the specific issue.  Say what you will about Marcia Clark, but she went into detail about why Rieders’ argument had significant problems, notably getting him to admit that the unpreserved and preserved samples had the same amounts of EDTA (ppm or less…meaning likely none at all that could be technically detected).  

“Dr. Henry Lee testified that it looked to him as if the blood evidence appeared to show tampering.”  This did not happen, and it is an incredible stretch to suggest that Lee’s “something wrong” comment indicates this.  I believe that Lee was very cautious about how he worded his answers during this trial.

While talking about the sock evidence, Bailey repeats the notion that the Willie Ford “videotaped Simpson’s bedroom at 4:13 but the police evidence collector said he picked up the socks at about 4:30 or 4:40 pm.”  Again, this was fully discredited, even in part by a defense team witness!  Bailey of course doesn’t mention that.

In regards to the vial sample that Vannatter took to Rockingham, Bailey writes, “Why would a veteran detective return to the scene with evidence incriminating a suspect?”  Because the lead detective is supposed to give the evidence to the criminalist so that he can inventory it if he doesn’t have a Divisional Record number yet.   It doesn’t matter if he was at Rockingham, Bundy, or the Parker Center.

And here’s one that makes me think Bailey was sleeping during the trial.  It was in regards to the sock blood which contained Nicole’s DNA.  Bailey writes, “Cellmark didn’t submit its findings until November 17th.  This raises the question: How could police investigators know in the September that the blood drop on the sock would belong to Nicole?”  Because Gregory Matheson did PGM testing on the socks on September 20th and the results were leaked to the press where Tracie Savage reported on it the next day.

Sorry to wank on…but I’ll add more later.