Don't Trust The Physical Evidence, Defense Lawyer Warns The Jury
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (Jan. 23, Noon) -- Defense attorney Robert Blasier told jurors that key evidence was contaminated and planted by the Los Angeles Police Department. Blasier, giving his closing argument Thursday morning in the O.J. Simpson civil trial, acknowledged that he could not tell the jury exactly how the evidence was tainted, but maintained there were so many problems that it could not be trusted.
Thursday afternoon the defense will continue its summation. Blasier and lead defense attorney Robert Baker are scheduled to argue. Although court began at 8:00 a.m. this morning in an effort to get the case to the jury this afternoon, Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki conceded this morning that it was not possible to finish. Court will be dark on Friday because Judge Fujisaki has to attend a judicial meeting. Jurors will now likely get the case Monday, after the plaintiffs make their rebuttal argument.
Blasier, who is recovering from back surgery, spoke from a wheelchair. He was low-key, presenting the facts but never becoming emotional. Blasier illustrated his discussion of DNA evidence with tinker toys, telling jurors that the testing was not reliable in a forensic environment. DNA tests are also subject to interpretation, Blasier said. Before methodically taking the jury through each piece of evidence police collected from the Bundy and Rockingham crime scenes, Blasier laid out the defense's general argument.
"Our defense on the physical evidence in this case is very simple: You cannot trust it," Blasier said. "It has been contaminated, it's been compromised, corrupted. It's been tampered with. It's been planted."
Blasier noted that some members of the police were "dishonest and many of them are incompetent." He reserved particular scorn for junior criminalist Andrea Mazzola, who collected much of the evidence in the case, and co-lead detectives Tom Lange and Philip Vannatter. The now-retired Vannatter, Blasier ominously told the jury, personally handled the blood samples taken from Simpson and both victims.
"It is our position that the way this evidence was collected or kept by the LAPD . . . makes it not worthy of trust," Blasier said.
The defense attorney pointed out numerous incidents of what he called, police "mucking about and messing up the crime scene." Blasier also raised the specter of Mark Fuhrman, telling jurors that the defense would not be able to bring in a witness who saw the rouge detective take a bloody glove and wipe it around Simpson's Bronco before planting it behind his house. The police, Blasier argued, were out to get Simpson from the very beginning.
"This is the police department against O.J. Simpson," Blasier told the jury. "Don't ever lose sight of that."
Blasier contended that common sense also showed that much of the physical evidence could not be trusted. Why, he asked, did the police find more blood drops at Rockingham than they did at Bundy? A person usually bleeds more when they first get cut, Blasier reminded jurors. Why did police find a blood drop in Simpson's bathroom, but not in his bedroom? Why did Kato Kaelin and limousine driver Allan Park not notice that Simpson cut himself or was bleeding? The defense lawyer also pointed out that the Rockingham glove seemed to be just sitting by itself near an air conditioner -- no blood drops were nearby.
"There is no evidence that anything happened over by that air conditioner," Blasier said. "Just a glove. Just a glove."
-Robert Schmidt
Court TV Law Center
Rob Schmidt's Reporter's Notebook
Court TV Reports and Trial Coverage
A Look Back at the Criminal Case
Discuss the Case
Register for our message boards and trade your
insights and opinions with other trial watchers.
