To add to the problem, the blood was not immediately turned over as evidence but was carried around for several hours before it was entered into the chain of custody, allowing for speculation of when and how the 1.5 mL of blood may have disappeared. The person who drew the blood could only guess he had taken 8 mL only 6 mL could be accounted for by the LAPD. The LAPD could not counter the idea of “lost blood” because there was no documentation of how much reference blood was taken from Simpson as evidence. Simpson’s blood assumed missing from a vial of evidence. Throughout the investigation, there were issues with how evidence was secured. Beyond poor evidence collection techniques, sloppy maneuvering at the scene caused more bloody shoe prints to be left behind by LAPD than by the perpetrator. Police even used a blanket that came from inside the house to cover Nicole Brown’s body, contaminating the body and anything surrounding it. Wet items were also packaged before allowing them to dry, causing critical changes in evidence. Separate pieces of evidence were bagged together instead of separately, causing cross-contamination. Items were photographed without being labeled and logged, making it difficult, if not impossible, to link the photos to any specific area of the scene. Photos were taken of critical evidence without scales in them to aid in measurement taking. The prosecution had expert witnesses who testified that the evidence was often mishandled. Other items of evidence were also never logged or entered into the chain of custody, which gave the impression that sloppy forensic collection had been carried out at the scene. The detectives who took over Fuhrman’s shift apparently were never aware of the print and eventually, it was lost or destroyed without ever being collected. Although it was documented in his notes by Detective Mark Fuhrman, one of the first to arrive on the scene, no further action was taken to secure it. An important bloody fingerprint located on the gateway at Nicole Brown’s house was not properly collected and entered into the chain of custody when it was first located. From the beginning, there were issues involving evidence collection.
0 kommentar(er)
