"Bloody Fingerprints"

The team working together can be seen within the communication between lead detectives and the SOCO’s upon their arrival. Once arrived at the scene SOCO’s where instructed to collect as much evidence as they could  rather than carry out procedures which needed to be done prior to the collection of evidence for example, initial scene assessment, common approach path etc. Vannatter instructed officers to quickly collect evidence this was down to the fact detectives wanted to shut the scene down and close it off as a “crime scene” due to the high media presence outside. By doing this evidence was not correctly packaged, certain pieces of evidence was not logged into the chain of custody log and key pieces of evidence became contaminated and not viable within a court of law.

Although the initial scene assessment was carried out it was not carried out by SOCO’s but each individual detective upon site. The information they recorded was not shared between each other and this led to confusion throughout. This is a clear example of how the team did not work efficiently and effectively throughout the murder investigation of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The initial scene assessment places key pieces of evidence within certain parts of the crime scene. However some of this evidence was not placed within the chain of custody, yet recorded upon documents. An example of this is when Mark Fuhrman found the “bloody fingerprint” upon the back of Nicole’s property however this was never logged into the chain of custody allowing for it to not be analysed and no audit trail to occur. This piece of evidence was documented by Fuhrman however never collected as evidence. Due to the fact this fingerprint was never logged into the chain of custody it was not viable within court. This fingerprint could have belonged to the suspect, identifying the individual as OJ Simpson or someone else and could have played a big role within the investigation. However as this was never logged or collected no one could state who the fingerprint belonged to. 

Fuhrman stated that the forensic scientists didn't receive his notes in time. In fact they did not receive his notes until two months later. This is a clear example of how communication lacked within the investigation team. Fuhrman should have followed standard protocol and officially document the evidence and should have asked a SOCO to collect the evidence in order for it to be analysed. However as there was no documentation of the evidence there was no security allowing the evidence to become destroyed and contaminated by anyone who has came into contact with it. Fuhrman has also previously stated that he gave the notes to detective Vannatter upon the night of the crime occuring, however Vannatter did not read this and stated that Fuhrman should have told him. This is also a clear lack of communication throughout the investigation team, if Fuhrman specifically told Vannatter someone could have collected it. 

This was detrimental to the prosecution's argument as it allowed the defence to argue that as it was not logged into the chain of custody or ever collected it should not be involved within this investigation. They also argued that the fingerprint could have belonged to any individual or any officer within the scene as nobody wore PPE which caused a high amount of cross contamination. Although it was documented within Fuhrman's personal notebook, it was never officially documented as evidence, therefore could not be used within court.