The O.J. Simpson case, they had no understanding of that DNA evidence, and didn't want to.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
With the advent of DNA, we know that people have been convicted and sentenced to death who later proved not to be guilty of the crime.
You've got people who are looking at DNA evidence and other evidence like that and they're ignoring it.
After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said, 'We think he probably did it. We just didn't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.'
As neither of these two great research scientists was able to find the solution to the mystery, it is small wonder that none of their contemporaries were able to do so either.
There was never sufficient evidence presented at my trial to support a finding of intent to kill.
When we had highly sensitive information, the DNA on the dress, that was held within our office and the FBI. There was no dissemination of that information.
I'm not fascinated by one particular case, but by knowledge that I had no idea was out there.
Certainly the O.J. Simpson case was a turning point in my career.
Many police departments still use DNA evidence the way they have used fingerprints and tire tracks: to determine whether a suspect committed the crime.
I think the prosecution had all the evidence in front of them to have won the case.