The infamous "bloody gloves" were a key piece of DNA evidence in the prosecution's case against O.J. Simpson in the double-murder trial. The decorated football superstar and Hollywood actor who was acquitted of charges but later found liable in a separate civil trial, has died. Photo / AP
The infamous "bloody gloves" were a key piece of DNA evidence in the prosecution's case against O.J. Simpson in the double-murder trial. The decorated football superstar and Hollywood actor who was acquitted of charges but later found liable in a separate civil trial, has died. Photo / AP
Following the death of O.J. Simpson at 76 from cancer, the highly publicised trial has returned to the spotlight. Famous Kiwi scientist Bruce Weir discusses his involvement in the case, and why it still fascinates people.
The highly publicised 1995 double-murder trial of O.J. Simpson has become an enduring media artefact and re-occurring, infamous, subject of pop culture.
It was the subject of endless debate and speculation, TV specials and documentaries, and was eventually fictionalised by Ryan Murphy in The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story, which starred Cuba Gooding jnr. in the titular role, alongside John Travolta, David Schwimmer and Sarah Paulson.
With news of Simpson’s death, the details of the trial and his subsequent acquittal are returning to headlines and public interest.
Originally from Christchurch, and now based in the US, Bruce Weir, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, was a key part of the case against O.J. Simpson. He spoke to ZB reporter Joel Dwyer today about the historic event and why interest in it has been so enduring.
“I helped the prosecution explain the evidence to the jury.”
It was a high-profile gig. The people v O.J. Simpson trial was the biggest case in America, and even the world, dominating news reports, watercooler conversations and dinner tables.
The case “gripped people’s imagination” says Weir. It had all the ingredients for mass interest. Simpson was a prominent figure in pop culture; the police chase of the famous white Bronco that was broadcast live, and the coverage of the trial were huge.
The prosecution largely focused on DNA evidence, and relied heavily on it to prove a connection between Simpson – who pled innocence – and the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife, and Ronald Lyle Goldman.
Both inside the courtroom and in the public realm, debates raged about the bloodstained glove and white Ford Bronco, two key elements of the prosecution’s case.
Al Cowlings, with O.J. Simpson hiding, drives a white Ford Bronco as they lead police on a two-county chase in June 1994. Photo / AP
“There’s a lot of blood stains in that case, blood on the footpath by the bodies on the gate, by the property and his car, on his gloves, on his clothes and everything fitted together because the blood stains matched either Simpson or the two victims or a combination of them.”
But it wasn’t simple; some of the bloodstains contained DNA from more than one person, particularly Simpson’s car.
“The prosecution when it presents evidence like that has to attach numbers to it,” says Weir. “I was one of the people who knew how to do that.”
And, famously, in light of what many considered damning evidence, Simpson’s defence team was successful. “They were aggressive. I think they were very effective.”
It was a brutal trial for everyone involved.
Simpson was found not guilty.
“I think looking back, I think the sort of the overwhelming impression was what a good job the defence had done in the face of overwhelming evidence, managed to raise doubts on a whole host of issues, including the gloves that apparently didn’t fit Simpson,” Weir says. “Looking back, you might say, well, the defence did a better job than the prosecution and raised doubts.”
Bruce Weir, an expert witness in the O.J. Simpson trial, pictured on a visit to New Zealand in 2004. Photo / Kenny Rodger
In the civil trial that followed, where the victim’s family sued Simpson, there was a different outcome. “The same evidence, the same story was presented – and I was part of that case – and that jury found Simpson liable for wrongful death.”
The use of DNA was something of a watershed moment, and brought the medium to public awareness thanks to the high-profile nature of the trial. Everyone had a theory on the evidence.
It’s also had a surprising legacy, particularly regarding the defence experts.
“It was a bit strange because the people attacking the evidence at that time went on to do very nice work founding the innocence projects with people who have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, subsequently released because of DNA evidence exonerating them,” says Weir. “So the same people who argued in court against DNA evidence turned around and made good use of it.”
While it’s the most famous part of Weir’s career, the award-winning biostatistician and statistical geneticist has an impressive CV, and is considered one of New Zealand’s best exports. From dux at Shirley Boys’ High School in Christchurch, to studying at Canterbury Universaty and gaining his PhD at North Carolina State University. In 1983 he became a Guggenheim Fellow, followed by fellowships at American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Statistical Association and Royal Society in 1998, 1999 and 2021 respectively.
Looking back at that moment in the media glare, Dwyer asks Weir what he thinks people will remember about the Simpson saga. “The case itself.”
