The People V. . . . "A Hell of a Fight"

The AMERICAN CRIME STORY series on OJ has led other TV channels to produce or bring back specials about the case.  Last night (April 1), Headline News Channel (HLN) showed its two one hour specials on the case, one from 2014 and one from last year.  The first was about the trial, the second about the chase on the freeways of Los Angeles.  I was surprised at how chummy the reporter was with Detective Tom Lange and with the Goldmans.  She let them spin everything to support the premise that the jury fell for the race card and failed to look at the evidence.  There were too many little moments of such presumption of guilt that it would take several posts to clean them all up.

I did hear two thing that were particularly interesting.  The first was the portions of the interview with a juror, a Hispanic American who still believes he made the right decision, that the prosecution failed to prove its case.  It did not start with Detective Fuhrman, he said.  The whole investigation by all of the LAPD failed to be done properly.  There were enough admissions to failures that there could be no confidence in any of the supposed "mountain of evidence."

I think that only a portion of the interview was shown because I think there was more that he could have said about the evidence than that it was not conclusive.  In a trial, the jury gets to determine if the prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had motive, means, and opportunity.  What people forget is that the defendant (who could be you or me) does not have to prove innocence.  That's French justice.  The American (derived from the British) system presumes innocence until proven guilty.  The defendant does not have to testify.  The prosecution has to bring sufficient evidence to prove guilt.

I contend that the jury actually felt there was proof that OJ was innocent.  If the juror was asked about that, it did not get into the show but was left on the cutting room floor.

The second thing that struck me was Lange's statement that "Ron put up a hell of a fight."

I had not heard that from anyone on the prosecution side before, other than Dr. Irvin Golden's autopsies.  Lange was present when the autopsies occurred.  

If Lange had actually said that on the witness stand, the defense should have had a field day.  I think it might have gone something like this:

Defense (D): Detective Lange, did you just say that Ron Goldman "put up a hell of a fight?"

Lange (L): Yes.

D: Would you tell how you came to that conclusion?

L:  During the autopsies, Dr. Golden pointed out bruises in his arms which would have been where he blocked blows aimed at him.  

D:  Would you show us what you mean, please?

L:  (Demonstrating how a killer might raise his hand and start to bring it down in a stabbing motion) As the killer used this move, it appears Ron brought his arm up to block it.

D:  And how would that show up on Ron's arm?

L:  There would be bruises along the forearm somewhere between here (pointing to the wrist) and here (pointing to the elbow).  

D:  And Ron had such bruises.

L:  Yes, he did.

D:  Would there be any other signs of Ron's putting up a good fight?

L:  There would be bruises and abrasions on his knuckles.

D: Detective Lange, were such bruises and abrasions on Ron's knuckles?

L:  Yes, there were.

D:  And why would there be such bruises and abrasions there?

L:  They would be from where he struck the killer.

D:  So based on the bruises on his forearms and on his knuckles, you conclude that Ron "put up a hell of a fight?"

L:  That is correct.

D:  Now, where on the killer would you find signs of Ron's defensive move to the stabbing move, Detective Lange?

L:  On the underside of the forearm is where the bruises would be.

D:  And, Detective Lange, where would Ron most likely have hit his assailant to cause the abrasions and bruises on his knuckles?

L:  Ron's blows could have landed on his assailant's head, face, torso, or whatever part of the body presented itself to his punch.

D:  Detective Lange, based on your knowledge of such minor injuries, how long would you say the bruises would last, a few seconds?  An hour?  A few days?  

L:  Bruises last up to a week or so, depending on how deep the injury goes.

D:  So based on your understanding, the assailant against whom Ron put up "a hell of a fight" would have had bruises on his underarm and perhaps on his face or torso or even his leg for up to a week after the fight.  Is that correct?

L:  That is my understanding.

D:  Detective Lange, did you and Detective Vannatter examine OJ's body for any injuries the day he returned from Chicago?

L:  We did.

D:  And what did you find?

L:  We found a cut on the middle finger of his left hand next to a split in the skin.

D:  Did you find any bruises on OJ's forearms, top or bottom?

L:  No, we did not.

D:  Did you find and bruises or abrasions on OJ's face, arms, or body that might have been inflicted by Ron's "hell of a fight?"

L:  No, we did not.

D:  Then who was Ron having this "hell of a fight" with, Detective Lange?

Who indeed?  It could not have been OJ.

But I do not think that exchange ever occurred before or during the trial.  I wonder if it happened within the jury, without Lange, of course.