Question

custody and miscommunication between first and second shift meant that the print was lost! a drop of blood on the back of nicole brown simpson appeared to have been dropped from someone standing over the body, while there is photographic evidence of this drop it was not collected and the body was moved, destroying the evidence. mishandling evidence: the collection and storage of evidence was also handled improperly. there were instances in which separate pieces of evidence were stored together in the same bag, when they should have been placed in separate containers. blood soaked items were packaged before they were allowed to dry which potentially changed the evidence. additionally, evidence was stored in a hot truck which compromised the evidence. persons who were not authorized to handle evidence did and broke the chain of custody. there is record of simpson’s bronco being entered after it was in police custody by individuals other than those authorized. missing samples: approximately 1.5 ml of oj’s blood that was taken as a reference sample was unaccounted for. the exact amount of blood drawn from simpson’s arm was never recorded. the officer who was supposed to log the blood into evidence instead put the vials in his pocket and went back to the crime scene! cross contamination: the same police officers worked both the primary and secondary crime scenes (the house on bundy dr. where nicole lived and oj’s home). these same officers also entered oj’s car. this made it possible for the transfer of evidence mistakenly by police officers. at the bundy drive crime scene police officers used a blanket from inside the house to cover nicole brown’s body as it lay in the sidewalk, potentially leaving traces of evidence behind which came from inside the house and not from the crime itself. 11. why is the drop of blood from nicole’s back a critical piece of evidence that was lost? 12. what is chain of custody? 13. why do you think a reference sample of blood was taken from oj simpson? 14. if you had to guess...are officers allowed to enter a crime scene carrying evidence from outside the scene? 15. what could the lapd have done to make it impossible for cross contamination of the scenes to occur?

Explanation:

1. The drop of blood on Nicole's back could have provided crucial information about the position of the person who dropped it, potentially linking to the perpetrator. Its loss due to non - collection and body movement means a loss of key forensic evidence.
2. Chain of custody is a record of who has had possession of evidence from the time it was collected at the crime scene until it is presented in court. It ensures the integrity and authenticity of evidence.
3. A reference sample of blood from OJ Simpson was likely taken to compare with blood found at the crime scene to determine if it matched his DNA.
4. Officers are generally not allowed to enter a crime scene carrying evidence from outside as it can cause cross - contamination and compromise the integrity of the scene.
5. The LAPD could have used more personnel dedicated to each scene, implemented strict protocols for changing gloves and clothing between scenes, and used disposable or properly sanitized equipment to prevent cross - contamination.

Answer:

1. It could have provided key forensic information about the position of the person who dropped it, but was lost due to non - collection and body movement.
2. A record of who has had possession of evidence from collection to court presentation to ensure integrity and authenticity.
3. To compare with crime - scene blood for DNA matching.
4. No, as it can cause cross - contamination and compromise the scene.
5. Use more dedicated personnel, strict protocol for gear changes, and sanitized or disposable equipment.