
WASHINGTON DC – One of the key aspects of the Oscar Pistorius trial has been the forensic evidence – what it shows, and whether or not it’s valid.
In the US, it’s a reminder of a case that many Americans still see as a watershed moment for the country’s justice system.
The OJ Simpson trial also hinged on the opinion of forensic scientists.
If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit
Washington DC’s crime museum has a whole section devoted to forensic science – a discipline that used to be shrouded in mystery.
Taking fingerprints or measuring bullet holes was inexact and criminal trials were a case of ‘he said, she said’.
But now, things have changed – forensic science can make or break a case, and TV crime shows have raised its profile significantly.
But on top of that, the famous trial of OJ Simpson back in 1994 also gave the discipline a much higher profile, as the issue of the glove – which the prosecution said linked him to his ex-wife’s murder – got the whole country talking … just as South Africa and the world is now discussing the evidence shown in the trial of another famous athlete.
As the Oscar Pistorius case continues, in the absence of witnesses, it’s the forensics that are coming to the fore – but instead of a glove, here it’s a cricket bat, a bathroom door and even the athlete’s own prosthetic legs that are taking centre stage.
And when asked if that trial reminds them of any big American cases, it’s clear that people here see parallels with OJ:
Said former police officer, Michael Cerisano: “I think forensics plays a big part. I remember in the OJ Simpson trial, there was the famous line Johnnie Cochran brought out, ‘If it does not fit, you must acquit’, when they had OJ try the glove on.”
Forensic scientist Victor Weedn was a named witness in the OJ case, and says the forensics are similarly important now for Oscar Pistorius: “In both the OJ Simpson case as well as this case, it’s largely hinging on forensic science, because you have the defendant, has a story which of course doesn’t match with the prosecution. But the prosecution doesn’t have any other witnesses to go to, they have to go to the forensic evidence as their only witness.”
But, he says, for Pistorius, guilt is already established. So the role of forensics is more subtle.
“In the OJ Simpson case, for instance, there was the glove – you know – ‘If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit’. I’m not sure I see that in the same way in this case. 9.49 //10.08 They’re not really going to hard evidence that he was there or not there, we know that. This is more subtle than that. Essentially what we have is a case where we have the defendant’s testimony, which says one thing, and the prosecution has to come up with something which is not going to be from witness testimony but has to come from the forensic evidence.”
Back at the museum, an exhibit of a disturbed bedroom with rumpled sheets, bullet holes and bloodstains eerily brings to mind the scene of the crime now being discussed in Pretoria.
Here, using forensics to search for clues is just a bit of fun for visitors. But for Pistorius – as for OJ – the science and what a court makes of it will be lifechanging.
-eNCA