Chapter 50 Section 15 Finale Continues

However, 70% of Americans believe that Simpson is likely to be guilty, and some on-site evidence from the prosecution also shows that Simpson is suspected of being involved in the case.Journalists also often ask me why I testify for a potentially guilty defendant.My answer is that the most important thing in criminal forensics is physical evidence and the work of scene reconstruction.Without complete evidence, only partial reconstructions can be done.This case is one in which only partial reconstruction can be done.In this case, the LAPD's forensic laboratory got the DNA right 80 percent of the time, but was flawed the rest of the way.Rigorous scientific workers are to report all the doubts and hope that the prosecution can give a reasonable answer instead of proving the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Whether the defendant is guilty or not should be decided by jurors or judges, not criminal forensics personnel. .

Later, in the civil lawsuit brought by the victim's family against Simpson, I declined the defense's invitation to intervene.Because of Simpson's criminal case, I have delayed many important things, and I expressed to the defense attorney in the civil case that this case has unfortunately become a basketball game with no end in sight, and I would never want to be part of it A player in the team because there are other more meaningful things to do. After the Simpson case was judged, the case immediately became a textbook case in the criminal justice circles across the United States.The Los Angeles City Council immediately passed a bill to increase the funds and equipment of the police department’s criminal laboratory and strengthen the training of criminal forensics personnel. Police departments around the country also invited me to give speeches, explaining how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Half a year after the conclusion of the Simpson case, the Los Angeles Police Department reopened the investigation. As for the truth of the murder that night, it may take a long time to be revealed, and it may become an unsolved case that will never be solved. In late 1997, I was invited by the California Association of Forensic Officers to be a keynote speaker at its annual meeting, many of the attendees were forensic officers from the Los Angeles Police Department's laboratory.I started with the Simpson case and how the LAPD mishandled the scene.Before the speech, Danny Feng, a Chinese-American forensic officer who had testified in the Simpson case, came up to shake my hand. He privately revealed to me that he was troubled by ridicule and accusations after Simpson was acquitted.

I deeply understand that criminal forensics is a highly competitive industry. In the past, whites accounted for the majority and there were very few Chinese.Recently, the number of Chinese forensic personnel has increased, and their quality is also very good, but most of them work at the grassroots level, and they often have to take the blame for others after the failure of a major case.Most of these Chinese forensic personnel are second- or third-generation immigrants. Although they do not understand Mandarin, they are excluded or treated as foreigners because of their skin color.They all told me in private that because I am of Chinese descent and play a leading role in the criminal laboratory of the Connecticut State Police Department, many Americans look at us with admiration.

I had contact with Danny Fonne in the Simpson case and knew him to be a very capable and competent forensic officer.I am willing to defend him against injustice. At the lecture, I praised Feng Danny's personal ability to hundreds of forensic personnel.He also pointed out that the failure of the Los Angeles Police Department in the Simpson case was not the fault of Danny Feng, but was caused by the improper management of the entire system.