Critical review of the O.J. Simpson case

OJ Simpson

Forensic Psychology and O.J. Simpson's Guilt

As an evolving field, the administration of criminal justice must increasingly take into consideration the context in which it conducts its roles as determinant of penalty, justice and mercy. Social, cultural, political and psychological aspects of the human condition are receiving more appreciation in our ability to identify, prosecute and treat criminal behavior. However, law enforcement agencies themselves are often not equipped with the professional and academic resources to ensure that such matters are given their proper acknowledgement and accurate application. For this reason, the field of forensic psychology is coming to be a more widely accepted aspect of contending with the social ill of criminal activity. Forensic psychology brings together the two highly nuanced professional fields of psychology and criminology in order to better understand the relationship that the two share. In a general sense, the purpose of work within this field is to further "the development and application of psychological principles to the problems and administration of legal, judicial, correctional, and law enforcement systems" (O'Connor, 1) In a more specific sense, this means that an individual with expertise in the field of psychology may serve an indispensable role in informing the law enforcement, judicial and penal processes with the categorical relevance of human mental illness, or the human mental and emotional condition in general. This is a definitional basis of primary importance as we consider the circumstances and implications of the sensational and bizarre case of O.J. Simpson. Today a convicted felon serving a minimum 9-year sentence in a Nevada state prison for his role in a 2008 armed confrontation over sports memorabilia in a Las Vegas hotel room, Simpson is far more notably associated to the 1995 Los Angeles double-murder trial that ended in his acquittal and the subsequent civil suit which found him guilty of the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

The markedly public disgrace of the once-vaunted athlete -- easily enshrined in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame for an unparalleled NFL career and well-liked by the public for his often likable television/movie celebrity persona -- would produce one of America's most public trials. And in this veritable media circus, many of the important implications of the trial would be obscured. Among them, the forensic psychologist's angle could be considered a focal point in demonstrating Simpson's probable guilt. But the many areas in which evidence surfaced to suggest Simpson to be a psychologically disturbed individual with a pattern of criminal or antisocial behavior would be used only to offer a personality profile on the defendant. These were not used to build the case that Simpson was a man with both psychological dysfunctions and a history of criminal violence and the result would be the widely rebuked acquittal on October 3, 1995. (Linder, 1) Indeed, it seems likely that a closer consideration of the Simpson trial and Simpson himself through the lens of forensic psychology suggests that his guilt might have thusly been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Certainly, the evidence that would be gathered against Simpson would draw up significant circumstantial evidence endorsing the theory of his guilt and would simultaneously establish the character of the defendant as demonstratively capable of criminal aggression. The peculiarity of his behavior in particular during the murder investigation and subsequent trial would suggest an unstable and irrational figure in the fallen star. This would begin with the initial contact between Simpson and police on the morning after that murders which occurred on June 12, 1994. Police contacted Simpson by phone that afternoon in Chicago where he had arrived on a flight from Los Angeles. According to the initial report, "when informed that his wife had been killed, Simpson did not ask how, when, or by whom. He did -- according to his later testimony -- smash a glass in grief, badly cutting his left hand. Prosecutors would have a different explanation for the injury. Simpson boarded the next flight to Los Angeles, arriving home about noon to find a full-scale police investigation underway. Police tape stretched across his front gate and cardboard tags marked bloodstains on the driveway." (Linder, 1)

The notorious television image of the famously low-velocity white Ford Bronco police chase would follow, with a clearly frightened and potentially irrational O.J. Simpson resisting custody with no apparent plan other than what impressions seemed to suggest was suicide. So would this be underscored when his friend and lawyer read a Simpson-composed correspondence which appeared to be either a suicide note or a recognition of a likely deadly end to this episode. In the note, Simpson would state that "I think of my life and feel I've done most of the right things. So why do I end up like this? I can't go on. No matter what the outcome, people will look and point. I can't take that. I can't subject my children to that. This way, they can move on and go on with their lives." (Simpson, 1)

The letter seemed to demonstrate a certain emotional instability in Simpson and, while this notion could certainly not alone be used to seek a guilty conviction for the grisly murders, it could at least be sufficient to identify Simpson as a man who is simultaneously convinced of his own innocence and yet aware that he is the subject of widespread scrutiny and disbelief. Naturally, Simpson would not go through with the suicide, but the note would leave considerable material to hold under the light of psychological scrutiny. If not sufficiently reinforced in the context of the criminal trial, certainly it would be better demonstrated in the subsequent civil trial and the criminal trial for his 2008 offense. On the occasion of the latter event, a Los Angeles Times (2008) article would capture something of Simpson's unique disposition, and perhaps one that begins to recognize the pattern of bizarre and criminally maladjusted behavior in the man even after his acquittal and findings concluding his guilt. The editorial denotes of Simpson that "he combines the enormous self-regard that comes with celebrity and the arrogant belief that he can get away with anything." (Editorial, 1)

With respect to the suicide note, this arrogance and a strange absence of awareness together manifest in sentiments that today are ludicrous in their portrayal of events. Most prominent among them is the passage where Simpson states that "at times, I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend, but I loved her; make that clear to everyone. And I would take whatever it took to make it work. Don't feel sorry for me. I've had a great life, great friends. Please think of the real O.J. And not this lost person." (Simpson, 1) An ill-advised sentiment to express to be sure, the manner in which O.J. actually projects himself as a victim even as two individuals have lost their lives suggests a deeply deluded man with no sense of remorse for the actions committed so much as the consequences which they appeared to bring upon him.

A final and deeply flawed sentiment expressed in the 'suicide note,' also denoting a clear absence of awareness as to his behaviors and their ramifications, Simpson would cite Nicole Brown's friends and family as character reference. He stated that he believed that these individuals would reiterate his perception of himself as a loving husband and one who had been both caring and considerate to Nicole as they weathered a relationship with the normal 'downs and ups.' (Simpson, 1) This is a version of his life and history with Nicole that would be roundly refuted by those very individuals he believed would endorse the strength of his character as well as by others who had in the past come to intercede with evidence of Simpson's psychological maladies as well as his tendency toward criminal violence. Indeed, in the opening phases of the trial, the prosecution would begin the process of showing Simpson to have a behavioral history indicating the type of propensities that would have enabled him to commit murder. The evidence presented against his character would appear at the time to be damning:

"The first group of witnesses included relatives and friends of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher, all produced to demonstrate Simpson's motive and his history of domestic abuse. Nicole's sister, Denise Brown, described seeing O.J. At the dance recital of his daughter, Sydney, on the day of the murder. She testified that Simpson looked "scary," like a "madman." She told of a dinner attended by her, Nicole, and other friends in which O.J. grabbed Nicole's crotch and said, "This is where babies come from, and this belongs to me." Tearfully, she told of an incident in which an enraged Simpson picked up her sister and threw her against a wall. Ron Shipp, a friend of O.J.'s, testified that Simpson told him, "I've had some dreams of killing Nicole." A 9-1-1 dispatcher took the stand so that the prosecution might play for the jury a terrifying 9-1-1 call from Nicole describing an ongoing assault by Simpson." (Linder, 1)

By and large, Simpson's history would support the argument which might have been levied by forensics psychologists that, in addition to the circumstantial evidence connecting him to the murders and his suspect behavioral pattern at the inception of the investigation, Simpson did have a behavioral history that suggests mental illness and the psychological makeup to commit the double-homicide. Quite certainly, indications of his temperament, of his tendency toward violence, of the frightening side which he displayed within the confines of his marriage and often in front of others could be considered sufficient cause for a more intensive psychological evaluation, particularly considering the strength of DNA evidence against Simpson. (Meier, 1)

These conditions justified the frequently nuanced use of forensic psychology as a way of understanding Simpson's capability to commit deed which evidence suggests he had the motives, the means, the lacking alibi, the varying witness accounts and the scientific data to make a case against him. However, forensic psychology's purposefulness in either establishing or absolving the criminality of a suspect, or in general its application to the process of jurisprudence, creates the demand for this mode of investigation to incorporate such broad and complex categories as the letter of the law, the vagaries of the culture, political realities surrounding cases, linguistic peculiarities in the suspect, anthropological realities and, increasingly, medical orientation. (O'Connor, 1) Together, these requirements create a challenging morass through which the practitioner must trudge to achieve his part in the allotment of justice. Given the media celebration, racial divides and the marked level of grandstanding involved in the trial, the complexity of this responsibility is made even greater.

The result would be a woefully insufficient job of establishing Simpson's criminality, in spite of the likelihood that a greater focus on his psychological make-up might have revealed him to be incontrovertibly dangerous. So would be the belief carried into the civil trial that would follow Simpson's initial acquittal in criminal trial. Though he would serve no time for the crime, Goldman and Brown's families would file suit against Simpson with success. In 1997 "the jury ruled against Simpson on each of the eight technical questions of liability it was asked to consider. It effectively found Simpson liable for his ex-wife's death" (Auther et al., 1) Responding to the circumstantial indications of his guilt and buffeting these with a greater invocation of the types of behaviors which O.J. had always tended toward, the civil findings would set the stage for Simpson's decade of bizarre and arguably insane behaviors. His posture in public and his continued transgression of the law would both show him to be a man with a serious psychological incapacity to behave either in a normal social context or to control his violent tendencies and criminal impulses.