ON A TELEVISION PROGRAM I watched recently, DNA evidence was used to exonerate an individual after eighteen years, As a result, the original case was reopened and this innocent man set free. If years and years later, evidence comes forth showing O.J. was in fact innocent, why not reopen the case to determine who actually is responsible for the crime?
Apparently, not in this case. No matter what evidence we’ve uncovered, the LAPD and DA’s office is determined that O.J. is guilty. Period. How can such prominent law enforcement agencies have such closed-minded attitudes in determining, no matter what, they are right?
When Officer Harding stated the case was closed, I then felt there would be no reason why they would not allow us to look at the evidence.
Again I was wrong.
We had sent a Freedom of Information request in April of 2009 but were given the usual runaround. As a result, two new requests were made.
On July 15, 2009, I had Dwight Carmichael, my attorney again file a Freedom of Information Request to see the files and evidence in possession of the LAPD. On July 16, I filed the same request with the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office. Both requests were sent certified mail with return receipt requested. LAPD signed their receipt on July 15 and the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office on July 16.
On August 7, we received a response from the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office by Chief Assistant DA William Hodgman, who had been involved originally in the O.J. trial.
Mr. Hodgman offered to make arrangements for us to look at the on-scene photographs taken by the LAPD.
With regard to the additional items in my request: the knit cap (watch cap) with hair, both dog and human; clothes of the victims; fingerprints, both identified and unidentified; and the DNA samples with the results, I was given the following response: “Please be advised, we are still attempting to locate them. If and when these are located, we will notify you in writing.”
Suddenly, I remembered our meeting with the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence in which Special Agent Diane Wigland had said after my presentation, “I hope the LAPD hasn’t destroyed the files as it would make our job near impossible.”
I couldn’t help but think of that statement after reading, “. . . still attempting to locate them . . . ”
August 24, I wrote another letter to Mr. Hodgman, which he signed for four days later. By November 1, I still had not received a response from my second letter to Mr. Hodgman.
On August 26, I did receive a response from the LAPD:
“I am denying this portion of your request,” signed Raymond D. Crisp on behalf of William J. Braxton, Chief of Police, and the Los Angeles Police Department.
Most of the other portions of the request were directed to the DA’s office, which had already responded to their letter.
It reminded me of a dog chasing its own tail. It was going nowhere.
You be the judge. The letters speak for themselves.
Oh, Just one last thing. Look at Hodgman’s letter again. I guess they did establish the animal hair found on the knit cap was from a dog.
How surprising.
