THE LEFT HAND GLOVE

 

BOB AUGUST:

               Early in this case, as evidence from the crime scene was revealed, the public learned that the left hand glove found at Nicole’s condo did not have any damage on the back of the fingers.  Insofar as Simpson had a conspicuous wound on the back of his left middle finger this indicated that he had not been wearing the glove during the crime.  The prosecution immediately stuffed into that breach the idea that Simpson had “lost the glove” in the struggle with Goldman, and did so before Simpson accidentally cut his own finger with the same knife he used to attack Goldman.  At the time, this idea was only conjecture, and the public expected that the prosecution would support it with some kind of evidence at the trial.   Well, the trials have long come and gone, but this idea that Simpson lost the glove in the struggle with Goldman is still no more than an unsupported “musta been” required to allow a person to believe that Simpson was the killer.

               As a No-J you have supported this idea, and have gone further to give us a little scenario in which this “losing the glove” occurred.  You say that it was during the time that Simpson was behind Goldman, Simpson’s left arm around Goldman’s neck, restraining him and preventing him from screaming, and Simpson had the knife in his right hand, attacking the left side of Goldman’s head and neck.  At this time, you say, Goldman, in his struggle to escape his fate, pulled the glove off Simpson’s left hand and discarded it, thereby allowing it to be found under the agapanthus plant by the police later.  This is a thoroughly impossible idea, Bob, as I will show you…

               1. GEOMETRY OF KILLER AND VICTIM:  Presumably, as soon as Goldman had the glove free of Simpson's hand (in your scenario) he disposed of it.  Since it was at that time on the right side of the fighting pair, Goldman would have dropped or tossed it to the right of them, and it landed on the agapanthus plant.  So, at that time, Goldman and Simpson had their back to the front walk, and were on the west side of the alcove -- with Goldman trampling the fragile fern plant seen in his death photograph UNHARMED.  No, Bob, that dog won't hunt.

               2. "SQUEEZING FINGERS": You say, "Goldman could very well have grabbed and squeezed Simpson's fingers..."  No, Bob.  The technique of removing a glove by the fingers requires that you grab the fingertip of the glove beyond where there is a finger inside, and pull the glove only.  If you "grab the finger" you compress the glove onto the finger and have difficulty removing it.   This is particularly true in the desperate situation where Goldman was fighting for his life.  If he grabbed at Simpson's finger he did so very forcefully, and that would only make the glove all the less likely to come off.

               3. KILLER'S FIST CLENCHED:  You have imagined (and described) a situation in which the killer is behind Goldman with killer's left forearm across Goldman's neck, presumably keeping him from screaming, thereby.  (I have a similar idea, but the killer has his hand over Goldman's mouth to silence him.  You can not use this idea, however, since the pressure of the left hand over the mouth would prevent removal of the glove, hence you have had to resort to forearm over the neck.)  Now, in the frantic activity of murder, both the killer and the victim are in a state of great tension, and a man in a state of such tension does not have his hand open and flat except as there is some specific purpose for doing so.  Absent a purpose, the killer's fist would be clenched.  A glove can not be removed from a clenched fist, of course.

               In one place you suggest that the killer’s forearm was across Goldman's neck, but the hand was holding onto the right side of the neck.  A similar problem here...  You can't get a glove off from curled fingers, and especially not when they are applying pressure to the palm side -- as to the victim's neck.

               4. NONSENSICAL REACTION FOR GOLDMAN: Now you have us believe that Goldman is being murdered by a man behind him who has his left forearm across Goldman's neck (and presumably making it difficult or impossible for Goldman to breathe).  In this frantic, desperate situation, you would have us believe that Goldman would try to move the killer's hand to the right (the direction that is required to remove the glove).  If he could succeed (doubtful) he would only bring his neck into the crook of the killers bent arm and further ensnare himself.  If Goldman were to use his precious seconds in attacking the arm, he would try to move the arm forward, and off his neck, not to the right to more tightly bind himself in the killer’s grip.  Forces applied to move the hand/arm forward off Goldman's neck do not operate in the direction (to the right) required to remove the glove.

               Furthermore, there were no indications at autopsy that Goldman had suffered crushing injuries (or even bruises) to his throat, as would be seen if the killer was forcefully restraining Goldman with a forearm across his neck.

               5. KILLER CUTS HIMSELF IN WRONG PLACE: Now you have given us the situation where the killer’s left forearm is across Goldman's neck, and the killer is using the knife in his right hand to attack the left side of Goldman's head and neck.  (Left ear cut nearly off, left jugular vein severed, etc.)  The killer's left hand is above Goldman's right shoulder -- a LONG way from the busy edge of the knife.  But the killer's upper arm is in close proximity to the places being cut, and if there was a false motion by the killer that cut himself, it would be a cut to his own upper left arm, not to the back of his left hand.  However Simpson had a wound to the hand (a place where the knife was not) and did not have any wounds to his left biceps (the place where the knife was).  Simpson's actual wounds do not match your scenario; in fact they are the opposite.

               6. THE BLOODY KILLER: You have often said that there is no problem with "too little blood in the Bronco," but here you specify a posture for killer and victim in which a great deal of victim blood would be deposited in specific places on the killer.  Because the killer's upper arm and forearm in the vicinity of the elbow were near the left side of Goldman's left neck and the side of his head which were greatly bleeding, the killer could not escape getting blood on those parts of his left arm.   This would certainly contribute more than the scant amount of victim blood (less than two drops) that was found in the Bronco in general, but specifically, it is impossible because...

               When Jill Shively saw Simpson, he leaned out his window with his left arm on the window sill and his left upper arm against the vertical part of the window frame, and he looked back at her and glared.  With the blood in the specific places that your scenario requires, that window frame would have become heavily stained with Goldman's blood.  But, not a drop or smear of Goldman’s blood was found in those locations.

 

               Previously I have also mentioned, and you have commented but give no credible explanation for…

               7. BACK AND FORTH SCENARIO:  There is the matter that 35 hairs forcibly torn from Nicole’s head were found on Goldman’s clothes together with Nicole’s blood in 5 of 8 samples analyzed from his shirt, and 8 of 8 samples analyzed from his pants.  A drop with the blood of both victims was also found on Goldman’s shoe.  The coroner opines that the cause of the hairs is that the killer grabbed a fistful of Nicole’s hair and held her thus while he slit her throat.  Since these materials were transferred to Goldman AFTER Nicole’s throat was slashed, it is evidence that Simpson (according to your idea) after slitting Nicole’s throat went back to Goldman’s body and handled it vigorously -- for no reason that anybody can imagine.

               8. NO VICTIM BLOOD ON THE 5-DROP TRAIL: You leave us with the image that Simpson was walking away from the scene with the bloody right hand glove in his left hand, and the murder knife in his right hand.  (Presumably, a man who had just done murder, and had to go through a long dark passageway to get to his car, would not disarm himself before he was safely to the car.)  Both of these objects had only seconds earlier been in the fountain of blood gushing from Nicole’s neck and would still be dripping, and yet there is not a single drop of Nicole’s blood on that path.  The indication of this evidence is that Simpson did not carry the knife down that path, and when he carried the glove it was no longer running with blood, but had become only tacky -- the blood was more than 20 or 30 minutes old, in other words.

               9. NO SIMPSON BLOOD ON VICTIMS: Ah, you do like to have it your way without any nod to consistency, Bob.  I had pointed out that if the truth was as you say, then Simpson’s bleeding finger should have shed blood on both victims.  Even though blood stains on the victims were analyzed, there is none of Simpson’s on either of them.

              You say that the reason Simpson's blood drops were not found as expected on the victim's bodies was because the police did not look at everything, and overlooked that detail.  And yet, a cornerstone of your mistaken idea that "Simpson Did It" is the claim that the police did not find evidence of anybody but the victims and Simpson at the scene, therefore Simpson must have done it.  In one case you save your scenario by claiming the police overlooked evidence that should have been there, and in the other case you "prove" you case by claiming that the police know everything.

               10. IMPROBABILITY OF FINAL POSITION:  In 1998 I bought an agapanthus plant and cultivated it until it was about the size and shape of the one at Nicole’s condo, beneath which the left hand glove and Simpson’s knit cap were found in contact with each other.  I undertook to toss/drop a knit cap at/on the agapanthus 150 times to see if a “lost” item would really fall through the leaves.  (See “Agapanthus and Cap.”)  In fact, I found it was twice as likely that the cap would bounce off the plant than to be found under the leaves.

               Furthermore, the prosecution portrayed that the knit cap, like the left hand glove, was “lost in the struggle with Goldman,” and fell through the leaves of the agapanthus.  What is the probability, though, that two objects cast away randomly and independently in a furious struggle will land in exactly the same sheltered place, and in contact with each other?  About zero.  However, if after doing the murders the killer stood on the front walk and flung the cap and glove after one another low under the plant’s leaves, they would come into exactly the position in which they were found.

               JUST A MESS:  I have said before, Bob, your scenario about how the glove came off Simpson's hand is a complete mess.  Nothing matches, and ridiculous actions by the parties is required.  I realize that the scenario is a comforting fantasy for you, and I imagine that you visit it often, hating Simpson every time you do.  But for at least the several reasons I have just given, it is only your comforting fantasy, it is not the truth of the matter at all.

               SUMMARY: The concept of “losing the glove in the struggle with Goldman” was just a convenient necessity that Marcia Clark grasped at when it was pointed out that the cut on Simpson’s finger did not match the corresponding undamaged part of the left hand glove.   There is absolutely no independent confirmation of this idea.  (As for example if Goldman had been found clutching that glove in his cold dead hand.)  It was never examined for plausibility, as I have discussed here; it was always just a proposition that “musta been” to make it possible that Simpson did the crimes.  When examined closely, that proposition is simply not true.

 

               (The killer did not “lose the left hand glove in the struggle with Goldman.”)

               Dick Wagner Van Nuys, CA   (7/28/02)     L-Glove2.doc

back.gif (2777 bytes)