THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is Santa Monica defense attorney Gigi Gordon, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: the crime scene.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Today was more significant for innuendo and implication than any new evidence. First, Officer Riske could not possibly have contaminated evidence he did not collect. Second, it may not have been ice cream, but slower melting frozen yogurt that Riske observed. Finally, by showing how the defense used a media photo as if it were an official police photo of the crime scene, Marcia Clark reminded the jury that the defense ‘cannot be trusted.’ ”

On the defense: “F. Lee Bailey sounds like Perry Mason. But one might ask, ‘Where’s the beef?’ After hours of cross-examination, his most telling point seemed to be the possibility that plodding police officers obliterated invisible footprints. What remains to be seen is whether they were invisible because they were not there. If there are conspiracy theorists among the jurors, then what wasn’t found might have some impact on the jury.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “Knowing that the jurors had the crime scene visit fresh in their minds, prosecutors clarified that if evidence was moved, the bodies first had to be moved. The defense was made to appear as though they had used photos to mislead the jury. The prosecutors also established that when Detective Mark Furhman was at the scene, he never was alone with the evidence and that the officers who arrived before him only saw one glove.”

On the defense: “F. Lee Bailey spent most of his cross-examinination focusing on the invisible, the unheard and the undone rather than on the evidence developed by the investigation. But some of the points he made actually could help the prosecution. For example, he emphasized that the bloody shoe prints could be used to identify the perpetrator. The prosecution plans to do just that by linking those prints to Simpson through their size.”

GIGI GORDON

On the prosecution: “Listening to the prosecution’s direct examination was like watching paint dry. They failed to establish what Sgt. Rossi himself testified to, which was that his role was minimal--simply to keep the crime scene in a holding pattern. In most cases you wouldn’t even call this officer as a witness. All they did was create another opportunity for the next defense batter to get to the plate, and, unfortunately for the prosecutors, this time around it was F. Lee Bailey.”

On the defense: “Trying to hold back F. Lee Bailey is like trying to put your finger in the dike. The guy’s good and people really saw it Tuesday. He used every available piece of information at his disposal to smash the presumption of competence that attaches to every police witness. He made it seem to the jury as if the LAPD had stampeded across that crime scene like a herd of buffalo. Sgt. Rossi wasn’t just confused, he was under the spell of Bailey’s legend.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times