THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : In a Low-Key Moment, Defense Hits Its Key Point

Only the most dedicated trial watcher would have known that the O.J. Simpson defense team finally reached the guts of its case this week.

Sure, there were earlier big moments that might have impressed occasional viewers. Days of hype preceded defense attorney F. Lee Bailey’s futile attempt to destroy Detective Mark Fuhrman on the witness stand. Big news was written all over the afternoon Simpson tried on the famous glove.

But there was no drama Monday when defense witness Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist, testified about whether the chemical EDTA was found in blood on Simpson’s sock and the gate at Nicole Brown Simpson’s condo. It was the same Tuesday when FBI Agent Roger Martz, another forensic expert, testified on the same issue.

EDTA is used by investigators to preserve blood found at crime scenes. Simpson’s attorneys contend that if the blood from the sock and the gate contain EDTA, it shows that the cops removed Simpson’s blood from the crime lab and planted it in an attempt to frame him.

It is the linchpin of the Simpson conspiracy theory, the heart of his defense.

I followed Rieders’ testimony carefully, taking plentiful notes. However, his manner was so low-key that the full impact of his message didn’t hit me until late in the morning.

Even when I got it, I wanted confirmation from a colleague. I scrawled in my notebook “This is the whole guts of the planting case?” and showed it to writer Joe McGinnis, who was seated next to me. He nodded in affirmation.

*

My slow reaction to Monday’s developments was another illustration of the difference between covering a trial and my previous work, writing about politics.

A political campaign is a succession of daily and weekly victories and defeats, gauged largely by public opinion polls, which give tangible results, real numbers and facts to hang a story on. The concrete nature of the information is a godsend to journalists looking for what’s hot and rejecting what’s not.

When messy details of Bill Clinton’s personal life were revealed during the 1992 New Hampshire presidential primary, the polls showed his campaign collapsing, and that’s how the media portrayed the situation. But when he managed to put together a fairly acceptable reply, his poll numbers became more positive, as did the coverage of his campaign. When he finished second in the primary, he hailed himself as “the Comeback Kid.” A political lifetime had passed in just a few short weeks.

Things move much more slowly in a trial, and events are not clear-cut.

On Monday, Rieders began by ponderously outlining his sizable resume, beginning in his native Austria, continuing through his U.S. Army World War II experience, academia, crime medical examiner, ownership of a forensic analysis lab.

A political campaign would have made it simpler: War hero. Crime fighter. Businessman.

Then Rieders explained the chemical EDTA. Although defense attorney Robert Blasier showed slides to illustrate the discussion of the chemical, it was hard going.

The courtroom atmosphere was relaxed. At the morning recess, defense attorney Barry Scheck and Deputy Dist. Atty. Rockne Harmon, two DNA experts who have battled each other in many trials, talked in a friendly manner. Watching them, I thought they have fought so often they probably have more in common with each other than with those outside their little world.

*

Scientist Rieders slowly made his point under the methodical questioning of defense attorney Blasier. There was no defining moment, no hot sound bite for TV. Blasier and Rieders built a structure, not brick by brick but molecule by molecule.

Then, toward the end of the morning, Blasier asked, “Do you have an opinion on whether there is EDTA present in the stain from the back gate?”

“In my opinion,” said Rieders, sounding like a long-tenured professor, “yes, it demonstrates there is EDTA present in that stain.”

In the afternoon, Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark tried to tear apart his testimony, a process that continued on Tuesday when FBI crime lab expert Martz was on the stand.

Although Clark brought some flash and fire to her questioning, she, too, was bound by the scientific nature of the evidence to proceed slowly, step by step.

At day’s end, the pundits gave their victory or defeat verdicts. Good day for one side. Bad day for the other.

But that’s not what happened. The days were inconclusive. Just more building blocks, taking their place with the gloves, Mark Fuhrman, the howling dogs, the DNA, Kato Kaelin, the 911 call and all the other evidence big and small, sensational and boring.