LOS ANGELES - Right from the start, the lawyers on both sides were riveted by the drops of blood.
Drops leading from the spot where Nicole Simpson died. Drops in O.J. Simpson's Bronco. Drops on his driveway and in his foyer.
So much of the murder case seems to hinge on the blood. But even with sophisticated DNA analysis now suggesting it could be the defendant's blood, there's not an expert in town calling this case closed.
In fact, with four weeks before Simpson's murder trial begins, most say chances of a conviction are 50-50 at best.
The prosecution, experts say, faces a treacherous uphill road, amply illustrated by defense courtroom efforts Tuesday to show that authorities botched their handling of evidence. More battles will come.
So if Robert Pugsley is right, it's easy to understand the skepticism. Pugsley, a professor at the Southwestern University School of Law, says focus groups for both sides are rendering split verdicts even when presented with the most damaging evidence.
"Which means the chances of a hung jury are enormous," says Pugsley. "People still can't believe that O.J. Simpson could have committed these murders. His popularity still transcends the weight of evidence."
Maybe that explains it. Or maybe it's related to race. Pugsley says focus groups split along racial lines. Or maybe it's because people believe Simpson is innocent of the murders of his ex-wife and her friend Ronald Goldman - that's his plea and is presumed.
But whatever the reason, the general belief holds that no amount of DNA will change the fact that this case is going to be a tough one to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially without an eye witness or a murder weapon.
"It's going to be very difficult for a jury to convict Simpson . . . on scientific evidence, because jurors are not scientists and they'll be confused by the defense's experts," says civil rights lawyer Leo Terrell. "If the evidence we've seen so far is all they have, the best they can hope for is a hung jury."
So what does the prosecution have?
-- Motive. Most lawyers and jury experts think Simpson's history of apparent obsession with Nicole will be admissible at trial, including his 1989 beating of her and the 911 tapes that recorded his break-in of her house last October.
The only problem for prosecuters in this regard: showing that Simpson was enraged enough to kill, but not so enraged he did it spontaneously. For first-degree murder, they planned and deliberated the killings.
-- Opportunity. Testimony already has established that no one saw Simpson between 9:45 p.m. and 11 p.m. the night of the murders (he told two witnesses he was napping), and other accounts reasonably establish that as the time frame of the killings.
Evidence about Simpson's movements that night remain vague, and new reports on that subject come out weekly. The latest is from Time, which says Brian "Kato" Kaelin may have seen Simpson shortly after the murders near where a bloody glove was found.
But for opportunity, the only vital issue for the prosecution is proving that Simpson had time to commit the murders.
-- Physical evidence. So far, every test completed - including the RFLP analysis that experts say can isolate blood to one person in a million - has shown the trail of drops could be Simpson's blood. That includes drops at the scene, in the Bronco and at his mansion.
And the cut on his left index finger is a matter of record.
Moreover, the bloody glove found at his estate bears the blood types of the victims.
DNA results of skin recovered from Nicole Simpson's fingernails and hair follicles found in a cap at the murder scene remain unknown, though KNBC in Los Angeles reported Tuesday that the FBI's microscopic studies of Simpson's hair samples match those found in the cap.
Those are the key elements in the prosecution case - or at least those made public so far.
And what about the defense? It will attack the blood.
"It's the smoking gun," says Richard Kling at Kent College of Law in Chicago. "Let's face it. . . . If his blood was found at the scene with Goldman and Nicole, I don't think any lawyer's going to be able to claim someone took over (Simpson's) blood and put it there."
Over the past two days, in a hearing meant to decide whether the defense is entitled to blood samples for its own testing, the underlying story has been the groundwork the defense is laying for a later hearing - one in which they'll challenge admissibility of the blood evidence.
Using some of the nation's leading experts on DNA, they'll try to show that it was collected improperly. They'll try to undermine the testing methods. They'll question the reliability of the entire technology.
Their chances are fair.
"A flip of the coin," says Ken Donney, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. "Even in the best of circumstances, (DNA evidence) is not settled law in California."
That's true. As a new technology, RFLP tests have been tossed out by at least two appeals courts here.
Even if it is admitted, there's a strong likelihood that the prosecution will have to downgrade the statistical certainty of DNA testing.
So predicts Peter Arenella of the the University of California Law School: "If Judge (Lance) Ito forces them to do that, how reliable does it then become?"
That's for the jury to decide - after hearing the experts.
John Gilleland of Forensic Technologies International, which specializes in jury behavior, says some jurors resist scientific evidence unless they believe it's guaranteed.
"I've heard various estimates about DNA in this case," says Gilleland. "That it's 99% certain, or that it's a one-in-a-million shot. And, frankly, for some jurors, that still leaves room for reasonable doubt."
Moreover, lawyers argue that the mere presence of Simpson's blood at the scene does not prove murder. It would show only that he was there at some point.
Defense lawyers have other, powerful strategies available to them. For one thing, they're preparing a frontal assault on detectives in the case.
Already vulnerable is Det. Mark Fuhrman, who found the bloody glove at Simpson's estate - a glove the defense may accuse Fuhrman of planting.
Fuhrman could be a weak witness: He is said to have made racist remarks in his bid for a psychological disability pension in the 1980s.
"If Furhman is testifying . . . and the jury doesn't believe him, you can bet the house that the case is going to go out the window," says lawyer Terrell.
It's also clear the defense will try out their so-called "second-suspect" theory. They have investigators looking for suspects now.
Clearly, Nicole Simpson dated other men; there are mystery figures, including the man who shared ice cream with her the night of the murder.
If the prosecution has "forensic evidence that says it's 1 in 50 million," says Kling, "and I don't have a real good alibi, then I'm going to have to come up with another suspect."
Contributing: Dan Whitcomb
Evidence found at the crime scene
Some blood droplets found at the crime scene outside match genetic markers in O.J. Simpson's blood. DNA tests conducted by prosecutors in the case show one blood sample matched Simpson's blood in RFLP testing. It and another sample also matched Simpson's blood in less-exact PCR tests.
DNA tests differ in quality, precision The two types of DNA tests most commonly used, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP), both compare samples of body tissue taken from the crime scene, victims and suspects. If sample size and quality are sufficient, prosecutors prefer the RFLP test because of its greater precision.
Comparing the tests
Sample size RFLP: Need larger samples. Several hairs or a dime-sized blood stain PCR: Pinhead amount of blood or tissue. One hair is sufficient
