Well, Of Course, It Didn’t Fit!

They gloated a lot.

Like rubbing salt in the wound.

The glove didn’t fit.

6/15/95

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” was a line made famous from O. J. Simpson defense attorney Johnnie Cochran’s closing arguments near the trial’s conclusion. The reference, of course, was to Deputy Defense Attorney Christopher Darden’s ploy during the prosecution’s case  to have Simpson try on a glove police had found at the scene of Nicole Brown’s and Ronald Goldman’s murders. It was–and still is–called the “bloody glove” in that trial’s parlance.

Here, in a Wikipedia article, is the story of how the bloody glove worked its way into the trial and, according to some opinions, was the linchpin of Simpson’s acquittal:

“On June 15, 1995, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran goaded assistant prosecutor Christopher Darden into asking Simpson to put on the leather glove that was found at the scene of the crime. The prosecution had earlier decided against asking Simpson to try on the gloves because (according to prosecutors) the glove had been soaked in blood from Simpson, Brown and Goldman,^[19] and frozen and unfrozen several times.

“The leather glove seemed too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over gloves he wore underneath.^[10]

“[Gerald] Uelmen came up with and Cochran repeated a quip he had used several times in relation to other points in his closing arguments, ‘If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit’. On June 22, 1995, Darden told Judge Lance Ito of his concerns that Simpson ‘has arthritis and we looked at the medication he takes and some of it is anti-inflammatory and we are told he has not taken the stuff for a day and it caused swelling in the joints and inflammation in his hands’. The prosecution also stated their belief that the glove shrank from having been soaked in blood and later testing.^[10] A photo was presented during the trial showing Simpson wearing the same type of glove that was found at the crime scene.”

A couple of years ago, news reports surfaced saying Darden was alleging that the defense had tampered with the glove, specifically, tearing the glove lining.

To me, Darden’s claim is a double down on what I perceive to be extreme incompetence.

I was in the courtroom the day of the glove fiasco and couldn’t believe what I saw.

Of course, he can’t get the glove on, is what I thought.

(1)  The glove was leather. When dries after it’s wet — whether from water or blood — it shrinks and stiffens.

(2)  Darden had Simpson put on latex gloves and try to pull the shrunken, stiffened glove over a latex glove. Just try to slip anything over latex.

Another cause of my incredulity was that Darden would have had Simpson try on the glove without knowing himself if it would fit.  I’d never attended law school, but I’d heard for year that a lawyer should never ask a question s/he doesn’t know the answer to.

Then for Darden to admit years later that he had not inspected the glove before he had Simpson try it on . Seems to me that would have been pro forma.