Even if Simpson did do it search and seizure procedures would protect him from incriminating tampered evidence that could be used against him. The jury agreed that the L.A.P.D. had grossly erred when "they (the jurists) had been the victims of a police conspiracy and cover-up" (73; ch.3). .
What kinds of truths are we searching for? Why is there so much emphasis on the character of the police when the seemingly bigger issue is Simpson a murderer? The prosecution heavily relied on the credibility of Officers Fuhrman and Vannatter even though they knew that Officers Fuhrman and Vannatter lied about suspecting Simpson as a murder suspect. Dershowitz asserts that "The jurors did not believe that testimony [that Vannatter and Fuhrman said under sworn testimony that they entered the Rockingham estate to notify Simpson that his wife had been murdered]." Furthermore the "jury thus started out with the realization -new, perhaps, to some; not so new to others-that these policemen were prepared to lie to them and to cover for each other, at least as to certain aspects of the case." (72-73, ch.4). The Defense team in cross-examination confirmed that the officers involved in the search and seizure of evidence consistently lied to cover each other up and proved that the evidence gathered was questionable in validity. .
3 .
The truth was somewhat discovered when the Defense team uncovered the lies that the police had told. The truth uncovered was that the police who were related to the Simpson investigation were not telling the whole truth. Dershowitz also asserts that the police commonly lie because they are able to and because they want to convict people they "know" are to be guilty. By being able to perjure without reprimand is common and a known fact amongst the prosecutors, the defense, and the judges. Why it is acceptable is a controversial question. The police have adopted a system called the "dropsy" testimony in which an officer willingly lies to convict a criminal that he believes to be guilty of crimes he is charged.