[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL Source: From The Trenches URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rors-rights-now-illegal/200165 Published: Jun 2, 2017 Author: Justin Gardner Post Date: 2017-06-03 10:38:54 by Deckard Keywords: None Views: 119222 Comments: 422 Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.” Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 220. #2. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited) Deckard, I've just about had it with your "jury nullification" bullshit. You wanna play that game? Fine. Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   12:57:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: misterwhite (#2) Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   14:45:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Pinguinite (#5) "Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals." You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all -- will acquit and correct their "error". The reverse, as you pointed out, isn't true. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   15:34:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: misterwhite (#8) You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. People have literally been hanged contrary to law. Ultimately, written laws have only as much power as those in control allow, and that cannot be helped. But jury "nullification" really refers to nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating, not convicting someone who stands falsely accused. And given the civil theory is that it's better for a guilty man to be go free than an innocent man to go to jail. Nullification stands as a final voice of the average people on whether criminal laws passed by representatives are acceptable, and that is simply not a bad thing in my view. Fugitive slave laws falling "victim" to jury nullification being one example. I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them. While it may result in people truly deserving of punishment going free on occasion, #1) I think that would be extremely rare, and #2) I think the value of giving average people a voice on what laws are acceptable is far more valuable a thing than is the harm in letting a true thug go free, so I thikn the benefit greatly outweighs the (very rare) harm. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:18:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Pinguinite (#14) "I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them." I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them: A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Otherwise, they can forget about the jury altogether and have a bench trial. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:53:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: misterwhite (#16) I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them: A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   18:03:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Pinguinite (#19) "Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms." This would actually be beneficial in cases that are lost because of a technicality. The jury could be instructed that they can examine the technical infraction and make a determination as to how much weight to give it. Every time the defense yells "objection", the jury does not have to disregard what led up to the objection. The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify. This could change everything. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   18:25:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: misterwhite (#21) You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster. But I'm still not going to do that. The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify. People already do that. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   19:19:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Pinguinite (#23) "You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster." My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:19:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: misterwhite (#25) My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. Fair? Fair to whom? Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"? The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right. Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted? I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen? As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room. Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect. Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   1:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28) "Nullification serves as a test of the law itself" You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:26:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: misterwhite (#42) You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Jurors will do what jurors do, including when they feel a defendant is guilty according to the letter of the law, but that a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice that they are unable to reconcile with their personal conscience. The judicial result is that shit happens. Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair? OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime. Much prosecution evidence, and many witnesses, were destroyed on the stand. What happened in the courtroom, and what was reported on the evening news and talk shows, frequently differed greatly. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   1:27:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: nolu chan (#83) "OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime." And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man. I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-05   8:40:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: misterwhite (#89) The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification. Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess. The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died. They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses. The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-06   17:33:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #106. To: nolu chan (#94) The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. 101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   9:44:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #119. To: misterwhite (#106) 101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html 1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ. Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything. Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-07   12:29:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #120. To: nolu chan (#119) "Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on." Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones. But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching. Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   14:23:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #186. To: misterwhite (#120) [misterwhite #120] the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves Both videos show that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson, showing the disastrous glove demonstration from the trial. The second video further brings up an interesting possibility. There was evidence that Nicole Simpson bought two pairs of Aris Isotoner Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales in NYC. There was no evidence showing that they were given to O.J. This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman. They were certainly not needed to keep hands warm, they were light and could function well as driving gloves. Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari. - - - - - - - - - - O.J. and the Gloves : The Truth About What Really Happened - - - - - - - - - - An interesting theory. The bloody gloves were a gift from Nicole to Ron Goldman. IS O.J. INNOCENT? THE MISSING EVIDENCE The argument is that the gloves did not fit O.J. because they were not his gloves, they were Ron Goldman's. Compares Goldman's defensive hand wounds on his hands and the knife punctures on the gloves. "Please remember, if the gloves were worn by the killer they wouldn't have had any defensive wounds on them. The killer wasn't blocking any knives." It is an interesting theory, significantly more interesting than the theory that if people only say enough times that the gloves really did fit, everyone can just ignore the video that shows they did not fit. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-11   19:26:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #188. To: nolu chan (#186) "Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari." Not that night. Ron Goldman drove his girlfriend's car. But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo? Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves? By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman. There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified. Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-12   11:17:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #195. To: misterwhite (#188) Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims? For purposes of your question, it matters not who wore the gloves that did not fit O.J. Simpson. It could have been O.J., Ron Goldman, or any other person. Only one person had his picture taken at Bundy pointing at that glove before the notification party proceeded over to Rockingham. That would be Det. Mark Fuhrman. Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman. The wet glove had very little debris, indicating that it was placed rather than dropped. Also, there was a persistent and horrible problem with the timeline that the prosecution was never able to resolve. If O.J. damn near cut off Nicole's head, and tussled with and killed Ron Goldman, he would have been covered with blood. If he just jumped in the Bronco at Bundy, to return to Rockingham, the Bronco would have been laden with blood. And when did he have the time to shower and get rid of the blood, and leave no evidence of blood in the plumbing? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   3:10:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #204. To: nolu chan (#195) Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman. Suspect number only is OJ. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   9:44:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #211. To: misterwhite (#204) Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman. Suspect number only is OJ. Preliminary Hearing, MARK FUHRMAN, Cross-examination by Defense Attorney Gerald Uelman, July 5, 1994. 07 Q All right. 08 And from that vantage point, you first 09 observed the glove that you told us about? 10 A Not first, no. 11 Q When did you first observe it? 12 A We had flashlights. We were looking at the 13 female victim. We looked at the male victim. 14 I noticed the glove when I walked around to 15 the -- after I exited the residence the first time and 16 walked around to the side -- or the north side, north 17 perimeter of 875 Bundy. 18 There's an iron fence and through that iron 19 fence you can get very close to the male victim. And 20 looking there I could see them down at his feet. The gloves. On July 5, 1995, Mark Fuhrman recollected first seeing them, plural, down at the feet of the male victim, Ron Goldman. O.J. Trial, March 13, 1995, FUHRMAN cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey [4236] Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE? A: NO, THERE ISN'T. Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: NO. Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE [4237] GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR? A: YES. Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE? A: NO. Them is a problem. Preliminary Hearing, MARK FUHRMAN, Cross-examination by Defense Attorney Gerald Uelman, July 5, 1994. Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPH 'B' A IN PHOTOGRAPH B, THE SMALL RED STAIN HERE IS THE STAIN THAT I SAW I BELIEVED WAS BLOOD. AND THIS IS RIGHT ABOVE THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR HANDLE Q AND WHAT ELSE DID YOU SEE? A AT THAT TIME THERE WAS -- I INSPECTED THE DOOR MORE CLOSELY. I GOT DOWN ON THE GROUND AND LOOKED AT THE DOORJAMB AREA, WHICH WOULD BE IN PHOTO A. THIS AREA, THE SEAM OF THE LOWER DOOR WHERE IT OPENS Q WHERE THE DOOR MEETS THE FLOOR OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE CAR? A YES Q WHAT DID YOU SEE THERE? A I SAW FOUR -- THREE OR FOUR LITTLE LINES, RED-STAINED LINES, THAT LOOKED LIKE A BRUSH MARK WHICH ALSO LOOKED LIKE BLOOD. THEY WERE VERY SMALL, ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH LONG - - - - - - - - - - Barry Scheck closing, [19953] Now, we know from what was said to Dr. Baden that in the course of getting things together on leaving, Mr. Simpson sustained a cut going into the Bronco, retrieving materials on his way out packing, and that it is the position of the Defense, that the bloodstains that you see and--well, briefly, why don't we take out that board and I will come back to it. This is the Prosecution's bloodstain pattern and the Bronco board, if you will recall it. Now, there are bloodstain patterns in the handle, instrument panel, console, of course, and then these are other items, that is, the footprint area and on top of the windowsill, okay? The windowsill is somewhere around here, (Indicating), that are consistent, everybody agrees, with a cut to the left hand of somebody getting into the car sitting down looking for something, consistent with our theory, consistent arguably with their theory. But then when you start looking at the rest of the bloodstain patterns, you have to start asking which interpretation is reasonable? Now, the first point that has to be made--take this down for a second--is that of course initial deposits would be made by Mr. Simpson that evening and then somebody else was in that Bronco. Now, we know someone else was in that Bronco, and that has been, I submit to you, demonstrated by the evidence. Let's take a look at this picture. Mr. Cochran has already reviewed with you the testimony of Mark Fuhrman at the preliminary hearing, and you heard it on videotape, where he said he saw the--found blood in the Bronco, a bit of a Freudian slip, but I submit to you one of the most significant moments has to do with the testimony of Dennis Fung and the blood--bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco. You recall that Detective Fuhrman testified at the preliminary hearing at this trial that he observed four brush mark bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco that he could observe when the door was closed. When [19954] Mr. Fung came in, he circled these pictures, and if you will recall his testimony, the bottom circle closest to the door, that is only one stain. He said that that stain could be observed when the door was closed, but the other three stains that are represented by those other two circles could only be seen when the door was opened. Could only be seen when the door was open. From their own witnesses, evidence, he was in the Bronco and it only makes sense that he would go in that Bronco. And how much credibility do you really put in this man's testimony? But here is evidence that he was in there. Do you know what other evidence there is? There is one of the most interesting facts, and it is hard scientific evidence that supports our position with respect to the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco, the steering wheel. You recall that the typing on the steering wheel was 1.1, 1.2, a genotype consistent with O.J. Simpson, and 4. Who is the contributor of the 4 allele? That was an issue, and much was made of it, on the--in the case, was it not? Lots of crossexamination, lots of highlighting of that 4 allele in the steering wheel. And the Prosecution well knew that it was the contention of the Defense that Mr. Fuhrman and/or other officers had been in the Bronco. Doesn't take much to get a blood sample or you just take a swab and the testimony is you run it through somebody's mouth, you can do a quick DQ-Alpha test. What is Mark Fuhrman's genotype? We know that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung, just like you do eliminations, they--their genotypes were taken so we would know what they were. They are not consistent with the 4. None of them has the 4. They are eliminated. Why wasn't Mark Fuhrman eliminated? Why didn't they take exemplars from the police on this? Why? But I think that a fair inference consistent with innocence, which you are under oath obliged to take. You must consider that Mr. Fuhrman was in the Bronco and the evidence is that a picture, 4:30, around 4:30 in the evening [sic - morning], he is pointing at that glove at Bundy, walking through a pool of blood. Now comes into that Bronco, the vicinity of that Bronco, the area of 5:00 in the morning, right, initially, then go out and does his circuitous little trip where he finds the glove and is alone for fifteen minutes around 5:15. Now, there is very interesting testimony from Dennis Fung at page 21438 of the transcript about the ground and he is talking here about Fuhrman and he is talking about an arriving--excuse me--Vannatter, he is talking about arriving--arriving initially at the Rockingham location and he talks about how he was shown a red stain on the driver's door of the vehicle and a blood trail and: "Question: Okay. Did you notice anything about the temperature at that time or the weather? "Answer: It was fairly cool. What about the lawns? Did you notice anything that looked like it could have been dew on the lawns? "Answer: I did notice there was some, that the grass was wet. "Question: All right." So Fung tells us that the grass is wet, but we know that there is no dew. We introduced into evidence under 1280 the weather, and when it was introduced--and you can take this back into the jury room. You can examine the areas that are highlighted in purple. The only thing to--that doesn't really make much of a difference to be tricky about this. Professor MacDonell explained all of this, that when you look at the time listing over here, it is standard time, so anytime you see a time you have to add an hour, but when you look at the temperature and the dew point, you are going to see that the temperature was always many degrees above the dew point, so in other words, when you look through this you will see there is no dew, but the grass was wet. And you were at that location and you noticed the sprinkler heads and the sprinkler system and right in that area, that grass area where the Bronco was parked, there was six sprinkler heads. The grass, a fair inference, was watered regularly at that location. The grass was wet. That is the fact. Now, if you have, as Agent Bodziak indicated, blood that is caked on the inside of your shoe, even if loafers like Mr. Fuhrman in the inside heel area in your shoe, and then you walk through a wet area and then you step onto the carpet, you are going to get the same kind of pattern that was testified to for the Prosecution side in terms of the fibers going into the shoes and getting out blood that would be consistent with the genotype of Nicole Brown [19955] Simpson that is found on the carpet of the Bronco. Then we have the issue of the bloodstain pattern on the console. Now, let me be precise, because when Mr. Cochran was showing you about the seven/tenths of a drop of blood, I just want to make sure that I saw some--even the Prosecutors with a quizzical look--but that happened, I think you will recall, at the very end of the trial, and that was the testimony of Gary Sims. You will recall that he came back, he was testifying about the RFLP tests and the combining of all the stains, and I asked him a series of questions about combining all the stains, that is, the collection on June 14th from the console of 30 and 31, then the August 26th sample, 303, 304, 305. And we talked about the amount of DNA that you would get, you know, with one drop containing 1000 nanograms of high molecular-weight DNA, and then when he looked at the amount of DNA when you combined all the samples, he said that wasn't over a hundred, and: "Question: So that is one/tenth of one drop of blood?" That is what it is. A hundred nanograms. One/tenth of one drop of blood. He said--qualified he said: "Answer: Well, you have to remember with a drop of blood, for example, if you were testing liquid blood, that is not the same as extracting DNA out of a stain's worth of one drop of blood, so there is--you are not quite talking apples--you are somewhat talking apples and oranges there, but in terms of the ballpark you are talking about, you know, maybe getting three/quarters of that DNA out, so you can figure it from that." Then I asked him a question trying to make it English: "All right. "So what you are basically saying to us is maybe if you are just dealing with a pristine drop of blood you wouldn't get a thousand nanograms you would get 750? "Something like that. "Is that what you just said in English. "Answer: Yes, that is what I said. "Okay. "If we were to--and I mean no disrespect for that, just summarizing it. "And so if you've got about a hundred nanograms of DNA and 750 nanograms in a drop of blood, can you give me that fraction quickly? "That would be, what, about a seventh? "Answer: Something like that." Okay. So in other words, make it very, very simple-hand science, when you combine the amount of DNA and you give them all favorable inferences, Gary Sims, their own witness, says, when you look at the smears of blood on the console, it is seven/tenths of a drop. And how could that be you are saying? Let's say it is a drop or two. How could that be? Well, that is because as Dr. Lee explained, that when you have a blood drop and you smear it over a non-absorbent surface, it smears, so it looks--small amount of blood can make a big smear. And of course Mr. Goldman's contribution to that seven/tenths of a drop of blood is at the most thirty, forty percent. That is very, very, very little. And so then you have to ask yourself does this make any sense? How could so little--even if we assume, you know, how could so little be there? How could so little be there? You know, Miss Clark was trying to say, well, this is how the blood got there. We know the Rockingham glove had a lot of blood, mostly from Mr. Goldman, some from Nicole Brown Simpson, and that was somehow placed on the side of the console, so that is why we get the little amount of Goldman's DNA that is on the console. That is their theory. Well, that is consistent with Mr. Fuhrman placing the glove in there. It is consistent with even Mr. Fuhrman having handled the glove and getting blood on his sleeve and just searching around the area for one of the other police officers and just getting a small smear of it with his sleeve on the console. That is consistent with this evidence. And you know what isn't consistent with this evidence? Think about it. What are they really saying? If Mr. Simpson had committed these murders and he grabbed the glove, as they are saying, with his open left hand, all right, and placed it on the side, well, then in getting into the car why aren't there mixtures on the window, right, on the window, on all those other drops? Everything else, all those other bloodstains. There is no trace of--of blood from either of the victims. There is no mixtures. Wouldn't there be other blood on the hand? And [19956] of course their theory before you, this is extraordinary, is that he is wearing these clothes that we've just been through the evidence of struggle. If there is blood on pants, it is going to be on the seat. If there is blood from the struggle with Goldman, it should be there. We know there is no hair. There is no trace. There is no fibers from clothing. There is no berries, there is nothing in that Bronco that would be consistent with somebody that had committed a violent double homicide that had been in a life and death struggle with Mr. Goldman. It doesn't make one bit of sense if you look at the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco. You have to have a reasonable doubt about that. And haven't we shown you by credible, fair and reasonable evidence that this Detective Fuhrman would have gone in that car? And by his own testimony and exposed lies from the Prosecution's own witnesses, there is evidence he was there. Those--those stains on the doorsill give you the lie, don't they? He was in that car and probably more than one of them was in that car. Now, with respect to the credibility of the evidence, very briefly, and I know you are--you followed this, we have to make a distinction. You know, in our opening statement Miss Clark actually said to you that all she was going to talk about in her opening statement with respect to the Bronco were the stains that were collected on June 14th. She didn't even indicate they were going to offer you anything from--after August 26th, because they know how terribly this was handled and that no jury could really accept the integrity of the evidence after this car was abandoned. But could we bring up the board, please? On 13--I think it is 1351; the DNA board with the-- (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. SCHECK: Very briefly, you will recall this, and we made a distinction here. We have to look at the samples that were collected on June 14th and the samples that were collected on August 26th, as Dr. Gerdes suggested to you. If you look at the June 14th DNA evidence, okay, with sample 30 and 31, nothing in 30. 31 they are calling this faint 1.3 allele, where the 1.3 is showing up in the controls. And you will remember the whole business about development length and the notion of controls failing. This is it. From June 14th this is it with respect to DNA from Mr. Goldman and the Bronco. That is it. And as Dr. Gerdes indicated to you, that is not credible scientific evidence. Of course they are offering you evidence that was collected on August 26th after this vehicle was literally abandoned, after the no special care hold had been taken off it, after there was a theft. Now, Mr. Meraz, he wasn't the world's most credible witness on the issue of the theft, but I really think that is besides the point. No. 1, he is stealing, he is inside that car. What is going on? He didn't see blood. But you don't have to accept Meraz. What about Detective Mulldorfer who is investigating this? She doesn't see blood. And then there is Mr. Blasini. He doesn't see blood on the console. And we know that there is all kind of people allowed into this vehicle, and probably more disturbing than anything else is Detective Mulldorfer indicated the rules are violated and there is no record kept of any authorized police personnel, of any police personnel going in and out of there. They could just go in and out and no records were kept and nobody would know period. And all of a sudden what we have on August 26th, when the car is finally brought in, and Miss Clark said it was--she must have misspoke when she tried to imply that the inspection of the Bronco was at the request of the Defense. Those are not the facts. The facts are that they brought it in, they allowed two Defense people to observe and then Michele Kestler looks in the vehicle and there is a photographer that was brought down from life magazine at the behest of the police commissioner to witness this grand examination of the Bronco, and low and behold, they find as much [11957] blood on the console on August 26th as there was on June 14th. And then when they do the DNA testing patterns, they find out only Mr.--traces of Mr. Goldman's blood, but Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in those same areas. That is awfully odd. So the integrity of the evidence again is in question here in terms of what you can accept beyond a reasonable doubt, but even if you are willing to look aside from that, and I don't really think that one can in fairness, I think that the Defense version of how the blood got there and the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco is far more plausible than the Prosecution's version. It just doesn't fit. There would be mixtures on all those stains, according to their own theory. There should be more blood in the Bronco, given what occurred in this case. The bloodstain patterns don't make sense, do they? They really don't. Nor does the hair and fiber in that Bronco. Johnnie Cochran closing argument, [19961] In case there was any question about what we had said earlier. Mr. Scheck has covered the brush mark on the door, but what I would like for you to do is look back at your notes, because Fuhrman said that regarding these brush marks, he said he saw these marks on that door while the door of the Bronco was closed, remember? The reason why this has become so important was he was trying to say he hadn't gotten inside. Then we called Larry Ragle who said you couldn't see the ones at the top unless the door was opened. And then Fuhrman also had said that he told Fung about these brush marks. If you look at Fung's testimony, I think you will find that Fung never says that he heard that from Fuhrman. And so you know, with regard to Fuhrman, I could have gone on and on and on about lies, but that would be counterproductive after a while because [19962] you know who he is now. There is one other point I wanted to share with you about Fuhrman before we take our leave of him, is that there was a question--some questions, and counsel, at 18906, about opportunity for Detective Fuhrman and here was a series of quick questions: "When you arrived at the scene this night were you wearing a coat, a jacket of some sort? "When I first arrived at the scene, yes. "Can you describe it? "Answer: A blue blazer. "All right. And you were wearing the trousers and shirt that we see you in with your weapon in picture pointing at the lefthanded glove? "Yes, tan slacks. "Okay. "Now, at some point did you walk back to your vehicle and take off your blazer and hang it to lay in the vehicle somewhere? "Yes, sir. "Okay. "Can you tell the court and jury about what time of day that happened, bearing in mind that you arrived at about 2:10, that is A.M.? "It would be after I was relieved from the case." Now, he is relieved a short time after he gets there. He is relieved about three o'clock, isn't he, before three o'clock? "All right. That would be close to three o'clock? "Yes, sir. "Question: And that is when you walked back to the vehicle and left the jacket and stood waiting for your relief? "Yes, sir." Now, I don't believe hardly anything he says except that it is true that in this photograph taken at 4:30 or before sunrise, the one you saw where he is pointing at the glove, he doesn't have a jacket on. So he had a jacket, went to that car by himself. There is many things in that car. This man had ample opportunity to get up to that scene. You know, as I told you, it so stretches the credulity to believe that so neatly placed were this knit hat and his glove, were there two gloves at some point when he says I saw them. Why would you see them? There weren't two gloves. And you know it is so unusual because everything else is spread all out. This was a vicious fight. There is a beeper over here and there is keys over there, but these items are right there, right where he could point at them. It is too, too pat. So you can ask yourself those questions when you go back into that jury room. Now, in this case I discussed with you Miss Juanita Moore, a lady that I called to the stand, and I think I misspoke myself. I think I mentioned to you--I think I may have said she said that Mr. Simpson did not have dandruff, and if I did say that, I got that wrong. She said Mr. Simpson would get dandruff I think in the off season, in the string and summer when he was here, as opposed to when he was in New York. And I wanted to make sure. In looking at the transcript over the lunch hour I noted Miss Clark seemed to be amazed when Mr. Scheck said that Kelly Mulldorfer said that she didn't see blood on that Bronco, so to save her some time I'm going to read you the transcript. Kelly Mulldorfer at 38268, lines 26 through line 9, I think on 38269. "Question: And when you looked at the console do you remember seeing any blood there? "Answer: No, I don't have any specific recollection." That is the lady, the investigator who was looking at this. And so now we come to some jury instructions which I think have some real relevance as we conclude this case, hopefully. We have already talked about a witness willfully false. We talked an awful lot and you know now a lot about circumstantial evidence, and I dare say you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. We want to talk further about--and you know what happens where the proved circumstances are equally consistent, one of which points to innocence and the other which points to guilt. Where they are both reasonable, you must adopt that which points to innocence. You understand that. You understand about circumstantial evidence. So enough about this. And we have displayed this and we have talked about how this works and how it inures to the benefit of the Defendant because there is this burden of proof. But there is another instruction which I want to talk to you about now and this is one that--where the Prosecutors keep wanting to change things around and ask what we proved and what we didn't do. This is what the law is: "The Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes." There is no doubt about it among any of us, is it. "The Defendant is not required to prove him or herself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crime charged." So now if that is what the law is and the judge gave you that, why did Mr. Darden ask the question, who did this? Who committed this crime? Why would he ask you that when the judge just said the Defendant doesn't have to show anything, when we know in this case in a rush to judgment they didn't look at anybody else. That is a question he should be asking these detectives, not us. We are the ones who had to depend on experts who wanted to help out and they wouldn't accept this. How can he ask us that question? How can he ask us that question in good faith? The answer is you go ask your detectives. That is the answer. Now, you ask another question. He said, well, where was O.J. Simpson? And he says, well, you know, how does he account for his whereabouts after ten o'clock? Well, let me just talk a minute about that. He asked that question. Let me answer it for you and for him. Some of you in your former life probably lived alone. If you lived alone, if something happened between ten o'clock and six o'clock in the morning, it is real difficult, if you live alone, to prove where you were if nobody lives there with you. Isn't that true? Is that common sense? Mr. Simpson lived alone. We have done more than that. We can I think establish where he was. He was at home. That Bronco was outside. He was packing and getting ready and rushing around at the last minute and coming outside to that Bronco, getting his phone, getting the paraphernalia for that phone. That is what he was doing. He was packing, he was getting the golf bags and golf bag out of his car that was seated out there. He was getting golf shoes and whatever goes with golf if you are a golfer. That is what he is doing, getting the little knapsack out that has golf balls in it and bring another bag down, all of which were ready when Park and Kato were out there and he comes down with the other bag carrying it. That is what he was doing, Mr. Darden. That is where he was. It is your speculation he is on the side of his house running into an air conditioner. That didn't happen. That is unreasonable. Nobody here believes it. It is not going to help save their case. They are speculating again, speculating, speculating, and it is not going to work. And so that brings me to this other instruction. It is called alibi. You remember during voir dire I asked you about this. I said that you won't place a bad connotation on the term "Alibi," because that is what the law calls it, alibi. And it says as follows: "That evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the Defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission of the alleged crime for which he is here on trial. If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, you must find him not guilty." Can I repeat that last part for you? "If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed." It doesn't say you might find him not guilty, you might think about it. It says: "You must find him not guilty." And so you know when you talk about this whole concept of reasonable doubt, and we will talk a little more about that, it is how you feel inside about this evidence. It is how you feel inside about these messengers and their message. It is when you have that queasy feeling, you can't trust this evidence. Barry Scheck described it, well, as a cancer. He talked about one cockroach. You don't need to see any more because you know if you see there is a lot of them around. All you need is one and that is going to make you go the other way. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:51:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #215. To: nolu chan (#211) 12 A We had flashlights. We were looking at the 13 female victim. We looked at the male victim. 14 I noticed the glove when I walked around I noticed the glove. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-15   12:43:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #220. To: misterwhite (#215) I noticed the glove. The gloves. On July 5, 1995, Mark Fuhrman recollected first seeing them, plural, down at the feet of the male victim, Ron Goldman. O.J. Trial, March 13, 1995, FUHRMAN cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey [4236] Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE? A: NO, THERE ISN'T. Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: NO. Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE [4237] GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR? A: YES. Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE? A: NO. Them is a problem. And, as covered above, Fuhrman's attesting of seeing blood spots on the Bronco that could only be seen with the door open is another problem. I don't want to cover that one yet again, so let's move on to the problem of the photo of Fuhrman pointing at the glove? Was this photograph taken before Fuhrman went to Bundy and found the second glove. Fuhrman denied any such thing as follows: [4006] Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT -- WHO'S THAT MAN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE POINTING TO THE BUSH? A: THAT'S ME. [...] A: THE FOREMOST IN THE PICTURE IS A GLOVE AND ABOVE IT APPEARS TO BE A DARK BLUE KNIT CAP. Q: NOW, WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THOSE TWO ITEMS IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO DETECT WHAT THEY WERE? A: FROM THAT LANDING, OFFICER RISKE SHINED HIS LIGHT ON THOSE ONCE AGAIN SHOWING SEVERAL OBJECTS THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY SEEN. - - - - - - - - - - [4045] Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR? A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING. Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY? A: YES, MA'AM. - - - - - - - - - - So, the photo was taken around 7:00 or 7:15 in the morning, in the daylight, after Fuhrman returned to Bundy, or Fuhrman was a lying sack of shit. Well, we know Fuhrman was a lying sack of shit, let's see the evidence that proved that to the jury again. Rolf D. Rokahr, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? MR. ROKAHR: I do. THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record. MR. ROKAHR: My last name is Rokahr, R-O-K-A-H-R, first name is Rolf, R-O-L-F, middle initial D. THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld. MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. THE JURY: Good afternoon. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, Mr. Rokahr. MR. ROKAHR: Good afternoon, Mr. Neufeld. MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you do for a living. [18140] MR. ROKAHR: I'm a photographer for the city of Los Angeles assigned to the police department. MR. NEUFELD: And how long have you been working as a photographer for the Los Angeles Police Department? MR. ROKAHR: As a civilian employee, almost 10 years. It's nine years and two months, and I've worked as a reserve officer since 1980 or `81 up until `86. I'm still working as a reserve officer. - - - - - - - - - - [18147] MR. NEUFELD: All right. When you met up with Mark Fuhrman at about 4:10 in the morning, what did Mark Fuhrman do with you, sir? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the witness' testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. What happened? Mr. Rokahr, what happened when you met up with Detective Fuhrman? MR. ROKAHR: Detective Fuhrman asked me to come around I believe it's Dorothy Street to the back of the house to show me what we have as far as a crime scene is concerned and as far as evidence is concerned. [18148] MR. NEUFELD: And at that time when he took you through, did he ask you to take a few pictures of something in particular? MR. ROKAHR: By the time we arrived to the actual crime scene, he first of all pointed out--the bodies were obvious--where there is some evidence, and he asked me to photograph it. MR. NEUFELD: Now--I'm sorry. MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. And he--I asked him to actually point out where the evidence is because it was rather dark in the green foliage there. MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview, that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 A.M., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage approximately? MR. ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that because I'm not sure. MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific--whether it's four minutes or seven minutes, sir. I'm just asking you, would it be fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which are in the green foliage? MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is leading. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time? MR. ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes? MR. ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate. MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative. [18149] THE COURT: Overruled. MR. ROKAHR: I would say it's fair. [...] MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did. MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What was your answer, sir? [18149] MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. - - - - - - - - - - [18155] MR. NEUFELD: And the camera you used that night at Bundy, did it have a counter? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: And could you please tell the ladies and gentleman of the jury how that works. MR. ROKAHR: When we arrive at a crime scene, there is a data back on the back of my camera and I can set, as far as the counter is concerned, six numbers, 000000. From then on, it will count up every shot that is taken. It adds a number, a digit to it. MR. NEUFELD: So, in other words, the first one will be 000001? MR. ROKAHR: That would be my slate in the photograph. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular instance, can you by looking in your book tell us what the numbers were in sequence of the two photographs you took of Detective Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I could. MR. NEUFELD: Would you please do so. MR. ROKAHR: That would be 34 and 35. MR. NEUFELD: That means that those are the 34th and 35th pictures that you took at Bundy that night? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. - - - - - - - - - - [18156] MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, isn't it a fact, sir, that when you took those photographs, the first eight photographs after Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, that as to those eight photographs, you were not having any detective instruct you as to what to shoot, but you were simply relying on your own professional judgment? Isn't that a fact? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I would say it's a fact because of the--the sequence in these photographs, which is the way I shoot. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Now, you said earlier to the jury that you were using Kodak color print film asa 200; is that correct? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir? MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures. MR. NEUFELD: Is that your standard practice? MR. ROKAHR: That is what I prefer. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on this night, when you were at Bundy shooting, you were using rolls of 36? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. - - - - - - - - - - [18159] MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning? MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning; is that correct? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events - - - - - - - - - - [18162] MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct? MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what? MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime. MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove? MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman. MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove? MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman. MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. DARDEN: At night? THE COURT: Overruled. MR. NEUFELD: That's what he--your Honor, at this time, I have no further questions. I would like to pose--I would like to pass this to the jury so they can at least look at it. - - - - - - - - - - [18170] MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you mentioned on cross-examination that you may not be, you know, absolutely certain as to what time a particular photograph or precisely what time a particular photograph was taken. But would you agree, sir, that there's a difference between a photograph taken a half hour, an hour before sunrise and a photograph taken an hour and a half after the sun comes up? MR. DARDEN: Objection. MR. NEUFELD: You know, in terms of light in the air? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Light in the air? MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises? MR. ROKAHR: Yes. MR. DARDEN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference. MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you? MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so. MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Nothing further. THE COURT: Mr. Darden. MR. DARDEN: Nothing further. I'm sorry. After how many lies does Fuhrman cease to suffer from slips of the tongue? After how many lies does he lose all credibility? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-16   23:50:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 220. #221. To: nolu chan (#220) He said "I noticed the glove". The glove. One glove. When he said "gloves" he admitted it was a slip of the tongue. Let it go, 'cause I sure am. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17 11:24:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #334. To: nolu chan (#220) MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those? MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir? MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures. Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36. My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20 12:14:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #335. To: nolu chan (#220) (Edited) Testimony Of LAPD Officer Robert Riske A: HE'S POINTING TO THE GLOVE. Q: THE GLOVE AND THE CAP? A: THE CAP. Q: THE ONES THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: SO -- LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. WHAT'S HE WEARING THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: LOOKS LIKE WHITE SUIT SHIRT, PAIR OF SLACKS. Q: NO JACKET? A: NO. Q: NOW, IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, YOU HAD SAID THAT THE LEAVES OF THE PLANT THAT KIND OF HUNG OVER THAT ONE GLOVE AND THE SKI CAP? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THAT ACTUALLY YOU HAD TO LEFT IT UP TO SEE? A: RIGHT. Q: NOW, AT THIS POINT, THE LEAVES ARE NOT LIFTED UP; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S HIS LEFT HAND HOLDING THE LEAVES BACK AND HIS RIGHT HAND POINTING TO THE -- MS. CLARK: PULL BACK A LITTLE BIT, JONATHAN. THE WITNESS: OH, NEVER MIND. THAT'S THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM? Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM. SO HE'S JUST POINTING TO IT WITH HIS RIGHT HAND? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE? A: 7:15. Q: AT 7:15? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR. Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT -- A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY? A: RIGHT. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20 12:38:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 220. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com