[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: 119087 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 Comments (1-225) not displayed.       .       .       . #226. To: misterwhite (#223) "He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove." He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto. I will remind you again, your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. The only matter that could justify any finding by the jury is evidence adduced at trial. I provided testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, from a transcript of said testimony. MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that what you meant by that sentence is what it says, that you could--that in your opinion, these were the Aris style gloves? MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony. MR. RUBIN: What I meant-- THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. MR. RUBIN: What I meant by that statement categorically was that the features that I could see in the pictures, not one feature would lead me to a non 70263 Aris light style. That's what I meant by the statement. [18775] MR. BLASIER: By the statement you made yesterday to us? MR. RUBIN: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - [18773] MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263? MR. RUBIN: I did. [18774] MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct? MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement. Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case." He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove. He admitted that he was not familiar with all styles of gloves by all manufacturers in the world. He worked for one manufacturer, and one only. - - - - - - - - - - The glove expert testified that he could not unequivocally identify the photographed gloves were Aris brand gloves, much less specifically style 70263. He identified features on Aris gloves that are also present on other brands of gloves. He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves. He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. And he did not see anything to make him certain it was an Aris glove. Proving, he saw a glove in a photograph which he could not positively identify. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-18   20:25:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #227. To: nolu chan (#226) "was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty." No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored. He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves. He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-19   9:12:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #228. To: misterwhite (#227) He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves. He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning. He affirmatively testified to it as fact. I am sorry you can't find it in the transcript. You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning." You have not even identified what it is about. And next time give me a warning when you are going to say you read the transcript. My keyboard and my side thingees thank you. On direct, Rubin was asked if the brossier stitch is unique to the Aris glove. He said "Very." And he testified that "[t]he palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question." On cross, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the brossier stitch was not unique to the Aris glove. He testified that silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common. [18744] MR. DARDEN: The Brossier stitching is unique to the glove? MR. RUBIN: Very. MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about the vent, the palm vent? MR. RUBIN: The palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question. - - - - - - - - - - Zero for effort. Rubin testified that he checked with two companies to see if they might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching (blind seam). The second one said yes, and he stopped looking. [18782] MR. BLASIER: Now, you made some effort to try and find out what other manufacturers in the world might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching, correct? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did. MR. BLASIER: And how many different companies did you check with? MR. RUBIN: I only checked with two. MR. BLASIER: There are a lot more companies than that in the world, aren't there? MR. RUBIN: In the world? Yes. MR. BLASIER: Now, did you ever check with any glove companies in Europe or Italy? MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. MR. BLASIER: In Europe? MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. MR. BLASIER: Other glove companies other than the two that you've told us about? MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. MR. BLASIER: And what are those two companies? MR. RUBIN: Fownes gloves, F-O-W-N-E-S, and Mr. Zuckerware's company, grand-o gloves. MR. BLASIER: And Grand-O does produce a glove with Brossier stitching, doesn't it? MR. RUBIN: They told me that they had produced a glove with Brossier stitching a couple of years ago in small quantity. - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Rubin contacted two companies to inquire if they used a brossier stitch. The second company, half of the total, affirmed it used the brossier stitch in gloves. Mr. Rubin's search ended at that point. He admits there could be hundreds of glove manufacturers in Europe, and he expresses that he has no idea how many use a brossier stitch. He admits he has actually seen the stitch on Italian gloves. The brossier stitch was not unique to Aris 70263. [18783] MR. BLASIER: Okay. So the two companies--the only two companies that you checked with, one of them does this stitch, correct? MR. RUBIN: One out of two. MR. BLASIER: Now, if--do you have any idea how many other glove manufacturers there are in the world? MR. RUBIN: I have no idea. MR. BLASIER: If--would you agree that there's over a hundred other glove manufacturers in various parts in the world that--go ahead. MR. RUBIN: If you define glove manufacturers as anybody who is manufacturing quantity and distributing it on their own, a person who has six employees in a small shop technically is a glove manufacturer. So I'd say in places like Italy, Hungary and certain other eastern European countries, there could be hundreds of manufacturers. They would relatively be quite small as far as production. MR. BLASIER: How many of those have a Brossier machine? MR. RUBIN: I have no idea. MR. BLASIER: Now, you know that--you've seen this stitch on an Italian glove some years ago, didn't you? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did. MR. BLASIER: From a small company? MR. RUBIN: I don't know what company it was from. MR. BLASIER: Have you made any effort to contact singer to find out other machines there are throughout the world? MR. RUBIN: No, I have not. MR. BLASIER: Are there any other machines that can make a stitch that looks like this stitch? MR. RUBIN: This stitch is a very fine whip stitch, and the machine that I'm familiar with, it does make a stitch that's similar. That's the Ozan sewing machine. The one I'm thinking of is made by a company called treasure. [18784] MR. BLASIER: And can that make a stitch that looks like this? MR. RUBIN: Similar, but not the same. MR. BLASIER: Different in what way? MR. RUBIN: The Ozan sewing machine normally runs at about 10 to 12 stitches per minute. The Brossier sewing machine runs at twice that, and the difference is in the bite. When it's a whip stitch, most of those whip stitch type machines in the bite, you get a high, low effect on the Ozan stitching machine and you get a larger seam than you would on a continuous seam and fine seam on the Brossier. But to a layman, the stitch is--stitches would appear to be somewhat similar. MR. BLASIER: Can the Ozan machine do a 22-inch--22 stitch per inch stitch? MR. RUBIN: I'm not a technician. I'm not sure if it's capable of making a stitch that tight or not. I've never seen Aris production or some other production with Ozan do more than 12 stitches an inch on the Ozan machine. MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort - incidentally, Ozan machines are fairly common, aren't they? MR. RUBIN: Within Aris, the largest amount of gloves that were out on the marketplace were Ozan. MR. BLASIER: Other companies have Ozan stitching machines, don't they? MR. RUBIN: I believe they do. MR. BLASIER: It's a common machine, isn't it? MR. RUBIN: It's a common machine, readily available. MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the Bonis Golden series never-stop machines? MR. RUBIN: I've heard the term Bonis, but I'm not familiar with the machine. MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a flyer for that machine. MR. DARDEN: Objection. He's not familiar with it. THE COURT: I'm sorry? [18785] MR. DARDEN: Objection. What he's relying on, he's not familiar with. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. DARDEN: Can I see the flyer then? (Brief pause.) MR. DARDEN: It's dated 1995. Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BLASIER: Would you take a look at that, tell me if you're familiar with that machine? MR. DARDEN: 352, your Honor. No authentication. THE COURT: Overruled. The question is, is he familiar with the machine. MR. RUBIN: Since I never really looked at the numbers on the machines that were at Aris Philippines for style--I've seen similar machines to this with the wheel. I'm very familiar with that. It's very common. But I don't know for a fact that it was a Bonis BG12 machine. MR. BLASIER: All right. So the machines you've seen, they can do 25 stitches an inch, can't they? MR. RUBIN: I've never seen them do 25 stitches to the inch. MR. BLASIER: Can they do 25 stitches an inch? MR. RUBIN: I could not state that to this court if I had not done it myself. I've never-- MR. BLASIER: Can that machine do 25 stitches an inch? MR. RUBIN: According to the flyer, this will-- MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. - - - - - - - - - - Silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common. Rubin made no effort to find out what other machines might make a stitch as fine as the brossier stitch made by Aris. [18786] MR. BLASIER: So I take it then other than calling two companies and asking them specifically about the Brossier machine, you made no effort to find out what kind of other machines might make a stitch that fine? MR. RUBIN: I have not. MR. BLASIER: Now, the two companies that you contacted, did you just ask them about the Brossier stitching? MR. RUBIN: Well, in regard to Fownes, I asked them if they had any of the equipment. They told me no, and that was pretty much the end of the conversation. And I do have friends that work there. So we may have discussed other things that I'm not aware of. In regard to my conversation with Mr. Zuckerware, a technician within their company was in the room and mentioned the style number or the-- MR. BLASIER: Objection. Nonresponsive. THE COURT: All right. Ask your next question. MR. RUBIN: You know, I don't remember what I spoke with them about. THE COURT: Hold on. MR. BLASIER: You didn't ask anybody about the three lines, the silking on the back, did you, in terms of how other people may or may not use that? MR. RUBIN: I did not discuss anything other than the Brossier. MR. BLASIER: So you've made no effort to find out how common or rare the silking is, and that's the three points on the back? MR. RUBIN: I think I earlier stated that it's very common. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-19   23:20:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #229. To: misterwhite (#227) No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored. The defense did not have to prove anything, not even reasonable doubt. The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable competing explanation to any claim of fact based on circumstantial evidence, the claim pointing to innocence must be adopted. In your attempts to prove that the prosecution met its burden, your attempts have: failed to show that the gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson were ever given to, or worn by, O.J. Simpson. produced a picture of O.J. Simpson wearing black gloves and claimed they were the gloves. Failed to overcome the testimony of glove expert Richard Rubin that he could not unequivocally identify any glove being worn by O.J. Simpson in a photograph as an Aris brand glove. Failed to overcome the testimony of Bloomindale's expert that the Nicole Simpson receipt does not show that the two gloves in evidence at the court were purchased during that transaction. There is a good reason you cannot prove, on the basis of the evidence in the criminal trial, that the evidence gloves belonged to, and were worn by, O.J. Simpson. The prosecution never proved it in court. The criminal prosecution never proved that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes either. I will attempt to demonstrate that the defense presented the more believable theory of how the one glove got to Rockingham, as shown by the actual evidence at trial. The prosecution theory has a serious problem with science. And I wish to note that Det. Fuhrman planting the glove at Rockingham is consistent with O.J. Simpson and/or one or more others having committed the murders. The Rockingham glove could not be ignored, but it presented a problem for the prosecution. Admitting Det. Fuhrman planted it would taint all the evidence in the case. Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter's testimony is incredible, as in it defies all rational belief. According to Det. Vanatter, two paragraphs are the totality of notes he took about the activities of the 12th and 13th of June. [4697] BY MR. SHAPIRO: Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, OVER THE NOON HOUR YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FIND YOUR NOTES OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM ON THE 12TH THROUGH THE 13TH OF JUNE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THOSE NOTES? A: I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT AS FAR AS ACTUAL PHYSICAL NOTES, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER THAN THE PARTIAL STATEMENT I WAS GOING ON, KATO KAELIN. Q: AND THAT CONSISTS OF TWO PARAGRAPHS? A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH. Q: AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF WHAT WAS -- WHAT TOOK PLACE AS FAR AS RECORDING INFORMATION BY YOU? A: I DIRECTED OTHER INFORMATION BE RECORDED, BUT YES, THAT IS TRUE. Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter admitted the information he included in his sworn statement to obtain a search warrant was false. [4757] Q: AND IN FILLING OUT A SEARCH WARRANT YOU INDICATED TO A MAGISTRATE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT YOU WERE TOLD THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED MIGHT TO CHICAGO, DID YOU NOT? A: I DIDN'T SAY I WAS TOLD THAT. Q: YOU REPORTED -- A: I DID WRITE THAT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, YES. Q: AND YOU SIGNED THAT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY? A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. Q: AND THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT? A: I FIND -- I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT WAS BASED ON ARNELLE SIMPSON'S RESPONSE THAT MORNING, AS WELL AS KATO KAELIN TELLING ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AFTER SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE RESIDENCE TELLING HIM TO ALARM THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO ON A [4758] BUSINESS TRIP FOR HERTZ. Q: YOU FILLED OUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT AT WHAT TIME, SIR? A: I STARTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 IN THE MORNING. Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU PRESENT IT TO A MAGISTRATE, SIR? A: IT WAS SIGNED AT 10:45. Q: AND THE MAGISTRATE ASKED YOU TO MAKE SOME HAND CORRECTIONS IN THERE, DID SHE NOT? A: YES. Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING YOUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES INDICATE THAT IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH KATO KAELIN THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT FOR CHICAGO FOR HERTZ? A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND DID YOU ALSO INDICATE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, SIR, THAT YOU OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN BLOOD, WHICH WAS LATER CONFIRMED BY A CRIMINALIST TO BE HUMAN BLOOD? A: YES, I SAID THAT. Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS NOT A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS HUMAN BLOOD? A: THAT IS TRUE. I MISSTATED THAT I GUESS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE. I BELIEVED IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD AND I THINK NOW -- I THINK STILL IT IS HUMAN BLOOD. I THINK IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE HUMAN BLOOD. Q: YOU ALSO SAID, SIR, DID YOU NOT, YOU OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE OF THE BRONCO AND BLOOD INSIDE THE DOOR PANELING OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT? A: YES, SIR. Q: DID YOU INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR SEARCH WARRANT? A: NO. Q: WHY NOT? [4759] A: I JUST -- THAT WAS A QUICK ATTEMPT TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT TO MOVE THE INVESTIGATION ALONG. I DIDN'T -- I MISSED SOME THINGS IN IT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT. Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES IN THAT IN ANY REPORTS THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASE? A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T. Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT. Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN? A: THERE ARE NO NOTES. Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES. Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES. Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM? A: IT IS NOT, SIR. Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION. Q: WHEN WAS THAT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN? [4760] A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH. Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION? A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES. Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES? A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT. Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT? A: YES, SIR. Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE? A: IT DOESN'T. How Criminalist Fung was caught on videotape, Rockingham glove in hand, stepping over Ron Goldman's body. [6758] MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall a videotape of you stepping over the body holding what you've told us was the Rockingham glove with your bare hand and a bag? MR. FUNG: Yes. The unexplained movement of the Bundy glove between photographs. [6759] MR. SCHECK: You do concede however from looking at still photographs that the glove had been moved from a position where it was originally photographed when Detective Fuhrman was pointing at it to a second position when you directed the photographer to photograph it-- MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: Yes. Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054: 03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some 04 significance to you? 05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove 06 that I observed on Bundy hours before. 07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did 08 you do? 09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that 10 it did not match the terrain. 11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and 12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It 13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were 14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there 15 with some type of a liquid. 16 I didn't touch it. I went past the air 17 conditioning duct that you can see in photo 'A', and as 18 soon as I went past that air conditioning duct, looking 19 for the person that might have dropped this glove, 20 thinking that they were farther down the walkway, I ran 21 into spider webs immediately. Det. Fuhrman went past the air conditioning duct looking for the killer who had nearly severed the head of Nicole Simpson. Did he call for backup or draw his weapon. Nahhh. At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it. [4141] Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT [4142] ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116? A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME. Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR? A: YES. [...] Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS? A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE. Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES. Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER? A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE. Detective Mark Fuhrman [4284] Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY." Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD? A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T. Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE? A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT. Photographer Rokahr established that Detective Fuhrman's timeline was skewed by several hours. [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. As I documented at #220, photographer Rolf Rokahr established that he took the photograph at night, at an approximate time between 4:25 and 4:40 a.m., before Detective Fuhrman left Bundy for Rockingham. The defense theory of how one glove got to Rockingham is that Detective Fuhrman found two gloves at Bundy, put one in a plastic bag, and transported that glove to Rockingham. The prosecution theory is that O.J. Simpson was wearing both gloves at Bundy, lost one at Bundy, and dropped the other one at Rockingham. Under the defense theory, the Rockingham glove was not there until after Detective Mark Fuhrman placed the glove after interviewing Kato Kaelin and hearing about the three thumps. Under this theory, the glove was planted sometime after 6:00 a.m on April 13. Under the prosecution theory, the Rockingham glove must have been dropped before O.J. left with Alan Park, the limo driver. That was around 11 p.m. More specifically, it ties to the three thumps heard by Kato Kaelin around 10:40 to 10:45 p.m. on April 12. There is a conundrum which must be addressed by the prosecution. It is rather like the cooking time of regular grits in My Cousin Vinny. Do the laws of science not apply at the Rockingham address? According to the prosecution theory, the glove was out in the warm summer air of Los Angeles in June for a period of over seven (7) hours. And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it. What prevented the blood from drying for seven hours? The defense theory posits that the glove was in a plastic bag, in Det. Fuhrman's pocket, for seven hours and esposed to the air for minutes. The prosecution theory is.... what?... blood does not dry at the Rockingham address? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-19   23:23:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #230. To: nolu chan (#229) The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. No they didn't. If there was reasonable doubt about a specific piece of evidence or testimony, that specific piece of evidence or testimony could be disregarded. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   9:37:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #231. To: nolu chan (#229) "failed to show that the gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson were ever given to, or worn by, O.J. Simpson." Well, let's see: -- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves. -- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.) -- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear. -- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased. -- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene. -- The matching glove was found at OJ's house. -- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ? Oh, sure. It IS possible that Nicole bought those gloves for some unknown boyfriend ... who also wore a size XL. And that the real killer coincidentally wore a size XL and shopped at the same store Nicole did and had a taste for rare expensive gloves to wear to a murder. And that the glove at OJ's house was planted by someone who knew that OJ wore a size XL and didn't have an alibi. And that OJ threw away the gloves given to him by Nicole. Yes. I will grant you that all of this is possible. But which scenario is reasonable? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   10:03:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #232. To: nolu chan (#229) (Edited) "And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it." No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky. "12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It 13 looked a little sticky and moist." An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   10:15:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #233. To: nolu chan (#228) You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning." That can be found in my post #231. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   10:26:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #234. To: misterwhite (#230) The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. No they didn't. If there was reasonable doubt about a specific piece of evidence or testimony, that specific piece of evidence or testimony could be disregarded. Read it again. Your response is nonsense. The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't prove any element of the crime by disregarding evidence, physical or testimonial. You can only prove something by bringing forth physical or testimonial evidence. The prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As Judge Ito instructed the jury, "EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." If the prosecution fails to provide proof of any element, it fails to prove the accused committed the crime. In such case, the jury is instructed, it must return a verdict of not guilty. From Judge Ito's instructions to the jury: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: IT IS MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. YOU WILL HAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS. YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW. YOU HAVE TWO DUTIES TO PERFORM. FIRST, YOU MUST DETERMINE THE FACTS FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. A "FACT" IS SOMETHING PROVED DIRECTLY OR CIRCUMSTANTIALLY BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY STIPULATION. A STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE FACTS. SECOND, YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW THAT I STATE TO YOU TO THE FACTS AS YOU DETERMINE THEM AND IN THIS WAY ARRIVE AT YOUR VERDICT AND ANY FINDING YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH YOUR VERDICT. YOU MUST ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS I STATE IT TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE LAW. IF ANYTHING CONCERNING THE LAW SAID BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ARGUMENTS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME DURING THE TRIAL CONFLICT WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, YOU MUST FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS. [...] EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT. EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. BOTH DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER. HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION. FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE. [...] YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM. YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL. NONE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND YOU MUST NOT INFER OR ASSUME FROM ANY OR ALL OF THEM THAT HE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE GUILTY THAN INNOCENT. YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE, SYMPATHY, PASSION, PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING. BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT YOU WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, APPLY THE LAW AND REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   21:44:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #235. To: misterwhite (#231) Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. Well, let's see: -- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves. -- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.) -- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear. -- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased. -- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene. -- The matching glove was found at OJ's house. -- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ? Of course, you do not cite any evidence before the jury in the criminal trial. Your laundry list is not evidence, and is directly contradicted by actual evidence adduced at the trial. -- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves. There is no evidence adduced at the criminal trial that Nicole bought the gloves. It was impossible for the prosecution to establish when the gloves in evidence were purchased, or by whom. Bloomingdale's expert Brenda Vemich testified that there was no way for her to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. There was no evidence before the jury as to when, of even if, Nicole Simpson bought the gloves in evidence. You are entitled to your opinion about the evidence adduced at the criminal trial. You are not entitled to your own imaginary evidence. MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No. - - - - - - - - - - -- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.) There is a receipt for the purchase of gloves. There is no evidence whether they were black or brown, or what size they were, and there is expert testimony that it was impossible to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. You assume to have determined, of your own expertise, what the Bloomingdale's expert could not. -- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear. It is vague as to what they refers to. It could refer to the gloves on the Blomingdale's receipt, or it could refer to the gloves in evidence. The prosecution at the criminal trial was unable to establish they were one and the same, and their expert witness testified that it was impossible to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. Neither the receipt gloves, nor the evidence gloves, were ever proven to have been owned or worn by O.J. Simpson. OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased. Proving nothing. Not even the Aris expert could identify any of the gloves in the photographs as Aris gloves. Most of the gloves in the photographs were black, and the evidence gloves were brown. -- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene. There was no such evidence was produced at trial. The two pairs of gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson could have been black, as established by the expert testimony. The expert testimony was that the receipt did not indicate the size or color of the gloves purchased, and there was no way to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. -- The matching glove was found at OJ's house. The glove found at Rockingham matched the glove found at Bundy. Neither evidence glove was shown to match whatever gloves of unknown size and color were purchased at Bloomingdale's. Neither evidence glove was shown to have been owned or worn by O.J. Simpson. -- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. Irrelevant. The gloves purchased by Nicole were never established as being any particular size or color, and the Bloomingdale's expert testified there was no way to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. It was not established at trial that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the gloves in evidence. The defense is not required to put on any case whatever. When the prosecution rests, the defense can simply say, "The defense rests." Any failure to produce evidence falls directly on the prosecution. There is no obligation for the defense to do anything but show up. The defense can stand mute and offer no evidence and no testimony and no negative inference can be drawn from that. It's that dreaded Fifth Amendment thingee at work. Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ? Based on your presentation of a fantastical laundry list, it is reasonable to assume that you either do not know what evidence is, or have none to offer and don't care. It is reasonable to believe O.J. owned the gloves. It is reasonable to believe it has not been proven who owned the gloves. It is unreasonable for a juror to assume guilt of a crime based on an unproved assumption. Oh, sure. It IS possible that Nicole bought those gloves for some unknown boyfriend ... who also wore a size XL. As Judge Ito instructed the jury: IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT. The size, color, and date of purchase of the purchased gloves is unknown. And that the real killer coincidentally wore a size XL and shopped at the same store Nicole did and had a taste for rare expensive gloves to wear to a murder. A pair of XL gloves were used by the killer. There was no evidence brought forth that they were purchased in Bloomingdale's in NYC. No evidence was brought forth that they were bought by Nicole Simpson, or when they were bought. There was no evidence brought forth that they were owned or worn by O.J. Simpson. And that the glove at OJ's house was planted by someone who knew that OJ wore a size XL and didn't have an alibi. There was no need for Det. Fuhrman to know that O.J. wore an XL glove. There was no need for Det. Fuhrman to know that O.J. didn't have an alibi. It only required for Det. Fuhrman to assume that O.J. Simpson was the killer, and for Det. Fuhrman to be motivated to create probable cause to search his residence. If it turned out that O.J. Simpson was in Chicago gladhanding for Hertz, that does not incriminate Det. Fuhrman. It would just mean only Det. Fuihrman would know how the glove got there. If Fuhrman had not "found" the glove, but had waited for someone else, perhaps Vanatter, to find the glove, would that mean Det. Vanatter planted it, because O.J. had an alibi? The evidence for planting is the blood evidence in the Bronco seen with xray vision, and the testimony of Det. Fuhrman. At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it. And Det. Fuhrman's false testimony about the time of the photograph depicting him pointing to the Bundy glove. That was the evidence before the jury. A reasonable theory for why the glove was moist and sticky, and appeared to have a glean or glisten to it, is that it was in a plastic bag being carried around by Det. Fuhrman, rather than in the open air on a warm June night and morning in Los Angeles. This theory is consistent with O.J. Simpson, or anyone else, leaving two gloves at Bundy. The theory that it was O.J. Simpson who transported the glove in the Bronco is inconsistent with the blood in the Bronco. There was not enough of it. [4141] Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT [4142] ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116? A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME. Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR? A: YES. [...] Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS? A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE. Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES. Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER? A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE. Detective Mark Fuhrman [4284] Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY." Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD? A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T. Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE? A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT. - - - - - - - - - - And that OJ threw away the gloves given to him by Nicole. There is no evidence that O.J. threw away any gloves given to him by Nicole. It is pure speculation. There is no evidence of record that O.J. Simpson either owned or threw away any Aris glove, or any other glove. Regarding the gloves purchased by Nicole, there is no evidence of record that either or both were either brown or any other color, and there is no evidence of the size. There is nothing in any theory of the case that requires that O.J. threw away gloves. Yes. I will grant you that all of this is possible. But which scenario is reasonable? According to the prosecution timeline, the gloves would have had to be out in the open air for over seven (7) hours without drying out. That is unreasonable. According to the prosecution timeline, O.J. had to nearly sever the head of Nicole, engage in a struggle with Ron Goldman and knife him to death, and several minutes later arrive at Rockingham in the Bronco, jump the fence, drop the Rockingham glove, and shortly after 11 p.m. leave to catch a scheduled flight to Chicago. This theory is not reasonable. The killer cut both carotid arteries of Nicole from the front. He had to sustain a shower of blood. Then the killer had to sustain more blood from Ron Goldman, almost immediately hop in the Bronco, and not leave the Bronco a mess of blood stains. The prosecution ran into severe problems with their timeline trying to show that it was possible for O.J. Simpson, as the killer, to have arrived at Bundy at 10:40 or 10:45 as the prosecution argued throughout the trial. The defense had destroyed that timeline with ear- and eye-witness testimony. Marcia Clark argued in closing that the thumps occurred at 10:52 p.m. That was a valiant effort to salvage a destroyed timeline. It is unreasonable in terms of how O.J. Simpson cleaned up. It eliminates any possibility that he cleaned up at all at Rockingham. He certainly did not clean up in the Bronco. The killer had to be a bloody mess at Bundy. He cleaned up before leaving Bundy and left no evidence of doing so anywhere? The prosecution offers no explanation for where the blood on the killer disappeared to, if it was O.J. Simpson. The killer was covered in an ocean of blood. Could he have gone anywhere at the Bundy residence without leaving a trail of blood? Where and when did he do the cleanup before getting in the Bronco. A parade of defense witnesses testified about being at or near the Bundy residence after 10:15. Francesca Harmon was there at 10:20 and saw and heard nothing. Ellen Aaronson and Dan Mandel left Mezzaluna and walked directly past the walkway at Nicole's Bundy residence at about 10:25. They saw no blood, they heard no barking dogs. A photo by police photographer Rolf Rokahr showing what could have been seen had the murders already occurred. Nicole's body was in plain view. Also, blood flowed down the walkway, Bloody paw prints went southbound on Bundy. Denise Pilnak lived across the street. A guest, Judy Telander left Pilnak's house at about 10:24 and Pilnak that it was very quiet. Pilnak said she called her mother as soon as she went back inside. Her phone records placed the call at 10:25. She said the quiet continued for at least another 10 minutes, or until about 10:35 p.m. Robert Heidstra was out walking his dogs. Just like Denise Pilnak, he recall the barking starting at 10:35 p.m. While in the alleyway, east of 875 South Bundy, he hears a voice yell, "Hey, hey, hey," and then heard a gate slam. He then, about 10:40 or 10:45, he saw a white vehicle he described as a van or a jeep. The prosecution knew of, but did not call these witnesses. Kato Kaelin had testified the thumps were at about 10:40 to 10:45. By the time the defense got done with the timeline, the prosecution needed to perform emergency emergency resuscitation their timeline. The killer could not leave Bundy and thump on Kato's wall at the same time. Det. Vanatter did a test drive to measure the time needed to get from Nicole's to O.J.'s place. It was six (6) minutes. If the murders happened at 10:35, and the struggle took about five (5) minutes, the killer left around 10:40 or later, agreeing with the 10:40 to 10:45 sighting of a white van or jeep. If the killer was O.J., and he jumped in the Bronco as a bloody mess, he would barely make it within the timeline. However, he is left with no time to clean up, he is a bloody mess in the Bronco, he is a blody mess at Rockingham, and he is a bloody mess on the way to Chicago. Remember that they checked the drains at Rockingham for blood. None was found. The first mention of 10:52 was in the testimony of limo driver Allan Park on January 24, 1995. IN THE MEANTIME, JUST BEFORE KATO CAME OUT ONTO THE SIDE YARD, ALLAN PARK WAS STANDING AT THE ASHFORD GATE RINGING THE BUZZER, STILL GETTING NO ANSWER. FINALLY HE HEARD THE CAR PHONE RINGING INSIDE HIS CAR AND IT WAS 10:52. HE HAD STILL RECEIVED NO ANSWER TO THE BUZZING AT THE ASHFORD GATE, GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND SPOKE TO HIS BOSS, TELLING HIS BOSS "I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS HOME. WHAT SHALL I DO?" HIS BOSS TOLD HIM TO WAIT A LITTLE LONGER. AND WHEN HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING TO HIS BOSS FOR THREE MINUTES HE SAW KATO COMING OUT THE SIDE YARD WITH HIS LITTLE FLASHLIGHT. ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY SEEING KATO IN THE SIDE YARD, HE SAW A PERSON SIX FOOT TALL, 200 POUNDS, WEARING ALL DARK CLOTHING, AFRICAN AMERICAN, WALK QUICKLY UP THE DRIVEWAY AND INTO [T]HE FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE. IMMEDIATELY AS THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE THE DOWNSTAIRS LIGHTS WENT ON. Allan Park heard his phone ring at 10:52. That is fixed by phone records. He testifies that aftger he talked to his boss for three (3) minutes, he saw Kato with his flashlight. Arithmetic suggests that time was 10:55. Nearly at the same time, but after seeing Kato, Allan Park noticed a man, presumably O.J. Simpson proceed up the walkway and enter the house. That would be about 10:55 or 10:56. In Marcia Clark's closing argument, based on this, she placed the thumps at 10:52 and the sighting of Kato Kaelin at 10:54, and the sighting of O.J. Simpson at 10:54. With Marcia Clark, 10:52 plus :03, plus a little more is 10:54. The timeline had to be adjusted later to make it physically possible for O.J. to get there. And it had to be adjusted earlier than the Allan Park testimony and phone records would indicate, to make it physically possible for O.J. to bring out all his bags and get in the limo and be on his way shortly after 11:00. So, right after thumps, Kato comes out with his flashlight. At the same time, presumably O.J. is observed walking up the driveway and entering the front door. Where is the trail of blood? When did he have an opportunity to get rid of all the blood and leave no trace of doing so? And how did he take the drive in the Bronco and leave only seven-tenths (7/10) of one drop of blood on the console? There was a speck of something that may have been blood outside near the door handle. Was O.J. chipping golfballs before he walked up and entered the house? Or did he kill two people at Bundy, nearly beheading one of them from the front while cutting both carotid arteries, then almost immediately jump in the Bronco which was mistaken for a van or a jeep, rush to Rockingham, jump the fence because opening the gate would have been too easy for his arthritic self, bang on Kato's wall, and then walk up to the house, and depart minutes later, without leaving a massive trail of blood? The prosecution theory of the case, and it's timeline, are broken. It's a dog that just won't hunt. The emergency repair, adjusting the time of the thumps to 10:52 in closing argument, really does not work. [Marcia Clark, Opening Statement, January 25, 1995] THINK I CAN GUARANTEE THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, THE DEFENDANT HAD AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES OF TIME IN WHICH HIS WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. AND WE WILL SHOW THAT IT WAS DURING THAT HOUR AND 10 MINUTES THAT THE MURDERS WERE COMMITTED. AND SO THE EVIDENCE WILL PROVE THAT KATO LAST SAW THE DEFENDANT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AT 9:35 AT THE LATEST, HE DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT AGAIN UNTIL 10 -- EXCUSE ME -- AFTER 11:00 O'CLOCK. IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES, AT 10:15, A DOG IS HEARD BARKING THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WAS NICOLE'S DOG, WHICH FIXES THE TIME AT WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED. AT 10:45, KATO HEARD THUMPS ON HIS WALL. AND SHORTLY AFTER 11:00, HE SAW THE DEFENDANT. AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES DURING WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED -- MURDERS OCCURRED IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT POINT. [Marcia Clark Closing Argument, 26 Sep 1995] Now, let go back to Kato for a moment. Let's--concerning those thumps and when they happened. Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. Allan told you he saw Kato and the Defendant at--I'm saying he is the Defendant. He said the man that looked like the Defendant. You understand I'm talking about what we know based on all of the evidence, that it was him. 10:54 he saw Kato approximately, because it was at the same time he saw the Defendant. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52. So what we have, about two minutes after the thumping, the Defendant was walking up--was walking into his house from the driveway and Kato out in the side yard. In other words, we have the thumping, and Kato walking out and the Defendant walking around at the same time and the thumping happened very shortly, what is it, within half an hour of the murders. And the Defense would have you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the Defendant's appearance on the driveway just two minutes after the thumping on Kato's wall is a coincidence and the Defense would have you believe that the thumping and the appearance of that glove, the Defendant's glove, were unrelated events. And the thumps themselves, just think about that. Regardless of where or how they happened, just the fact that they happened shortly after the murders at the Defendant's house and just before the Defendant walked up his driveway in dark clothing, like the dark blue or black sweat outfit that Kato described, you just put those facts together and you realize what has happened. The Defendant came back from Bundy in a hurry. Ron Goldman upset his plans and things took a little longer than anticipated. He ran back behind the house, that dark narrow south pathway--you all saw it. You were there in daytime. But imagine how dark it is at night--that dark, narrow south pathway thinking he could get rid of the glove, the knife, in that dirt area in the back. You recall back behind the guest houses there is a dirt area, just all dirt, not very well tended, but he was in a hurry. He was moving quickly down a dark narrow pathway overhung with trees, strewn with leaves, and in his haste he ran right into that air conditioner that was hanging over that south pathway and running into that air conditioner caused him to fall against the wall, making the wall of Kato's room shake. You recall that air conditioner. It was hanging low. You had to stoop to get down under it. And if you are in a hurry and you are not looking where you are going in that dark, narrow pathway, you can see how it can easily happen how someone in a hurry can do that. And it was just as simple as that. Simple common sense tells you that the thumping, the glove and the Defendant's appearance on the driveway almost immediately thereafter are all part of one set of events, all connected in time and space. You don't need science to tell you that; you just need reason and logic. [Johnnie Cochran, Closing argument, September 27, 1995) I said earlier that Mr. Darden did a good job in his argument, but one thing he tended to trip over and stumble over was when he started to talk about our case. He doesn't know our case like we know our case. It was interesting, wasn't it, because first he stood up and started talking about the time line being at 10:15. Then he said, well, they didn't prove anything, but, "Golly, well, it may have been as late as 10:30." That's interesting, isn't it? Never heard that before. You look back and see what Miss Clark promised you a year ago. 10:15. 10:15 was all they talked about, and they were going to use, because of the incompetence of this investigation, the wail of a dog. So that's what we've been relegated to in this case because of this very, very important investigation. But having said the Defense doesn't have to prove anything in this case, we did in fact. So Mr. Darden can talk all he wanted to about his theories about motive. They're just that, his speculative theories about motive. But when it came down to the end, he wasn't talking about motive, was he? He was trying to talk about our time line. Why would he do that? Let's talk about why he would. Because the Defense in this case called many witnesses who corroborated each other and who shattered the Prosecution's time line. Now, these are witnesses to a person who were known by the Prosecution, but discarded by the Prosecution. Why? Because they didn't fit their tortured, narrow window of opportunity. So when you invisualize for me that jig-saw puzzle where they want to reduce this case down to a jig-saw puzzle, the part that deals with opportunity is the time line. And we're going to start off with that because in a search for truth, let's look for the truth. Not some contorted, twisted truth, but the real truth, the facts that you heard during the course of this particular case. We think after you look at this time line for the Defense, you will agree with our earlier analysis. This is a case about a rush to judgment, a case where there's been obsession to win at all costs, and in the words of Dr. Henry Lee, something is wrong with the Prosecution's case. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   22:01:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #236. To: misterwhite (#232) "And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it." No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky. "12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It 13 looked a little sticky and moist." Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You are quoting testimony from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing, explicitly flagged as such by me, and not testimony from the trial. Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054: 03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some 04 significance to you? 05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove 06 that I observed on Bundy hours before. 07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did 08 you do? 09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that 10 it did not match the terrain. 11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and 12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It 13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were 14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there 15 with some type of a liquid. I know you like all the "evidence" that was never evidence at the criminal trial, but none of that could have been considered by the jury at the criminal trial. There was a reason that I flagged this and emphasized this as being from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing the year before the trial. It was not evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. In the testimony at the criminal trial, Det. Fuhrman was asked about his testimony at the 1994 Preliminary Hearing. I provided the relevant excerpt from his 1994 Preliminary Hearing just to show why the prosecution at the criminal trial could not ignore the topic or claim the glove was dry. You may not like what Det. Fuhrman testified to at the criminal trial, but I provided it and flagged it as the testimony from the 1995 criminal trial. At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it. [4141] Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT [4142] ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116? A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME. Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR? A: YES. [...] Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS? A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE. Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES. Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER? A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE. Detective Mark Fuhrman [4284] Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY." Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD? A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T. Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE? A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT. You are now back at square one. FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, how do you explain how the glove sat outside in the warm Los Angeles summer air in June for over seven (7) hours, without drying out, and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it? An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process. Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process? There is no such testimonial evidence, therefore this is nothing. The jury could not reach a verdict of guilty based on the ruminations of misterwhite or anyone else who did not appear in court and testify. For this flyer, you would need to have an expert witness. Judge Ito, EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT. EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. [...] YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM. Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You are arguing the affirmative on that proposition, supposedly. Judge Ito, instruction to the jury, HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION. FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT. Only the prosecution is tasked with presenting evidence. With circumstantial evidence, any rational explanation by the defense that leads to innocence must be accepted by the jury. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   22:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #237. To: misterwhite (#233) You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning." That can be found in my post #231. You provided zero evidence at your #231. Not even a whisper of a phantom hint of evidence. You produced your laundry list of crap which I have clearly demonstrated, point by point, with transcription evidence, was directly contrary to the evidence adduced at the criminal trial. Judge Ito explained what was evidence for the criminal trial jury: YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. [...] EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT. EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. This crap is not evidence: Well, let's see: -- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves. -- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.) -- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear. -- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased. -- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene. -- The matching glove was found at OJ's house. -- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ? This is evidence: MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No. The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   22:09:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #238. To: nolu chan (#237) The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them. Nicole was married to OJ at the time she bought those gloves. Subsequent to that, OJ was pictured wearing gloves that looked identical to the gloves his wife purchased. A glove, identical to the one Nicole purchased, was found at the crime scene, and it's mate was found on OJ's property. OJ never produced, as evidence for the defense, the gloves he was wearing in the photos -- - -- -- despite the fact that it would have absolutely destroyed the prosecution's case. Now, you take all those facts together -- which I've really watered down -- and you tell me they don't point to OJ? As I said to you before, you think that all these little pickaninny doubts you've collected amount to reasonable doubt? Pfffft! misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-21   10:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #239. To: nolu chan (#236) and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it? I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky. How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am. "Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?" Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support your statement that the glove would have dried out in 7 hours and would no longer appear to be moist and sticky? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-21   10:52:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #240. To: misterwhite (#238) Nicole was married to OJ at the time she bought those gloves. Subsequent to that, OJ was pictured wearing gloves that looked identical to the gloves his wife purchased. Provide your source of knowledge of when the gloves worn by the killer were purchased? The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt. Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation. The Aris glove expert stated he could not positively identify any glove in the photographs as an Aris glove. What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove? MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove? DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure. MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: And you thought the glove was significant, so you kept it in your possession, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: And then you went downstairs? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: Why did you place that glove on the table? DET. LUPER: Well, I knew that there was blood spots or what appeared to be blood splats--blood spots at the--in the foyer, and I was just trying to look for additional spots on the wood floor, and there appeared to be several going--trailing from the foyer and past to the den area. And in trying to examine them, I put my notebook down on the floor as well as the glove on that--on the little table there to take a better look at it. That's all. MR. DARDEN: And that glove was videotaped by Mr. Ford as it lay on that table, correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: And that glove was also photographed by the crime scene photographer, Mike Wilson; is that correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. - - - - - - - - - - A glove, identical to the one Nicole purchased, was found at the crime scene, and it's mate was found on OJ's property. OJ never produced, as evidence for the defense, the gloves he was wearing in the photos -- - -- -- despite the fact that it would have absolutely destroyed the prosecution's case. The expert testimony, which I quoted to you from a transcript, proves that your repeated attempts to claim the Bloomingdale's transaction involved the gloves of the killer, the gloves in evidence, is without foundation. O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence. The jury could not consider your negative inference as it would require a violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. What is very obvious is that you are unable to cite evidence produced at the trial to support your empty claims. MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No. Now, you take all those facts together -- which I've really watered down -- and you tell me they don't point to OJ? As I said to you before, you think that all these little pickaninny doubts you've collected amount to reasonable doubt? Pfffft! You have repeatedly served up empty claims and have demonstrated an inability to cite actual evidence at trial to back up said claims. Evidence, real or imaginary, which points toward someone is decidedly not proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt. [nolu chan #94] The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. [misterwhite #97] They had 10X more than they needed. Why do you not have 10x more evidence than you need? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   6:18:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #241. To: misterwhite (#239) I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky. I believe that what you believe was not in evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. The actual testimony at the trial was evidence before the jury for them to consider. Actually, you are making believe you are responding to my #236 wherein I quoted the testimony verbatim from a transcript. On March 13, 1995: On Direct, questions by Marcia Clark Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR. A: WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT DIDN'T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT. IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE. [...] Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES. On March 14, 1995: On Cross, questions by Barry Scheck. A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY." Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD? A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T. Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE? A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT. Q: OKAY. NOW, MY QUESTION IS DID YOU BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS? A: I COULD HAVE. Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE LANGE? A: I COULD HAVE. Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: I COULD HAVE. Q: YOU DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WE SIT HERE? A: I DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF A SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT I MADE TO ANY OF THOSE DETECTIVES WHEN WE WERE STANDING BY THE GLOVE. Det. Vanatter, 16 March 1995 Direct, questions by Christopher Darden, Boldface added to text to indicate the point Christopher Darden was attemptig to make. A: NO, HE DID NOT. Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY? A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. - - - - - - - - - - How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am. Are you claiming he was a bumbling amateur? Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Hank Goldberg, 28 August 1995 DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that. MR. GOLDBERG: It would be a very bad idea to actually take my glove off and touch it to make sure, wouldn't it? DR. LEE: Well, some people does that, but I don't do that. MR. GOLDBERG: And you wouldn't recommend doing that, would you? DR. LEE: I would not suggest people--you should make sure it dry basically. MR. GOLDBERG: But not with your hands, right? DR. LEE: Not your hand. - - - - - - - - - - "Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?" Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support your statement that the glove would have dried out in 7 hours and would no longer appear to be moist and sticky?" Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You have made no attempt to show where any such proof was offered to the jury. It is reasonable that something that dries "very rapidly" does not remain wet for seven (7) hours in the weather conditions that prevailed in Los Angeles on that night and early morning. It is sheer desperation to claim that the air conditioner for the guest house being used by Kato Kaelin significantly changed the atmospheric conditions outdoors on Simpson's estate. The prosecution did not attempt to make that particular argument, so the jury was deprived of its levity and could not consider it. FBI Agent Bodziak, question by F. Lee Bailey, 19 June 1995 MR. BAILEY: Blood dries rather rapidly; does it not? MR. BODZIAK: Very rapidly. Prof. Herbert MacDonell, 31 July 1995 MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And first of all, can you tell us, sir, what was the temperature range between approximately ten o'clock in the evening on June 12th, 1994, and 9:30 the morning of June 13th, the approximate--June 13th? MS. CLARK: Well, objection. The report speaks for itself. THE COURT: Overruled. PROF. MACDONELL: The temperature range was between 63 degrees Fahrenheit and 66 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the document I have. MR. NEUFELD: And during that same period of time, sir, when you said the temperature range was between 63 and 66 degrees, does it also state what the dew point was? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, it does. MR. NEUFELD: And during that same period of time, sir, is there any indication from the official national weather service printout here that there was any dew on the ground on the night of June 12th into the early morning hours of June 13th? PROF. MACDONELL: Well, it indicates that the temperature--the dew point range was below the temperature range all the times, so there would have been no dew formation. [...] MR. NEUFELD: You said that the temperature between those hours of approximately ten o'clock on the evening of the 12th and 9:00, 9:30 the next day, were between 63 and 66 degrees; is that correct? PROF. MACDONELL: That is correct. Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Barry Scheck, 28 August 1995, MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with this study of drying times? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Goldberg asked you about drying times with different kinds of materials under different conditions. Do you recall that? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, on this study are a series of experiments performed for different amounts of blood. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: One being a single drop, one being one milliliter of blood, one being five milliliters of blood, one being a hundred milliliters of blood. DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: And then there are a series of materials listed on the chart; is that correct? DR. LEE: That's correct. MR. SCHECK: And out of the materials listed, which one would be the most comparable to the swatches at issue in this case? MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: Cotton cloth. MR. SCHECK: Now, what are the drying times for a single drop of blood under the three different conditions for cotton cloth? MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: It says condition 1, 55 minute, condition 2, 50 minute, condition 3, 350 minute. MR. SCHECK: All right. And 350 minutes would be? DR. LEE: Approximately six, seven, six some hours. MR. SCHECK: And-- DR. LEE: Six--little under six hours. MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, in terms of this experiment, what is condition 3? What set--in terms of temperature, humidity what is condition 3? DR. LEE: Condition 3 appear in this handout, laboratory cold with good air movement, temperature 38 degree Fahrenheit plus minus .1 degree, relative humidity, 80 percent plus minus 6 percent. MR. SCHECK: Well, in plain English, is that a cold, damp room? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: Is that something close to precipitation? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: Now, what about condition 1 and condition 2? DR. LEE: Condition 1 says laboratory work table which no more room, air circulation, temperature, 75 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent. MR. SCHECK: Would that be what would be ordinarily referred to as room temperature in a laboratory? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: And what is condition 2? DR. LEE: Condition 2, it says drying hood with good air movement, temperature, 76 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent. MR. SCHECK: So for a single drop of blood then under condition 1 which described as normal room temperature, the findings of labor and Epstein is the drying time is 55 minutes? DR. LEE: Yeah. Under one hour. MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SCHECK: And under condition 2, it's 50 minutes? DR. LEE: Yeah. Only 50 minutes. 50, not 15. Five zero. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   6:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #242. To: nolu chan (#241) So? He said it appeared moist. He never said it was moist. Did anyone testify that the glove was bone dry at the scene? Did anyone testify that it was moist at the scene? Besides you, of course. There's no evidence Fuhrman or anyone else planted that glove. None. Pure, desperate speculation. Fuhrman was a cop for 20 years. Don't you think he knew how long it takes for blood to dry? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-23   10:40:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #243. To: nolu chan (#240) Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation. I was trying to be as generous as possible. I refrained from saying the gloves were identical. "The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt." Again, in an attempt to be generous, I refrained from saying the gloves were the ones purchased at Bloomindales. Simply that they appeared to be the same. My point was that, taken together, it's clear these are all the same gloves. "What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?" Different brand. Different fit. You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? Was OJ faking it? "O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence." True. But why wouldn't he in this case? It would have essentially destroyed the prosecutions case. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-23   10:54:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #244. To: misterwhite (#242) He said it appeared moist. He never said it was moist. Det. Fuhrman testified: Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY? A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that. And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, with no evidence that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the Bloomingdals glove, you affirmatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought. You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove. It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less. Did anyone testify that the glove was bone dry at the scene? Did anyone testify that it was moist at the scene? Besides you, of course. I did not testify. I quote actual testimony and you post personal opinions. Det. Fuhrman testified that it was moist and sticky. Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY? A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that. And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. There's no evidence Fuhrman or anyone else planted that glove. None. Pure, desperate speculation. There is affirmative evidence that it and the Bundy glove were a pair. There was affirmative evidence that they contained blood from the Bundy victims. There is evidence that someone transported the glove from Rockingham to Bundy after the murders. There is a lack of evidence that Simpson transported the glove. Such theory is especially troublesome to the prosecution timeline(s). The theory that Fuhrman transported the glove is reasonable. Any reasonable explanation leading to innocence must be adopted over a competing theory leading to guilt. It is not proof by a preponderance of the evidence, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that is required. Fuhrman was a cop for 20 years. Don't you think he knew how long it takes for blood to dry? Fuhrman was a corrupt, racist cop. After F. Lee Bailey got done with him, he pleaded the 5th Amendment and was useless as a detective and left the LAPD. He was notoriously exposed as a corrupt detective who lied on the witness stand in a murder trial. Det. Fuhrman was not Einstein, he was a high school dropout with a GED. Dr. Henry Lee is an internationally renowned expert. Dryness on blood evidence is determined by looking at the evidence, not touching it. Fuhrman looked at the glove. Fuhrman testified, Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   23:04:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #245. To: misterwhite (#243) Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation. I was trying to be as generous as possible. I refrained from saying the gloves were identical. "The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt." Again, in an attempt to be generous, I refrained from saying the gloves were the ones purchased at Bloomindales. Simply that they appeared to be the same. The gloves did not appear to be identical. That is not the testimony. The appearance was consistent with the evidence gloves, based on the observance with certain features, features that were also consistent with other gloves. The result was that the expert testified that he could not state unequivocally that the photographed gloves were the same brand, Aris, as the killer's gloves in evidence. He testified that he could not even swear that they were the same brand. The Bloomingdale's expert testified that it was impossible to tell, from the receipt, whether the gloves involved in that transaction were the gloves in evidence. My point was that, taken together, it's clear these are all the same gloves. Just because something appears like something else is not proof that it is something else. You and the prosecution have presented insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the photographed gloves are, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, the killer's gloves in evidence. Appear to be is not a substitute for is. In your argument about the Rockingham gloves, you attempt to maintain that Fuhrman testified: Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. And Vanatter testified: Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY? A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that. And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, you afformatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought. You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove. It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less. "What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?" Different brand. Different fit. You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? Was OJ faking it? There is no testimony to affirmatively establish that these were a different brand or fit. Before Det. Luper left the scene, he replaced the glove in O.J.'s chest of drawers. MR. COCHRAN: And the brown glove that you had on the table that you had inadvertently left on the table downstairs, did you do anything regarding the brown glove? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. That particular item, after a conversation I had with Detective Lange and Vannatter, was returned to the location I had recovered it from. MR. COCHRAN: All right. In other words, what you did with it, you took it back upstairs; is that right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. - - - - - - - - - - MR. COCHRAN: I'm saying, by the end of the day, did you take the glove back upstairs at some point? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: Did you put it back in the-- DET. LUPER: I put it back where I had found it. MR. COCHRAN: You put it back where you got it from? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: You didn't leave there with it, did you? DET. LUPER: No, sir. Det. Luper's non-expert testimony about it being an Aris brand glove was, "I don't think so." That expresses uncertainty and will not support your assertion that it was a different brand. It is not proof that it either was or wasn't an Aris glove. That glove was never in evidence. Det. Luper testified that after he discovered he had left it on the downstairs table, he took it upstairs and put it back where he found it. The only reason the people found out about that glove is that Det. Luper, after keeping the video in his desk for three or four months, allegedly took it to Parker Center and left it in a filing cabinet in the O.J. Simpson war room. In the last week of February 1995, Luper was informed he might have to testify about the search warrant. In March, Luper alleged went to Parker Center and found the tape. Alternatively, Det. Luper may have been informed of his need to testify and removed the tape from his desk, taken it to Parker Center, put it in a filing cabinet, and declared it found. He did not tell anybody about the existence of the tape until March 22 or 23, 1995. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT, YOU WERE TOLD THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT? A: THAT'S RIGHT. Q: IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HERE? A: YES, SIR. Q: YOU DIDN'T TESTIFY IN ANY OF THE PRETRIAL MOTIONS, DID YOU? A: NO, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WERE YOU TOLD THAT AND BY WHOM? A: I WAS TOLD THAT THE LAST WEEK OF FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO INFORMED ME OF THAT. Q: SO IN FEBRUARY, VANNATTER TOLD YOU YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. YES, SIR. Q: AND THEN YOU STARTED LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOS AND YOU DISCOVERED THIS TAPE, RIGHT? A: I -- LOOKING AT PHOTOS, YES. NO VIDEO, BUT I DO -- I REALIZED WE HAD A VIDEO AT THAT TIME, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN DID YOU BRING THE FACT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT YOU HAD THIS VIDEO? A: THAT WAS EITHER MARCH 22ND OR MARCH 23RD OF THIS YEAR, SIR. Q: SO EVEN THOUGH YOU KNEW -- YOU DISCOVERED IT YOURSELF BACK IN FEBRUARY? A: NO. I BELIEVE IT WAS PROBABLY A WEEK OR TWO AFTER THAT THAT THAT I DISCOVERED IT. Q: SO MAYBE THE FIRST PART OF MARCH? A: YEAH. WITHIN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF MARCH, YES, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU FIRST -- YOU TOLD THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS OR SOME REPRESENTATIVE ON OR ABOUT MARCH 22ND? A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR. Q: WHO WAS TOLD? A: DETECTIVE TOM LANGE WAS TOLD, AT WHICH TIME WE MADE A NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THEN THERE WAS -- THEN SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. Q: WHO IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DID YOU TALK TO? A: I DON'T RECALL THE NAME, SIR. I DIDN'T MAKE THE CALL. Q: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST WEEK OR SO OF MARCH? A: NO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON MARCH 22ND OR THE 23RD. Q: BUT WHEN YOU FIRST DISCOVERED IT DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, WHO IN THE ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION DID YOU TALK TO ABOUT THIS? A: NOBODY. Q: YOU DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY AT FIRST? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU TOLD SOMEBODY IN ROBBERY-HOMICIDE? A: IT WAS EITHER -- IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO EITHER BE MARCH 22ND OR THE 23RD BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MYSELF. Q: AND WHO DID YOU TELL AT THAT POINT? A: DETECTIVE LANGE. Q: SO ANY PARTICULAR REASON YOU DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY BETWEEN THE TIME YOU DISCOVERED IT THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH AND MARCH 22ND, 23RD? A: NO PARTICULAR REASON OTHER THAN I DIDN'T AT THAT TIME FEEL THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY NEEDED TO KNOW BECAUSE OF THE REASONS IT WAS BEING HELD INITIALLY. Q: I SEE. AND WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING FOR WHY THIS TAPE WAS SHOT ORIGINALLY? A: IT WAS SHOT STRICTLY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, TO RECORD THE VALUABLE ITEMS AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE AND TO PREVENT ANY CIVIL LIABILITY THAT MIGHT ARISE IN THE FUTURE. - - - - - - - - - - You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? I do not have to hope anything. As you observe, the gloves in the Darden evidence demonstration fail of the century did not fit. Seeing this, the jury did acquit. "O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence." True. But why wouldn't he in this case? It would have essentially destroyed the prosecutions case. Because pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, and it is forbidden to draw any negative inference for any such failure to volunteer evidence. A lawyer who argued your "point" would be subject to sanctions by the court. The jury cannot support a verdict of guilt by a claim that Simpson, based on a unsupportable claim that Simpson had such evidence, and did not volunteer it. The defendant need not product either testimonial or physical evidence. The prosecution had the sole responsibility to produce evidence proving Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you believe Simpson did the crime, or whether you perceive real or imaginary evidence that was not presented to the jury is not the topic of dicsussion. It is whether the prosecution produced sufficient evidence for the jury to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and reach a verdict of guilty. You said, at #97, "[t]hey had 10x more than they needed." If the jury had it, you seem to be having trouble finding it, substituting your personal beliefs for evidence not actually presented, frequently in direct conflict with evidence actually presented. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   23:09:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #246. To: nolu chan (#245) "Appear to be is not a substitute for is." Are you setting a new prosecutorial standard? The government doesn't have to prove "is". They only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I summarized the glove evidence in my post #231. Add it all up and it's reasonable to conclude these are all the same gloves. To conclude anything else, you'd have to unreasonably speculate that evidence was planted (no proof), that DNA flies through the air, and all the other evidence is bogus. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   11:34:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #247. To: nolu chan (#245) "The jury cannot support a verdict of guilt by a claim that Simpson, based on a unsupportable claim that Simpson had such evidence, and did not volunteer it." I'm not saying the jury would vote "guilty" just because OJ didn't produce the evidence he had. Give me a fucking break. I'm saying that OJ was on trial for first degree murder and the inculpatory evidence was pointed right at him as being the murderer. While it's true that Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, why wouldn't he submit exculpatory evidence which would set him free? The answer is ... he had no such evidence. His gloves were the prosecution's exhibit. THAT'S why. You know it. I know it. Everyone knew it. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   11:51:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #248. To: nolu chan (#244) And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. No. I claimed no such thing. I don't know if the blood on the glove was moist or dry. All I know is that Fuhrman testified that it appeared moist. That's it. Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   12:00:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #249. To: nolu chan (#245) As you observe, the gloves in the Darden evidence demonstration fail of the century did not fit. But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim, an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   12:03:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #250. To: misterwhite (#246) Are you setting a new prosecutorial standard? The government doesn't have to prove "is". They only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. To submit a claim to the jury that A is the same as, or identical to B, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A is the same as, or identical to B. Showing that they look alike is not enough. Experts who examined the receipt could not tell if the purchased gloves were brown or black, or what size they were. Experts who examined the photographs of OJ wearing gloves could not determine if any of the gloves in the pictures were from the same manufacturer as the evidence gloves. The only glove found at OJ's was not thoought to be a match in manufacturer or size and was simply put back where it was, in OJ's chest of drawers. The expert testimony was unable to find sufficient evidence to declare any match other than the Bundy and Rockingham gloves being a pair. That was the evidence before the jury. Deal with it. I summarized the glove evidence in my post #231. You neither quoted nor identified any testimonial evidence at your #231. Well, let's see: -- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves. -- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.) -- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear. -- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased. -- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene. -- The matching glove was found at OJ's house. -- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial? For example, on your laundry list you claim "The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)" The Bloomingdale's expert testified that the receipt did not identify either the color or size of the glove purchased. The only glove found at OJ's house was testified to as being a size L. There was no testimony as to what glove OJ wore. There was expert testimony as to what size should give him a proper fit. These were stretch gloves. There was testimony that the XL gloves would fit a hand from M to XL. As another example, you laundry list says, "The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. Had the prosecution argued that point, they would have been slapped with sanctions for violating the constitutional rights of O.J. Simpson. This was not evidence, it was your imaginary wish list. To conclude anything else, you'd have to unreasonably speculate that evidence was planted (no proof), that DNA flies through the air, and all the other evidence is bogus. There was plenty of evidence that evidence was planted. The most notorious examples involved the socks and the rear gate blood stain at Bundy. With the socks, each of which had four (4) surfaces, for illistration purposes referred to as left outside, left inside, right inside, right outside. The clear expert testimony indicated that stain indicated a compression transfer, not a smear or spatter. The mode of transfer was a compression transfer where the pressure forced the blood from one inside surface to the other inside surface. The expert testimony concluded that it was impossible for a foot to have been in the sock at the time of transfer. And the expert testimony was that there was detectable EDTA in the blood, and that it was present in sufficient quantity that a person exhibiting such level would be dead. The famous Bundy blood stain on the rear gate was photographed and collected on July 3, 1995. The gate was also inspected and photographed on June 13, 1995. The blood stain on the rear gate is memorable for the cross-examination utter destruction of criminalist Dennis Fung by Barry Scheck. The stain photographed and collected on July 3rd was not collected on June 13th. It did not appear on a photograph of the gate taken on June 13th. Mr. Fung testified he could not see it on a blown up photograph taken on June 13th. Fung testified he did not know how it got there on July 3rd. As for seeing any the blood stain on the rear gate on June 13th, Andrea Mazzola testified, "I honestly don't even remember a rear gate." MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can find the exhibit number for counsel. MR. SCHECK: While we are looking for it, let me just ask you some questions. MR. SCHECK: Do you remember seeing that photograph? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th? MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: I did not see it. MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd? MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no. - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Do you remember all of the testimony that you gave over the last eight days during the direct and cross-examinations? MR. FUNG: It is all a blur. MR. GOLDBERG: Well, do you remember the question when you were shown the picture of the rear gate and Mr. Scheck said, "Where is it, Mr. Fung"? MR. FUNG: I remember that. - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you recall at the Bundy location seeing any stains on a rear gate on the 13th? MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't even remember a rear gate. - - - - - - - - - - This is like much of the most incriminating blood evidence, so called. It was collected weeks or months after the crime. After previous inspection with the blood stain not being observed, al of a sudden it inexplicably appears in a ghostly fashion. Dennis Fung had seen no blood on the socks when he bagged them as evidence on June 13; LAPD lab supervisor Michele Kestler, and defense experts Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf, had seen no blood on them when they examined them on June 22; no one had seen blood on them when they were examined as part of an inventory of evidence on June 29. Then somehow on August 4, a large stain, nearly an inch in diameter, appeared, providing enough DNA for a definitive RFLP test. As Barry Scheck showed the sock to the jury, no one had any problem noticing the bloodstain. Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 260. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:43:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #251. To: misterwhite (#247) I'm not saying the jury would vote "guilty" just because OJ didn't produce the evidence he had. Give me a fucking break. Arm, leg, or neck? You keep making this unconstitutional argument to spuriously "support" you position that the jury had 10x the evidence required to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I keep repeating that such an argument is unconstitutional and would draw sanctions against any attorney who attempted it. Nobody tried this brain fart, not even in closing arguments. I'm saying that OJ was on trial for first degree murder and the inculpatory evidence was pointed right at him as being the murderer. You keep talking about "the evidence" but failing to identify, specifically, what this evidence is. You ignore the evidence that the physical blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours. You ignore the evidence that blood evidence was degraded, contaminated, and/or planted. You ignore the evidence that unseen evidence magically appeared weeks or months later. You ignore the evidence that the LAPD testimony resembled a meeting of a liar's convention. Fuhrman wound up having to take the 5th. Fung was repeatedly shown video directly contradicting his testimony. Yamauchi was similarly destroyed. Vanatter and Luper were embarrassing. Mazzola's claimed memory was worse than Hillary; her mind was in a blender. I'm saying that OJ was on trial for first degree murder and the inculpatory evidence was pointed right at him as being the murderer. You assume facts not in evidence. The one glove found at his house was not an Aris glove. The testimony at trial of the Bloomingdale's expert established that nobody could, from the receipt in evidence, identify the size or color of the gloves purchased, and it was not possible to say the gloves in evidence were part of that transaction. It was also impossible to show that OJ had ever owned or worn the gloves in evidence. The prosecution failed to establish that the Bloomingdale's gloves had any evidentiary value. While it's true that Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, why wouldn't he submit exculpatory evidence which would set him free? Because he had lawyers who were not idiots. OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves. Just as there was no way for the prosecution to show that the evidence gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves, there would have been no way for OJ to prove another two pairs of gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves. The answer is ... he had no such evidence. His gloves were the prosecution's exhibit. THAT'S why. You know it. I know it. Everyone knew it. The prosecution could argue that they knew what you claim to know, because they failed to produce enough evidence to establish a good faith basis to make such a claim. Mr. Goldberg: Okay. All right. Have you read Mr. MacDonnell's article on the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Dr. Lee: (No audible response.) Mr. Goldberg: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Dr. Lee: I'm a Chinese. Take me a while to think about this double-talk. Absence-- -- August 28, 1995 You Chinese? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:45:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #252. To: misterwhite (#248) I don't know if the blood on the glove was moist or dry. All I know is that Fuhrman testified that it appeared moist. That's it. That's strange. The following were verbatim quotes from a transcript. Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it. Det. Vanatter not only observed the qualities of wet blood, he observed the absence of what he stated were the qualities of dried blood. Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up? Det. Fuhrman testified: Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT? A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY? A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that. And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia? Judge Ito: If it is rheumatoid arthritis in his knee or if it is osteoarthritis in his knee, it is still arthritis, and we agree that looking at the railroad tracks on the side of his knee and looking at the number of hits the guy took, he probably has got knee problems. He has got kneemonia. -- July 18, 1995 - - - - - - - - - - Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up? Just what do you infer from Vanatter's testimony that it looked like blood and it didn't appear to be dried blood, where it would be flaky and falling off??? It not only looked wet, it lacked the properties of blood that is dried. Det. Vanatter testified: Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY? A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. It appeared to be blood. It was not flaky and falling off as one would expect of dried blood. It appeared that it was moist. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #253. To: misterwhite (#249) But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim, I did not claim that OJ wore anything. I quoted the verbatim transcript of testimony that the only glove found at OJ's residence was believed to be a non-Aris brand, and size large, and not size extra large. MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove? DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure. MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size. I do not know and don't care. an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that? Like the prosecution, I do not explain it. The important fact is that the killer's glove demonstrably did not fit O.J. Simpson. Whether is was mislabeling or manufacturer's defect, the evidence gloves did not fit. If they do not fit, you must acquit. Or you must come up with a very good, believeable explanation, something the prosecution failed to do. Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to show that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. In contrast, the mission I chose to accept, was to show that the prosecution failed to place sufficient evidence before the jury to justify their returning a verdict of guilty. I am not trying to prove OJ as innocent. I am showing the prosecution was an abysmal mess and failed to provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When they got done, there was a better case to convict the LAPD witnesses of serial perjury than to convict Simpson of murder. The socks at Rockingham led to one of the funniest lawyer fails between a prosecution attorney and Judge Ito. The witness was Det. Bert Luper. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DID NOT SEE HER BEING BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT ALL? A: NO, SIR. Q: WHO GAVE HER THIS WALK-THROUGH? A: I DID. Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THE WALK-THROUGH START, IF YOU RECALL? MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS HEARING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT QUESTION I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING. MS. LEWIS: OH. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MS. LEWIS: THE RELEVANCE JUST OCCURRED TO ME. THE COURT: THERE IS A DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ISSUE I THINK. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:54:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #254. To: nolu chan (#253) Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size. Yeah. Right. That sounds reasonable. So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to. Fine. Then why not produce the Aris gloves while they're at it? Hmmmmm? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:21:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #255. To: nolu chan (#252) "Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it." He testified in generalities, not that glove. I think an even better way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to touch it with a sterile swab. Anyone do that with the glove? No? I guess they all just hovered around the glove laying on the ground saying, "It appears shiny. No, it appears wet. To me it appears sticky. Nah. It appears moist." misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:30:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #256. To: nolu chan (#252) How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia? Not well. He staggered into the air conditioner when he landed, dropping a bloody glove he was wearing during the double murder. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:37:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #257. To: nolu chan (#251) You ignore the evidence that the physical blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours. You ignore the evidence that blood evidence was degraded, contaminated, and/or planted. So you're suggesting that real killer's blood was "collected and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours and that it degraded and became contaminated" and turned into the blood of OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman in the process. Yeah. That sounds reasonable. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:51:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #258. To: nolu chan (#250) "What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?" Moot point. That wasn't my intent. I'm simply looking at the evidence from a jury's point of view, stripping away all the nit-picky arguments and using common sense. I presented seven points that you can't dispute, and drawing a conclusion based on those seven points. Sure. You can isolate them and pick them apart by saying "That doesn't mean anything. You can't prove that." But when you put it all together in addition to other evidence -- the shoes, blood everywhere, the watch cap, the cut finger, the motive, the means, and the opportunity -- it all points to only one person. OJ. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   12:07:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #259. To: misterwhite (#254) [misterwite #247 to nolu chan #252] [misterwhite 254] So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to. Fine. Then why not produce the Aris gloves while they're at it? Hmmmmm? In #252 I responded to your question by stating that OJ did not provide gloves to the prosecution "because he had lawyers who were not idiots." You attempt to misstate this as "So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to." The prosecution did not unconstitutionally demand that the defense produce more gloves. The defense did not volunteer to produce more gloves, and did not provide more gloves. That was because the very excellent defense lawyers were not idiots. [nolu chan #251] Because he had lawyers who were not idiots. OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves. Just as there was no way for the prosecution to show that the evidence gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves, there would have been no way for OJ to prove another two pairs of gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves. Advice to a defendant is like advice to a military nube -- keep your mouth shut, your bowels open, and never volunteer. The was no advantage to be gained by O.J. in providing any gloves, despite your absurd argument to the contrary. Further, it is unconstitutional to draw any negative inference in relation to O.J. not volunteering evidence you assume to have been in his possession. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:01:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #260. To: misterwhite (#255) [nolu chan #252] "Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it." - - - - - - - - - - [misterwhite #255] He testified in generalities, not that glove. I think an even better way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to touch it with a sterile swab. There you go thinking again. It appears that your testimony is that you have never worked or been trained in law enforcement or in the proper method of evidence collection. That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it. http://www.terriwoodlawoffice.com/pdfdocs/Forensics_Blood_Stains.pdf Items such as damp bloodstained clothing should be allowed to airdry at room temp away from direct sunlight; then the items should be packaged separately an[d] loosely in paper bags. If a criminalist must test an item to know if it is wet or dry, he should have some other job. The criminologist acted properly in not sucking the liquid out of the stain. To the extent possible, the technician collecting the evidence should preserve it for the serologist or lab for testing. http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html Wet Bloodstains If the item is small and transportable, then package it in a paper bag (or plastic bag to prevent contamination of other objects). Bring it to a secured location, take it out of the bag and allow the evidence and the bag to thoroughly air dry. Repackage in the original paper bag or, if necessary, a new paper bag. If a new paper bag is used, then the air dried original container should be packaged with the item of evidence. Advantages: Requires a minimal amount of interaction with the bloodstains by the investigator; allows the serologist to make the decisions involved in collecting the samples. Disadvantages: More work for the serologist; bulky items use more storage space. Dennis Fung, A. It is best to not manipulate the evidence and to leave it in as much an undisturbed condition as possible so that it can later be analyzed in a proper setting, back at the laboratory. By manipulating the evidence out at the scene, valuable trace evidence could be lost; so what we try to do is just leave it as undisturbed as possible by packaging it and bringing it back to the lab. Q. You try to do as little testing as you can of items in order to preserve them? A. Yes. Q. And only if it is absolutely necessary do you test them at the scene? A. Yes. - - - - - - - - - - Anyone do that with the glove? No? Which glove? Do you speak of the Rockingham glove? Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene? Are you claiming something, or are you just throwing out nonsense questions firmly answered by testimonial evidence? Why do you not know the answer to your question? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:02:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #261. To: misterwhite (#256) How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia? Not well. He staggered into the air conditioner when he landed, dropping a bloody glove he was wearing during the double murder. OJ lived there. He knew where the air conditioner was, and he knew where the gate was, and he knew how to open the gate. Considering his kneemonia, it would have been easier to just open the gate. In any case, like the rest of your "proof," what is lacking is the proof. What witness saw OJ climb a fence, walk into an air conditioner, or drop a glove? This was a prosecution theory which you offer as evidence. The theory gave the prosecution timeline problems they were never able to overcome. You have been unable to address the timeline. Your ignoring the need for timeline does not make the problem go away. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #262. To: misterwhite (#257) So you're suggesting that real killer's blood was "collected and stored in an uncooled vehicle with [sic - without] an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours and that it degraded and became contaminated" and turned into the blood of OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman in the process. My actual statement at #251, before passing through your mistranslation, was: You keep talking about "the evidence" but failing to identify, specifically, what this evidence is. You ignore the evidence that the physical blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours. You ignore the evidence that blood evidence was degraded, contaminated, and/or planted. You ignore the evidence that unseen evidence magically appeared weeks or months later. You ignore the evidence that the LAPD testimony resembled a meeting of a liar's convention. Fuhrman wound up having to take the 5th. Fung was repeatedly shown video directly contradicting his testimony. Yamauchi was similarly destroyed. Vanatter and Luper were embarrassing. Mazzola's claimed memory was worse than Hillary; her mind was in a blender. So, you are suffering from hallucinations from all that blue crystal. There was an argument at one point (30 Jan. 1995) that blood had deteriorated from one type into another. That was by Marcia Clark: MS. CLARK: THE PART THAT I HAVE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, THE BRACKET AROUND, THAT IS THE ITEM IN ISSUE. "ITEM 84-A" IS THAT "84-B AND 118-A COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON; HOWEVER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE STAIN IN THE EAP. TYPE B OBSERVED ON THE ITEMS WERE DEGRADED FROM A TYPE B A." The testimonial evidence showed that the blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and left in a truck which had a refrigerator that did not work properly. http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/evidenc3.html Emphasis in original. Blood and Body Fluids [...] Dried blood and body fluid stains should be collected in the following manner: If the stained object can be transported back to the crime lab, then package it in a paper bag or envelope and send it to the lab; if the object cannot be transported, then either use fingerprint tape and lift it like a fingerprint and place the tape on a lift back; scrape the stain into a paper packet and package it in a paper envelope; or absorb the stain onto 1/2" long threads moistened with distilled water. The threads must be air dried before permanently packaging. For transportation purposes and to prevent cross contamination, the threads may be placed into a plastic container for no more than two hours. Once in a secure location, the threads must be removed from the plastic and allowed to air dry. They may then be repackaged into a paper packet and placed in a paper envelope. Wet blood and body fluid stains should be collected in the following manner: all items should be packaged separately to prevent cross contamination, if the item can be transported to the crime lab, then package it in a paper bag (or plastic bag if the transportation time is under two hours), bring it to a secure place and allow it to thoroughly air dry, then repackage it in a paper bag. If the item cannot be transported back to the lab, then absorb the stain onto a small (1"x1") square of pre-cleaned 100% cotton sheeting. Package it in paper (or plastic if the transportation time is less than two hours), bring it to a secure place and allow it to thoroughly air dry; then repackage it in a paper envelope. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD WET OR MOIST ITEMS REMAIN IN PLASTIC OR PAPER CONTAINERS FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS. Victim and suspect's known whole blood samples will have to be collected in yellow, red, or purple top "Vacutainers." Contact the lab to which the samples will be submitted for specific information. When the blood evidence is kept in plastic bags, in the heat, for seven hours, it degrades markedly and becomes useless for DNA testing. The most popular DNA test results did not come from the evidence collected, degraded, contaminated, or otherwise made useless. It came from evidence planted and collected weeks or months later, and contained EDTA. As with the amazing socks, there was the amazing Bundy rear gate stain, and the Bronco stains. And the statistics were proven to be bogus. By the time Roger Martz made it to the witness stand, the final blow to the DNA evidence had already been delivered. On June 22, the prosecution brought one of the key protagonists in the DNA numbers war to the stand. Dr. Bruce Weir, a professor of statistics and genetics at North Carolina University, was a key “pro-admissibility,” anticeiling man, who advocated and used the FBI’s method. Putting Weir in front of the jury allowed the whole issue of statistics to be aired. Worse still for the prosecution, the O. J. Simpson case now became the first trial in which a serious debate took place about the probabilities of matches in samples involving mixtures of blood, a new twist that multiplied the disagreements between the two sides in the numbers war. The mixed blood samples from inside O. J. Simpson’s Bronco, particularly those containing Ron Goldman’s blood, were among the most incriminating evidence against Simpson. But there was a problem. In the PCR test being used by the prosecution, one of the alleles found in Ron Goldman’s blood tended to mask one of the alleles found in O. J. Simpson’s blood when the two were mixed. “You can infer that this allele, the 1.2, is there when dealing with blood from a single person but not when it’s mixed,” explains Bill Thompson. “Weir assumed it was, something he admitted in court.” Peter Neufeld was merciless in cross-examination. “The numbers on that board are biased against Mr. Simpson, isn’t that correct?” he insisted. “As it turns out, it looks that way, yes,” Weir replied. It illustrated the difficulty of a statistician dealing with figures derived from molecular genetics. A recalculation by Weir reduced a 1 in 3,900 probability that a stain on the Bronco's steering wheel contained a mixture of Ron Goldman’s and O. J. Simpson's blood to a 1 in 1,600 chance. It was another turning point in the trial. It the results had been proven wrong once, were they worth considering at all? With cross-examinations like those of Fung, Yamauchi, and Weir, Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Bob Blasier had, among them, virtually demolished the prosecution’s forensic case before calling a single witness of their own. The prosecution wound up with key elements of the defense’s case unrebutted. The missing blood, the sock, the famous glove that did not fit— all served to make the defense’s theory of contamination and framing at least possible. Many of the prosecution witnesses had undone themselves, a combination of sloppiness, overconfidence, and brinkmanship brought on perhaps by the sheer quantity of evidence they had against O. J. Simpson. But in the end it was forensic science’s DNA typing that was put on trial and found wanting. The witness who did most of the job for the defense was Dr. John Gerdes, a microbiologist from Denver. Gerdes looked the part of a scientist; solid and bespectacled, he was a medical lab director inclined to apply the standards of the rigorous government regulation of the Clinical Laboratories Inspection Act to forensic labs. As such he was the perfect candidate to set about a thorough study of the LAPD lab. He was also the perfect candidate to impress the jury. His solid image was reinforced by a dramatic style of delivery. Reviewing test materials covering fifteen months of examinations from May 1993 to August 1994, Gerdes concluded that the LAPD lab had a contamination problem that was “persistent and substantial . . . month after month.” He rammed home his point by saying a responsible oversight agency “would shut the lab down.” Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 262-63. Although Yamauchi insisted he had changed his gloves, the fact that he had not recalled the blood spill in preliminary testimony left plenty of room for doubt. By reconstructing each step of his tests, Scheck was able to show that the quantity of DNA consistent with that in O. J. Simpson’s blood in the swatches collected from the crime scene declined in the order in which Yamauchi handled them. Tracking contamination through the evidence? And the leather glove found at Nicole's condominium which Yamauchi had handled first and cut small rectangular samples from: might it not have been contaminated from the stains on the reference tube? It was an intriguing prospect. The DNA allele matching Simpson’s was only found in samples from the wrist leather where Yamauchi had written his initials to signal who had made the sample cuts. Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 259. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:05:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #263. To: misterwhite (#258) "What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?" Moot point. That wasn't my intent. I'm simply looking at the evidence from a jury's point of view, stripping away all the nit-picky arguments and using common sense. Your intent, in the abvsence of evidence, was to baffle and bullshit. Your laundry list was not evidence before the jury. It you really believe it was, identify the witness and the date. Your "view" of the evidence was not presented to the jury. The views of talking heads on the evening news were not presented to the jury. What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony. You vseem so unfamiliar with that testimony that you are unable to produce such evidence by witness and date to support your fantastic claims. I presented seven points that you can't dispute, and drawing a conclusion based on those seven points. As your personal arguments were never presented to the jury, they do absolutely nothing to present a case that the jury had 10x, or even 1x, the evidence presented to justify the jury returning a verdict of guilty. You presented your laundry list at #120. #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   Trace   Private Reply I answered your ridiculous #120 at my #144 As for hair and fiber "matching" try to keep up with the science. That was relegated to the ash heap of junk science. You seem unaware and are still citing that crap as proof of something besides FBI lab corruption. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html The Washington Post published a story so horrifying this weekend that it would stop your breath: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.” What went wrong? The Post continues: “Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.” The shameful, horrifying errors were uncovered in a massive, three-year review by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. Following revelations published in recent years, the two groups are helping the government with the country’s largest ever post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence. Chillingly, as the Post continues, “the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.” Of these defendants, 14 have already been executed or died in prison. The massive review raises questions about the veracity of not just expert hair testimony, but also the bite-mark and other forensic testimony offered as objective, scientific evidence to jurors who, not unreasonably, believed that scientists in white coats knew what they were talking about. As Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, put it, “The FBI’s three-decade use of microscopic hair analysis to incriminate defendants was a complete disaster.” https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/dna-forensic-analysis/ Experts were, for the most part, comparing two pictures of hairs and determining whether they looked sufficiently similar to the extent they may have come from the same source. As such, the subjective nature of the science, combined with the fact that there is no statistical approach to distinguishing characteristics between individuals, left plenty of room for error. The New View In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a report (Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward [“NAS Report”]) that noted there is no scientifically accepted statistics about the frequency of particular characteristics of hair distributed within the population. The NAS Report went on to cite an FBI study in which 80 hair comparisons were thought to be “associated,” but using Mitochondrial DNA testing showed that 9 of the comparisons (12.5%) were actually from different sources. The NAS Report concluded that, because of advances in DNA testing, microscopic hair analysis can be useful in determining which hairs to test, but should not be relied upon otherwise. Similarly, macroscopic hair comparisons can be helpful in determining whether different hairs have similar color, length, and size, but should not be used in identifying an individual suspect. STR (root) v. Mitochondrial (shaft) Today, scientists can use Short Tandem Repeat (STR) DNA testing so long as the hair sample contains a root. In crime scene investigations, it is often the case that hairs forcefully pulled from a person’s head contain a root. Typically, however, hairs are shed without a root. A hair without a root requires mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing. MtDNA testing is limited due to the fact that all siblings from the same mother have identical mtDNA. Regardless, the use of DNA testing on hairs is far superior to the subjective guess work used by experts in microscopic hair comparisons. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11/opinion/junk-science-junk-evidence.html Conventional hair analysis, based on looking at one strand of hair under a microscope and comparing it to another, is subjective junk science. In short, the FBI lab had been outed for using bullshit as evidence for a few decades. It appears you want to make believe that my #144 did not respond to your tall tales and junk science. #144. To: misterwhite (#120) (a) OJ's blood at the crime scene, You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA? Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content? (b) victim's blood in the Bronco, You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was. (c) the gloves with victim's blood, Gloves with the victim's blood prove there were gloves with the victim's blood. Gloves that Christopher Darden decided to ask OJ to try on in front of the jury. They didn't fit. Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other. He also was forced to plead the fifth, and the lady [McKinny] with the tape that proved him a liar, testified that Fuhrman stated that police planted evidence against black suspects. (d) OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, Not in evidence. At the criminal trial, it was only shown that the shoe prints indicated shoes of a size worn by OJ, and millions of others. (e) the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, The defendant is not required to produce any evidence for the prosecution, and need not say anything. He need not put on a case at all. The jury is instructed it may not draw any negative inference on that basis. It may only consider evidence actually presented in court. It is impossible for you to know that OJ couldn't produce something. (f) hair and fibers matching. They eyeballed hair and they eyeballed fibers. In this case, matching was used to denote consistent with. The found hairs did not include roots and were not testable for DNA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The blood evidence was a great big bust. Serology cannot provide a definitive match. Yamauchi cross-contaminated everything with a blood-draw sample taken from O.J. Simpson. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi on cross-examination. One cannot impute much to evidence whose handling and processing is proven to be a scientific disaster. [7457] Prosecutor Goldberg questioning expert Matheson. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence? MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample. MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion? MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean? MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [9807] Prosecutor Harmon and Criminalist Collin Yamauchi MR. HARMON: When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes? MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. HARMON: How many bindles were in each of the coin envelopes? MR. YAMAUCHI: Two. MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously. MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time. Defense Counsel Barry Scheck Cross-Examining Criminalist Collin Yamauchi [10,000] MR. SCHECK: And that was being done at the same time as the Bundy blood drops on June 14th? MR. HARMON: Objection. "Being done at the same time" is vague. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SCHECK: That was part of your 23 samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in that group, yes. MR. SCHECK: And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. On the 15th, counting the controls and everything, 19. MR. SCHECK: And you did all those in one day, June 15th? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I got through the hybridization step in that time period. MR. SCHECK: You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation. MR. SCHECK: The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips? [10,001] MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I told him what I got up to that poison. MR. SCHECK: The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up? MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in-- MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi-- MR. YAMAUCHI: --quite a big block of time. THE COURT: Wait, wait. No. You don't get to cut off the answer. MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Let him finish the answer. MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps. MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training. THE COURT: You're asking about the short period. Overruled. Proceed. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up? MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, I don't know in those words if that was ever said to me. MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the amplitype user guide? THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him if he agrees with that concept. MR. SCHECK: No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training. [10,002] THE COURT: We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it. MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are talking about basic points of training. That's correct. THE COURT: All right. So let's proceed. MR. SCHECK: We're trying to establish with the witness what a basic point of training is. THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I've read through that entire user guide. MR. SCHECK: And you studied it? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. THE COURT: And you rely upon it. MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking. MR. SCHECK: Okay. May I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. MR. HARMON: May I see that section? THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you have that as well. Proceed. MR. SCHECK: And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And are familiar with paragraph 14 of the section on "Special precautions"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. [10,003] MR. SCHECK: And do you rely on that paragraph? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I would agree with that. MR. SCHECK: And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15. MR. SCHECK: You do? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do. And then there were the comments of the world renowned Dr. Henry Lee about the mishandled scientific evidence is like finding a cockroach in your spaghetti. Do you look to count how many cockroaches there are, or do you just throw it all out? [17544 - 17545] DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis. [17620] DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   3:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   - - - - - - - - - - You can isolate them and pick them apart by saying "That doesn't mean anything. You can't prove that." But when you put it all together in addition to other evidence -- the shoes, blood everywhere, the watch cap, the cut finger, the motive, the means, and the opportunity -- it all points to only one person. OJ. When you put together multiple pieces of crap, the result is a pile of crap. The glaring fact remains that you are either incapable, or unwilling, to discuss the actual evidence presented to the jury. Your generalities, conclusions, and fantasies were not presented to, or considered by, the jury. Matter that was not presented to the jury is irrelevant to the question at hand of whether the jury in the criminal trial had enough evidence presented to it to justify a verdict of guilty. When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt. When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them? What the hell was proven at the criminal trial about any shoes? No evidence was produced that O.J. ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes. Johnnie Cochran wore the knit cap during closing arguments. As he pointed out, it was not a disguise. He was still just Johnnie Cochran in a knit cap. Blood everywhere all was mishaldled by the LAPD criminalists, and it was all cross-contaminated at the LAPD crime lab. It al points to the conclusion that all the blood evidence collected on June 13th could be thrown in the garbage. When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt. When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them? Who collected the Bundy blood drops? Was Andrea Mazzola a trainee or the Officer in Charge? Did Fung admit that he handled evidence with his bare hands? Did Mazzola handle evidence with her bare hands? Did Mazzola work unsupervised? Was a proper chain of evidence maintained? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:11:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #264. To: nolu chan (#259) "OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves." The prosecution claimed that Nicole purchased two pairs of Aris gloves and gave them to OJ. The prosecution further claimed that one pair was used in the murder. If OJ presented both pairs of gloves that he was given, well, that blows up the prosecution's case, does it not? Yet he didn't. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   9:03:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #265. To: nolu chan (#259) Further, it is unconstitutional to draw any negative inference in relation to O.J. not volunteering evidence you assume to have been in his possession. But it's OK for the jury to draw a negative inference about Mark Fuhrman. Or an inference that blood was planted -- with no proof. Or an inference that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   9:06:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #266. To: nolu chan (#260) That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it. How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab. "Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?" It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry. But you claim it was indeed wet, simply because it appeared wet. And because it fits your conspiracy theory. But without sworn testimony, you don't know for a fact that it was wet. Funny. I make an assumption or draw a conclusion and you howl with protest. Yet when you do so I'm supposed to accept it as the Gospel truth. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   9:17:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (267 - 422) not displayed. 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