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: 119109
Comments: 422
Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 266.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Deckard, I've just about had it with your "jury nullification" bullshit. You wanna play that game? Fine. Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering?
Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all -- will acquit and correct their "error". The reverse, as you pointed out, isn't true.
You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. People have literally been hanged contrary to law. Ultimately, written laws have only as much power as those in control allow, and that cannot be helped. But jury "nullification" really refers to nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating, not convicting someone who stands falsely accused. And given the civil theory is that it's better for a guilty man to be go free than an innocent man to go to jail. Nullification stands as a final voice of the average people on whether criminal laws passed by representatives are acceptable, and that is simply not a bad thing in my view. Fugitive slave laws falling "victim" to jury nullification being one example. I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them. While it may result in people truly deserving of punishment going free on occasion, #1) I think that would be extremely rare, and #2) I think the value of giving average people a voice on what laws are acceptable is far more valuable a thing than is the harm in letting a true thug go free, so I thikn the benefit greatly outweighs the (very rare) harm.
I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them: A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Otherwise, they can forget about the jury altogether and have a bench trial.
A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms.
This would actually be beneficial in cases that are lost because of a technicality. The jury could be instructed that they can examine the technical infraction and make a determination as to how much weight to give it. Every time the defense yells "objection", the jury does not have to disregard what led up to the objection. The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify. This could change everything.
You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster. But I'm still not going to do that. People already do that.
My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.
Fair? Fair to whom? Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"? The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right. Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted? I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen? If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases. Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect.
You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?
As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Jurors will do what jurors do, including when they feel a defendant is guilty according to the letter of the law, but that a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice that they are unable to reconcile with their personal conscience. The judicial result is that shit happens. OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime. Much prosecution evidence, and many witnesses, were destroyed on the stand. What happened in the courtroom, and what was reported on the evening news and talk shows, frequently differed greatly.
And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man. I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.
Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess. The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died. They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses. The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal.
101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html
http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything. Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on.
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 #120] the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves Both videos show that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson, showing the disastrous glove demonstration from the trial. The second video further brings up an interesting possibility. There was evidence that Nicole Simpson bought two pairs of Aris Isotoner Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales in NYC. There was no evidence showing that they were given to O.J. This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman. They were certainly not needed to keep hands warm, they were light and could function well as driving gloves. Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari. - - - - - - - - - - O.J. and the Gloves : The Truth About What Really Happened - - - - - - - - - - An interesting theory. The bloody gloves were a gift from Nicole to Ron Goldman. IS O.J. INNOCENT? THE MISSING EVIDENCE The argument is that the gloves did not fit O.J. because they were not his gloves, they were Ron Goldman's. Compares Goldman's defensive hand wounds on his hands and the knife punctures on the gloves. "Please remember, if the gloves were worn by the killer they wouldn't have had any defensive wounds on them. The killer wasn't blocking any knives." It is an interesting theory, significantly more interesting than the theory that if people only say enough times that the gloves really did fit, everyone can just ignore the video that shows they did not fit.
Not that night. Ron Goldman drove his girlfriend's car. But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo? Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves? By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman. There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified. Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?
[11519] - - - - - - - - - - MR. DARDEN: Miss Vemich, what was it about those gloves that made them sell? The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter. It looks like she was Christmas shopping in New York. What difference does it make when Nicole bought two sets of those gloves? O.J. could not wear them, they did not fit. Someone who drives a Ferrari can ignore the bother of returning something to Bloomingdale's in Manhattan. Moreover, it was never established that the gloves in evidence were purchased in the known transaction from December 1990. The receipt for the gloves bought in December 1990 show style 70268 (not 70263), no size, no color, Ms. Vemich testified she did not know if style 70268 had ever been sold in the United States, and, when asked directly, "Is there [any] 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 answered, "No." MR. DARDEN: And to the right of the "2" we see the number "$77.00"? [...] [11529] MR. DARDEN: How many different types of Aris gloves did you sell at $55.00 during December? [11530] MS. VEMICH: No, they did not. [11531] 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.
They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are: Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?
They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are: https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves? misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 9:21:49 ET I do not have a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves. You do not have a picture of O. J. Simpson verified as wearing those gloves. There is no evidence that either of the two evidence gloves have been verified as purchased by Nicole Simpson, or given to O.J. Simpson. There is no picture of O.J. Simpson wearing gloves that obviously did not fit, except for Darden's demonstration disaster of the century. You present a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing a pair of BLACK gloves, as O.J. wearing those gloves. Text associated with the image: "Newscast video frame showing OJ wearing black gloves just like (sic - the evidence gloves were brown) those found at the murder scene and behind Kato's cabin." Maybe this is why your source is called Altered Dimensions. The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves. MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights? MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves. I understand how hard it is for wingnut news to get the details right, but when all else fails, read the transcript. And Altered Dimensions seems to think that a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing BLACK gloves, gloves they identify as Aris Isotoner gloves, definitely depict O. J. Simpson wearing the same exact gloves as the BROWN Aris Leather Light gloves in evidence. - - - - - - - - - - https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png The image link is shown above. Oh, there they ain't. http://altereddimensions.net/2012/oj-simpson-murders The image appears in the article at Altered Dimensions at the link above. The image has the embedded text, "O. J. wearing the same type of gloves." 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. The gloves depicted in the image are BLACK. The gloves in evidence are BROWN. The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all. He could not rule out that they were Aris gloves. He also could not rule out that is was a different glove from a different manufacturer.
No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript.
No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript. Really. What transcript did you read? The tortured phrasing was, "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." He could not unequivocally identify the photo gloves as Aris, or anything else. He saw features that were not unique to Aris. He does not claim to have knowledge of every brand of glove, and he worked for only one brand. In his tortured way, he admitted he could not unequivocally say the photo gloves were Aris gloves, and he admitted that he saw nothing to unequivocally identify them as any other brand. He saw non-unique features that did not identify any brand. 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 didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto.
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. 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. - - - - - - - - - - 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. 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.
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.
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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: 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. 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 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. 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?
No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky. "12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. 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.
No. He testified that it looked 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 are quoting testimony from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing, explicitly flagged as such by me, and not testimony from the trial. 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. 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 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? 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 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, 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.
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?
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 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. 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. 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. - - - - - - - - - - Are you claiming he was a bumbling amateur? Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Hank Goldberg, 28 August 1995 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 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. BODZIAK: Very rapidly. Prof. Herbert MacDonell, 31 July 1995 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, 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.
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?
Det. Fuhrman testified: A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: 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, 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. I did not testify. I quote actual testimony and you post personal opinions. Det. Fuhrman testified that it was moist and sticky. A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: 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, And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. 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 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, A: YES, YES.
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?
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. Det. Fuhrman testified: A: YES, YES. And Det. Vanatter testified: 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, And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia? -- July 18, 1995 - - - - - - - - - - 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: 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.
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."
- - - - - - - - - - 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 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 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. Disadvantages: More work for the serologist; bulky items use more storage space. Dennis Fung, 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. - - - - - - - - - - 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?
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.
#271. To: misterwhite (#266)
How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab. Put down the blue crystal and present the testimony where anyone touched evidence with a swab to see if it was wet. After this imaginary test, did the anonymous tester get a result? Who testified to this test and result, and on what date. 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. Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question. Either you know the answer or you don't. Just above you stated, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab." Are you now saying blood evidence was not collected from the Rockingham glove? Try to keep your fantasy story straight. Either evidence is collected with a sterile swab as you state, or it is not. Either someone touched the Rockingham glove with a sterile glove or not.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: misterwhite (#2)
Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other.
#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)
"Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals."
#14. To: misterwhite (#8)
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
"I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them."
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them:
#21. To: Pinguinite (#19)
"Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms."
#23. To: misterwhite (#21)
The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify.
#25. To: Pinguinite (#23)
"You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster."
#28. To: misterwhite (#25)
My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.
As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law.
Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.
#42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28)
"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"
#83. To: misterwhite (#42)
You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.
Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?
#89. To: nolu chan (#83)
"OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime."
#94. To: misterwhite (#89)
The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.
#106. To: nolu chan (#94)
The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.
#119. To: misterwhite (#106)
101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:
1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.
#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."
#186. To: misterwhite (#120)
#188. To: nolu chan (#186)
"Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."
#193. To: misterwhite (#188)
By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.
MR. DARDEN: And what was the selling price on December 18, 1990, if you know?
MS. VEMICH: They were $55.00, but during December 18th they were marked down at thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: Could you describe style no. 70263, the Aris Isotoner leather light glove?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. This particular glove has many characteristics that are very distinctive to this type of glove. One of the first characteristics is the leather. The leather is extremely lightweight, almost paper thin, and that was one characteristic. The second was the stitching. The stitching of this glove was called a Brossier stitch which is a very refined whip stitch. [11553]
MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. That calls for speculation, I suppose.
THE COURT: I think she is an expert.
MS. VEMICH: These gloves were extremely lightweight. The reason they sold, from my experience in waiting on customers, is that they were almost like a second skin. Umm, you could pick up a penny or a needle practically with them and they were very--again they are very, very thin, and many people like that about these gloves and that is why they were called leather light and that is why we marked them leather lights and it was a big seller. It was a big part of my business. [11528]
MS. VEMICH: Yes. That is the retail for the two pair of gloves.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And to the right of the "$77.00" we see the no. "30"; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. And that is thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: So that means in the two pairs of gloves were purchased for thirty percent off at $77.00?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us what the regular price of the gloves was?
MS. VEMICH: The regular price of gloves of this style is $55.00.
MS. VEMICH: There was only one Aris glove that I sold at $55.00.
MR. DARDEN: Was style number was that?
MS. VEMICH: 70263.
MR. DARDEN: And which glove the style number is 70263?
MS. VEMICH: Aris leather light glove.
MR. DARDEN: So the gloves I showed you in court today then fit the descriptions given on this sales receipt?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the style number on the sales receipt indicates 70268; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did Bloomingdales ever sell an Aris glove style no. 70268?
MR. DARDEN: To borrow a phrase, is that a mistake?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Does that mistake--strike that. The mistake is that the "8" should have been a "3"?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, misleading.
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: What is the mistake?
MS. VEMICH: The last digit should be a "3," not an "8." MR. DARDEN: Has Bloomingdales ever purchased Aris glove style no. 70268?
MS. VEMICH: No.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not Aris style no. 70268 has ever been sold in the United States?
MS. VEMICH: Not that I--I don't know. MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Brief pause.) 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?
#202. To: nolu chan (#193)
The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.
#209. To: misterwhite (#202)
#202. To: nolu chan (#193)
The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.
The left-hand glove found at Nicole’s home and the right-hand glove found at OJ’s home prove to be a match. They also prove to be Simpson’s size (despite Simpson’s theatrics in court, pretending that the glove did not fit). Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.
[11607]
Oh, here they are:
[18774]
#213. To: nolu chan (#209)
The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.
#218. To: misterwhite (#213)
The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.
[18773]
#223. To: nolu chan (#218)
"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."
#226. To: misterwhite (#223)
"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."
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?
[18773]
He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove.
#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."
#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.
[4697]
[4757]
[6758]
[6759]
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. [4141]
[4284]
[4045]
#232. To: nolu chan (#229)
(Edited)
"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."
13 looked a little sticky and moist."
#236. To: misterwhite (#232)
"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."
"12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist." 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. [4141]
[4284]
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.
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.
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.
#239. To: nolu chan (#236)
and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it?
#241. To: misterwhite (#239)
I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky.
Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.
A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."
A: NO, HE DID NOT.
How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am.
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.
"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?"
MR. BAILEY: Blood dries rather rapidly; does it not?
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?
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with this study of drying times?
#242. To: nolu chan (#241)
#244. To: misterwhite (#242)
He said it appeared moist. He never said it was moist.
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?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
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.
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.
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?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
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.
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?
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?
#248. To: nolu chan (#244)
And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.
#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.
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?
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?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
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.
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.
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?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
#255. To: nolu chan (#252)
"Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it."
#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.
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.
Wet Bloodstains
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.
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.
Anyone do that with the glove? No?
#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.
Replies to Comment # 266. 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.
"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?"
End Trace Mode for Comment # 266.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]