[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: 118915 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 (1-268) not displayed.       .       .       . #269. To: misterwhite (#264) 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. The prosecution claimed, and the prosecution expert witness testified that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to verify the claim. A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence. 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. No. I would rather have a drunk lawyer from night court than you. It was impossible for the prosecution to prove that the gloves in evidence were part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. The prosecution was unable to prove that OJ Simpson ever owned or wore Aris Leather Light brown XL gloves. Further, the prosecution was unable to prove that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore any Aris brand glove, of any size or color. Had OJ possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, they could not be proven to be part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. He may have owned six pairs, or none at all. That was for the prosecution to prove. They did not. Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves. If he produced a pair in brown, XL, the prosecution could establish that he owned and wore Aris Leather Light goves in brown, XL. The prosecution could argue that he owned more than two pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, and more than one pair in brown, XL. There is a significant downside for O.J. Simpson. There is no upside. Contary to your ridiculous assertion, O.J. Simpson producing Aris Leather Light gloves for the prosecution would not have blown up the prosecution case. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:48:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #270. To: misterwhite (#265) 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. Try to find the right Amendment. Mark Fuhrman testified on Direct. On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions. Amendment Six of the Constitution guarantees the right of an accused to be confronted with witnesses against him. He has the constitutional right to cross-examine that witness. Once a piece of trash like Fuhrman testifies for the prosecution and then refuses to answer questions by the defense, the jury may disregard anything and everything stated by the witness. The Defense did not move to strike the Fuhrman testimony. He crashed and burned. The Defense moved for a jury instruction regarding Fuhrman's inavailability for further cross-examination, and they got one that stated, His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness. From the closing instructions of Judge Ito: A Defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right not to be compelled to testify. You must not draw any inference from the fact that a Defendant does not testify. Further, you must neither discuss this matter nor permit it to enter into your deliberations in any way. In deciding whether or not to testify, the Defendant may choose to rely upon the state of the evidence and upon the failure, if any, of the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime charged against him. No lack of testimony on the Defendant's part will make up for a failure of proof by the Prosecution so as to support a finding against him on any such essential element. Fuhrman took the 5th amendment out of sight of the jury. The jury was informed that Fuhrman became unavailable for further cross-examination and that this could be considered in evaluating his credibility. Judge Ito on Fuhrman taking the 5 Amendment: Therefore, the court will instruct the jury as possible--excuse me--as follows: Detective Mark Fuhrman is not available for further testimony as a witness in this case. His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness. Now, having found that Detective Fuhrman is unavailable as a witness under evidence code section 240, the court then has reexamined its ruling with regards to the five excerpts which are now offered as statements against penal interest, and the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. All right. Are you ready to proceed? Or an inference that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood. Put down the blue crystal, or show where anyone claimed or inferred that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood. In fact, this is the first time I have seen someone claim that DNA degrades and turns into blood. Have you also learned how to degrade lead into gold? There was a deterioration argument offered by Marcia Clark for the prosecution. Perhaps you find the prosecution argument absurd. Or maybe it just extremely confused you into babbling about DNA morphing into somebody's blood. Ms. Clark was talking blood types, A, B, AB and O, and it seems to have overwhelmed you. 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." nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:52:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #271. To: misterwhite (#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. 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. "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. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:53:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #272. To: misterwhite (#267) "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 blood was tested. It was useful. The DNA matched OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman. There you go again. What blood, collected on what date, with what test, yielded what result, pursuant to what witness? Was this part of the magic evidence that was collected after June 1995, and which tested positive for EDTA? You're suggesting that the "real" killers blood was collected from the crime scene, degraded in the heat, and turned into OJ's blood. Put down the blue crystal, or show where anyone claimed or inferred that blood degraded and turned into OJ's blood. "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." Ah. You're back to the planted evidence with zero proof. Plus any any EDTA found was trace amounts, found in everyone's blood. You got nothing. As Dr. Rieders testified, in the amount found, the person would be dead. That was the expert testimony at trial. It was found in an amount where blood would not clot. Your repeated mantra does not change the actual evidence. You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA. Dr. Rieders testified that normal is a maximum of 4 ppb. Martz found EDTA in ppm. The sensitivity of the Martz test started at ppm. Had Martz' reported test results for his circulating blood have been correct, he would have been dead. It was all very embarrassing for the FBI and its crime lab. Agent Martz made no notes and prepared no report regarding testing of his own blood. Martz erased all his raw data and explained, "We only have so much computer space." He fared very poorly in the ensuing IG investigation. Agent Martz was relieved of his duties. MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, good afternoon. DR. RIEDERS: Good afternoon. MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right. MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better. MS. CLARK: And that's based on the report that you had; is that correct, sir? DR. RIEDERS: It's an EPA publication, the ONTADS, which is one of their publications. MS. CLARK: Now, if what that--strike that. In the evidence stain, sir, you said you found EDTA in the levels of parts per million, correct? DR. RIEDERS: I didn't find it. Mr. Martz did and I agreed that they are in the parts per million based on his analysis. MS. CLARK: So the amount of EDTA found in the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His detection limit is in the parts per million. MS. CLARK: The answer is yes. The amount that was found in the gate and the sock were in parts per million, correct? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. MS. CLARK: And the amount that should be found, the maximum amount that could be found in a person, a normal healthy person's blood is in parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: Yes, according to the best available information. MS. CLARK: And if that information is incorrect and the actual information is in parts per million, then the amount found in the gate and the sock are a normal person's maximum allowable amount; wouldn't that be true, sir? DR. RIEDERS: If the best information is it's parts per billion, then yes. MS. CLARK: I have a report to show you, sir. [...] DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I see the problem. MS. CLARK: Yes, you see the problem, sir. Is that what you said? DR. RIEDERS: No. I see the paragraph. MS. CLARK: Oh, I see. And what does it say here? MR. BLASIER: Objection to the comments by counsel. THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard. Miss Clark. DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph." MS. CLARK: I'm sorry? DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph," not "Problem." MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion? DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd. [...] From the FBI IG Report, E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F) [...] We did not criticize Martz for the substance of the analytical work performed by him and the FSRU chemists, but rather for his deficient record-keeping and note-taking and for the manner in which Martz testified. That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:58:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #273. To: misterwhite (#268) What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony. Correct. But that testimony did not say (much less prove) the gloves Nicole purchased were NOT an Extra Large. Or that she DIDN'T give them to OJ. Or that the gloves OJ wore in the pictures and video were NOT Aris. Or that the gloves found at the crime scenes were NOT OJ's. Or that evidence WAS planted by Fuhrman or others. Or that the blood WAS cross-contaminated. Or that the watch cap was NOT OJ's. Or that the shoeprints were NOT made by OJ's "ugly- ass" shoes. All the things that the testimonial evidence at trial did not prove do not amount to proof of anything. Your "actual" testimony said nothing. Proved nothing. All that testimony did, and all it was intended to do, was cause doubt. The defense hoped it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. To me, it didn't. My actual testimony is non-existent. I did not testify at the O.J. trial. Presumably, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was intended to prove the prosecution case. It did not. The prosecution took up the vast majority of the time. The defense was not required to prove anything. The prosecution case went from January 31 to July 6. The defense case went from July 10 to September 19. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   4:00:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #274. To: misterwhite (#263) [nolu chan #263] C * R * I * C * K * E * T * S 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? C * R * I * C * K * E * T * S When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them? Was it this time or that time, this one or that one? nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   4:03:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #275. To: nolu chan (#269) A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence. I see. But a defense claim that Fuhrman was a racist and planted evidence can stand with no evidence whatsover. "Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves." Oh, really? Remember when the prosecution suggested that the murder weapon was a 15-inch knife with a retractable blade that Simpson purchased at a downtown Los Angeles shop? Hmmmm? Well, during the preliminary hearing, "Simpson’s defense team produced that knife in an envelope that became known as the “mystery envelope.” Remember that? "Forensic tests later showed that the knife had no scratches or bloodstains to suggest that it had been used in a double murder." So, the defense produced the knife as exculpatory evidence but not the gloves? Why, pray tell? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:07:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #276. To: nolu chan (#273) "You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA." Meaning the amount of EDTA in the blood evidence was normal -- NOT consistent wirh blood stored in a vial. By the way, Rieders stated under oath that he couldn’t tell how much EDTA was in the blood nor did he test the actual evidence. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:28:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #277. To: nolu chan (#271) Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question. I have no idea. Which means neither of us know if the blood was wet, dry or something inbetween. We have testimony saying it looked wet. You erred by assuming it was wet. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:36:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #278. To: nolu chan (#270) On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions. If a person takes the 5th, are we allowed to draw any inference from that action? You know, like assuming they're "a piece of trash"? misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:42:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #279. To: misterwhite (#275) A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence. I see. But a defense claim that Fuhrman was a racist and planted evidence can stand with no evidence whatsover. "Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves." Oh, really? Remember when the prosecution suggested that the murder weapon was a 15-inch knife with a retractable blade that Simpson purchased at a downtown Los Angeles shop? Hmmmm? Well, during the preliminary hearing, "Simpson’s defense team produced that knife in an envelope that became known as the “mystery envelope.” Remember that? "Forensic tests later showed that the knife had no scratches or bloodstains to suggest that it had been used in a double murder." So, the defense produced the knife as exculpatory evidence but not the gloves? Why, pray tell? Your mission impossible is to show that the jury at the criminal trial had sufficient evidence before it to justify returning a verdict of guilty. The quotes from your unlinked, unidentified source (Mercury News, March 4, 2016), refer to a knife that was never in evidence at the criminal trial. It is irrelevant to the present discussion. Unlike the evidence gloves, evidence indicated that O.J. had purchased, owned, and possessed the particular knife. The prosecution at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. It had nothing to do with the criminal trial. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #280. To: misterwhite (#276) "You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA." Meaning the amount of EDTA in the blood evidence was normal -- NOT consistent wirh blood stored in a vial. By the way, Rieders stated under oath that he couldn’t tell how much EDTA was in the blood nor did he test the actual evidence. The purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot. Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives. Martz testified that he tested matter from an evidence sock and the test responded like the substance was EDTA and the test result was consistent with the presence of EDTA. As we previously learned from Dr. Frederic Rieders, the Martz test only detected threshold levels of parts per million, a fatal dose for circulating blood in a human. Roger Martz, direct examination by defense counsel Robert Blasier, MR. BLASIER: And you actually had the sock itself? MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did. MR. BLASIER: And when you got the sock was the green area indicated on the chart already cut out? MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was. MR. BLASIER: And you then took a cutting from the edge area of the stain? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: Now, you were also sent A--another swatch inside a little aliquot tube, were you not? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: That is what you call Q207? MR. MARTZ: Yes. [...] MR. BLASIER: I would like to put Q207 on the elmo. (Brief pause.) MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a picture of what was sent to you, Q207? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: And you now know that that came from the stain area that had been cut out of the sock? MR. MARTZ: Yes. MR. BLASIER: Once you found out what that was, did you ever request to have it sent back so that you could run tests, positive ion tests on that? MR. MARTZ: No. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-R. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is the chart that is now on the screen an accurate depiction of the two tests that you ran on Q206, the stain from the--the cutting from the edge of the stain? MR. MARTZ: Two of the tests that I ran, yes. MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that the peaks demonstrated on the chart were peaks that you found in your testing? MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct. MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that you detected the presence of the 293 parent ion which is the parent ion for EDTA? MR. MARTZ: Umm, I detected the 160 ion which came from the parent ion of 293. MR. BLASIER: Well, isn't it true that the machine is set so that it only let's through the 293 parent ion? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate to say that you can conclude from that chart that you have found both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion? MR. MARTZ: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that the pattern that you got on the sock, Q206, is consistent with the presence of EDTA? MR. MARTZ: Umm, it certainly warrants further testing. It responded like EDTA responded, yes. MR. BLASIER: Is it consistent with the presence of EDTA? MR. MARTZ: Yes. Rieders testified that EDTA was normally present in human blood in parts per billion, not exceeding 4 ppb. Martz' test found EDTA and had a threshold sensitivity of parts per million. Stop making shit up. Rieders testified that maximum blood level was 4 parts per billion, citing to the EPA and the Foreman and Trujillo studies. EDTA in blood levels in parts per million would be fatal. Martz being alive was an indication that his purported test was more of his horsecrap. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found, "Martz's rough notes in this case confirmed the absence of any notes or reports of these examinations. Additionally, Martz failed to number and initial his notes, identify the case number in some notes, or set forth his procedures for some of his testing. We find the foregoing record-keeping practices to be unacceptable." With the publication of the USDOJ/OIG Special Report, Martz' empire of incompetence and corruption fell apart. MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right. MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better. [...] MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion? DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd. - - - - - - - - - - MS. CLARK: Now, do you know whether these forms of EDTA were ever tested for the purpose of determining what the maximum tolerance would be in a normal healthy person? DR. RIEDERS: You mean in food? Is that it? When you say maximum tolerance, how? Intravenous or in food or what? Vast difference. MS. CLARK: No, sir. I asked you whether there was any testing that you know of that determined whether any of the forms of EDTA that we have just talked about, those four-- DR. RIEDERS: Right. MS. CLARK: --was ever done to see what the normal level would be in an average healthy person? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. The study of Foreman and Trujillo dealt with normal healthy persons. MS. CLARK: Objection, nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled, overruled. DR. RIEDERS: And in this they determined what the level in their blood was, which was in the low parts per billion below their detection levels. THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we need to take a comfort break for the jurors. We will take ten minutes. - - - - - - - - - - Roger Martz testified that he did not know how much EDTA was normally present in blood. MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that under those circumstances that we have described that is consistent with the literature, that the amount of EDTA that you might expect to find in a person's blood after they ate something with EDTA in it is likely to be very, very small, in the range of parts per billion? MR. MARTZ: Well, I think if you take everything into account it would be difficult to say that. I mean, you are looking at one study in 1954 and it mentions at the end of that that there its some conflicting data based on iron and yttrium being eliminated very quickly from the body when it is ingested, when EDTA is ingested, and that paper only mentions one of the salts that the FDA permits to be used in the food. There is two other salts. So relying totally on one paper in 1954 with a lot of other conflicting information and information that is not available, I--to be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe that anyone knows exactly how much EDTA is present. - - - - - - - - - - USDOJ/OIG Special Report The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April 1997) E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F) [...] We did not criticize Martz for the substance of the analytical work performed by him and the FSRU chemists, but rather for his deficient record-keeping and note-taking and for the manner in which Martz testified. That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz demonstrated an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory. That is polite science-speak for he did not know what he was talking about, and Dr. Frederic Rieders embarassingly depantsed him on national television. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz maintained insufficient documentation, and that CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner, he should be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work, he be counseled on the appropriate matter for testifying about forensic work, and another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony. - - - - - - - - - - Insufficient Documentation of Test Results by the examiner who had performed work on hundreds of cases, including Psinakis and the UNABOM investigation, and by the CTU Chief. The cited CTU Chief was Roger Martz. - - - - - - - - - - CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner. - - - - - - - - - - CTU Chief Martz was derelict in his technical review and misleading memorandum in 1989. The 1992 review largely failed as an effort to ascertain fully the true extent of the deficiencies in Rudolph's files. Had Laboratory managers performed responsibly, the Rudolph matter might have been appropriately resolved much earlier than 1995. Instead, the Rudolph problem continued to fester. - - - - - - - - - - 4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient. - - - - - - - - - - CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony. - - - - - - - - - - Ninth, the FBI should develop a uniform program for training examiners with respect to court testimony and monitoring such testimony. We found the problem of examiners testifying to matters beyond their expertise or in ways that were unprofessional in Hahn's testimony in the Avianca case, Williams'testimony in the World Trade Center case, and Martz' testimony in Trepal and Simpson. Testifying to matters beyond their expertise is science-speak for trying to baffle the jury with bullshit. Laboratory management failed to assure that concerns about Rudolph's casework were thoroughly investigated in 1989. First, neither Butler in his initial review nor Martz in his subsequent review addressed the concern raised by AUSA Burch that Rudolph in Psinakis had erroneously relied on information from a field agent instead of conducting sufficient confirmatory tests to identify PETN. On a related point, as part of the 1989 reviews of Rudolph's work, Laboratory management failed to obtain and review a transcript of Rudolph's trial testimony in Psinakis. In light of the prosecutor's complaints, the transcript should have been reviewed. - - - - - - - - - - We also find fault in the way Nimmich and Martz handled the follow-up review. Given Butler's findings, the Laboratory should have reviewed Rudolph's work to determine whether sufficient analyses were done to support the stated conclusions. Although Nimmich might reasonably have expected Martz, as an experienced examiner and unit chief, to understand the need for a thorough technical review, in retrospect Nimmich should have taken steps, preferably through written instructions, to assure that Martz understood this to be his task. It also would have been desirable for Martz to have clearly stated the object and methodology of his review in his memorandum. Whatever he understood Nimmich's instructions to be, Martz stated the conclusions of his review in a misleading way. He observed that analyses had been performed that were sufficient, yet he told the OIG that he did not review the sufficiency of Rudolph's work to support the stated conclusions. Martz's August 16, 1989, memorandum shows that he knew of Butler's August 2, 1989, memorandum, which recommended an in depth review of Rudolph's cases. Martz in his memorandum indicated he conducted a technical review and recommended that there be no further review of Rudolph's cases. As a unit chief, Martz should have recognized that this misleadingly suggested that he had completed an in depth review and concluded that further review was not necessary. Martz also failed to note in his memorandum that, in his review, he found that notes and other documentation were missing. These findings deserved comment even if Nimmich did not ask Martz to conduct an administrative review of the files. Finally, Martz stated in his August 16, 1989, memorandum that, while other tests could have been performed, no changes would be made in the reporting of the 95 cases reviewed. Martz lacked any basis to make this statement if, as he told the OIG, he did not assess whether the analyses identified in the files were sufficient to support the stated conclusions. Martz's review of the Psinakis case was inadequate to address the concerns raised by AUSA Burch. Martz commented that LC might be sufficient to identify explosives, depending on other circumstances. This begged the relevant question of whether LC was sufficient in Psinakis, which it clearly was not. Martz also noted that it was not uncommon for defense attorneys to question examiners about tests they knew had not been performed. The proclivities of defense counsel were not pertinent to the issues Martz should have been addressing. Martz's comments about Psinakis inappropriately tended to excuse Rudolph. Nimmich told the OIG that he understood from Martz's memorandum that Martz had concluded that Rudolph had a sufficient basis for his conclusions in Psinakis. Martz confirmed in his interview with the OIG, however, that he did not review Rudolph's work in Psinakis and did not address AUSA Burch's concerns about the lack of confirmatory techniques. Given these facts, Martz should not have included his comments concerning the Psinakis case in his memorandum, because they misleadingly suggested that he had approved Rudolph's work. [...] In sum, the Laboratory's 1989 review of Rudolph was inadequate. The allegations that prompted the review came not from Whitehurst but from an Assistant United States Attorney with first-hand knowledge of the alleged deficiencies. The AUSA not only rendered his own low opinion of Rudolph's work, but repeated the similar view of the district court judge who almost excluded Rudolph's testimony. The AUSA further stated that Rudolph's inadequate work contributed to an acquittal. These were serious charges. That the Laboratory did so little in response to these allegations is deplorable. The Laboratory should have recognized Rudolph's incompetence in 1989 and initiated a complete file review and appropriate disciplinary measures. This was not only required by the proper administration of justice, but it also might have obviated the great time and effort expended in later reviews of Rudolph's files that were still continuing seven years later. Martz was relegated to being one of the deplorables. - - - - - - - - - - Re the O.J. case: We do conclude that because of his lack of preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his presentation and demeanor at trial, Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case. - - - - - - - - - - In July 1995, Simpson's counsel sent a letter to the FBI requesting all digital data underlying the LC/MS and HPLC testing in the case. The FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) responded by letter that the underlying digital data had not been saved in the computer. The following day, the OGC clarified this remark in a letter stating that the FBI had saved the digital data underlying its validation studies at the FSRU, but not the data underlying forensic testing by Martz. - - - - - - - - - - On July 25 and 26, 1995, Martz testified in the Simpson case as a witness called by the defense. [...] Martz also answered questions by defense counsel concerning his failure to retain digital data underlying his charts. Martz explained that the raw data is stored on a computer with limited storage space. Martz stated that in this case he printed out the appropriate charts, drew his conclusions, and did not need to look at the data again. Therefore, Martz told us that he permitted the data to be erased. - - - - - - - - - - Martz made additional noteworthy statements during his testimony. In particular, when the defense counsel asked whether Martz had decided during a break to become more aggressive in answering questions, Martz responded, I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers. . . . I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth. At another point in the testimony, Martz acknowledged that he had performed analyses using his own blood in May and July 1995, but had not made any notes describing how he conducted the analyses. - - - - - - - - - - Although we conclude that Martz did not mislead the court as suggested by Whitehurst, we think this case illustrates the importance of principal examiners reviewing the work performed by other examiners and researchers. Given the importance of this case and the obvious expertise on the defense side, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony. - - - - - - - - - - Although we do not criticize Martz's erasure of the digital data under the circumstances of this case, we are troubled by Martz's other record-keeping practices. Martz testified that he examined his own blood for the presence of EDTA in May and July 1995, but did not make any notes describing how he conducted these analyses. Martz explained at trial that because he examined his own blood in the same way he had examined other samples, he decided not to write down the procedure again. Martz further stated that he did not prepare a report because he considered these runs to be research, not case work. According to Martz, he would not generate a report when he did case-related research if he thought he could readily remember the examination. Martz's rough notes in this case confirmed the absence of any notes or reports of these examinations. Additionally, Martz failed to number and initial his notes, identify the case number in some notes, or set forth his procedures for some of his testing. We find the foregoing record-keeping practices to be unacceptable. Martz should have made and retained notes describing his procedures, even if he considered the procedures to be background research and not case work. As a general rule, an examiner should make and retain notes for all work related to any case, but especially work that might be the subject of examination at trial. Further, another examiner should be able to review such notes and have a complete understanding as to all procedures performed in any case. Martz's work in this regard was deficient. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #281. To: misterwhite (#277) Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question. I have no idea. Which means neither of us know if the blood was wet, dry or something inbetween. We have testimony saying it looked wet. You erred by assuming it was wet. Why do you have no idea? Under what circumstances does someone touch the evidence with a wet sterile swab? Let me help a clueless brother out regarding the Rockingham glove. I assumed nothing. Dr. Henry Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is dry is to look at it, only amateur touches, he does not do that. You claimed that you would poke it with a swab to see if it was wet. You assume wrong. I cited and quoted the testimony of witnesses who looked at the glove and observed indicia that it was moist or sticky, and observed as missing, indicia that it was dry. Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab. 18 Now, to ascertain whether there was blood on 19 the glove, you did a presumptive test. 20 A Yes. 21 Q You applied a cotton swatch to the glove? 22 A No, a cotton swab. 23 Q Cotton swab? 24 A Like a Q-tip type of thing. 25 Q All right. 26 What portion of the glove did you apply that 27 swab to? 28 A I believe the -- whatever area was facing 0069 01 upwards, I looked for a dark -- darker area than 02 appeared on the rest of the glove and applied the wet 03 swab to that portion and performed the rest of the test. 04 Q Do you recall where that portion was? 05 A No, I don't. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:30:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #282. To: misterwhite (#278) On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions. If a person takes the 5th, are we allowed to draw any inference from that action? You know, like assuming they're "a piece of trash"? Det. Fuhrman did not take the fifth amendment in the presence of the jury so they could draw no inference whatever from what they did not know. The jury could draw a negative inference from the unavailability of Fuhrman as a witness, pursuant to the explicit instructions of the Court. The jury could adopt an informed opinion that Fuhrman was a liar, a perjurer, and a genocidal racist from the testimony of Det. Fuhrman, the testimony of Laura Hart McKinny, the taped statements of Fuhrman proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Fuhrman had lied to the jury, and the instruction of the Court that Fuhrman would no longer be available as a witness. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #283. To: nolu chan (#281) "Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab." It was?!? Well, according to you that's a dumb idea, isn't it? After all, you DID say: "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." If the condition of the glove (ie., if it's wet or dry) was significant, then why wasn't that checked out at the scene? Cop #1: Hey. That glove appears moist and wet and sticky. Cop #2: You're right. It looks shiny, too. Cop #1: But wait a minute. I'm a detective and I know that blood should be dried by now. Cop #2: Yeah. I'm a detective, too. That's why they send us to investigate murders. Cop #1: Well, this is significant. Maybe we should have forensics test the blood. Cop #2: Nah. We'll just say it "looked" wet. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-29   10:28:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #284. To: nolu chan (#280) Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives. You going to bring up that shit? You want me to do the same with your Dr. Reiders -- who has a history of being wrong? "purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot." Something was wrong. Martz was smart enough to realize something was wrong and took the extraordinary step to test his own blood to prove something was wrong. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-29   10:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #285. To: nolu chan (#279) The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. But it WAS produced by the defense. The gloves were not. Why not? Well, we know why not. The gloves were already people's exhibit. misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-29   10:40:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #286. To: misterwhite (#285) The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. But it WAS produced by the defense. The gloves were not. Why not? The knife was not produced at the criminal trial by anybody. It provided zero evidence for the jury to consider. Remember, you are supposedly working feverishly to find the evidence that the prosecution produced which the criminal jury could have relied upon to return a verdict of guilty. Bullshitting about extraneous material that was never part of the criminal trial just doesn't get it. Try harder. The gloves were not. Why not? Well, we know why not. The gloves were already people's exhibit. If either you or the prosecution could have proved that, you would have evidence instead of bullshit. The prosecution failed in its efforts to show that O.J. Simpson had ever bought, owned, or wore an Aris glove, black, brown, XL or any other size. The prosecution produced a receipt for gloves purchased by Nicole Brown Simpson. Experts could not verify that the purchased gloves were the same gloves as the evidence gloves. There was no evidence provided that showed that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the purchased gloves, or what the size and color of the purchased gloves were. Results from your magic 8 ball are not considered evidence. If the prosecution wanted to established that O.J. Simpson wore the evidence gloves, all they had to do was prove it. They failed to do so. The blatantly obvious reason you do not argue with evidence is that you do not have any, and you do not have any because the prosecution did not have any. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   18:08:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #287. To: misterwhite (#284) Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives. You going to bring up that shit? You want me to do the same with your Dr. Reiders -- who has a history of being wrong? You are welcome to try. The shit I brought up was quoted from a Department of Justice Special Report. It is rather humorous watching you herniate yourself trying to rehabilitate the testimony of Martz in your rather obvious incorrect impression that he was a prosecution witness. Let me disabuse you of that notion. Martz and his report were so bad for the prosecution that even though they retained his services, the prosecution never called upon Martz to testify at the criminal trial. It was the defense who forced Martz to take the stand during the defense case. Note that defense counsel Blasier questioned Martz on Direct, not Cross. It was the prosecution who ran away from Martz, and it was the defence who put him on the stand after Rieders had testified. Something was wrong. Martz was smart enough to realize something was wrong and took the extraordinary step to test his own blood to prove something was wrong. The DoJ Special Report found Martz to be incompetent. In purporting to test his own blood, destroying all evidence of said test, and submitting an impossible result, something was indeed wrong. The DoJ found his record keeping, or lack thereof, unacceptable. The DoJ found Martz had an inadequate level of training in toxological issues and toxilogical analyses in the laboratory. Thje DoJ recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony. With specific reference to the O.J. case, the DoJ found, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony, and that Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case. Martz attempted to maintain that nobody knows how much EDTA was normally present in human blood. He allegedly tested his own blood, destroyed all evidence of said test, and claimed his blood test to the same amount of EDTA as evidence blood. His minor problem was that his test had a threshold of detection of EDTA in parts per million, and this ill-prepared and incompetent toxicologist with his degree in biology was mistaken in his belief that a level in parts per million was normal. The competent toxicological expert set the record straight that the normal level of EDTA in humans was 4 parts per billion, citing an EPA study and a Foreman and Trujillo study. Further, the toxicology expert Dr. Rieders testified that "a 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd." That effectively dispatched a Marcia Clark brainfart. Martz was not all that swift, as the DoJ Report documented. Something was wrong. Martz proved that he would and did submit a false report. Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld had launched an attack against the FBI lab in general, in a series of cases. The outcome was that the science and research underpinning the FBI's DNA typing methodology was flawed, and the FBI tried, but failed, to prevent the release of data to prove it. FBI hair and fiber analysis was relegated to junk science. The FBI DNA standards were cleaned up. Hundreds of cases were shown to have been tainted by bogus evidence. MS. CLARK: Let me show you another report. Now, the report that you just pulled out from your briefcase, sir, I'm going to cite you to a passage where it says, "Insight to amelioration AML, dredge undissolved solid." That's in your report, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's part of their report. That's part of the copy that I gave you. MS. CLARK: This is the EPA report that you used to base your opinion on that the normal amount of EDTA that you'll find in blood or the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be in the parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: This and the paper by Trujillo and foreman is--foreman is the other author. MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to this report, sir, on which you just said you based your opinion from the EPA, you read that to allow for the maximum allowable amount in a normal person to be two parts per billion? DR. RIEDERS: Right. MS. CLARK: Right. Now, is it possible, sir, that you have a typo here that caused you to conclude there were two parts per billion as the maximum allowable when in fact, it is 1,000 times less, two parts per million as the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person? DR. RIEDERS: It's possible that this is a typo, but this is--a 2,000 parts per million is absurd as I told you. The people would be bleeding to death at that level. MS. CLARK: In other words, if this is the correct EPA report, you disagree with it? DR. RIEDERS: Well, obviously. I mean, it's--obviously it's a typo in there because I can't imagine that the EPA would say that it's all right to run around with blood that won't clot. MS. CLARK: Sir, you earlier just premised your person on the maximum allowable amount for a normal person on the EPA report, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's correct. MS. CLARK: And in your report, it says two mg/ml? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. MS. CLARK: And you interpret that to mean two nanograms per milliliter? DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That's the only one possible. MS. CLARK: That's the only one possible from an ng as oppose to an mg, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's correct. MS. CLARK: And so you determined that what the EPA was saying was the maximum allowable amount was two parts per billion, correct? DR. RIEDERS: That they were saying what is consistent with their radioactive study, and that's what they say, yes. Sure. Makes sense. MS. CLARK: But the radioactive study, sir, was not able to pick up EDTA in the blood, was it? DR. RIEDERS: That's correct. MS. CLARK: It gave no lower trace amounts that it was able to detect or measure in blood, did it? DR. RIEDERS: I'm sorry? MS. CLARK: That report back in the 50's of radioactive EDTA did not state any specific amount for anything detected in blood resembling EDTA; isn't that correct? DR. RIEDERS: That's not correct. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. I thought we weren't going into this. I mean I'm happy to. THE COURT: Sustained. MS. CLARK: I can't-- THE COURT: Sustained. MS. CLARK: What was the objection? THE COURT: Court's previous ruling on this regard, that report. Proceed. Dr. Rieders submitted an EPA report that cited a level of 2 mg/ml. Dr. Rieders' professional expertise allowed him to recognize the typo of mg for ng, the only thing scientifically reasonable. Agent Martz did not catch the typo, and his lack of expertise let him proceed as though it made sense. Agent Martz went on to dry lab a test of his own blood for which he claimed a result consistent with the typo, an impossible result for someone still living. As for your desire to bring up cases regarding Rieders, that was attempted at trial. Judge Ito considered the argument out of the presence of the jury and disallowed the proposed argument to continue. I will save you the bother of looking for it. Enjoy your nothing burger. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 24, 1995 9:16 A.M. Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.) (Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.) (Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:) THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Kelberg. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we take up the next witness? MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. I am down here not as a result of anyone else's efforts, but of my own accord, because I couldn't help on Friday but review the Court's ruling with respect to Mr. MacDonell's testimony and then to review Dr. Rieders' report, my understanding being that Dr. Rieders will be the next witness called by the Defense. And it struck me as ironic, if nothing else, that in the Court's ruling regarding Mr. MacDonell, the Court, on page 2 of its ruling, noted near the end, just before the section dealing with discovery violations, the previous evidence code section 352 objection by the Defense: "The phenolphthalein based presumptive tests for human blood is still well taken for all the reasons previously advanced." And what struck me from that in the Court's order is Dr. Rieders' report concerning his analysis of the test results of Mr. Martz from the FBI because on page 2 in the concluding paragraph of Dr. Rieders' report he says: "Thus the finding of EDTA in a micro blood specimen, such as in the present ones, is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for the blood having originated from a specimen which has been placed into a usually lavender top blood collection" and handwritten in is "EDTA tube such as is commonly used to draw blood from a living person and keep it from coagulating." What I believe the evidence would show, your Honor, with respect to the analysis by Dr. Rieders, is there can be, among the eleven preliminary organic compounds known in the universe, hundreds perhaps that would give a reading, a pattern, to use a shorthand version, of findings consistent with what Dr. Rieders in his report is only willing to say is a pattern which is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for EDTA. It seems to me that for all the reasons expressed by the Defense to keep out phenolphthalein testing, because it is misleading, confusing to the jury of the real issues, and so forth, the same applies with respect to Dr. Rieders' testimony, proposed testimony, with respect to the EDTA testing of the two bloodstains. This is not evidence that in fact shows there is EDTA, according to Dr. Rieders' own report. It only reflects that the result is presumptive of EDTA, and we can go into the technicalities about basically the full spectrum that you need to see in order to say I identify EDTA is absent, that it is not a full spectrum, and only what is present can be used to say in the opinion of Dr. Rieders it is indicative of, consistent with, presumptive for. What is good for the goose, your Honor, I submit is good for the gander. Now, why is this important? Because if there is only one other compound in the universe which besides EDTA could give the pattern which is the pattern found in the stains from the gate and the socks and from- -I will get into that, Miss Clark, in just a moment--if there is only one other compound that could give that pattern, then the evidence may have far more probative value than if hundreds of other compounds could provide that result. But we don't know which hundreds could provide it because as the evidence would show, Dr. Rieders, no. 1, has never done this test for EDTA using this equipment. His laboratory does not have this equipment. And the laboratory that he has to go to when he wants to use this kind of equipment does not have electrospray which is in fact the process used by the FBI, but it is the FBI's report and analysis which Dr. Rieders is going to come in here and talk about supposedly. Now, I find it most curious that a man who has never been testing for EDTA using this equipment who doesn't have the equipment in his laboratory and who has to go to a lab to do this kind of laboratory test but can't do it on that equipment because it is not previously the same kind is going to come in here and start talking about is this EDTA or is this not EDTA. And what is important, all he is going to say is about his own admission in his own report is it is presumptive of. Let me give the Court a further understanding of why I think it is so potentially misleading and it is an example from Dr. Rieders' past, recent past. A very wellknown case in the southern California area, the sconce, s-c-o-n-c-e, case, oleander poisoning. The history, a gentleman was found dead in 1985, death attributed to cardiac arrest, a young man, a very overweight man and a man in the funeral business, a competitor of Mr. Sconce's. There was an informant who in about 1990 suggested that Mr. Sconce or that the victim, had been poisoned by oleander poisoning. As a result of which the Ventura County District Attorney's office retained the services of Dr. Rieders to perform an analysis of various substances preserved from autopsy to determine the presence of something called oleandrin which is part and parcel of the oleander plant and is a toxin. Let me read the Court just very briefly Dr. Rieders' testimony at the preliminary hearing in 1990, October 4th, regarding his findings. "In this case three independent tests were done; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrophotometry and radioimmunoassay. These are physiochemically different things. The chances that a substance has all the properties in all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance," and his opinion was that these tests showed it was oleandrin, "From experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact it is. A hundred percent, never. For a hundred percent you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent, it is statistical, and it is reasonably certain that chances are remote. And if you want to go over into the area of, in that area, the hand of all mighty God can make anything happen, so possibilities of course are there, but it is a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty and the operative word is `reasonable' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling." Well, the Defense attorney for Mr. Sconce didn't think going by feeling was a very good way to go either, so he proposed having additional and more sophisticated tests performed. And guess what? The Prosecution, which included Mr. Giss of our office as a specially designated Prosecutor for Ventura County, agreed to split the $20,000 bill to have the sophisticated testing done using LCMS/MS equipment at Cornell University, incidentally, where Mr. MacDonell, I believe, makes his headquarters, Cornell, New York, and that the testing was to be done to determine the presence or absence of oleandrin and another metabolite product. And guess what? Wasn't there. The testing by Dr. Henion demonstrated that what Mr.--Dr. Rieders was willing to say to reasonable scientific certainty, not to a hundred percent because he is not God, it wasn't there. And guess what happened? A man charged with a potential capital offense saw his case dismissed as a result of Dr. Henion's findings. And guess what further happened, your Honor? Because I'm sure the Court understands that before the Prosecutor is going to dismiss a potential capital murder offense based upon an expert's finding he is going to want to go back to the original expert, Dr. Rieders, and say explain, please, where is Dr. Henion wrong? Tell us. Dr. Rieders--I talked to Mr. Giss in Miss Clark's office on Friday--basically gave a rambling nonresponsive answer, but a newspaper account of the story is succinct and to the point. From the April 4th, 1991 Los Angeles Times. "Henion reported last week that he had found no signs of oleandrin but he said he was still looking for substances created when oleandrin breaks down in the body. After trial recessed, when Henion testified with his results, no evidence of poison. Rieders, reached at his home near Philadelphia, said he could not account for the difference between his finding and Henion's. "In science' Rieders said, quote, `nothing is unquestionable,' unquote. Now, your Honor, I submit that this is exactly why presumptive test results should not be given to this jury under 352, because they are so misleading. They are not probative. Dr. Rieders cannot say what other compounds could produce the findings that the lab reports from Mr. Marks indicate, and to allow Dr. Rieders to give presumptive testing when the Court sustained Defense objections to presumptive testing is not to be fair to both sides in this case using basically the same rule of law applied to the same general aspect of the case. Now, as the Court will recall when I was last here arguing the admissibility of Mr. Simpson's statement on the exercise video, I argued something on the assumption the Court may not accept my position that the statement was admissible. That is, I wanted the tape played to show the physical movement. I make the same statement now that I made then, your Honor, that I believe this motion should be granted, but I also feel it incumbent on myself to raise additional points in the event the Court feels that the motion is not well taken. No. 1, the oleandrin incident is a clear mistake by Dr. Rieders, which using the rationale of the Defense with respect to Dr. Golden--and of course that is really why I'm done here because I have some familiarity with the evidentiary issues on this issue where the issue is the competency of the expert witness--the Court found that these specific examples of mistakes become admissible. And here, unlike Dr. Golden with gunshot wounds versus knife wounds, here we have the very same process taking place. Are we looking at something which is indicative of, consistent with and presumptive for the chemical or are we identifying the chemical in the substance? Big difference. And that is exactly what is at issue here, because I believe--I submit to the Court the evidence will show that in fact this is not EDTA. Agent Martz' unpreserved blood gave the same result as was found on the stains from the glove and from the gate, not a quantitative result, but showing the same pattern, unpreserved. That is a pretty interesting finding with respect to whether we carry EDTA in our systems, if it is EDTA, or whether there is some other compound that gives the same pattern. So no. 1, the issue of does he get cross-examined if he testifies about his mistake, I submit to the Court using parity of reason he gets cross-examined. No. 2, and I mentioned this to Miss Clark is really why I thought it important that I come down and argue this point, because the Court will recall in cross-examining Dr. Golden Mr. Shapiro wanted to cross-examine Dr.-- I'm sorry--cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan, wanted to cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan regarding the legal implications from the mistakes in the Gaye Phillips case which Dr. Golden acknowledged making. The Court will recall that area of proposed cross-examination, and I objected to it on, among other grounds, that it is irrelevant and that was because the issue for the mistake went to the competency of Dr. Golden. But I submit to the Court that it is proper cross-examination of Dr. Rieders to show the legal implications from his failure and refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong, because now we are not talking about his competency, we are talking about his bias. Dr. Rieders put his professional standing, his ability to get future business, his ability to retain his position as director of a laboratory, above the liberty rights of Mr. Sconce, rather than acknowledge that Dr. Henion's more sophisticated test proved that in fact there was no oleandrin poisoning. He takes the position in science "Nothing is unquestionable." Goes to bias, the legal ramifications. So I submit to the Court that if Dr. Rieders gets to testify, he gets cross-examined not only about the mistake, but he gets cross-examined regarding his response to that mistake and the legal implications from his failure or refusal to acknowledge it as a mistake because he needed to place his selfish interests above those of Mr. Sconce, the criminally charged Defendant. So again, your Honor, I raise these two points not because I believe our motion to preclude his testimony in its entirety is not well taken; I raise these points because I don't know how the Court is going to rule and I want to give the Court the full picture of what I believe are issues related to Dr. Rieders' proposed testimony. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. MR. KELBERG: May I have just one moment, your Honor? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. MR. BLASIER: Let me talk about the second issue first. I think it is just absolutely outrageous that Mr. Kelberg would come in and read from a newspaper and argue that there has been some determination that Dr. Rieders made a mistake in the sconce case. If we want to litigate the sconce case, we can, but it is going to take us about a month. The testing that was done by Mr. Henion was done on a five-year old autopsy, a different autopsy, different tissue than the testing done by Dr. Rieders earlier. Dr. Henion in his reports, my understanding, acknowledges that perhaps what Dr. Rieders saw might have been there when he saw it, but because the second autopsy five years later might not show the same thing. The case was dismissed. There were other reasons for its dismissal. We can litigate that from here to Sunday. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say that they should be able to cross-examine him on that kind of a case where there has been no legal determination that any mistake was made. In fact no mistake was made. These are contrary opinions on scientific evidence which happens all the time. And the notion that Mr. Kelberg would come in and raise his voice because a scientist would say he is not certain about something is outrageous. No scientist is going to get up there and tell you he is absolutely positive about anything if he's a real scientist. So I make a motion that they not be allowed to cross-examine on that issue at all. On 352 grounds, certainly, and a lack of showing that there is any legal basis to cross-examine. As to the first issue, on whether this is a presumptive test or not, first of all, Mr. Kelberg has not read Dr. Rieders' report carefully. His report states that the testing done by the FBI does show the presence of EDTA in the bloodstain from the sock and from the gate. There is no language about "Presumptive for" in that part of his report. The second part of the report where he tries to attribute a source as to where this could have come from is where he uses the term "Presumptive" not in the sense of a phenolphthalein test where the phenolphthalein test we know that there are a lot of common-occurring substances that can give the same response as blood and therefore it is only a test that narrows it down somewhat, could have been something else, so they have to do follow-up tests to confirm it. These are not presumptive tests. I find it fascinating that Mr. Kelberg would use Mr. Henion's LCMS/MS test to go prove that Dr. Rieders made a mistake when he is claiming now that LCMS/MS is just a presumptive test. That is the same testing that was done in this case. They might say that there are hundreds of compounds that could give this pattern. They can't name a single one. I asked Agent Martz. He can't name a single one. They have not looked at all eleven million organic compounds. There may be eleven billion in the universe, we don't know. So you can't absolutely say that there isn't something else out there that we have never seen before that might give this same pattern. That doesn't make it a presumptive test. I'm assuming that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has been prosecuting people for years based on LCMS tests or GC/MS tests which has less information than the tests run by the FBI in this case. Those tests have been used since the seventies to demonstrate that you have a particular substance in your blood, for instance. They are not presumptive tests. There is no case that says they are a presumptive test. They are determinative tests. They can make arguments that maybe there is some other compound out there somewhere, the name of which we do not know, that might give the same result, and Agent Marks will say that and Dr. Rieders will say that also, but they will say the only compound they know that gives everything we see, the right retention time, the right parent ion and the right daughter ion and the right characteristic you must have before something can even be tested, is EDTA. And Dr. Rieders will say in his opinion this is EDTA because it meets every one of those characteristics. On the electrospray issue, electrospray is a process by which you move from the chromatography stage to the mass spec stage. With liquid chromatography you are working with a liquid that has to be converted to a gas before you can do the mass spec part of it. All electrospray does is change the liquid to the gas. It doesn't change the ions. It doesn't change the compound. It doesn't change the measurement system. You still wind up with chromatograms that you look at and you analyze. Saying that this should be determinative of whether an expert testifies is like saying that Julia Childs can't tell you anything about cooking because she doesn't use a Cuisinart. It is one technique that is used as one step in the process. It doesn't change anything. You wind up with a chromatogram that is interpreted just like they all are. So I would submit that this is clearly not a presumptive test, and further, that the Prosecution should not be allowed to cross-examine on the sconce case or any other case that they may not have mentioned, unless they present it beforehand, so that we can litigate that as well. MR. KELBERG: May I just briefly respond, your Honor? THE COURT: Briefly. MR. KELBERG: No. 1, just for consistency, it is Dr. Henion; it is not Mr. Henion. No. 2, it is a more sophisticated test than any of the tests that Dr. Rieders used. No. 3, the evidence is clear Dr. Rieders--in fact, we have his article "A quest for oleandrin in decayed human tissue"--noted his findings showed it wasn't there and he doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Dr. Rieders having been possibly correct in the past with respect to his analysis. If that were the case, this case might still have been prosecuted. We are not inclined to lightly dismiss capital murder cases, your Honor. That is dismissed because of the overpowering and overwhelming and compelling nature of Dr. Henion's results. Last thing is, who is the proponent of this evidence? The people at the left side of counsel table to my left. It is their responsibility to show no other compound. It is not our responsibility to say, oh, gee, you know, there is only one or two others or maybe a couple hundred. It is their responsibility when they are talking about it is presumptive of, and that is really what the conclusion is. The issue for this jury is, hey, where does this stuff come from? If it is EDTA, where does it come from? And that is this issue that the jury is being asked to decide when in fact the expert, the best he is going to say is it is presumptive for. If he is using the language, I didn't put words in his mouth, I didn't put the words in this report; he wrote them. He should have to live by them. I submit for all the reasons previously expressed, your Honor, he should be precluded from testifying. But if the Court feels differently than I on this, that the two areas of inquiry that I have indicated are appropriate, Dr. Henion's--I asked Mr. Hodgman to make sure he is available to clear the air should there be any air need clearing regarding what the test results were and I have every expectation that he would be available. THE COURT: All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Blasier, do we have Dr. Rieders' report marked as an exhibit at this point? MR. BLASIER: I don't think we do. We provided it to the Court last week. THE COURT: I think we should have--I think for the purpose of the appellate court I think we need to have a copy here. MR. BLASIER: I will submit my copy, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. The 352 objection as to Dr. Rieders' testimony regarding his testing for the presence of EDTA, the objection is overruled. I will allow his testimony. The cross-examination as to other testing in other cases done by Dr. Rieders appears to be a fair game for cross-examination. Legal ramifications, however, of scientific testing, appears to the Court to be a 352 problem because there are many explanations as to why things are done legally. It is an apple and oranges argument. So the objection by the Defense as to legal ramifications is sustained. All right. For the purposes of the record we will mark a copy of Dr. Rieders' report as Court's exhibit 18. (Court's 18 for id = Dr. Rieders' report) THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   18:11:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #288. To: misterwhite (#283) It was?!? Well, according to you that's a dumb idea, isn't it? After all, you DID say: "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." You claimed you would touch the glove with a swab to see if it was wet. Are you really idiot enough to touch a glove with a wet swab to see if the glove is wet? You claimed "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." And, you rhetorically ask and answer, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab." The wet swab was not used for evidence collection, it was used in a phenolphthalein test allegedly performed by you know who. It was not allegedly using a wet swab to see if the glove was wet. Using a wet swab would rather defeat the purpose of testing to see if the glove was wet. Brilliant minds, such as your own, may disagree. Of course, this clown got caught in so many lies that it is difficult to give credence to anything he said. If the condition of the glove (ie., if it's wet or dry) was significant, then why wasn't that checked out at the scene? Perhaps it was because the geniuses in charge were called Dumb and Dumber. But Dumb observed that the indicia of the glove being moist and sticky were there, and the indicia of the glove being dry were absent. While you are at it, why did they not collect the blood drops off the back of Nicole Brown Simpson's body? You never know, there may have been some of the killer's blood. I would have given it serious consideration as evidence to be preserved. Why did the autopsy doctor throw out the stomach contents? It made determining the time of death more difficult, with the prosecution resorting to attaching the time of death to a barking dog. As for the Crime Scene Identification Check List at Rockingham: MR. GOLDBERG: Now, while you were going to the Rockingham location in the truck, was there any conversation with respect to filling out the crime scene identification checklist, the Officer in Charge portion? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to take a look at People's 161 identification. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, is the resolution on your screen good enough so that you can-- MS. MAZZOLA: Not really. MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just focus in on the area that says "OIC name." Okay. You need to pull the paper a little bit over to the right. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, can you recognize this? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: And did you--is this your handwriting? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is. MR. GOLDBERG: And your name is where it says "Officer in Charge"? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. The crime scene identification check list identifies Andrea Mazzola as the Officer-in-Charge. Blood evidence is collected on swatches, not swabs or Q-tips. When all else fails, read the testimony. It tells you explicitly how the blood evidence is collected, and the procedures for recording the place and time collected. The criminalists first west to Rockingham, upon leaving Rockingham went to Bundy, and later returned to Rockingham. It was on the return visit to Rockingham that the magic sock was collected. First the basics of evidence collection and documentation, and then I will proceed to the actual collection of the magic sock. This is foundational to discussing who collected the magic sock and when. Your magic 8-ball does not apply. MR. GOLDBERG: Using this demonstration board, can you describe for us, starting with the first cell on People's 162, the steps that are involved in collecting a stain? MS. MAZZOLA: May I-- MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can see that--can we see that cell? THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, can you see it on your monitor here? MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, okay. THE COURT: Sorry? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That shows two spots, blood spots, that are numbered. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is the first phase in this collection stated on the board the numbering and measuring phase? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is. MR. GOLDBERG: And is there a documentation aspect to that phase as well? MS. MAZZOLA: The location, measurements, the photo i.d. Numbers and a brief description are noted on the evidence collection sheet. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And are the items also photographed before they are collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they are. MR. GOLDBERG: So all of that occurs prior to the physical collection? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 2 that says "Dampened swatch," what is involved in this stage of the collection procedure? MS. MAZZOLA: A small cloth swatch of the approximate size you need is selected with a pair of clean tweezers. A drop of distilled water is put on the swatch. It is then shaken so any excess water is shaken off. MR. GOLDBERG: And directing your attention now to cell no. 3 that says "Collect substrate control," what is done in this phase of the correction procedure? MS. MAZZOLA: The cloth swatch is placed on the substrate, the concrete or whatever, as close to the stain as possible, but without getting it in the stain, to get a background control of what the sample is on. MR. GOLDBERG: What does the term "Substrate" mean? MS. MAZZOLA: That is just the substance that the item of interest is on. MR. GOLDBERG: So if the item of interest, for example, instead of being on a walkway, were on a wall, what would be the substrate? MS. MAZZOLA: The wall would be the substrate. MR. GOLDBERG: Or if it were on clothing, what would be the substrate? MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing. MR. GOLDBERG: What is the purpose of taking this control that is near the stain but not on the stain? MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it could be used for two factors: One is to provide a background, what the sample was on, so when they go to run tests on the sample, they can see if the background itself would interfere with the tests. The control can also be checked for DNA or other items of interest to see if any contamination took place. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, so this control is basically just a blank swatch that has water on it that is put on the concrete in this example? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: So do you handle this piece of evidence exactly--or this piece of swatch exactly the same way that you would handle a swatch that was actually put on the stain? MS. MAZZOLA: It is handled the same way. MR. GOLDBERG: Why is it that you use the identical handling procedures for the substrate control that you would use for a swatch that was actually put on the stain? MS. MAZZOLA: Because you want them to be as identical as possible. The only difference being one will contain the item of interest; the other won't. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 4 on People's 1--excuse me--162 for identification, what phase of the collection procedure is shown here? MS. MAZZOLA: It looks like the cloth swatch is being placed into a small plastic envelope, small plastic bag. The control is placed in one bag. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And now directing your attention to cell no. 5 that says "Clean tweezers"-- excuse me. I'm sorry. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 5, that says "Clean tweezers" in our demonstration? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. After the control is taken, the tweezers are cleaned with distilled water and a chem wipe, which is like a laboratory Kleenex. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 6, which says on our board "Take new swatch, then dampen it," what does this phase of the collection procedure involve? MS. MAZZOLA: Our swatches are stored in plastic tubes so you have to take a small selection of them out of the tube without handling them and then you can select the correct size that you need, so that is what is being shown. MR. GOLDBERG: How do you decide which size to take? MS. MAZZOLA: It depends on the size of the stain. You want to select a size swatch that is small enough that--so when you apply it to the stain you would get it as concentrated as possible. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in this particular photograph it is kind of hard for me to see that there are actually swatches in that little bottle, but is that what you are saying? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: The swatches come from that bottle? MS. MAZZOLA: That's right. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let's take a look at cell no. 7 that says "Collect stain" and "Number card removed" is in parentheses. What are you doing here? MS. MAZZOLA: That would be the actual collection of the stain. MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have to dampen the swatch before you-- MS. MAZZOLA: Right, the same as with the control. You dampen the swatch, shake off the excess water, then you apply the swatch to the stain. MR. GOLDBERG: And finally taking a look at cell no. 8 that says, "Package stain in same envelope with substrate control," what is involved in this procedure? MS. MAZZOLA: The swatch with the stain is placed in a separate plastic envelope. Both the control and the swatch with the item you are interested in are placed in the same coin envelope with the item number written on the outside. MR. GOLDBERG: Now when you are--thank you. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you are collecting one of these stains, do you collect one stain at a time? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And I want to ask you some questions about different things that could happen when you are collecting a stain. Do you--do you ever drop the tweezers while you are doing that? MS. MAZZOLA: That can happen. MR. GOLDBERG: What happens if you do that? MS. MAZZOLA: You clean them all over again. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are taking a swatch that actually has blood on it, do you ever drop that bloody swatch? MS. MAZZOLA: That has never happened to me. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are pouring the--maybe pouring is not the right word, but you are taking some of those little swatches out of the container, the little pill bottle-- MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: --do those swatches ever fall? MS. MAZZOLA: They do occasionally, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: What do you do with those swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't use them. MR. GOLDBERG: Could you use them as substrate controls? MS. MAZZOLA: You could. MR. GOLDBERG: But you do not do that? MS. MAZZOLA: But I personally don't do that. MR. GOLDBERG: So you just throw them away? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are picking up a swatch, do any of the swatches ever stick together? MS. MAZZOLA: That happens sometimes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. What do you do in that kind of instance? MS. MAZZOLA: If you are taking either the control or the actual item, you can use both swatches. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what if you have two swatches stuck together? Do you try to separate them or is it possible that you could apply both of them to the stain at the same time, without knowing it? MS. MAZZOLA: You can tell if two of them are stuck together. Umm, you separate them and you--you use one swatch at a time, either to pick up the control or to pick up the stain itself. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the labeling of the coin envelopes? Have you ever mislabeled one of those by writing the wrong item number? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. When are they--when are the envelopes labeled in relationship to when the collection takes place? Before-- MS. MAZZOLA: The envelopes were labeled before. MR. GOLDBERG: So do you put the--if you are collecting stain no. 5, for example-- MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: --in our demonstration, you are going to put that in an envelope that is labeled what? MS. MAZZOLA: No. 5. MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be done before you moved on to no. 6? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were at the Rockingham location did you place your initials on all the coin envelopes as you were collecting them? MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I did. Looking back I apparently didn't. MR. GOLDBERG: And do you recall testifying at what we've been referring to or sometimes referred to as a griffin hearing on August 23, I believe, of 1994? MS. MAZZOLA: I remember testifying at the griffin hearing. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in that--when you were testifying at that hearing at that time, did you believe that you had put all of your initials or your initials on all of the items that you had collected on the 13th? MS. MAZZOLA: At that time I believe I had. MR. GOLDBERG: And did you since learn that you did not? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. NEUFELD: Objection. What she assumes is hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Did you since look at photographs of some of the items collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And have you learned that you did not? MS. MAZZOLA: I learned I had not. MR. GOLDBERG: On the other scenes that you had processed-- MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry. Move to strike the last answer. It is conclusionary as opposed to testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the other stains--excuse me--other scenes that you had collected stains on prior to the 13th, had you initialed on those occasions? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And why wasn't that done here at the scene? MS. MAZZOLA: I was told that there were only two of us that-- MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what she was told. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Without telling us what was said, was there a conversation about this? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And after the conversation did--was there some conclusion that was arrived at? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the conclusion? MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: What is the basis? MR. NEUFELD: Hearsay again. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MAZZOLA: There were only going to be two of us at the scenes collecting evidence. We were working as a team, so it really didn't matter if our initials were on the envelopes since we were working as a team. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as to the crime scene identification checklist that we talked a little bit about, when you testified at the griffin hearing, what was your understanding of how that checklist was supposed to be used? MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that everything had to be filled out. The other scenes that I had gone on they had filled out the checklist. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can see a portion. I think it is 1107. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a look at the last page of the exhibit. It is 1107 for identification. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, what page number is that? They are numbered at the top. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Page 2 of 2. MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think it has a number. It is the one that has 17, 18 and 19. THE COURT: All right. MR. GOLDBERG: Or 18, 17 and 19. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Is this the form that you use out in the field when you are collecting evidence? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: It is a little blurry there. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, prior to testifying at the griffin hearing did you believe that every single box in every single column needed to be filled out? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And as a result of your training and experience after the griffin hearing, did you learn something different? MS. MAZZOLA: I learned that this is a general guideline for us. Some of the boxes really don't apply to us at the scene. MR. GOLDBERG: When did you start--when did you learn that? MS. MAZZOLA: Right after I testified at the griffin hearing. MR. GOLDBERG: And got back to the laboratory? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the time column, have you noticed now, based upon the experience that you have to date, that different criminalists in the Los Angeles Police Department have different practices with respect to how they fill out that column? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And how is that used? MS. MAZZOLA: Some fill out every single individual time that something is collected. Others put a starting time that they start collecting evidence and an ending time when they stop. Everything that is collected is collected while you are at the scene, so it happens between those two times. MR. GOLDBERG: And then are there some people that use what I guess you might call an intermediate type usage of that time column and put in some times, as you did on the 13th? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question. MR. GOLDBERG: Are there some people that use an intermediate technique? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, getting back to the collection of the evidence at Rockingham, perhaps we can take a look at People's 120 for identification. It is the board of Rockingham, the outside stains. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to People's 120 for identification, do you recognize what is depicted here? MS. MAZZOLA: That is not showing up. MR. GOLDBERG: It is not going to be on the monitor. Maybe you can just step down for a moment and take a look at this. MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. Yes, I recognize it. MR. GOLDBERG: And are these photographs that depict various items that you participated in collecting on the 13th at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. NEUFELD: Yes. THE COURT: Overruled. May we have a side bar, your Honor? THE COURT: Overruled. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were doing the physical collection on these, do you recall what order they were done in? Were they done in numerical order? MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And would that mean that you started with the stains that are down towards the gate? MS. MAZZOLA: The first stain that was collected was on--excuse me--on the door of the Bronco. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know who physically collected that? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know who physically collected that. MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. MS. MAZZOLA: Excuse me. I was the one who collected the one on the Bronco. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains that are leading from the Bronco into the driveway area, did you and Dennis Fung physically collect those-- MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to her and Dennis Fung. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you tell us, when you first started the collection, can you be more specific as to who was doing what in terms of the physical collection? MS. MAZZOLA: As I said, I was the one that collected the stain offer the Bronco, and Mr. Fung collected the stain on the street. When we got to the driveway, he did, I believe it was like the first two stains, and I took over from there and was the one who physically collected the rest. MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the other stains, do you have a recollection of whether he physically participated in collecting any of those? MS. MAZZOLA: He was present for some. MR. GOLDBERG: So at the beginning of the stains he was doing more of the physical collection and then towards the end less? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the first phase of the collection procedure, the documentation, the numbering and the measuring phase, how did the two of you work together to accomplish that? MS. MAZZOLA: We worked as a team. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to the stains at the end of the outdoor area, stain no. 7 and stain no. 8, do you recall where Dennis Fung was around the time that those were collected? MS. MAZZOLA: At first he was not present, but as I kept working, he came up. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether anyone else was present at the time those stains were collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: In the immediate area? MS. MAZZOLA: There was someone in the immediate area. MR. GOLDBERG: Who was that? MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Steve Johnson. MR. GOLDBERG: Who is he? MS. MAZZOLA: He is the assistant lab director. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where Dennis Fung was at the time that he was not present? MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't. MR. GOLDBERG: Where he went? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: But he went somewhere and at some point came back? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains at the Rockingham location, were--was every single last stain collected or were there some that were not collected? MS. MAZZOLA: There were some that were not collected. MR. GOLDBERG: And what is your training with respect to the need to collect every stain as opposed to less than all the stains? MS. MAZZOLA: Well, on a trail you want to get a representative sample, you want to get the first few stains, you want to pick up the last few stains. The ones in between, as long as they appear to be going in the general direction, there is nothing out of the ordinary with them, not every single stain has to be collected. MR. GOLDBERG: And is that the technique that you and Mr. Fung used with respect to collecting these stains? MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. MR. GOLDBERG: All right--you can--I want to ask you some questions that you may have to refer to your crime scene identification checklist for, so you may want to return to the stand. MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, are you going to refer back to this exhibit, People's 120, for a minute. MR. GOLDBERG: I want to talk about stains, unless logistically we can't do that. THE COURT: Well, if you are going to be referring to it, proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the stains numbered 4 through 6 on our diagram, with the photo i.d. Numbers, 4 through 6, down towards the beginning portion of the driveway, can you tell us the time frame that those stains were collected? MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. The record should reflect that the witness is refreshing her recollection from some notes. May I approach the witness and see? THE COURT: You may. MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. THE COURT: Miss Mazzola, what are you referring to? MS. MAZZOLA: I'm referring to the crime scene notes. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed. MS. MAZZOLA: They were collected around nine o'clock, all within a few minutes of each other. MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the stains that are up towards the--close to the entrance area, stain no. 7, stain no. 8, what was the time frame of those stains? MS. MAZZOLA: Those were approximately ten to fifteen minutes later. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have some time frames in your crime scene identification checklist to give us? MS. MAZZOLA: Item 7 was collected approximately 9:10. Item 8, approximately fifteen minutes later. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when you were at the location, from what you saw of all of the stains, did any of them appear to have been stepped in? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, before--I can take this down now, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. (Brief pause.) THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, why don't you swing that around. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left the Rockingham location, did you and Mr. Fung do any--go through any process in terms of double-checking the evidence that you had? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: What was that? MS. MAZZOLA: We knew what item numbers we collected. We look at each individual item to make sure that we had everything. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is that a routine thing that you have done on the other crime scenes that you were on before this? MS. MAZZOLA: At the other crime scenes we make sure that we have everything that we collected. MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do with the various coin envelopes that you had with the biological evidence of them--in them? MS. MAZZOLA: They were put in a small paper bag. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether they were lying down or standing up? MS. MAZZOLA: They were standing up. MR. GOLDBERG: And what was done with the paper bag? MS. MAZZOLA: The paper bag was put into the back of the crime scene truck. MR. GOLDBERG: Was the crime scene truck locked? MS. MAZZOLA: All the time. MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time was it that you left the Rockingham location? MS. MAZZOLA: It was approximately ten o'clock, somewhere around there. MR. GOLDBERG: Were you wearing gloves during the collection procedure of the biological evidence at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know whether you were wearing the same pair of gloves the whole time? MS. MAZZOLA: I probably changed gloves. I don't remember how many times, but-- MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, speculative. She said "I probably," and move to strike the answer. THE COURT: Strained. Rephrase the question. Excuse me. The jury is to disregard the last answer and question. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a practice at a crime scene to wear the same pair of gloves throughout the entire crime scene? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: What is your practice? MS. MAZZOLA: I change the gloves when they start getting uncomfortable. If I am done possessing an area and I am moving on to a completely separate area, I will change gloves. MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, just going back for a second to the blood collection procedure, can you-- do you ever touch the blood with your gloved hands? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: When you are collecting it? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: What about the swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that has happened to you by accident where you have touched a bloody swatch with your gloved hands? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what do you do with the gloves that you are wearing at the time that you leave the Rockingham location? Do you keep them on? MS. MAZZOLA: No. We take a paper bag which we label "Trash" and any trash that we generate, whether it is used gloves, swabs, chem wipes, anything, goes into this bag and we take it with us. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after you left the Rockingham location where did you go? MS. MAZZOLA: We went to Bundy. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   18:15:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #289. To: misterwhite (#288) Dennis Fung, 4 April 1995 In this section Dennis Fung clearly identified Item 13 as the magic socks. THE COURT: IT'S A GOOD THING THERE'S NO WIND IN THIS PLACE. Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG, I AM DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 169 AND IS ENTITLED "ROCKINGHAM INTERIOR BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE." DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS EXHIBIT PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO COURT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT NUMBER THAT SAYS 14, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? WHAT AREA OF THE RESIDENCE DOES THAT SHOW? A: THAT IS IN THE MASTER BATH -- BATHROOM. Q: SO THAT WOULD BE DEPICTING THE UPSTAIRS OF THE HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO ITEM 14 SHOW? A: THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE RIGHT DEPICTS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA DISPLAYING THE RESULTS OF A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST AND THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT IS A CLOSE-UP AND YOU CAN SEE THE STAIN HERE (INDICATING). Q: OKAY. YOU'RE POINTING TO AN AREA THAT'S JUST TO THE RIGHT ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF OR SO FROM THE CARD? A: YES. Q: AND IS THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPH TO THE LEFT SIMPLY A PERSPECTIVE SHOT DEMONSTRATING THE SAME GENERAL THING? A: YES. Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ITEM CALL OUT NO. 13, WHAT GENERAL AREA IS BEING POINTED TO THERE WITH THAT CALL OUT LINE? A: THAT IS THE MASTER BEDROOM. Q: WHAT ABOUT THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THAT CALL OUT LINE? WHAT DO THOSE SHOW? A: THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW A PAIR OF DARK COLORED SOCKS ON THE THROW RUG. Q: THOSE ARE THE SOCKS THAT YOU RECOVERED AND LISTED AS ITEM 13? A: YES. Q: AND NOW TO FINALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT LINE THAT SAYS 12, WHAT GENERAL AREA OF THE HOUSE IS THAT POINTING TO? A: THAT IS -- WELL, THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE FOYER OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE ENTRANCE, AND THERE ARE THREE LARGE STAINS ON THE FLOOR. THAT IS A -- A CLOSE-UP OF THAT IS SHOWN IN THE RIGHT PICTURE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dennis Fung, 18 April 1995 In this section Dennis Fung provides testimonial evidence of when the magic socks were collected. MR. GOLDBERG: And what time was 12 collected, approximately, according to the crime scene identification checklist? MR. FUNG: According to the checklist, it was collected at 4:30. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you recall my asking you on recross whether you were sure about whether 13 was collected before 14? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Are you a hundred percent sure? MR. FUNG: Not a hundred percent sure, no. MR. GOLDBERG: Which one do you think was collected first? MR. FUNG: I think the socks and item 13 were collected first. MR. GOLDBERG: Before 14? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: But you can't be a hundred percent sure? MR. FUNG: I'm not a hundred percent sure. MR. GOLDBERG: When was 14, the item in the bathroom, master bathroom, collected, that stain? MR. FUNG: That stain was collected around 4:40. MR. GOLDBERG: So you are saying, I believe, that the socks were collected after 4:30--well, between 4:30 and 4:40, approximately? MR. FUNG: In that general time frame, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And as far as you are concerned, Mr. Fung, does it make the slightest bit of difference that you can figure out, when they were collected within that general time frame? MR. FUNG: No, it doesn't make any difference to me. nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-30   23:40:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #290. To: nolu chan (#289) I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-01   9:44:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #291. To: nolu chan (#289) (Edited) OJ did it. Justice would be one dead OJ. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-01   9:47:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #292. To: A K A Stone (#291) Did it ever occur to the forensics team that just because the glove didn't fit OJ doesn't rule out that he didn't do it. Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints? goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-01   18:58:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #293. To: misterwhite (#290) I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand. When did you say he collected the socks? I couldn't hear you. I am still waiting for you to identify what evidence, produced at the criminal trial, would have justified a jury verdict of guilty. I the mean time I will keep posting testimonial evidence showing perjury and planting of evidence. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-01   23:33:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #294. To: A K A Stone (#291) OJ did it. Justice would be one dead OJ. This is not about whether OJ did it or not. It is about whether the prosecution in the criminal trial produced evidence that would have justified the jury returning a verdict of guilty. Perjury and planted evidence don't get it. I could not get a straight answer to the question of when the socks were collected, so I am providing the testimony of when they were collected and how the collection was recorded. I have only just started on that. There is more to come. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-01   23:41:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #295. To: goldilucky, A K A Stone (#292) Did it ever occur to the forensics team that just because the glove didn't fit OJ doesn't rule out that he didn't do it. Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints? They were cashmere lined. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-02   1:36:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #296. To: misterwhite (#290) I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand. You just donot want to engage on when the magic socks were collected. Dennis Fung, 11 April 1995, Cross examination by Barry Scheck Note that Fung testifies to the collection of Item 12, downstairs, at 4:30 or thereabouts, recorded as 4:30, before he and Mazzola proceeded upstairs to continue collecting evidence, the first piece of evidence collected upstairs being Item 13, the socks, at an unrecorded time, and then Item 14 recorded at 4:40. Q: AND THE -- THERE'S A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES TIMES; IS THERE NOT? A: YES. Q: AND THEN STARTING AT I BELIEVE ITEM 11 -MR. SCHECK: IF WE COULD FOCUS ON THAT, MR. HARRIS, STARTING AT ITEM 11, IF YOU COULD ZERO IN ON THAT, MOVE IT JUST -- THAT'S IT. GREAT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11 REPRESENTS THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS COLLECTED WHEN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON? A: YES. Q: AND YOU PUT DOWN THAT TIME AS 3:40 OR 1540 HOURS? A: THAT WAS THE TIME THAT WAS PUT DOWN. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT ACCURATE? A: THAT'S THE GENERAL TIME FRAME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WAS A RED STAIN FROM THE FOYER AREA INSIDE ROCKINGHAM, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT ONE WAS COLLECTED AT 4:30? A: YES. Q: AND - A: OR THEREABOUTS. Q: OR THEREABOUTS. AND THE NEXT ITEM YOU COLLECTED WERE THE SOCKS? A: YES. Q: BUT THERE'S NO TIME INDICATED FOR THAT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THE NEXT ITEM AFTER THAT YOU INDICATED WAS A RED STAIN THAT WAS FOUND IN THE MASTER BATHROOM? A: YES. Q: AND THAT TIME IS AT 4:40? A: YES. Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40? A: ABOUT THEN, YES. Q: AND THEN BEFORE YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, YOU COLLECTED TWO OTHER ITEMS, NUMBERS 15 AND 16, AND THOSE WERE AT 5:00 AND 5:05? A: THE CHECKLIST STATES 15, 16 WERE COLLECTED AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. Q: WELL, WHAT TIMES WERE THOSE LISTED ON THE CHECKLIST? PERHAPS YOU COULD HELP. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE. A: THEY BOTH SAY THE SAME TIME. 5:00 O'CLOCK. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-02   1:37:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #297. To: misterwhite (#290) I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand. I will continue to present actual testimonial evidence on the magic socks, and then move on to the magic blood drops on the side of the Bronco. You have said there is no evidence of planting. I am feeding you the evidence. Andrea Mazzola, 20 April 2017, Direct examination by Hank Goldberg Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.) In recording a collection time, Andrea Mazzola recalled that she just glanced at her watch for the time. Andrea Mazzola testified she personally did the physical swatching on Item 12 in the downstairs foyer, and personally recorded the time of collection in her own handwriting. And, MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up. MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up? MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14. Ms. Mazzola testified that Item 14 was collected at 1640 (4:40 pm) and the collection time was reflected as such in her notes. It does not appear that Hank Goldberg bother to ask about the collection time of Item 12 on direct, but Peter Neufeld filled in the gap on cross. As for Ms. Mazzola on cross by Peter Neufeld, she testified about the time of collection of Item 12: MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes? MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes. MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that? MS. MAZZOLA: 1630. MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon. MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30. That is 1630, or 4:30 p.m., prior to proceeding upstairs to continue evidence collection with Item 13, the socks. I will provide a substantial excerpt of that cross examination shortly. Ms. Mazzola continued. In this section, Ms. Mazzola provides testimonial evidence of who collected the Rockingham socks, and the time of collection. For identification purposes, Item #13 was the magic socks. MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time did you leave the Bundy location? MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, it was approximately 3:15 or so, 3 o'clock, 3:15. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you left? MS. MAZZOLA: We went back to Rockingham. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you take the crime scene truck? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what would you have done with the gloves that you had been wearing at the Bundy location when you left? MS. MAZZOLA: They were taken off and put in the trash bag. MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left, did you do the same evidence inventory procedure that you've described? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have--are you--do you have an independent recollection of exactly where that took place? MS. MAZZOLA: Not an exact recollection. I have an idea where it took place, but I can't be absolutely positive. MR. GOLDBERG: Was it outdoors? MS. MAZZOLA: It was outdoors, yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us in terms of being towards the front of the Bundy location? By that, I mean the Bundy side or to the rear towards the alley side? MS. MAZZOLA: It was up front. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What time did you return to the Rockingham location? MS. MAZZOLA: Probably around 3:30 or so. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any notes with you that you can use to give us the time that you collected the first item of evidence once you returned to Rockingham in the afternoon? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I do. MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us? Do you have it memorized or do you need something? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have it memorized. MR. GOLDBERG: Please tell us what you are referring to to give us that information. MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. I'm referring to the evidence collection sheet. MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I am sorry. I'll object. I would say there has to be a proper foundation laid before she refreshes her recollection. She hasn't done that. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. This says 1540. MR. GOLDBERG: So that's 3:40? MS. MAZZOLA: 3:40. MR. GOLDBERG: Was the notation as to the time in your handwriting or Mr. Fung's? MS. MAZZOLA: My handwriting. MR. GOLDBERG: And when you made that notation, how did you do it? Did you ask someone or look at your watch or what? MS. MAZZOLA: I think I just glanced at my watch. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And this first item was stain no. 11? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Which was on which side of the house? MS. MAZZOLA: It was on the side of the house near the garage, on that end of the house. MR. GOLDBERG: That little narrow walkway area? MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: And that's outdoors? MS. MAZZOLA: That's outdoors. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to direct your attention back to some testimony at the Griffen hearing on page 758. Well, actually 757, line 25 through 758, line 4. MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry? What lines? MR. GOLDBERG: Line 25 and 758 to line 4. THE COURT: Do you have that, Mr. Neufeld? MR. NEUFELD: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: At the Griffen hearing, did you give the following answers to the following questions? "Question: And what time did you get back to Rockingham was it? "Answer: Right around 4 o'clock, somewhere in there. "Question: How do you know it was about 4 o'clock? "Answer: Because of the time that is noted that we collected the sample in the foyer." Do you remember giving that testimony? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So was this testimony that you got back there at 4 o'clock correct? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: And why did you testify that way? MS. MAZZOLA: Because I was--just had a chance to glance at the notes as I was testifying. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to read you another passage that occurred just previously to that on page 757. MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, it's lines 12 through 15. 757, 12 through 15. THE COURT: Proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: Just previously to that, did you give the following answer to this question? "Question: So as soon as you got back to Rockingham, the first thing that you did was walk inside and lift item no. 12? "Answer: After it was photographed." Do you recall that? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: So was item no. 12 in fact the first item that you collected? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: So why did you think that item no. 12 was the first thing that you collected and that it was at 4 o'clock? MS. MAZZOLA: Because as I said, I was just going off of the notes. I didn't have time to go through them and refresh my memory and I looked at the wrong line. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you--didn't you see no. 11 at that time when you were testifying at the Griffen hearing and looking over the crime scene identification checklist? MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But based upon the crime scene identification checklist, was item no. 11 in fact the first stain that you collected in the afternoon? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection on that? MS. MAZZOLA: I did. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you in fact collect a stain no. 12 in the foyer area of Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Perhaps we can see People's 169, which is the interior Rockingham map. (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Can you see this, Miss Mazzola? Directing your attention to the photographs on this exhibit that are labeled with photograph numbers--photograph no. 12 and the call out line, do those depict where this item was collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does. MR. GOLDBERG: And this was the first interior item? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection in terms of the swatching of this item? MS. MAZZOLA: I did. MR. GOLDBERG: Was Mr. Fung watching you on this item? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, he was. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, after collecting this item from the foyer area, where did you go in the location? MS. MAZZOLA: We started making our way upstairs looking as we were going for any items of evidence. MR. GOLDBERG: So you collected downstairs first before going upstairs? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And when you got upstairs, did you go to the master bedroom area of the house? MS. MAZZOLA: We did go there. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see the item that's contained in photographs 13? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did. MR. GOLDBERG: And where were they? MS. MAZZOLA: They were at the foot of the master bedroom bed. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did you also see the item that's depicted in the photographs that are labeled 14? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did. MR. GOLDBERG: And what are you doing in this photograph? MS. MAZZOLA: That- MR. GOLDBERG: Photograph that shows you holding a q-tip. MS. MAZZOLA: That is a simple presumptive test for blood. MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the phenolphtalein test? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you look closely at that photograph, in the upper right-hand corner, you can see that there is some clothing on the ground. Can you see that? It's right behind the shower door. No. The one that has you doing the presumptive test. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: The one that has photograph no. 14. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall how that clothing got there? MS. MAZZOLA: One of the detectives was looking through the clothing. MR. GOLDBERG: Was that while you and criminalist Fung were in this master bathroom, master bedroom area? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was. MR. GOLDBERG: And prior to this detective looking at this item, where was the clothing? MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing was in a clothes hamper. You can't really see that. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That's fine. You can resume the witness stand. MS. MAZZOLA: Thank you. MR. GOLDBERG: So when the detective took the items out of the hamper, did he ever put them back in the hamper that you saw or did he just leave them on the floor? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he put them back or not. MR. GOLDBERG: But he did--but he did take them out and put them on the floor? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You can take that down. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know how the towels got on the floor? MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after collecting item no. 12, what was the next item number that you collected, that was collected in your presence? MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes? MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. (Brief pause.) MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up. MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up? MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14. MR. GOLDBERG: And who physically collected item no. 13? MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung. MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected? MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640. THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes. MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there a time for 13 on that list or is it just 12 and 14? MS. MAZZOLA: Just 12 and 14. MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would just like to clarify something before I ask my next question. THE COURT: Yes. At the sidebar with the court reporter, please. (The following proceedings were held at the bench:) THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, what do you need to clarify? MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I know on 15 and 16, the airline ticket and the baggage claim-- THE COURT: Oh, no, not this again. MR. GOLDBERG: That's why I wanted to approach, so I can make sure I'm not going to go--we've had testimony there was a 15 and 16 collected at 5 o'clock, but that's it, which from my view, it sort of went beyond the Court's- MR. SCHECK: What do you want to do? Maybe we won't have any objection. Just tell us what you want to do. MR. GOLDBERG: I was just going to ask her when 15 and 16 were collected, not ask what they were. MR. NEUFELD: We have no objection. THE COURT: Just that one question. MR. GOLDBERG: I should have brought the transcript up with me, but there's some inconsistent statements she makes regarding when she left the location. She thought it was shortly after 5:00, and it's based on the time of the collection of 15 and 16. There's reference in that transcript to collectively 15 and 16, the airline ticket. My proposal would be simply not to read that, redact that out. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. NEUFELD: Does the transcript--Hank, does the transcript refer to where it was collected from though? MR. GOLDBERG: Uh-uh. I don't think it does. MR. NEUFELD: I mean- MR. GOLDBERG: If it does, if it refers to anything else- MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm saying it's fine to bring out the location. In fact, just to take care of it now, if you don't bring it out, we will bring it out later on. Just items were collected in the bathroom and items were collected on the bench outside the front door. THE COURT: Okay. If they have no objection. MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know. I mean if it wasn't suppressed, it wasn't suppressed. But if it were suppressed, it's suppressed. THE COURT: No. What happened was, there was an agreement the People were not going to offer it rather than it being suppressed. But the objection has to be made by the Defense to suppress it or otherwise keep it out. If they have no objection, then I assume we can talk about it. MR. NEUFELD: It's basically our decision--frankly, the way it was brought out on two separate occasions by the People as part of their direct case created an impression upon the jurors now there's something we're trying to hide rather. So it's only under that kind of pressure that we feel compelled to, you know, simply say where those items were. THE COURT: Keep your voice down. But it's a tactical decision on your part. So if that's your decision, that's fine with me. MR. SCHECK: In terms of the location and the item numbers. THE COURT: Right. Location and item numbers. That's correct. And then you intend on going into time and we're agreed you will just read the part that says item 15 and 16, not what they are, correct? MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. May I just have one moment? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.) MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Done. (The following proceedings were held in open court:) THE COURT: These are the most educational sidebars so far. All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. All right. And was there an item no. 15 and an item no. 16 that were collected? And just answer that yes or no. MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And what time were those items collected? MS. MAZZOLA: I thought at approximately 5 o'clock. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And that was according to your crime scene identification checklist? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the location of where, using your crime scene identification checklist, these two items were located, just the location? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: First of 15 and then of 16. MS. MAZZOLA: 15 was collected in a downstairs bathroom trash can, 16 was collected from a bench outside the front door. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I'd like to show you another tape that we've marked as People's 186 and then I'm going to ask you some questions about it. If you'd take a look at it. THE COURT: Is this from Rockingham? MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. It's the beta tape from Rockingham. (At 11:37 A.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.) MR. GOLDBERG: If we could just stop for one second. We're at frame 17:11. MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assume that this is correct, this would be 5:11? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And in this scene, what are you and criminalist Fung doing? MS. MAZZOLA: We are putting items of evidence in the back of the crime scene truck. MR. GOLDBERG: And would these be the items of evidence that you had collected in the afternoon at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you placing anything in addition to the evidence itself in the truck at this time? MS. MAZZOLA: Our kits. MR. GOLDBERG: And what are your kits? MS. MAZZOLA: They are two cases that contain things we need to pick up evidence, package it at the scene. MR. GOLDBERG: Do those contain all of your packaging materials? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they do. MR. GOLDBERG: And in addition to the bags, the brown paper bags that we've seen, what other kinds of packaging materials do you have? MS. MAZZOLA: Plastics, bags, coin envelopes of varying sizes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So at this point in time, those items are being placed in the rear of the crime scene truck? MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. MR. GOLDBERG: And would this have been after you did the inventory for the afternoon items? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where physically that inventory took place? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know for sure, no. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue. THE COURT: All right. Just for the record, that's 17:11 actually and 50 seconds because there's a lot in between. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. If you could just stop for another second. So this is 17:11:57:02 that we're looking at. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you just lock the crime scene truck? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: So at this time, where is all of the evidence that was collected from the morning at Rockingham? MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck. MR. GOLDBERG: And all of the evidence that was collected at Bundy? MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck. MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the evidence that was collected in the afternoon? MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue. If we could stop for just a second. I have another-- I have a question. MR. GOLDBERG: And the crime scene identification checklist that we've been referring to, where is that at this time as you and Mr. Fung are walking away from the- MS. MAZZOLA: That is also on the back of the truck. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-02   1:42:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #298. To: nolu chan (#297) Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.) But wait! If they left Bundy at 3:30 and returned to Rockingham at 3:30, it took zero time, right? misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:25:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #299. To: nolu chan (#297) That entire line of questioning was useless. What a f**king waste of my time. Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:32:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #300. To: nolu chan (#296) Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40? OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. Your point? misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:37:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #301. To: goldilucky (#292) Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints? The gloves were lined with cashmere. Shapiro admitted he tried the glove on earlier. That could have torn the lining. Darden said, "I think Johnnie (Cochran) tore the lining. There were some additional tears in the lining so that O.J.'s fingers couldn't go all the way up into the glove." misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:47:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #302. To: misterwhite (#301) The gloves were lined with cashmere. Are you telling me that cashmere linen cannot be scanned for DNA? goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-02   15:27:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #303. To: goldilucky (#302) Are you telling me that cashmere linen cannot be scanned for DNA? Scanned for DNA? I thought you said "dust for prints". misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   15:37:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #304. To: misterwhite (#303) Well what do you think they dust for? goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-02   20:51:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #305. To: goldilucky (#304) Well what do you think they dust for? Fingerprints. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-03   10:19:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #306. To: misterwhite (#298) Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 [sic 3:00] or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.) But wait! If they left Bundy at 3:30 and returned to Rockingham at 3:30, it took zero time, right? Oh noes! You caught me in a typo. The transcript I provided did not contain my typo. In case you are still befuddled, here it is repeated from the transcript. [excerpts from transcript at my #297] MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time did you leave the Bundy location? MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, it was approximately 3:15 or so, 3 o'clock, 3:15. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you left? MS. MAZZOLA: We went back to Rockingham. [...] MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What time did you return to the Rockingham location? MS. MAZZOLA: Probably around 3:30 or so. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-04   3:07:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #307. To: misterwhite (#300) [misterwhite #299] That entire line of questioning was useless. What a f**king waste of my time. Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond. [misterwhite #300] Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40? OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40. Your point? Very well, I will proceed consistent withy your representation that you have read all the testimony, and the socks were collected between 16:30 and 16:40. Fung and Mazzola testified that they collected Item #12 downstairs at 4:30, before proceeding upstairs. Where were the magic socks at 4:13? That's fifteen to twenty-five minutes before Fung went upstairs, discovered the black socks on the white carpet in the master bedroom, and collected them. The collection time is very relevant. The videographer clearly testified that the socks were not there when he walked across the carpet, stood at the foot of the bed, and videoed the master bedroom at 4:13 p.m., according to the auto time record of his video recording. He also testified that he left the location at 4:30 p.m. as verified by the crime scene log maintained by the police. The magic socks were not there for videographer Willie Ford at 4:13, but for Mr. Fung between 4:30 and 4:40, they appeared. When they appeared, they contained an impossible amount of EDTA for circulating blood in a human, and there was a compression stain that went from one outer surface to the inner surface to the opposite inner surface to the opposite outer surface. It could not have been done with a foot in the sock, or by blood spatter. The socks were a great help for the defense, not the prosecution. Sanction hearings for discovery failure regarding the tape were held on 3/31, 4/3, and 4/4, and the prosecution fairy tale was rejected and they were sanctioned. Also, the tape, and testimony about the tape, were grossly inconsistent with the assertions under oath of Det. Vanatter to claim probable cause for a June 28 search warrant to seize the pair of gloves that had been found and allegedly inadvertently left at Rockingham. Willie Ford, 19 July 1995, reviewing the videotape he recorded at Rockingham. (advance to 34m 40s) OJ Simpson Trial - July 19th, 1995 - Part 3 (Last part) Willie Ford, 19 July 1995: MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Counsel is aware of this, your Honor. This is exhibit 1068, is the videotape. I'd like now to--let me say a word to Mr. Harris before we start, your Honor. I don't want to spend the entire day going all the way through. I want to get right to the important part. MR. DARDEN: Is this going to begin at the beginning? May I confer for a moment? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) MR. COCHRAN: Okay, your Honor. I wanted to save some time because we're getting close to 4 o'clock. I'm going to ask Mr. Harris to start this video at the beginning, and then we'll stop it after I lay a foundation, then go upstairs. Very well. Mr. Harris, thank you. This is, your Honor, for the record exhibit 1068. (At 3:51 P.M., Defendant's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.) MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, where this--you see that- MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. Harris, back up a little bit. Okay. Let's back it up to the outside. MR. COCHRAN: You see that-- MR. COCHRAN: All right. Stop it there, Mr. Harris. Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you see where it says 6-13-94? That was the date; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And where it says 2:13 P.M., that should be 3:13 P.M., right? MR. FORD: Yes. [...] MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, is this the--do you recognize this as being the stairway leading upstairs to Mr. Simpson's home? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And that would be about 4:08 P.M. on June 13th, 1994? MR. FORD: Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was shot by you; isn't that right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And this was one of the bedrooms, the children's bedrooms at the location? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you're now entering—it's about 4:13 P.M. you're now entering—is this Mr. Simpson's bedroom area? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And you took a photograph of a blanket there and an easy chair? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. You continued on in that room. And you walked into this room; did you not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you remember seeing this couch in that room? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Remember the fireplace in that room? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Now, stop right there. MR. COCHRAN: You stood right in that room; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And you shot toward the fireplace at that time; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's bed was to the right; was it not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: About 4:13 in the afternoon; is that right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: You walked in that room--you see that--stop again. You took a photograph of something on top of the bed, is that correct, that was out? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: What are those? Do you remember what those were? MR. FORD: It looked to me like belt or tie. MR. COCHRAN: Maybe suspenders or something like that? MR. FORD: Maybe. MR. COCHRAN: All right. It was something on top of the bed; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you shot that, did you? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now- MR. COCHRAN: Back up a little bit. MR. COCHRAN: You continued to shoot, did you, now? MR. FORD: This is going forward. You said back up? MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Well, he's going- MR. COCHRAN: Go ahead and back it up. All right. Stop it there. MR. COCHRAN: You see that carpet there or that rug right in front of the bed? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: You saw that rug that particular day; did you not? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And in fact, you walked past that rug when you went into the other room, into the bathroom area, didn't you? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Any socks on that rug that day, Mr. Ford? MR. FORD: No. MR. COCHRAN: You didn't videotape any and there were none there; is that correct? MR. FORD: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: It's 4:13 P.M., about that time on June 13th, 1994 that you walked through there, right? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: And if there had been socks there, you would have taken photographs of them or video, correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can move it on, please. MR. COCHRAN: There's another shot. Now, you're basically--you're shooting from the foot of that bed; is that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: At that point, you're right on that particular--that rug or carpet there; isn't that correct? MR. FORD: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: The foot of the bed. You didn't see any socks or anything else there, did you? MR. FORD: No. MR. COCHRAN: Then from that point- MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. MR. COCHRAN: From that point, you went on into an alcove area where there's kind of bureau I guess we can call it? A vanity I think you'd call it. MR. FORD: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dean Uelman at Sanctions Hearing, 4 April 1995 WE HAVE NOTED INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE GLOVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CLOSET OF MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM, AS PORTRAYED IN THE TAPE WHERE A SINGLE GLOVE WAS REMOVED, BROUGHT DOWNSTAIRS, PUT ON A TABLE AND APPEARS IN THE VIDEOTAPE. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT INCIDENT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS SUBSCRIBED TO UNDER OATH BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK ON JUNE 28TH. AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID -- AND THIS WAS THE PROBABLE CAUSE YOU WILL RECALL TO GO BACK TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME AND EXECUTE A SECOND SEARCH WARRANT TWO WEEKS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST WARRANT. THE PROBABLE CAUSE INCLUDED THE ALLEGATION THAT: "ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE SERVICE OF THE FIRST WARRANT, OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT DURING THAT SERVICE HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THEY SAW ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES INSIDE SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. THESE OFFICERS HAD ALSO SEEN THE GLOVE FOUND AT THE MURDER LOCATION AND HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THE GLOVES IN THE RESIDENCE APPEARED TO BE OF THE SAME TYPE AS THE ONE FROM THE CRIME SCENE. "YOUR AFFIANT WISHES TO SEIZE THE GLOVES LEFT IN THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE BECAUSE THEY WILL TEND TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT THE BLOODY GLOVES RECOVERED BELONGED TO SIMPSON IN THAT HE FAVORED THIS TYPE, STYLE AND SIZE OF GLOVE. "THESE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE." NOW, WE BELIEVE THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION, BOTH OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE DETECTIVES INVOLVED IN FINDING THAT GLOVE, WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THIS SECOND WARRANT IN THAT THE VIDEOTAPE REVEALS ONE GLOVE WHEREAS THE AFFIDAVIT REFERS TO A PAIR OF GLOVES. THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS THE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND WHEN WE HAVE SINCE BEEN TOLD THAT THE DETECTIVES ACTUALLY CONFERRED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN CHARGE AND MADE A DECISION NOT TO SEIZE THE GLOVE. IT WAS NOT AN INADVERTENT LEAVING BEHIND. THEY ACTUALLY DECIDED BEFORE THEY LEFT THE PREMISES THAT THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THIS GLOVE OR THESE GLOVES, IF THERE ARE TWO. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-04   3:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #308. To: nolu chan (#307) Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time. Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it? Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline. You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-04   10:07:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #309. To: all (#308) Det. Bert Luper testimony of 20 July 1995 MR. COCHRAN: Will you look at items 12, 13 and 14, just look down at those. (The witness complies.) MR. COCHRAN: Have you looked at the log now? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: Do you recognize that as a log kept by the members of the Special Investigations Division regarding the collection of items at a crime scene? MR. DARDEN: Objection to the form of the question. THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you recognize that particular log and how it's used, sir. MR. DARDEN: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. DET. LUPER: I've never seen a log used like this before. MR. COCHRAN: Have you ever seen a log used by the members of the Special Investigation Division at all? DET. LUPER: No. I mean, I've never paid much attention to how they record their evidence. MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who collected these socks allegedly on that day? DET. LUPER: What I saw was Mr. Fung collecting them. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what time of day did Mr. Fung collect these socks? Well, without looking at the log. DET. LUPER: Well, there's no time on the log anyway. So it had to be in-between 3:30, 3:45, somewhere in that general area. MR. COCHRAN: 3:30, 3:45? DET. LUPER: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: Now, if a-- MR. DARDEN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COCHRAN: I haven't asked a question. THE COURT: I know. It was "If a." MR. COCHRAN: Huh? "If a." I want to phrase this question, your Honor, if I might. May I phrase the question? THE COURT: Proceed. MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to Dennis Fung, have you had occasion to see his testimony in this court before this jury regarding the time that he picked these socks up allegedly? DET. LUPER: No, sir, I have not. MR. COCHRAN: Have you had occasion to talk with Mr. Fung at all regarding the time these socks were picked up? DET. LUPER: No, sir, I have not. MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware of whether or not the foyer blood drops, the socks were picked up sequentially or in order from the standpoint of time, one being first and the other being second and something was third? Are you aware of that? DET. LUPER: No, I'm not aware. MR. COCHRAN: Now, your estimate is that Mr. Fung picked these socks up at--what time was that now? DET. LUPER: Well, about 3:30, 3:45, in that general area in the afternoon. MR. COCHRAN: And is that--do you have that written in a report anywhere? DET. LUPER: No, sir, I do not. MR. COCHRAN: Who do you think would have the best recollection of what the time these socks were picked up; you or Mr. Fung? MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's argumentative. Calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. COCHRAN: Well, may I ask it another way, your Honor? MR. COCHRAN: Who do you think would be in the best position to know what time these socks were picked up; the person who collected them allegedly or you, sir? MR. DARDEN: Same objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I have another question I'd like to ask if I might at this point. THE COURT: Do you want to approach before you do that. MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: All right. (A conference was held at the bench, not reported.) (The following proceedings were held in open court:) MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. MR. COCHRAN: Detective Luper, do you know what time Dennis Fung collected or Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola collected the spots in the foyer? DET. LUPER: Not without looking at their notes. MR. COCHRAN: Would you like to look at their log? MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. MR. COCHRAN: Well, if that refreshes his recollection. THE COURT: He can use it if it will refresh his recollection. MR. DARDEN: He never testified that he ever knew. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed? MR. DARDEN: Foundation. MR. COCHRAN: Will you look at this and see what--if you can look at this and see if it refreshes your recollection as to what time they picked up the spots in the foyer? DET. LUPER: According to their log, it said- MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. COCHRAN: Now, the proper way I guess, your Honor- MR. COCHRAN: Having looked at the log, does that refresh your recollection as to the time that Mr. Fung or Miss Mazzola picked up the--collected the spots in the foyer? MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking. MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that. DET. LUPER: It would appear by their log that they- MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Again, I'll rephrase it again. MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the document I placed before you, is your memory refreshed as to the time that Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola collected these spots in the foyer at Rockingham on June 13th, 1994 in the afternoon? MR. DARDEN: Foundation, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. DET. LUPER: The log indicates-- MR. DARDEN: Pardon me, sir. THE COURT: Yes. Wait a minute. Detective Luper, the question is, is your personal recollection refreshed as--after having read the log as to when those spots were recovered in the foyer? DET. LUPER: No, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you have no way of knowing at all? DET. LUPER: No, sir. MR. COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not that the foyer spots were collected prior to the time that you say the socks were collected? MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may the record reflect the witness is looking at the log? THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COCHRAN: Want me to remove that? DET. LUPER: Yeah, would you? Thank you. I don't know how they were--if they were done in a certain order or sequentially. I know that Miss Mazzola and Dennis Fung were working pretty much- MR. DARDEN: I object at this time as nonresponsive. THE COURT: All right. Next question. MR. COCHRAN: All right. So--there was an objection to the question by Mr. Darden. So I didn't get to finish hearing it. So you don't know-- I guess my question was, do you know whether or not the spots in the foyer were collected prior to anything being collected upstairs? DET. LUPER: I don't know. MR. COCHRAN: You don't know. And the form that I've given you does not refresh your recollection? DET. LUPER: No, sir. MR. COCHRAN: And you've not spoken with either Mazzola or Fung about their testimony? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: And you don't know the times that they said? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: Do you know the time that Mr. Willie Ford videoed Mr. Simpson's bedroom and there were no socks at the foot of that bed? Do you know that time? MR. DARDEN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COCHRAN: Do you know that time, sir? DET. LUPER: I did not look at my watch on that particular day to be specific. No, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, you weren't in the bedroom at the time Mr. Ford was videoing the area of Mr. Simpson's bedroom? DET. LUPER: No, I was not in the bedroom. MR. COCHRAN: You were someplace else in the house, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. He was accompanied by some other people, not you? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COCHRAN: Now, you mentioned, sir, that when you were downstairs, one of the reasons that you had inadvertently put down the glove that we talked about was because you were trying to follow some blood spots or wood spots or something? DET. LUPER: Well, they appeared to be discolored discoloration on the wood floor and they appeared to be spots that were not one right after another, but fairly far apart from each other. MR. COCHRAN: Did you pursue these spots? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir, I did. MR. COCHRAN: And you found out later that was not blood, was it? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: So it was kind of like a trail of no blood, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: Now, speaking of that by the way, as a detective and as the first person up those stairs- MR. DARDEN: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. COCHRAN: Well--counsel is absolutely correct. MR. COCHRAN: As the police officer who went up the stairs after 12:00 o'clock on that date, you didn't see any blood on the stairs going up there, did you? DET. LUPER: I didn't see any, no, sir. MR. COCHRAN: And you didn't see any blood on the carpet of Mr. Simpson's bedroom as you go in there, did you? DET. LUPER: No, sir, I did not. MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to these socks that you had seized, you didn't see any blood on those socks either, did you? DET. LUPER: I didn't get close enough to examine them. MR. COCHRAN: Is the answer, you didn't see any blood on the socks? DET. LUPER: No, sir. MR. COCHRAN: And it's your testimony that you had these socks seized or asked to have them seized whatever time they were seized because they were out of place; is that right? DET. LUPER: They were out of place and it seemed like a very good idea. MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you had them seized; is that correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: And you never got very close to them at that time? DET. LUPER: No, sir. MR. COCHRAN: And so-- I may have asked you this. You did not have the straps on the bed seized at any point, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Those were just left there; is that correct? DET. LUPER: That's right, sir. MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. COCHRAN: Just a couple other questions. MR. COCHRAN: Few other questions. Detective Luper, again, with regard to--strike that. With regard to criminalists Fung and Mazzola, did you notice as they were doing their work at Rockingham that day, they had kind of a clipboard or something of that nature where they were logging and writing down things as they would pick up various items? Do you remember seeing that? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. DET. LUPER: Yes, I did. MR. COCHRAN: And so that as they--you would see them in one particular area. They would then write something down on a piece of paper although you don't know what they were writing, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: Your experience as a detective of some eight years and a 23-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department, you believe that what you saw them writing was a log that they kept consistent with keeping track of what they were collecting and the time that they were collecting these items; isn't that correct? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation and it's leading, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. COCHRAN: Well, what did you think this was that they were writing down as they could collect various items? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. DET. LUPER: I felt that what they were writing down was the dimensions as to where certain items were being recovered and as to its description. MR. COCHRAN: All right. So item--location of the item, where recovered, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: The item collected, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: The time collected? MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading. MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that. DET. LUPER: I was unaware that they were making a notation of time. MR. COCHRAN: But it was possible, wasn't it? MR. DARDEN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. COCHRAN: Now, I want to make sure I understand this. You took clothes out of the hamper to have photographs taken of them and didn't seize any of those clothes, right? DET. LUPER: That is correct. THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, we've gone through this a number of times. MR. COCHRAN: This is foundational, your Honor. It's foundation. Bear with me. MR. COCHRAN: You took--you looked in the closet and you never seized anything there, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: You saw these suspenders or--strike that. You saw these straps on the bed and you never seized those, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: You took a glove from upstairs and brought it all the way downstairs and you didn't seize that either, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: It's your testimony that you saw some socks that were out of place and you instructed that be seized; is that right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: And it's your best testimony before this jury that those items were seized about 3:30 to 3:45 on June 13th? DET. LUPER: That general time frame, yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you very kindly, your Honor. I have nothing further of this witness. THE COURT: Mr. Darden. MR. DARDEN: Just a few questions, your Honor. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN MR. DARDEN: And we are talking about general time frames, aren't we, detective? DET. LUPER: Yes, we are, sir. MR. DARDEN: You weren't checking your watch to see when and the exact time that Mazzola and Fung picked up an item, were you? DET. LUPER: No, sir, I was not. MR. DARDEN: You didn't think that was necessary, did you? MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Leading and suggestive, improper. THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. MR. DARDEN: You didn't think that was necessary, did you? DET. LUPER: No, I did not, sir. MR. DARDEN: I mean they're the criminalists, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. DARDEN: It's their job to pick up and collect the biological evidence, right? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: It's not your job, is it? DET. LUPER: No, sir, it's not. MR. DARDEN: You don't know the exact sequence in which everything was collected, right? MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. DARDEN: As far as the socks are concerned, you weren't looking for blood on the socks, were you? DET. LUPER: No, sir, I was not. MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't want to get too close to the socks, right. MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In reading the below, bear in mind that the prosecution was sanctioned for its repeated failure to turn over the Willie Ford video of 13 June 1994, received by Det. Bert Luper on 14 June 1994. Det. Bert Luper sequestered it in his desk drawer for three or four months (so he testified) and then moved it to a filing cabinet (so he testified). No records of possession or transfer were kept (so he testified). According to Det. Luper, notification of the existence of the video was made March 22, 1995 to District Attorney's office, and the city attorney's office and Robbery Homicide then or the following day. The prosecution's claimed excuse for not turning over the video, despite repeated defense requests and news reports of the presence of a videographer at Rockingham, was that the prosecution remained blissfully unaware of its existence. The unbelieveable excuse was not believed. The crime scene log shows Willie Ford, the videographer, arriving at 3:10. The crime scene log does not show Marcia Clark arriving or leaving. About the only thing Det. Luper is certain of is that Marcia Clark left before Willie Ford arrived. The amazingly flexible memory of Det. Luper is truly unbelieveable. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On 3 April 1995, Det. Bert Luper testified at a sanctions hearing: Q: NOW, BACK TO MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK WAS THERE AND YOU TOOK HER ON A WALKTHROUGH AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN COMPLETED? A: AFTER THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN LOCATED, YES. Q: RIGHT. SO THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN EXECUTED AT THIS POINT AND YOU TOOK HER -- TELL THE COURT BRIEFLY WHERE YOU TOOK HER ON THE WALK-THROUGH. A: I TOOK HER ON THE BOTTOM LOCATION OF THE RESIDENCE, THE FIRST FLOOR, TO SHOW WHERE SOME OF THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS I WANTED DONE, TOOK HER UPSTAIRS, SHOWED HER THE VANITY -- I MEAN NOT THE VANITY, I'M SORRY, THE LINEN CLOSET, AND SHOWED HER THE SOCKS AND THE BLOOD EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE BATHROOM, AND TOOK HER I THINK TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SHOWED HER A WIRE THAT I WANTED CHECKED AND WHAT WAS IN THE TRASH CAN THERE BY THE ENTRYWAY TO THE OFFICE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN AIRLINE TICKET. AND THEN ON THE EXTERIOR THERE WAS A BENCH SEAT RIGHT THERE BY THE FRONT DOOR THAT HAD A LUGGAGE TAG THROWN ON ONE END OF IT, AND THAT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT TO HER. Q: DID YOU MAKE A REPORT OF ALL OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS WITH MISS CLARK? A: NO, SIR. Q: DO YOU KNOW -- HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR TAKING HER THROUGH THE PREMISES AND NOTING THESE OBJECTS? A: NO, SIR. Q: YOU NEVER MADE A REPORT LIKE THAT, DID YOU? A: NO, SIR. Q: DID MARCIA CLARK SIGN IN ON THE LOG WHEN SHE CAME TO THAT RESIDENCE? A: YOU WON'T FIND HER ON THAT LOG, NO, SIR. Q: WHY WON'T WE? A: GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW. Q: WELL, WAS THERE ANY OTHER LOG THAT SHE SIGNED IN ON WHEN SHE CAME THERE? A: TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION? Q: YES, SIR, ROCKINGHAM? A: NO, SIR, NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On 3 April 1995, Det. Bert Luper testified at a sanctions hearing: MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MS. LEWIS: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS: Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, ACTUALLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOUR ONLY PURPOSE IN HAVING THAT VIDEOTAPE TAKEN WAS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY REASONS; ISN'T THAT TRUE? A: YES, MA'AM. Q: AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT MARCIA CLARK LEFT THE PREMISES AT ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK OR BY THREE O'CLOCK, WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME? A: IN THAT APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME, YES, MA'AM. Q: AND THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY, AS WE KNOW FROM SEEING THE VIDEOTAPE, APPROXIMATELY 3:11 OR; SO, ISN'T THAT TRUE? A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM. MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LUPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, OF MR. LUPER BEFORE HE LEAVES. THE COURT: SURE. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD HAD ARRIVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED? A: NO. THEY ARRIVED AFTER MISS CLARK HAD BEEN THERE AND GONE, SIR. Q: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? A: YES, SIR. Q: DOES YOUR LOG -- OF COURSE THERE IS NO LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT, IS THERE? MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE ANY LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT? A: AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE HER CHECKED IN OR CHECKED OUT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND I AM GIVING YOU THE BEST RECOLLECTION THAT I CAN. Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. SO IF YOU HAVE THEM IN AT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON, IT IS POSSIBLE MISS CLARK MAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LATE AS 3:10, ISN'T IT? MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS POSSIBLE, ISN'T IT? A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE -- SHE AND I STUCK TOGETHER -- EXCUSE ME -- "STUCK TOGETHER" IS A POOR USE OF THE WORD. WE WERE TOGETHER THROUGH THAT TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE AND I DID SEE HER LEAVE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? A: YES, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN SHE TOLD US THAT SHE CAME PERHAPS AT 2:00, 2:10, STAYED UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK, THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES? MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE STATED 2:20. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 2:20? A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-05   19:15:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (310 - 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