[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: 119106 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 (1-331) not displayed.       .       .       . #332. To: A K A Stone (#330) I significantly quoted photographer Rokahr's testimony at my #220 above. I am here only making its significance in-your-face obvious. The glove photo was taken at Bundy very shortly before Fuhrman went to Rockingham. Fuhrman lied and testified that the photo was taken after he got back from Rockingham. - - - - - - - - - - On March 10, 1995, Det. Fuhrman testified that the photograph of him pointing at the Bundy glove was taken at around 7 or 7:15 in the morning, and that he had already been to Rockingham and had returned to Bundy. He further testified that up until that point, he had gotten no closer to that glove than the landing at Bundy. In his March testimony, Det. Fuhrman had provided his own alibi against assertions that he had planted a glove at Rockingham, testifying that, before his return to Rockingham, he had never gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, and that the photograph was taken after he returned to Bundy from Rockingham. That testimony was false. Unlike his lies about using the N-word, these lies were directly relevant and material to the murder case, and his discovery and handling of evidence. Very shortly before the testimony of photographer Rolf Rokahr on September 5, 1995, seven months after Peter Neufeld's formal request, the prosecution was forced to provide a copy of the photographer's contact sheets to the defense. The first contact sheet proved, absolutely, that the picture of Det. Fuhrman was taken at the end of the first roll of film shot by the photographer who had arrived at Bundy shortly after 3 a.m. According to Lawrence Schiller, in a meeting on August 31, 1995, Barry Scheck exclaimed, "The first contact sheet, of the first roll of film shot, shows the order in which the pictures were taken... The pictures on the contact sheet taken before and after the glove photos show they were taken at night. Fuhrman testified that the picture in which he is pointing at the glove was taken at seven a.m. or later. Fuhurman testified that he was never near the glove before he went to Rockingham at four-forty." Alan Dershowictz chimed in, "His finger in the photograph is three inches away from the glove. God only knows how cose it was when the camera wasn't shooting." A little later O.J. calls and Scheck exclaims, "I got him, I got Fuhrman!" Bailey asks how he got him. Scheck explains, "I have Rokahr's photo log here. I have Fuhrman's testimony here. Peter has seen the D.A.'s set of Rokahr's contact sheets, and it shows that the picture of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at night." Pounding on the table, Sheck exhorts, "Now we got proof, now we got proof!" On September 5, 1995, photographer Rolf Rokahr's testimony made clear that the picture of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove, with his fiinger about three inches from it, was taken at night, not after 7 a.m., but before daybreak which was at 5:41a.m. The photograph was taken at about 4:20 to 4:35 in the morning. At about 5 a.m., Fuhrman and Vanatter arrived at Rockingham. The Fuhrman self-alibi against the accusation of glove planting at Rockingham was false testimony. Rokahr's testimony was on September 5th. The next day, September 6th, is when Det. Fuhrman invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify further in the case. As for Det. Fuhrman's own contradictory testimony, see Det. Fuhrman on March 13, 1995: Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? A: THEREABOUTS SOMETIME DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF TO GO BACK TO BUNDY TO LOOK AT THAT GLOVE THAT WE HAD SEEN ON BUNDY. Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE, SIR? A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED. Q: AND SO AFTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO DO THAT, DID YOU? A: YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE AND WENT BACK TO BUNDY. Q: OKAY. IN THE SAME CAR YOU GUYS CAME IN EARLIER? A: YES. Q: YOU DROVE TOGETHER, DID YOU? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY? A: I BELIEVE ABOUT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, MAYBE A LITTLE LATER. Q: AGAIN, WERE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO GO BACK TO BUNDY? A: NO, I WASN'T. Q: IS THAT AN APPROXIMATION, SIR? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INSTRUCTED ME TO GET A PHOTOGRAPHER. I DID. WE WALKED DOWN DOROTHY, ENTERED THE ALLEY AND CAME IN THROUGH THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. Of course, Mr. Rokahr was called at 2:48 a.m. and arrived at Bundy about 3:30 a.m. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove was taken in the dark, with a flash, about an hour and a half before sunrise. The contact sheet pictures before and after the glove picture prove that the glove picture was taken at night. Photographer Rokahr met up with Det. Fuhrman at about 4:10 a.m. and was asked to go around to Dorothy St. A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED. Oops! If Det. Fuhrman had not gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, in the dark, just how could Det. Fuhrman know if the color and lining of the Bundy glove and the color and lining of the Rockingham glove were a match? At the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994 Q From that vantage point, looking down on the victims, were you able to see any items of evidence? A Yes, looking down, directly below the landing, there -- I believe at that point there was a heel print which appeared to be going in a westbound direction, away from the bodies, towards the alley. There was also a knit cap or what appeared to be a knit cap, dark cap-type object, and what looked like a glove at the feet of the male victim in the shrubbery area just to the north of the female victim. Q Can you describe the glove any better? A At that time, it was difficult to see it. There was another location from the north residence that I got a better view of it, a little later. And then I noticed that it was a dark brown -- or it could have been even black in the light that I was looking at it -- and it did appear to be a stocking cap when I got a closer look. Q So it was a -- it looked to you to be a dark brown or even black leather glove, and a -- did you say what color the hat was? A It was very dark. Maybe dark blue or black. Q Knit cap? A It appeared to be knit, yes. From the landing, Det. Fuhrman testified he couldn't tell much. It was only later, after he obtained a better view, that he was able to determine the glove was dark brown or black. From the landing, Det. Fuhrman was uncertain if the knit cap was a knit cap, or whether it was dark blue or black. And he did not appear to determine anything whatever about the lining of the glove. While Det. Fuhrman was a practiced liar, and could do it convincingly with a straight face, that does not mean that his false statements could withstand scrutiny. Det. Fuhrman could not afford to go another round with F. Lee Bailey at the criminal trial, and he did not testify at the civil trial. The lies of Mark Fuhrman destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman. They also destroyed the credibility of Marcia Clark who solicited his unbelieveable lies to the jury. Fuhrman was meant to be Christopher Darden's witness. After Darden was unable to swallow Fuhrman's claims about the N-word in a prep session, he refused to participate in the presentation of Fuhrman's testimony to the jury. Only then did Marcia Clark present Fuhrman's lies to the jury, get exposed for doing it, and lose credibility with the jury for having participated in that charade. As for Fuhrman, it was the lies in his testimony about the gloves that threatened to send him to prison. Those were directly relevant and material to the murder case. - - - - - - - - - - Marcia Clark, Closing Argument Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worse LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes. It was impossible to bullshit the jury and rehabilitate Det. Fuhrman or the prosecution case. Directly relevant and material false testimony was solicited and given to the jury, and it was exposed and proven. Exposed were not only Det. Fuhrman, but the other detectives who tried to cover for him, and Marcia Clark who presented Det. Fuhrman and tried to blow smoke up their collective ass. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-19   22:15:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #333. To: nolu chan (#329) That was all lies, under oath. Where's the lie? misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   10:48:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #334. To: nolu chan (#220) MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those? MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir? MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures. Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36. My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   12:14:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #335. To: nolu chan (#220) (Edited) Testimony Of LAPD Officer Robert Riske A: HE'S POINTING TO THE GLOVE. Q: THE GLOVE AND THE CAP? A: THE CAP. Q: THE ONES THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: SO -- LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. WHAT'S HE WEARING THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: LOOKS LIKE WHITE SUIT SHIRT, PAIR OF SLACKS. Q: NO JACKET? A: NO. Q: NOW, IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, YOU HAD SAID THAT THE LEAVES OF THE PLANT THAT KIND OF HUNG OVER THAT ONE GLOVE AND THE SKI CAP? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THAT ACTUALLY YOU HAD TO LEFT IT UP TO SEE? A: RIGHT. Q: NOW, AT THIS POINT, THE LEAVES ARE NOT LIFTED UP; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S HIS LEFT HAND HOLDING THE LEAVES BACK AND HIS RIGHT HAND POINTING TO THE -- MS. CLARK: PULL BACK A LITTLE BIT, JONATHAN. THE WITNESS: OH, NEVER MIND. THAT'S THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM? Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM. SO HE'S JUST POINTING TO IT WITH HIS RIGHT HAND? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE? A: 7:15. Q: AT 7:15? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR. Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT -- A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY? A: RIGHT. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   12:38:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #336. To: misterwhite (#333) That was all lies, under oath. Where's the lie? The contact sheets proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the glove photo was taken at night, before 5:41, contrary to Fuhrman and those who would cover for Fuhrman. LAPD lies. The photographs did not. The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru #33 were shot at night, as were #36-#43, the first eight shots of the second roll. MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises? MR. ROKAHR: Yes. MR. DARDEN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference. MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you? MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so. There is also Fuhrman's lie that he did not get closer to the glove than the landing at Bundy before going to Rockingham. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:30:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #337. To: misterwhite (#334) Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36. My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that. I do not guess. What you guess is impossible. If the photog reset the databack number, he would have duplicate numbers on the shoot, and everybody would know it. The photog does not reset the number for the databack for the duration of the shoot. Your guess is directly proven impossible by the contact sheets. You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43. A roll of film allows adequate length to obtain 36 exposures, 37 if you are lucky. 35 if you want to be absolutely certain the first exposure is good. You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43. You should get 35 - 37. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, if you'd like to compare it to your album, please go right ahead. But the question I have for you is, does this sheet--except for the fact that the images are slightly larger than they would be if it was a direct contact, does this page reflect the sequence of photographs on the very first roll of film that you shot that night at Bundy? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, it does. MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, do the first--by the way, how many exposures did you get out of that first roll? MR. ROKAHR: There would be 36, 35, 36. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so sometimes when you're shooting a roll of 36, you only get 35? MR. ROKAHR: It depends on how the camera on its first--on its first advance advances or depending on how far I have pushed the film into its position. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. MR. ROKAHR: So I may run out at 36 and sometimes you might even get 37. Good try at impressing me with your photographic credentials. I won an honorable mention at the PFLI (Photographic Federation of Long Island) myself. That was not restricted to amateurs, and included, for example, Newsday photographers. Entrants develop and print their own photos. That outranks a local win I had. It looks as if you have never developed a roll of film, or printed a contact sheet, in your life, and it seems you have never heard of a databack. Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. A hideously stupid comment. When you get 43 from a roll of 36, tell the Guinness book of records. You do not get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. As the photographer testified, sometimes you get 37. Try developing a few rolls and find out what you are talking about. Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter. And you might advance a little more if you are a crime scene photographer or wish to make sure your first picture is a picture and not a black space. As noted at my #235, I significantly posted testimony of the photographer, Rolf Rokahr, at my #220. The crime scene photographer uses a camera with a data back with a counter for the photo shoot where his first photo will be 000001 and the others will be numbered sequentially. The very first shot on the very first roll, photo 000001 would be a picture of his slate for the photo shoot. That's rather like the thing someone is holding when a movie director says "action!" I contains the identifying information for the photo shoot. The first roll cannot be mistaken for any other. The 34th and 35th exposures on the first roll were the pictures of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the glove in a nighttime photo with flash. Shots 1-33 were shot in the dark. Shots 34 and 35 ended the first roll and were shot in the dark. Shots 36-43 were the first shots on the second roll. They were also shot at nighttime. The contact sheets prove, beyond all doubt, that shots 34 and 35 were shot at night, and not at 7 to 7:15 a.m., nearly an hour and a half after daybreak. Photographer Rolf Rokahr, 5 Sep 1995 MR. NEUFELD: In this particular roll, do you notice that the last shot on the roll is item no. 35--not item number, but photograph no. 35? MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. I think it's--let me just check with this one. MR. NEUFELD: Certainly. THE COURT: You may. (Brief pause.) MR. ROKAHR: This is 35, this is no. 36. MR. NEUFELD: That's the next roll? MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. Either the next roll or the last negative. I may have reloaded walking around to the front of the building. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning? MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes. The first roll did not contain the absurdly ridiculous misterwhite claim of 43 shots; it contained 35 shots, as testified to by the photographer, and verified by the contact sheets. Shot 36 was the first apppearing on the second roll, corresponding to shot 36 on the camera databack. The camera databack number appeared on each sequential picture. Again, this is verified by the contact sheets. MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning? MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony. MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir? MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved. MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers? MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay. MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll? MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers. MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame? MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak? MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak. MR. ROKAHR: Okay. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld. MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed. THE COURT: All right. MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash? MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take. MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film. MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut? MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct? MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what? MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime. MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen? MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir. MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove? MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman. MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove? MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman. MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994? MR. ROKAHR: That is correct. MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. A photographic print does not usually include the the exposure number printed on the film by Kodak. It includes the databack number assigned by the user. A contact sheet includes everything, including the sprocket holes and the number assigned by Kodak. 1-33 and 34 and 35 on the first roll were taken at nighttime, as were the first eight exposures 36-43 on roll two. Fuhrman and Riske testified falsely. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:33:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #338. To: misterwhite (#335) You accidentally on purpose left out the date again. That was testimony on direct examination by Marcia Clark on 9 Feb 1995. Riske also testified on 14 Feb 1995. Photographer Rokahr testified on 5 Sep 1995. Next day, Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment. Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE? A: 7:15. Q: AT 7:15? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR. Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT -- A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY? A: RIGHT. The LAPD lied. The photographs did not. The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru 33 were shot at night, as were 36-43, the first eight shots of the second roll. Riske's response is sufficiently vague that he has left an escape. The contact sheets prove the photograph was taken at night. As a matter of record, daybreak was at 5:41 a.m. Officer Riske's testimony, while acting to cover for Det. Fuhrman in April, cannot actually change night into day, or change the time of daybreak on 13 June 1995. The only inference to be drawn is that Officer Riske's testimony was false or mistaken. Riske under cross examination on 14 Apr 1995. Q: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHILE YOU WERE THERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER NEVER CAME INSIDE AND TOOK THINK PICTURES OF ANYTHING INSIDE THAT PLACE, RIGHT? A: NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF, NO. Q: YOU NEVER INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT? A: NO. Q: AND IN YOUR PRESENCE YOU NEVER HEARD EITHER PHILLIPS OR FUHRMAN OR LANGE OR VANNATTER INSTRUCT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE ANY PICTURES OF THE INTERIOR? A: NO. [...] Q: OKAY. WE TALKED LAST WEEK ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE DETECTIVES LEFT TO GO OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: I REMEMBER SPEAKING OF IT. Q: WHAT TIME DID THEY LEAVE? A: I REALLY DON'T KNOW. Q: YOU TOLD US THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR? A: HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF. Q: YOU THOUGHT THEY GOT BACK ABOUT WHAT TIME? A: BETWEEN 6:30, 6:45. Q: 6:30, 6:45. SO THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT-- IF THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT ABOUT 5:00, WOULD THAT BE FAIR? A: 5:15, 5:30. I DON'T REMEMBER. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THE SUN CAME UP THAT MORNING IN JUNE? A: NO, I DON'T. Q: SO SOMEWHERE AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THEY WERE GONE OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: WHEN THEY LEFT, WHEN ALL FOUR DETECTIVES LEFT, THE THREE WHO WERE NOW IN CHANGE OF THAT SCENE, WHO WAS IN CHARGE AT THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM? A: MY SUPERVISOR. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:37:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #339. To: A K A stone, misterwhite (#332) Continuing along with the destruction of the LAPD criminalists, OJ - FUNG FICTION AND VIDEO Mr. Fung having a terrible, no good day, April 11, 1995. How about that, Mr. Fung? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, CAN YOU SEE THAT ENVELOPE IN THE BAG? A: YES. Q: NOW, THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED IN THE BUNDY SCENE, WEREN'T THEY PUT INTO COIN ENVELOPES IF THEY WERE BLOOD DROPS? A: YES. Q: AND THE PAGER WAS PUT INTO A BAG? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET AND READ ALONG WITH ME. THE KEYS WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: THE PAGER WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE? A: YES. Q: THAT OBJECT WE SEE YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA HANDLING IT IS NOT THE KEYS OR THE PAGER, IS IT? A: NO. Q: IT IS NOT THE GLOVE? A: NO. Q: IT IS NOT THE HAT? A: NO. Q: IT IS NOT THE RING? A: NO. Q: IT IS NOT ANY OF THE RED STAINS THAT YOU RECOVERED AT BUNDY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: WELL, LOOKING AT YOUR EVIDENCE CHECKLIST, CAN YOU SUGGEST ONE THING, OTHER THAN THAT ENVELOPE, THAT WE SAW ON THAT VIDEOTAPE? A: NOTE PAD MAYBE. Q: A NOTE PAD MAYBE. WHICH NOTE PAD? A: IT WOULDN'T BE EVIDENCE; IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO TAKE NOTES. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. SCHECK, WHAT ARE WE DOING? MR. SCHECK: WE ARE LOOKING AT IT THREE MORE TIMES. THE COURT: THIS IS 1082? MR. SCHECK: 1082. (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: AND NOW WE HAVE THE STILL. (A STILL PHOTOGRAPH WAS DISPLAYED.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LOOKING AT THAT STILL AND HERE IF YOU WANT, WE HAVE A PRINTOUT FROM THE ELMO, ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THAT IS A NOTE PAD AND NOT THE ENVELOPE? A: I'M SAYING IT COULD BE ANYTHING, BUT IT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE HERE. Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS NOT ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT THE SCENE? COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THAT PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. I WOULD OBJECT. THE COURT: BASIS? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY THAT YOU COULD BE HANDING MISS MAZZOLA? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME FRAME THIS STILL WAS TAKEN, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS A PICTURE OF MR. JACOBO AND MISS RATCLIFFE? A: OKAY. Q: THEY ARE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE? A: YES. Q: AND THEY WERE AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU ARRIVED? A: YES. Q: AND THEY LEFT AT ABOUT 11:15, AS I RECALL? A: RIGHT. Q: SO IT HAS GOT TO BE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND THE TIME THAT THE CORONERS LEFT? A: YES. Q: ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MR. HARRIS ADVISES ME THAT PERHAPS WE COULD PLAY IT ONE MORE TIME IN SLOW MOTION AND HE THINKS HE CAN GET A BETTER STILL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT. (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO START THE SLOMO SOONER THAN THAT. START AT THE BEGINNING. WELL, WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS AT THIS POINT. HOW ABOUT SOME MORE? NO, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS. MR. SCHECK: THERE. THERE. Q: HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. FUNG? THE COURT: IS THAT A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK? MR. SCHECK: YES. Q: HOW ABOUT THAT PICTURE, MR. FUNG, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TOOK THE ENVELOPE FROM ANDREA MAZZOLA WITH YOUR BARE HAND? A: WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE THAT FRAME? MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 1082-A PRINTOUT. (DEFT'S 1082-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A NOTE PAD? A: I'M SAYING I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT IS NOT THAT ENVELOPE. Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE IS A SLIGHT -- THAT OBJECT THAT MISS MAZZOLA HAD IN HER HAND, IT APPEARS TO HAVE A CERTAIN FULLNESS TO IT? A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, NO. Q: YOU CAN'T TELL? YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, RATHER THAN HAVE THE JURY TOUCH IT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BAG THAT CONTAINS THE ENVELOPE BE PASSED THROUGH THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE. (THE BAG CONTAINING THE GLASSES ENVELOPE WAS PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.) (BRIEF PAUSE.) [...] THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL TAKE A 15- MINUTE RECESS. THANK YOU. (RECESS.) [...] Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A FEW MOMENTS AGO, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF THE ENVELOPE, YOU SAID THAT IT HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FRAME BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT COULDN'T BE THE ENVELOPE SINCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE LEFT? A: THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS PIECE OF VIDEOTAPE, MR. FUNG. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK THIS AS 1083. (DEFT'S 1083 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE) (AT 10:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS AT THE BREAK, HAVEN'T YOU? A: YES, I HAVE. Q: NOW, THIS IS MISS MAZZOLA PUTTING THE HAT IN THE BAG, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE STEPS, THOSE ARE THE PRINT PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONES IN THE WHITE COATS? A: YES. Q: AND YOU SEE IN BACK OF HER WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE TAPE MEASURE? A: I COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT. Q: SEE IT NOW? A: YES. COULD BE, YES. Q: NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE? NOW, YOU REMEMBER THAT MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, HE WAS THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BLUE SUIT, THE BLUE JUMPSUIT? A: YES. Q: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH VERY CAREFULLY THE FRAME, THESE SHOES. SEE THOSE SHOES, SEE THOSE BLUE PANTS? A: YES. Q: THAT'S MR. JACOBO, ISN'T IT? A: APPEARS TO BE, YES. Q: SO YOU DID BEGIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION BEFORE THE CORONERS LEFT? A: YES. Q: SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WASN'T TRUE? A: IT WAS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT THE TIME. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT, MR. FUNG, FOR THE BUNDY SCENE -- I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE -- THERE'S A BOX THAT HAS TIMES ON IT, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT ANY TIMES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE -- OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, DID YOU? A: THEY WERE NOT FILLED IN. (AT 10:46 A.M., THE PLAYING OF DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, THE VIDEOTAPE, CONCLUDED.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Mr. Fung] WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE. Followed by Barry Scheck showing Dennis Fung a video depicting evidence being picked up while a coroner is in the background of the picture. BUSTED. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:51:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #340. To: nolu chan (#339) Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture. OK is guilty and should have been executed. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-21   9:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #341. To: A K A Stone (#340) Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture. And maybe the LAPD witnesses lied and lied and lied and got caught time after time after time after time. The question under discussion is not whether O.J. did it, but whether the prosecutors sufficient credible evidence to the jury to enable them to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed miserably. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   7:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #342. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#340) Moving on, Evidence collected on the 13th was not booked until the 16th. Fung says that was "very quick." Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain. Protocol was to collect the entire stain. To relieve reader befuddlement on why Fung might give contrary testimony, recall that after the 14 June 1995 stain collection, there were several subsequent visits to the Bronco and the collection of more blood from the original area. If he had swatched the entire blood smear the first time, there should have been no blood there for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th collection. Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley, Madam Foreman 1995, pg. 111. I felt that Dennis was too busy trying to be protective of his position. His rank is a Criminalist II, but somewhere along the line I think he missed something. I think that he did not do a professional job in collecting the evidence. The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous. Mazzola was young and new on the job. Mazzola was sitting there in the living room and nodded out for twenty minutes or so. If she didn't have anything to do for nearly a half hour, she could have taken the evidence to Parker Center or wherever, and had it booked or refrigerated while Dennis continued to collect or do whatever he had to do. I think what happened is a lot of people just got too caught up in the moment and didn't do their jobs properly. I just thought he was sloppy. June 18, 1995 testimony of Mr. Fung MR. SCHECK: Where is it in the rules of your laboratory that there's a doctrine about taking only representative samples? MR. FUNG: I don't know if it's written anywhere, but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department. MR. SCHECK: Is there any document that you know of in the crime lab that talks about taking only representative samples? MR. FUNG: I'm not aware of one." MR. SCHECK: And in terms of swatching a stain so that you only get a representative sample, is that in any document in the crime lab? MR. FUNG: I don't know of any document to that effect. MR. SCHECK: And we're clear on this; you recall testifying that when you swatch stains in the Bronco, you didn't swatch the whole stain. You only swatched a representative sample of the stain? MR. FUNG: I believe that was for--that wasn't for every stain, but a--one stain in particular that you were talking about. MR. SCHECK: Stains on the console? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: But as far as you know, the only document in the crime lab that instructs you about swatching for purposes of DNA testing directs the Criminalist to get as much of the stain as possible? MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: The collection for conventional serological or conventional serology and DNA collection are essentially the same. MR. SCHECK: You--do you recall--withdrawn. Haven't you seen a handout that gives directions on how Criminalists should swatch blood evidence? MR. FUNG: If you could show it to me, I--I may be refreshed, but-- MR. SCHECK: Do you recall you and I went through a form that had about 13 different directions on them? MR. FUNG: You've shown a lot of things to me over the last eight days. MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you indicated that you didn't think that you were necessarily covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual. MR. FUNG: I believe I-- MR. GOLDBERG: Can you cite a specific page of the transcript? MR. SCHECK: Let's do it this way. MR. SCHECK: Do you believe that you're covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual? MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad as to rules. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: Certain aspects of the manual do pertain to the civilians, yes. MR. SCHECK: The manual as it sets forth rules on the booking and handling of evidence, does that govern you? THE COURT: Haven't we gone over this already? MR. SCHECK: Well, he did it on redirect. I'm doing it fast. THE COURT: Doesn't mean we have to do it again. MR. SCHECK: Well, I'll do it fast. I just have two or three questions here. MR. FUNG: The guidelines in the general principles are applicable to us, yes. MR. SCHECK: Well, there are guidelines and general principles, but you don't feel that you have to follow those rules as written with respect to booking evidence? MR. FUNG: As long as I'm following the intention of the policy, that's what the manual's for. MR. SCHECK: And the rules say that you should book biological evidence as soon as possible? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And in this case, you did not book by putting the items into the evidence processing--evidence control unit, the swatches from Bundy where Mr. Simpson's blood sample or the glove or the hat or any of these items, until June 16th? MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the redirect, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: Booking the--those items of evidence by June 16th was very quick. MR. SCHECK: You--my question, sir, you did not take them to the ECU and have them stamped and booked until June 16th? MR. FUNG: That is correct. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   8:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #343. To: nolu chan (#342) Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain. Protocol was to collect the entire stain. Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department". misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:38:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #344. To: nolu chan (#342) The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous. Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #345. To: nolu chan (#338) He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #346. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343) Who's protocol? Must be some transvestite you met in a bar. Or did you mean whose? In that case, it is the protocol of the LAPD, the California DoJ, and pretty much everybody concerned with the stuff. Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department". Just because Fung cut corners and violated all the rules in the book does not make it official policy. Policy for Fung was what he felt like doing at a particular time. Fung, 3 April 1995, 5803 Q: MR. FUNG, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK FOR A MINUTE TO THE COLLECTION OF BLOOD STAINS AND SUBSTRATE CONTROLS. WHEN YOU COLLECT A STAIN, IF YOU APPLY A SWATCH TO THAT STAIN, AND IT DOES NOT COLLECT THE ENTIRE STAIN, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? A: I WOULD SELECT ANOTHER SWATCH, WET IT, APPLY IT TO THE STAIN AND PUT IT IN THE SAME PLASTIC BAG AS THE FIRST CLOTH SWATCH FOR THAT ITEM. Q: AND ON SOME OF THE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE, SIR, IN FACT MOST OF THE STAINS, WERE THERE MORE THAN ONE SWATCH THAT WAS USED TO COLLECT THE STAIN ITSELF? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL, BUT THE STAIN. A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO ALL THOSE GO INTO THE SAME PLASTIC BAGGIE TOGETHER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THAT BAGGIE OR THAT PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE VARIOUS STAIN SWATCHES AND THE OTHER PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE CLOTH CONTROL GO WHERE? A: THOSE TWO BAGS GO INTO A COIN ENVELOPE WITH THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE STAIN. Matheson, 3 May 1995 MR. BLASIER: If it is a manageable size stain, they should collect all of it, correct? MR. MATHESON: As much as possible, yes. MR. BLASIER: And the reason for that is you can't tell from looking at a stain how good the mood or whatever it happens to be is going to be in terms of your being able to extract any information from it? MR. MATHESON: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: So you try to get as much as you can, correct? MR. MATHESON: That's correct. MR. BLASIER: And your people understand that? MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes. Ragle, 21 August 1995 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when one is collecting a bloodstain at a crime scene, do you believe that it is not necessary to remove the entire stain? MR. RAGLE: You know, stain, for instance, underneath a body can be huge, and so that's not necessary. If--having been involved in the laboratory analysis of some samples in the past, the more you collect, the better. So efforts should be made to collect all of the stain. If it's--you're talking about an individual drop, a smear, something such as that, all of it should be taken. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:27:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #347. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#344) Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA. Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it. Leaving blood samples in plastic bags overnight can degrade the samples so an RFLP DNA test is impossible. It makes an anonymous blood sample. Jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Carrie Bess, and Armanda Cooley seemed to have understood the problem with degraded blood samples, even if you refuse to do so. "I had no doubt in my mind that that wasn’t O.J.’s blood, the blood drops," says Marsha. "But by them being so degraded they could have been there before. Prior to the murders. He visited that place often. See, the first blood they found was the blood that was on the gate, two, three days later, or two weeks later. Samples 47, 48, 49, 50, 52 were all degraded, it could have been there prior to the murders." Carrie says, "Well, like I stated, the blood by the shoe print are the drops that they talked about. I didn’t have a problem with it being the same type as O.J.'s. but the only thing I had a problem with was that it was so degraded you couldn’t read some of it. Most of it you couldn’t read. The part that they really read, which I think were samples 50 and 52 coming out the back gate, was the only drops that they really, really could say was O.J.’s and the one that was on the fence that had EDTA in it. And I really can’t speak out for that because they never tested to see what the kids’ blood drops were. They never compared anybody eise's blood." Armanda interrupts: "Excuse me. But there was testimony from the fingerprint man, there were a lot of fingerprints there that they never did find out who they belonged to." "There was so much degradation in that blood that they could never really pinpoint it to say this is the type it was." says Carrie, "And when they got to the autorads, to say these are his drops, they still had a problem, saying that some of it was so weak that they couldn’t even say so. On that point, I can’t say one way or the other." The blood evidence collected on June 13th was too degraded to identify with RFLP testing. The blood samples that could be RFLP tested were collected weeks or months after the murders. Blood that had been exposed to the weather for several weeks or more had a remarkably strong and testable amount of DNA. It also had a testable amount of EDTA in parts per million, a fatal dose if in the circulating blood of a human. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #348. To: misterwhite (#345) He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush. Oh, his testimony matches that of the convicted perjurer, Mark Fuhrman. Big whoop. The picture was taken at night, in the dark. It is proven beyond a doubt by the contact sheets. Unlike LAPD Detective Fuhrman, the photographs were not indicted and convicted for perjury. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:30:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #349. To: nolu chan (#348) Convicted perjurer? A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-22   17:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #350. To: A K A Stone (#349) (Edited) Convicted perjurer? Yes, convicted perjurer. A convicted felon. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-10-03/news/9610030184_1_detective-mark-fuhrman-mr-fuhrman-simpson-civil-trial Fuhrman Bargains Out Of Jail Time Facing Perjury Charge, He Gets 3-year Probation October 03, 1996 By V. Dion Haynes, Tribune Staff Writer. Tribune news services contributed to this report. He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   18:50:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #351. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343) Protocol was to collect the entire stain. Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department". See the cluster foxtrot created by Dennis Fung with the Bronco. Fung, 11 April 1995 Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE. Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT? A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH. Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH? A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE. Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING? A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES. Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH? A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH? A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER. Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE? A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY. THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO? MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS -- THE COURT: 1088. MR. SCHECK: 1088. (DEFT'S 1088 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE SPOT THAT IS LABELED "304," THAT RED STAIN AREA, IS THAT IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ONE THAT WAS MARKED -- THAT YOU MARKED AS 31 ON JUNE 14TH? A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA. Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING? A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH. Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH? A: YES. Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT? A: YES. Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE. Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH. Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH? A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES. Q: OF THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER? A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE? A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE. Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH. Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING? A: MONTHS. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? A: YES. Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: DO YOU SEE THAT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA? A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA? Q: YEAH. A: YES, YES. Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT? A: YES. Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT? A: YES. Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"? Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT? A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT? A: YES, I DID. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT? A: YES, I DID. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH? A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID. Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: ON JUNE 14TH? A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES. Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT? A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS. Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY? A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS. Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"? Q: WITH CARE? A: YES. Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH? MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG. Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT? A: NO. Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS -- THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING. MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT. THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH? A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN. Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"? A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON. Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE? A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO. Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT? A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   18:56:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #352. To: nolu chan (#351) (Edited) MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. That entire back and forth accomplished nothing. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:08:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #353. To: A K A Stone (#349) Convicted perjurer? Not for his testimony about the glove. Something unrelated to the case. He couldn't recall if he ever said "nigger" in his life and they showed he did years before. So that made him a perjuror AND a racist, despite the fact that his fellow black cops said he wasn't. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:16:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #354. To: nolu chan (#347) (Edited) Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it. Was all the evidence, along with OJ's reference sample, in the same plastic baggie? No? Then did the defense team provide proof as to how this cross- contamination can occur? Or did they merely speculate, assuming the jury was too ignorant to know it was impossible for DNA to migrate out of one plastic baggie, out of the coin envelope, into another coin envelope and into another plastic baggie in search of alien DNA? The threshold is "reasonable doubt", not "doubt caused by wild speculation and innuendo". misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:27:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #355. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#353) If it is because he said nigger. Who cares. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-22   19:43:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #356. To: nolu chan (#350) He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine. And??? The felony complaint was dropped and his record expunged. Like it never happened. Except for you where it will never go away. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   20:45:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #357. To: A K A Stone (#355) "If it is because he said nigger. Who cares." The defense (and nolu chan) since his use of the word automatically means he's a racist and that he planted evidence. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   20:48:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #358. To: misterwhite (#352) MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. That entire back and forth accomplished nothing. You are absolutely, willfully and deliberately, full of shit. Your bullshit attempt is pathetic. It was one question, highlighted below in blue font. The question was rephrased and the answer came into evidence. Your bullshit had zero effect on any other part of the exchange, repeated in full below for your reading pleasure, with your bullshit diversion highlighted in blue. The subject was the protocol required by the LAPD. The exchange clearly addresses that issue and dismisses the Fung absurd nonsense which you tried to defend. Your diversionary make-believe response accomplished nothing other than to reveal your shallowness. Fung, 11 April 1995 Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE. Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT? A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH. Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH? A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE. Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING? A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES. Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH? A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH? A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER. Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE? A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY. THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO? MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS -- THE COURT: 1088. MR. SCHECK: 1088. (DEFT'S 1088 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE SPOT THAT IS LABELED "304," THAT RED STAIN AREA, IS THAT IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ONE THAT WAS MARKED -- THAT YOU MARKED AS 31 ON JUNE 14TH? A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA. Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING? A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH. Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH? A: YES. Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT? A: YES. Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE. Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH. Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH? A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES. Q: OF THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER? A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE? A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE. Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH. Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING? A: MONTHS. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? A: YES. Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: DO YOU SEE THAT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA? A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA? Q: YEAH. A: YES, YES. Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT? A: YES. Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT? A: YES. Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"? Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT? A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT? A: YES, I DID. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT? A: YES, I DID. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH? A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID. Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: ON JUNE 14TH? A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES. Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT? A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS. Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY? A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS. Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"? Q: WITH CARE? A: YES. Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH? MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG. Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT? A: NO. Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS -- THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING. MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT. THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH? A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN. Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"? A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON. Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE? A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO. Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT? A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   0:49:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #359. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#353) Convicted perjurer? Not for his testimony about the glove. Something unrelated to the case. He couldn't recall if he ever said "nigger" in his life and they showed he did years before. So that made him a perjuror AND a racist, despite the fact that his fellow black cops said he wasn't. What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY. The tapes were conclusive to all but the willfully ignorant. Closing statement of Marcia CLARK: Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worst LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes. Considering the closing argument of Marcia Clark, for the prosecution, one might just begin to suspect that Det. Mark Fuhrman had been discredited. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   0:51:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #360. To: misterwhite (#354) Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it. Was all the evidence, along with OJ's reference sample, in the same plastic baggie? Try again. The sample vial was supposedly placed in a TRASH BAG, not a little plastic baggie. Then did the defense team provide proof as to how this cross- contamination can occur? You keep wanting to reverse the burden of proof. It is the prosecution's burden of proof to show a continuous chain of custody, and to demonstrate that established procedures were followed to prevent cross-contamination. Or did they merely speculate, assuming the jury was too ignorant to know it was impossible for DNA to migrate out of one plastic baggie, out of the coin envelope, into another coin envelope and into another plastic baggie in search of alien DNA? There was no plastic baggie involved; there was no coin envelope involved. There was a large black trash bag. Such is how it goes when misterwhite attempts to bullshit like the LAPD witnesses. Nobody speculated on your imaginary bullshit. According to the official story, once upon a time, Phil Vannatter carried a sample vial of OJ's blood out to the crime scene and gave it to criminalist Dennis Fung, with no record of the transfer, and with criminalist Mazzola unaware. As it came to pass, after Fung and Mazzola had locked their kits, including their normal packing material, in the truck, they returned for a final check and collected Items 15 and 16 and packed them in a black plastic garbage bag. On the field notes where it says "Packaged in," criminalist Mazzola left the space blank. The tale continues that it was around this time that Vannatter gave the vial of blood to Fung. And lo and behold, Fung put the glass vial of OJ's blood into the garbage bag without informing Mazzola of its existence. And Mazzola carried the garbage bag, with evidence and OJ's reference blood sample, to the truck, and proceeded to the lab where everything was left out overnight, including the reference blood sample. The trash bag was deposited on a counter and left there overnight until the morning of the 14th. The sample blood vial and other evidence was not booked into evidence until the 16th. It is only the impeccable reputation of the LAPD, and the unquestioned veracity of the LAPD, that relieves one from questioning the chain of custody, and whether Det. Vanatter kept that blood vial in his possession overnight, as he did with the Reebok sneakers. Had he done so, one could have at least hoped that he refrigerated it. The next day, Lange brought in the sneakers which he had kept overnight and Mazzola recorded the sneakers as Item #17. She found out about the blood vial after she had recorded the Reebok sneakers, and recorded the blood vial as Item #18. Subsequently, the sneakers were reassigned to Item #18, and the blood vial was assigned Item #17 at the direction of Dennis Fung. Thus, the blood vial became Item #17 from the black trash bag. Mazzola's field notes say Item #16 was collected at 5:00 p.m. That was 11 minutes before the criminalist gear was locked up in the van. She knows that time must have been incorrect because she has an independent memory of packing Items #15 and #16 in the large black trash bag because their kits were locked in the van. If the log were correct, then the items would have been packaged normally and not in a trash bag. If the trash bag contained trash, and it was the only bag carried out after the van was locked at 5:11, who was carrying the blood on their person? There must have been a trash bag used for evidence... no other container came out to the van which might have contained the blood vial. The glass vial certainly did not get carried to the truck in the criminalists' kits. Video showed those had already been locked up in the van before Vannatter allegedly passed the vial to Fung, who allegedly added it to the trash bag without telling Mazzola, and without logging it in, or having Mazzola log it in. A curious soul might ask, if the only trash bag carried out contained a reference sample of blood and evidence, what did they do with the trash? THE COURT: Proceed. MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers back on August 23rd at a hearing in this case? "Question: Were you with Mr. Fung the entire time after you picked up the last item at 1700 hours until you departed for your next designation? "Answer: I believe I was, yes." On August 23rd, you were asked that question and you gave that answer, didn't you? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. MR. NEUFELD: And when you were asked that question on August 23rd, you were testifying based on your memory, weren't you? MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I remembered, yes. MR. NEUFELD: Well, you never said, ma'am, in regard to that question, "I don't recall, I don't know," Did you? MS. MAZZOLA: I said there I believe so, yes. MR. NEUFELD: And then you said yes, "I believe I was, yes." Isn't that your answer? MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was, yes. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You didn't in any way say, "This is something I don't remember. I don't recall if I was with Mr. Fung the entire time," Did you? THE COURT: It's argumentative. The answer stands and speaks for itself, counsel. MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor. (Brief pause.) MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after item 16 was collected, no other item was recorded in your notes as having been received on June 13th? MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no. MR. NEUFELD: And since you testified back in August with regard to this matter, have other people suggested to you that your failure to substantiate Vannatter's and Fung's claim that Mr. Simpson's blood was given to Fung on June 13th was a problem for the Prosecution's case? MS. MAZZOLA: No. Perish the thought that Mazzola might have joined Team Blue Wall. The new and improved story was: MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now--now, as to the question that you were asked at the Griffen hearing about your recollection, that as soon as you picked up that item, that you and Mr. Fung left the premises, when you say you think it was a little bit after that, what was that recollection based on? MS. MAZZOLA: Which item are you-- MR. GOLDBERG: You were asked whether you left after you collected 15 and 16, and you said it was a little bit after that. MS. MAZZOLA: Right. MR. GOLDBERG: What was that recollection based on? MS. MAZZOLA: The fact that Mr. Fung spent some time talking to the detectives. So it would have been after that. MR. GOLDBERG: What were you doing in that interval between the time that you got back to the location after locking everything in your crime scene truck and when you came out with the plastic bag? MS. MAZZOLA: For a short time, I was with Mr. Fung and the detectives and the photographer. After a while, the photographer and I went into the living room and sat down. MR. GOLDBERG: And what was your mental state at that time? MS. MAZZOLA: Exhaustion. MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have a clear sense of how much time was going by when you were sitting down on the couch? MS. MAZZOLA: No. MR. GOLDBERG: And when you testified that you believed--when you were asked whether you were with Mr. Fung the entire time between 1700 hours until you departed and you said that you believed that you were, what was the basis of that belief? MS. MAZZOLA: It was--felt like a few minutes. Didn't feel like a long time at all. MR. GOLDBERG: Now, were any other items logged in on the 13th after 15 and 16? MS. MAZZOLA: As to having been received on the 13th? MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, on the 13th, did you or Mr. Fung in your presence make any paperwork on the crime scene identification checklist, logging in any item after 16? MS. MAZZOLA: No. [...] MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I will get into that in just a second, but I wanted to ask a few clarifying questions. When you were sitting on the couch at the Rockingham location, before you left, I guess this would have been after 5:11? MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: Were your eyes opened or closed? MS. MAZZOLA: I believe they were closed. MR. GOLDBERG: At what point did you close your eyes? MS. MAZZOLA: Probably the second I sat down. MR. GOLDBERG: Do you--did you fall asleep? MS. MAZZOLA: No, I wasn't asleep. MR. GOLDBERG: And did you lose track of time when you were sitting on the couch? MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. And so it came to pass that Andrea Mazzola, although with Dennis Fung, had sat down on the couch, closed her eyes but did not sleep, lost track of time, and had no idea that Vannatter had given a vial of blood to Dennis Fung while her eyes were closed but she was not sleeping. And she had no idea that Dennis Fung had put the blood vial in the black trash bag, and she left the blood unrefrigerated in violation of LAPD directives but did not know it. And they all lived happily after. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:01:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #361. To: A K A Stone (#355) If it is because he said nigger. Who cares. The LAPD witnesses engaged in serial perjury and were exposed. Who cares? The jury cared. When the LAPD witnesses were exposed time and again covering for each other and trying to bullshit the jury, they lost all credibility. Question by Jay Monahan, attorney and legal consultant for Fox Television. What did you think when Detective Vannatter testified that Mark Fuhrman told him that Kato had talked about thumps on the wall, after hearing Fuhrman testify he never told Vannatter that Kato had told him? [Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley] "My feeling was, I sort of felt like I said earlier, that Fuhrman was a liar and I had problems with him. ... So I had sort of discredited him and probably Vannatter from the beginning." [Juror Carrie Bess] “Number one, that was confusing testimony that was torn apart by both the prosecutors and the defense. Vannatter stating that Fuhrman told him what he was doing, that when he was talking with Kato, Fuhrman came around and told him that he was gonna go and check out things. Then he comes back and says that Vannatter didn’t know anything about what he was doing. Vannatter has been found to prevaricate in two incidents in this case, so I'm really not surprised to find that. You have to really discredit these two police officers.” [Juror Marsha Rubin-Jackson] “But what brought my attention to those two was when they said they had come through that back door off the pool into the house. Then Arnelle Simpson got on the stand and said that she had to go around to undo the alarm system and they entered through the front door. They both had said they had come through the back gate, off the pool doors. So their whole testimony didn’t really hold any weight with me after I got into the deliberation room. I figured those two were trying to cover for each other. I don’t know if they were in any type of conspiracy, you know, but conspiring to cover for each other, yes.” [Juror Carrie Bess] Well, it was obvious to me already what I had to do. When we got the chance to listen to those tapes, the judge told us, 'You have the right to discredit all or any parts of his testimony.'" When a witness gets caught blatantly lying to the jury, they may discredit all of his testimony. It was established that Mark Fuhrman was a liar, and would and did lie under oath. The witness loses all presumption of truthfulness. Mark Fuhrman was removed from the case http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3514002/Mark-Fuhrman-s-racist-tapes-transcript-key-witness-OJ-Simpson-case-saying-N-word-41-TIMES-detailing-incidents-racially-motivated-violence-involving-members-LAPD.html Fuhrman spoke into McKinny's tape recorder after the murders, "I'm the key witness in the biggest case of the century. And, if I go down, they lose the case. The glove is everything. Without the glove - bye, bye." And he said of his partner, Brad Roberts, " At one point he also makes disparaging comments about the looks and work ethic of a female superior, Captain Margaret York, implying she advanced in the ranks through sexual favors. Witnesses who were members of the police force were listed on a spousal conflict form and Captain York was required to review the list and sign off on the fact that she did not have a relationship with any members of the LAPD who would appear at trial. Questions then arose how she could not remember Fuhrman given the fact that he spoke so angrily about her on the tapes. The prosecution called for Judge Ito to recuse himself believing he could not be fair given this new development, while the defense argued against that. 6 Sep 1995 MR. COCHRAN: ... May I read something to the court my counsel just shared with me, your Honor? This has to do with--let me just read this and I think it puts it in perspective about lying and covering up. This is describing--there was our no. 10 describing the necessity of police officers to be willing to lie. "Well, I really love being a policeman when I can be a policeman. It is like my partner now. He is so hung up with the rules and stuff"-- THE COURT: "He has more morals than he has got hair." MR. COCHRAN: Remember that? "You just don't fucking even understand. The job is not rules. This is a feeling. Fuck the rules. We will make them up later. He's a college graduate, as you know, a catholic college," et cetera. "He was going to be a priest," et cetera, "And he has got more morals than he has got hair. "What do you mean he has got more morals?" "He doesn't know how to be a policeman, especially can't lie. Oh, you make me fucking sick to my guts. You know, you do what you have to do to put these fucking assholes in jail. If you don't, you fuckin' get out the fuckin' game. He just wants to be one of the boys. He doesn't want to play--pay the dues, so how does he deal with it? He doesn't lie. Well, I know for a fact in this Internal Affairs investigation he has a 10-day suspension, he will roll." He goes on to say: "He will drop a dime on me. He will squeal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman Fuhrman asserts that the police and the prosecution made other errors that reduced the chances of a guilty verdict. For example, Fuhrman and his partner, Brad Roberts, found a bloody fingerprint on the north walkway gate of Nicole Brown Simpson's house. According to Fuhrman, at least some of it belonged to the suspect, as there was enough blood at the scene to suggest the suspect was bleeding. This was potentially critical evidence; Simpson claimed that he'd cut himself on the night of the murders but hadn't been to his ex-wife's house in a week. Had the fingerprint been tied to Simpson in any fashion it would have been a crippling, and possibly fatal, blow to his defense. It also could have contradicted the defense's allegations that Fuhrman planted the glove, since Fuhrman did not know or have reason to know that it was Simpson's blood.[42] However, the fingerprint was destroyed at some point and was only mentioned superficially at trial. In fact, Fuhrman later discovered that Vannatter and Vannatter's partner, Tom Lange, didn't even know the fingerprint was there because they never read Fuhrman's notes. Roberts could have offered testimony to corroborate that the fingerprint was there but was never called to testify– something that rankled Fuhrman almost as much as the fact that Vannatter and Lange never read his notes. Fuhrman also claimed that Roberts could have corroborated many of his other observations, but Marcia Clark didn't call him (to avoid embarrassing Vannatter on the stand).[42] Not only was Brad Roberts (Fuhrman's partner) never called as a witness, he was never interviewed regarding the case. Perhaps Fuhrman was right and Roberts would not lie. That presented a special problem with regard to Det. Vannatter. A la Dennis Fung claiming credit for work done by Andrea Mazzola, Det. Vannatter testified to his own discovery of evidence that had been discovered by Brad Roberts. When Marcia Clark arrived on scene, it was Brad Roberts who gave her the guided tour. If put on the stand, Brad Roberts would have perjured himself, or testified to the perjury of Det. Vannatter. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:18:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #362. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#357) Moving on, April 3, 1995 The rear gate stain seen on July 3rd could not be seen in the photo from June 13th Direct Examination by prosecutor Hank Goldberg MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to ask you about the rear gate stain that you recovered on July the 3rd of 1994. MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you know--did you see that stain from your own independent recollection on the 13th? MR. FUNG: I don't recall seeing it on the 13th. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is it your--do you--is it your understanding of the People's position that the stain was there on the 13th? MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1995 MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a photograph of the rear gate at Bundy? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: That was taken on June 13th. MR. SCHECK: Do we have that here? (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) (Brief pause.) MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can find the exhibit number for counsel. MR. SCHECK: While we are looking for it, let me just ask you some questions. MR. SCHECK: Do you remember seeing that photograph? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116? MR. FUNG: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th? MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FUNG: I did not see it. MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd? MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no. MR. SCHECK: But you're certain it was not planted there by anybody? MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that calls for speculation. It's argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. You put some evidence in, You take some evidence out, You do the hokey pokey and you move it all about, Reasonable doubt. This sort of crap went on for a more than a week of testimony June 4-5, 11-17. It was a slow moving train wreck. In an odd scene, when he was dismissed, Fung went and shook the hands of the defense attorneys and defendant Simpson. Fung was followed by Mazzola. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.youtube.com/embed/lQRCN8ke-WM FUNG FUNG FUNG By OJ MANIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - USA: OJ SIMPSON TRIAL: AP Archive Published on Jul 21, 2015 - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:23:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #363. To: nolu chan (#362) "The rear gate stain seen on July 3rd could not be seen in the photo from June 13th" Doesn't mean it wasn't there. It simply means it could not be seen in the photo. As a matter of fact, Detective Tom Lange saw the stain. "Tom Lange said (testified) he directed police criminalists to collect the bloodstains on the rear gate on June 14, but learned on July 3 that they had not yet been collected. The stains were then collected by criminalist Dennis Fung ..." Mystery solved. No conspiracy. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-25   10:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #364. To: nolu chan (#359) "What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY." You contradict yourself. "He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine." Can't keep up with your own lies? Not to worry. I'll do it for you. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-25   10:22:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #365. To: nolu chan (#360) "returned for a final check and collected Items 15 and 16 and packed them in a black plastic garbage bag." Item #15 -- Airline ticket receipt Item #16 -- Baggage tag As far as I know, these items were not presented as DNA evidence. SO WHO CARES?? The blood sample was in a sealed vial which was "in a special envelope designed to carry blood evidence." Vannatter testified that he did not book Simpson's blood sample into evidence immediately because he wanted to deliver it directly to the criminalist working on the case. So, are you saying OJ's blood crawled out of the sealed vial, out of the sealed envelope and, what, got all over the airline ticket receipt and the baggage tag (even though there was no blood on the airline ticket receipt and the baggage tag)? You keep pointing out these minor indiscrepancies as though they're significant to the case ... without pointing put their significance. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-25   10:42:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #366. To: misterwhite (#363) Doesn't mean it wasn't there. It simply means it could not be seen in the photo. As a matter of fact, Detective Tom Lange saw the stain. "Tom Lange said (testified) he directed police criminalists to collect the bloodstains on the rear gate on June 14, but learned on July 3 that they had not yet been collected. The stains were then collected by criminalist Dennis Fung ..." Mystery solved. No conspiracy. Mystery solved by an anonymous quote? The quote is from a UPI story from June 1, 1995, almost two months before Dr. Frederic Rieders demonstrated that said stain contained EDTA in parts per million, more than enough to kill anyone with said amount in their circulating blood. If Tom Lange saw that exact stain on June 13th or 14th, it was truly a miracle. But if Tom Lange said in February or March of 1995 that he saw a bloodstain on June 14, 1995, or ordered the collection of one seen the previous day, it must be true. Tom Lange saw the blood stain with EDTA in parts per million and directed its collection on June 14, 1995. Because Benghazi. Why did he not supervise the collection of anything on June 13, 1995? Why is it necessary to just take Lange's word for it? Because neither Lange nor Vannatter took any notes whatever at the crime scene on June 13, 1995. There was no evidence collection at Bundy on June 14th. The Bundy search warrant of the 13th had been executed. On the 14th, Fung and Mazzola went to the print shed to examine the Bronco which had been seized pursuant to the search warrant of the 13th. Phil Vannatter and Tom Lange, two of LAPD's most experienced homicide detectives, supposedly took no extemporaneous notes at the crime scenes and during the early days of the investigation. In distinguished careers of more than two decades apiece, neither detective had ever neglected this aspect of basic homicide investigation before. It is also contrary to the norm throughout law enforcement. This reporter, furthermore, has personally never experienced nor heard of a murder investigation wherein the homicide case officer in charge did not make notes of his initial observations at the crime scene. Joseph Bosco, A Problem of Evidence, 1st ed., pg. 74 The fact is that the stain was collected on July 3, 1995. Tom Lange testified he did not return to Bundy after his June 13th departure at 3:45 until June 16th, but did not enter the property on June 16th, and was there on June 23rd. This is what happens when you are too damn lazy to check the testimony and rely on the first google hit you can find. Q: AND BETWEEN THAT TIME, 3:45, ON JUNE 13TH, AND JULY 3RD, 1994, DID YOU EVER GO BACK OUT TO THE SCENE BETWEEN THOSE DATES? A: I BELIEVE I DID. Q: WHAT DATE DID YOU GO BACK? A: I BELIEVE I WAS THERE ON JUNE 23RD. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE WAS A TEN-DAY PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME YOU WERE THERE ON THE 13TH AND THE TIME YOU CAME BACK ON THE 23RD? A: THAT WOULD BE TEN DAYS, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHETHER I MIGHT HAVE GONE BACK IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO DATES. Q: DO YOU HAVE SOME NOTES THAT WILL HELP YOU IN THAT REGARD? Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT THEM? A: CERTAINLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE WITNESS: MY NOTES INDICATE I WAS AT THE LOCATION ON JUNE 16TH, BUT I DIDN'T ENTER THE PREMISES. I JUST DID A -- A MILEAGE CHECK FROM THE LOCATION. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-26   2:25:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #367. To: misterwhite (#364) "What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY." You contradict yourself. "He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine." Can't keep up with your own lies? Not to worry. I'll do it for you. I am sorry you are too legally illiterate to understand the plea of nolo contendere. I will try to help you out of your state of legal ignorance. "No contest," I said. The plea of no contest, or nolo contendere, is not an admission of guilt. While the technical equivalent of a guilty plea, it allows a defendant to maintain his innocence while accepting the plea. Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 1997, pg. 2 Idindonuffin. Let's skip to sentencing. And, as a convicted felon, I can still say idindonuffin. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-no-contest-plea-nolo-contendere-28127.html A no-contest plea, known often by its Latin name nolo contendere, has the same legal effect as a guilty plea. If you plead no contest to a criminal charge, you will have a conviction on your record, just as though you had pleaded guilty or been convicted after a trial. The advantage of a no-contest plea compared to a guilty plea is that a no-contest plea generally cannot be offered into evidence in a civil case. Following his nolo contendere plea, Fuhrman was convicted of a felony, stripped of his badge, stripped of his right to possess a gun, and stripped of his right to vote. The only difference is a nolo plea cannot be used in a civil action as an outright admission of guilt. Regarding the criminal result, the guilty plea and the nolo plea is a distinction without much difference. Fuhrman was convicted and sentenced just the same. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-26   2:27:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #368. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#365) As far as I know, these items were not presented as DNA evidence. SO WHO CARES?? [...] You keep pointing out these minor indiscrepancies as though they're significant to the case ... without pointing put their significance. Here ya go, sunshine. I will point out the significance. The detective who took the blood home overnight. The story of carrying the envelope out to the van died with the videotape. Nobody could carry it in their hand without it being seen. The trash bag story was a last, desperate grope. It is the sort of silly bullshit story that accompanied every piece of bullshit evidence in the case. It is the sort of fairy tale that loses juries. What happened to your plastic baggie and coin envelope that were locked up in the truck? The blood sample was in a sealed vial which was "in a special envelope designed to carry blood evidence." Vannatter testified that he did not book Simpson's blood sample into evidence immediately because he wanted to deliver it directly to the criminalist working on the case. Vannatter was a proven liar with no credibility. The jury so found. The evidence of Vannatter's lies was so apparent that none but the willfully ignorant could deny it. Of course, during the trial much was said about Detective Vannatter leaving downtown headquarters with O. J. Simpson's whole blood sample but, instead of walking a few hundred yards and booking it into evidence at Parker Technical Center, driving twenty-two miles to the Rockingham scene where he says he handed it over to criminalist Dennis Fung. (Barry Scheck's cross-examination of Fung brought out ad nauseam that we have to take Vannatter, Fung, and Andrea Mazzola's word that the transfer of the blood vial actually took place; on news video, the gray envelope was not in the hands of Fung or Mazzola when they twice brought evidence out to their van before leaving Rockingham.) Such a thing, all agreed, was totally contrary to LAPD's written rules and procedures, to say nothing about simple logic. Still, even privately, Vannatter's only answer to why, in his twenty-five years as a cop, working many big cases, this was the first time he had ever done anything like this is "I don't know. I just don't know, all right!" Forget the baloney being peddled by Vannatter's high visibility apologist, Vincent Bugliosi, that since Vannatter didn't know the reference number to book it under, it would've messed up Dennis Fung's numbering system. If that was reasonable, why has nothing like this ever happened before? Everyone from the police chief on down has said that it was against procedure and precedent. Joseph Bosco, A Problem With Evidence, 1st ed., pg. 74-75. The story is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a two-digit IQ. As for the contaminated blood samples, that was proven through Collin Yamauchi and John Gerdes. The reference samples of Nicole and Goldman were contaminated with OJ's DNA. Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy, pbk, 569-70: Some months earlier, the defense had hired Dr. John Gerdes to evaluate LAPD crime lab procedures in the year before the case. He concluded the lab was a "cesspool of contamination," and he would testify to that. Gerdes had also discovered that the vials containing the reference samples from Nicole and Goldman were contaminated with Simpson's DNA. That fact and its implications were crucial. Yamauchi had worked with O.J.'s reference sample immediately before he handled the Rockingham glove. If Yamauchi got blood on himself, or if he got some on the table when he opened O.J.'s vial—a real possibility, considering the bloodstains on the vial—he could have transferred O.J.'s blood to the glove. The swatches collected from the Bundy walkway placed O.J. at the crime scene more convincingly than any eyewitness. The defense had to show that somewhere, somehow, by accident, by design, or both, Simpson's reference blood was transferred to the Bundy swatches. During the first two weeks in May, Barry went through all of Yamauchi's notes in the discovery material with a finetoothed comb. Months earlier, Bill Pavelic had shown the team a photograph in which the outside of Simpson's reference vial was stained, even caked, with blood. Beyond a doubt, that vial had been carelessly handled. That was Scheck's starting point. Scheck wanted to determine the sequence of events in the lab on June 14. The LAPD would not allow the defense to interview Yamauchi, but after days of shuffling and reshuffling. Barry assigned what seemed to be the correct order to Yamauchi's notes, some of which bore no dates. Yamauchi had worked with OJ.'s reference sample immediately before he handled the Rockingham glove. If Yamauchi got blood on himself, or if he got some on the table when he opened O.J. 's vial—a real possibility, considering the bloodstains on the vial—he could have transferred O.J.'s blood to the glove. Then Scheck worked out from the lab notes the order in which Yamauchi handled the Bundy blood swatches. Scheck compared that order to the amount of Simpson's DNA found on each sample. Paydirt. For the first time Scheck and his team could see that the Bundy swatch with the largest quantity of O.J. 's DNA, swatch number 51, was the first one that Yamauchi touched after he handled the Rockingham glove. The swatch containing the second-highest quantity was the second one he touched. And so forth. Common sense indicated that Yamauchi had to have gotten some of Simpson's blood on his own glove, or on the table, or both. It was like stepping into a mud puddle, then continuing onto dry ground. Your first footprint leaves a lot of mud; the next one leaves a bit less; the third leaves still less. Scheck could see Yamauchi's "footprint" on the glove and Bundy blood swatches. The sequence was clear: Yamauchi gets O.J.'s reference blood on his gloved hands. Maybe on his worktable. Then he transfers O.J.'s blood to the Rockingham glove. Next he handles the Bundy swatches and contaminates them with Simpson's blood. Scheck knew this was a bombshell. Top Secret-Eyes Only. But there was also blood from someone on the swatches before Yamauchi ever touched them. What about the original DNA in the blood on the Bundy swatches? The jury already had that answer, but it hadn't been explained to them yet. When Fung left those swatches in the hot van all day, Scheck would argue, the original DNA, possibly the killer's, had degraded so much that it no longer showed up in testing. The tide was now shifting in favor of the defense. Barry's theory that O.J.'s DNA was unwittingly transferred to the swatches by Yamauchi stood up to scrutiny. It was scientifically valid. It also reinforced the defense's assertion that the first PCR test results that incriminated Simpson were unreliable, like everything else that came from the LAPD's "Black Hole." Johnnie and Carl didn't have to stretch their imaginations to believe that those first tests might have given some cops the impetus to plant, fabricate, or doctor other evidence. This guy's guilty. Don't let him get away with it. Make it stick. The only question left was: What exactly happened to O.J.'s reference blood on June 14, the day Yamauchi worked on the glove and the Bundy swatches? Scheck would have to get his answer in his cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Collin Yamauchi cross-examination by Barry Scheck - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Did you get blood on your gloves when you opened Mr. Simpson's reference tube? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Soaked through the paper. MR. SCHECK: You remember that now? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do. MR. SCHECK: In other words, didn't you testify before that as you opened the tube, you did it with a chem-wipe? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And blood soaks through the chem-wipe. MR. SCHECK: So you're now saying that you have an independent recollection that the blood soaked through the chem-wipe? MR. YAMAUCHI: Along the tip edges, yeah. MR. SCHECK: And that's something that you didn't even recall when you were asked about this on direct examination? MR. YAMAUCHI: Was I asked that specifically? MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall being asked how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference tube on direct examination and giving a description? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I recall describing that process. MR. SCHECK: And when you gave that description, did you include the fact that the blood went right through the chem-wipe, got your gloves dirty? MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't believe so. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, this morning, in reviewing your notes a little bit more carefully--well, withdrawn. I shouldn't say that. In reviewing your notes, you agreed that you could have cut samples from the glove before you cut swatches from the Bundy samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: Let me try it this way: On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on Mr. Simpson's reference sample? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on the Bundy samples? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: That was in the series of 23 tubes that you were doing in one day? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And you did those extractions in the serology laboratory? MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And you did it in your hood? MR. YAMAUCHI: Part of the time. MR. SCHECK: And the location was either your hood or your desk right next to the hood where you were doing these extractions? MR. YAMAUCHI: My work station and the hood, yes. MR. SCHECK: That was the location? MR. YAMAUCHI: Locations. MR. SCHECK: And the time that it took you to do the extraction on these 23 tubes was how long? MR. YAMAUCHI: It is approximately an hour and a half that that process would take place over. MR. SCHECK: And as far as you are concerned, your protocol says it is perfectly all right to handle Mr. Simpson's reference tubes along with those 23 samples in that location during that timing period? That is perfectly fine? MR. YAMAUCHI: Sure, provided you take the precautions that I take. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. John GERDES, Direct by Barry Scheck - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, could you please define for the jury the term "Contamination" in a forensic setting, in terms of DNA work? DR. GERDES: In terms of DNA work it is quite simply human DNA that is found where it shouldn't be. MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of DNA laboratories, would it be useful to break down the kind of contamination that one encounters? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And could you please tell us--could you break those down to us in certain categories? DR. GERDES: Certainly. I think a way to look at this is to start all the way back at the beginning at the crime scene and the first type of risk of contamination is going to be called what is called cross-contamination, and as I mentioned, this is human DNA finding its way into a sample where it shouldn't be there, and the--that is as a result of cross-transferring from one space to another physically, and that can happen by mishandling. And the--that is because if you have a sample here with a large amount of DNA and another sample with small amount of DNA, this technique is so exquisitely sensitive that you can transfer without even knowing it frequently a small amount of DNA from item 1 where there was a large amount to item 2. MR. SCHECK: When you say "Exquisitely sensitive," we have heard that term before. What do you mean by that? It is a scientific term? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: But could you try to define that a little in plainer English, if we could? DR. GERDES: Yeah. It simply means that you can find a very, very, very small amount. This technique can theoretically find a single copy of what you are looking for. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, we discussed cross-contamination. Is there something about cross-contamination that is a particular problem in terms of the different kinds contamination you get? DR. GERDES: Yes. This--this particular kind of contamination is the one that is the most subversive and that--by that I mean that once you've done that, once you have accidentally transferred from one item to the next, if you were to do the DNA analysis of both items, the DNA analysis doesn't distinguish where that human DNA came from. It is simply going to type what human DNA is there. So that means that if you were to type those two items and you had accidentally done that, those items were--would probably type as the same item, especially, you know, the smaller amount would be most likely overwhelmed by the transferred DNA. So they would type as the same DNA, meaning coming from the same individual, and it wouldn't matter if at that point from that point on it wouldn't matter if this sample that was falsely incorporated--falsely incorporated, if that sample was typed by five, ten, other laboratories or by five or ten different gene systems, it is always going to come up as a match. And the problem with that is there really is no control, unfortunately. There is no way of incorporating into the system a control that says that happened. THE COURT: Next question. MR. SCHECK: What other kind of categories of contamination are there? DR. GERDES: Well, the second is usually once the DNA or the specimen is transferred to a laboratory, now you can have the same kind of transfer, by the way, cross-transfer can happen anytime that item is manipulated, either in the crime scene, in the laboratory itself, or anytime they are handled, those specimens, all the way through the process that can happen. A second type of contamination, though, that occurs, is the fact that when you are dealing with DNA the samples are fairly dirty samples. In the process of analyzing them you have to add these liquid solutions that contain all of the building blocks for the DNA and the enzyme that is responsible for allowing us to copy it, and the components of that reaction that allows the PCR process to occur. MR. SCHECK: These are the reagents that you pour into things? DR. GERDES: Correct, they are called reagents. MR. SCHECK: Can they get contaminated? DR. GERDES: Yes, they can. MR. SCHECK: And what is known as amplicon or PCR carry-over contamination? DR. GERDES: That is a slightly different concept, and the PCR process I'm sure you are aware of that now, basically allows us to take a small number and copy it, sort of like a molecular Xeroxing up to a very high number. Now, if you do that for the same gene over and over, day after day, with multiple samples, what happens is you have a build-up or can have a build-up of the copies, and when you have a build-up of those copies it is very easy to accidentally get one of those into your reagent or into your reactions, and that is called amplification product carry-over. MR. SCHECK: Okay. Dr. Gerdes, based on your review of the data in this case, have you formed an opinion as to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty about contamination at the LAPD DNA laboratory? MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation. MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my method here is that I'm going to elicit the opinions of the doctor and then give the basis of his expert opinion. THE COURT: Overruled, overruled. MR. SCHECK: Have you an opinion, within a degree of scientific certainly, about contamination at the LAPD laboratory? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What is it? DR. GERDES: I found that the LAPD laboratory has substantial contamination problem that is persistent and substantial. MR. SCHECK: Is it chronic? What does that term mean? DR. GERDES: Chronic--it is chronic and it is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away. I can find it month after month and it persists. MR. SCHECK: Is--as a DNA lab director do you have an opinion about the risk of error due to contamination at the LAPD? MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: As a molecular biologist and DNA laboratory director, do you have an opinion about the collection, specimen handling and sampling method used by the personnel at the Los Angeles Police Department in this case? MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And what is it? DR. GERDES: I found that the specimen handling procedures were done in such a manner that it had a tremendous--there was a tremendous risk of the potential of cross-contamination. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Have you heard the testimony or are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi, Mr. Matheson, that this hood is a laminar flow hood? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Are they correct in their statement that it is a laminar flow hood? DR. GERDES: No. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi as to what he did on the morning of June 14th, starting at around 9:00 A.M. through 11:20 A.M. when he processed the reference sample of Mr. Simpson, the Rockingham glove and the Bundy swatches, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52? [...] MR. SCHECK: Well, assumes facts not in evidence. In your opinion, sir, in terms of the handling of samples in a DNA laboratory, are there problems when one is handling degraded samples with low amounts or no DNA at the same time or period or location when handling samples with high contents of DNA. MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: Yes, there definitely are problems under those circumstances. MR. SCHECK: And is that a situation which increases the risk of cross-contamination? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And why is that? DR. GERDES: Well, I also believe at the very beginning of my testimony I described the fact that if you have something in high concentration next to something in low concentration there is a greater chance that you can get small amounts of material from the substance with high concentration into the one with low, and so there is a greater risk of that kind of cross-contamination because you are handling the two at the same time next to each other. THE COURT: And the nodding of the jurors indicate that they recollect that from this trial, too, and they recollect it from a month ago. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you familiar with--do you know, according to their protocol--withdrawn. Let's get back to LAPD. Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi that at about nine o'clock-­well, let's take care of all foundation items. Are you familiar with the serology item description notes which are 1185, I have shown them to Mr. Clarke, of Mr. Yamauchi for June 14th and June 15th, his notes of handling the samples? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you familiar with his testimony that between the period of 9:00 A.M. and 11:20 A.M. he handled Mr. Simpson's reference sample and created a fitzco card? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: He moved next to the Rockingham glove, did a series of pheno tests and cuttings and initialed that glove? DR. GERDES: That's correct. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Took samples? And then moved on to do the so-called Bundy blood drop items, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52? Are you familiar with that? DR. GERDES: I believe the order was 52 and then the others, but the exact sequence is different than what you stated, but they were done. MR. SCHECK: They handled the Bundy blood drops all within that period? DR. GERDES: Yes, they did. MR. SCHECK: Now, in your judgment was--what is your opinion of this laboratory practice of handling Mr. Simpson's reference tubes in the way Mr. Yamauchi described it and these evidence samples within that period? MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: That is not an acceptable practice in any forensic laboratory. MR. SCHECK: Why? DR. GERDES: Because of the unacceptable risk of contamination from the reference sample which has high levels of DNA and the evidence items that were processed which have low levels. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, do you recall that section of Mr. Yamauchi's testimony where he describes that he opened Mr. Simpson's reference sample and blood came out of the tube that went through the chem wipe and onto his glove? DR. GERDES: Yes, I recall that. MR. SCHECK: Now, in your experience when you open one of these vacutainer tubes, what happens or what happened? DR. GERDES: Well, you can hear-­ MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: It is a vacutainer. That means it is under vacuum. It is sort of like opening a coffee can, you can hear it and there is an aerosol that is created. MR. SCHECK: When you say "Aerosol" what do you mean? DR. GERDES: Aerosol is very small fine mist of droplets that would then spray. MR. SCHECK: That is of blood? DR. GERDES: Of blood in this case, yes. MR. SCHECK: And is in--in terms of the DNA content of a reference tube and that aerosol, how does it compare--what is the nature of the DNA content of--of such a substance? DR. GERDES: Well, it doesn't take very much blood to have a substantial amount of DNA. MR. SCHECK: Now, you read Mr. Yamauchi's testimony where you indicated that after he opened the reference tube and the blood went through his chem wipe and went onto his glove that he then disposed of the gloves, he can't recall, either in the evidence processing room or in the serology lab? DR. GERDES: That is what I remember, yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, given the nature of his testimony about the way he opened the tube, do you think that what he did next in terms of moving onto the analysis of the other sample was an acceptable laboratory practice? DR. GERDES: No. I mean, you know, you've had a spillage, you should have basically stopped everything, cleaned down the entire lab and waited for a period of time before you move on to something as critical as evidence items. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Is it a good laboratory practice to have proceeded from handling the reference sample under the circumstances described by Mr. Yamauchi and turn to manipulation of the wrist area of the glove in the fashion that he described? MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: No. It represents unacceptable risk of cross-contamination. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Is it a good laboratory practice to handle in the same period in the same location samples that have high DNA content and low DNA content? MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained I think we have visited that topic now for the third time. MR. SCHECK: All right. Well, let's move to the next one. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. SCHECK: One question. Is it a good laboratory-well, maybe not one. Is it a good laboratory practice, sir, to handle in the same period in the same location samples from different scenes? MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: No, it is not. MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you aware that on June 15th Mr. Yamauchi handled samples from—that included the reference sample from Nicole Brown Simpson, the reference sample from Ronald Goldberg, samples from the Bronco and samples from the Rockingham foyer LAPD item no. 12? MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope of this witness' expertise. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: Yes, he handled those at that time. MR. SCHECK: And of course on June 14th he handled the Rockingham glove and the Bundy swatches? DR. GERDES: Correct. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) MR. SCHECK: Is it a good idea to handle reference samples from suspects and victims in the same MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope of this witness' expertise. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: No, it is not a good idea because of again the risk of cross-contamination. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. You've heard the testimony about how Mr. Yamauchi sampled and then proceeded to test on June 14th twenty individual samples? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Does that seem to you, in terms of ordinary laboratory practices--well, in your opinion, what do you think about handling all those samples in the time period he described? DR. GERDES: It seems to be a lot of samples for that time period. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, as a microbiologist and DNA laboratory director do you believe that analysts handling blood samples should routinely change their gloves between handling each item? DR. GERDES: Yes, I believe they should do that. MR. SCHECK: And why? DR. GERDES: Especially with a technique like PCR. This is such a sensitive technique you might not even notice that you have a small amount of blood or even an aerosol of that blood on your glove, and unless you change the glove you can't eliminate the possibility that you might transfer that to the next sample. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of laboratory paper, are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola that when the samples were brought into the LAPD laboratory and they were taken out of the plastic bags and put into the test-tubes that they did not change laboratory paper between handling those items? DR. GERDES: I'm familiar with that. MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with their testimony that when they took the swatches out of the tubes the next morning and scraped them out with a pipette on to a bindle that they did not change the laboratory paper between each item? DR. GERDES: I'm familiar with that. MR. SCHECK: In your opinion are those sound laboratory practices in terms of the danger of cross-contamination? DR. GERDES: That is going to create a shower of an aerosol which is going to fall down on that entire area and can easily be transferring DNA from one item to another. MR. SCHECK: In terms of aerosols then, since that is one of our little logos, I take it--what was that you were saying about scraping the swatches out of the tubes? - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: We've heard some questions being asked in this trial such as you heard them, "Can DNA fly?" Have you heard that? DR. GERDES: Yes, I have. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, when aerosols are created of these kind of particles in a laboratory do they just fall right to the ground or how long do they remain ambient in an atmosphere? MR. CLARKE: Objection, foundation, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the problem of dust or aerosols in DNA laboratories? DR. GERDES: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with Mr. Yamauchi's testimony that in processing the Rockingham glove and the LAPD items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 on the morning of June 14th, that he did not routinely change laboratory paper between those items? DR. GERDES: Yes, I am familiar with that. MR. SCHECK: Is that a sound laboratory practice? DR. GERDES: It creates unacceptable risk. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Dr. Gerdes, let's return for a minute to 1306, the chelex bottle. Now, what role does chelex play in the DNA process? How do you use--how was it used at the Los Angeles Police Department and at other laboratories in the DNA testing process? MR. CLARKE: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: This is the first solution that you use in the process of extracting DNA from a specimen. MR. SCHECK: And how much does the protocol indicate should be taken out of a bottle of chelex? DR. GERDES: It's basically a drop, very small amount. MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And in terms of the amount that you take out of the bottle, does that have any relationship to the use of aliquots in terms of the way certain laboratories handle this kind of solution? DR. GERDES: Yes. With this kind of solution where you use a very small amount of each item, you would tend to aliquot it into smaller volumes so that you don't go into that bottle a long time. The amount that's shown in this bottle is a six-month supply. MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection. No foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SCHECK: And why is it--why--if you went into the bottle many times in terms of contamination, does that have any consequences? DR. GERDES: Yes. Every time you open the bottle, there's a chance of something falling in there. Every time you pipette or put a pipetter into that bottle, there's a chance of introducing something accidentally. So it goes back to the manipulation we talked about earlier. The more you manipulate things, the more you go in and out of them, the higher the risk. Every time you open, there's a risk and the more times you open it, the greater the risk. MR. SCHECK: Have you reviewed records in connection with the hybridization sheets from the Los Angeles Police Department as to lots of chelex? Have you done that? DR. GERDES: Yes. Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, up here on this particular bottle, there is a no. 5. What does that represent? DR. GERDES: That's their lot number. MR. SCHECK: Have you looked at lot numbers on the laboratory sheets with respect to the use of chelex at the lab? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And what is the frequency in general terms of how often they go to a new lot? DR. GERDES: The lot numbers are used, the same lot numbers recorded for DNA extractions over a period of months. MR. SCHECK: Is that a good practice in your opinion? DR. GERDES: No. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: This is 1307. What is this a picture of, Dr. Gerdes? DR. GERDES: This is another reagent. This particular reagent called TE buffer is used to resuspend DNA. MR. SCHECK: And whose TE buffer is this, if we can go a little tighter on this picture? DR. GERDES: You'll notice there's a CY on the bottle. So this is Collin Yamauchi's. MR. SCHECK: And so this picture was taken at his work station? DR. GERDES: At his work station, yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. And, again, how much TE buffer is used in the course of running a DNA test? DR. GERDES: Less than a dot. A drop. MR. SCHECK: And is this another kind of reagent that is--ought to be aliquotted? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And what is the date on this particular picture? DR. GERDES: 5-25-93. MR. SCHECK: And when was this picture taken? DR. GERDES: January 18th, 1995. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Let me get back to it this way. In terms of the--in your review of the LAPD laboratory strips in terms of contamination, what is the significance of the degree of contamination you found in the extraction control versus the amplification control? MR. CLARKE: Objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: The significance is that it indicates that the area at which contamination is occurring in this laboratory is an early area, most likely in the DNA extraction or sample handling. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, besides your view that--about the substrate--your views about the substrate controls being handled in parallel, the fact that negative controls don't always clean negative controls don't always indicate contamination and the notion of "Carrier," do you have any evidence from review of the data that indicates that there was cross-contamination of DNA between samples handled by Mr. Yamauchi in this case? DR. GERDES: I believe there is some indication of that. MR. SCHECK: And does this cross-contamination show up--does this evidence show up not just in the way samples were handled at LAPD, but how they were typed then subsequently at DOJ and Cellmark? DR. GERDES: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Gerdes, are you familiar with the fact that on June 15th, 1994 at the evidence processing room and at the serology lab, Mr. Yamauchi handled item no. 12, blood drops recovered from the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home and the reference sample from Nicole Brown Simpson and the reference sample from Ronald Goldman? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, on this chart, there's a--could you explain what the-­ DR. GERDES: Sure. MR. SCHECK: --code is over here? DR. GERDES: Yeah. These indicate the typings for the three reference individuals, the DQ-Alpha and one locus, the GC locus of the polymarker gene system. MR. SCHECK: So those represent the genotypes for the three individuals here? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: So on the DQ-Alpha-­ DR. GERDES: On the DQ-Alpha, there's a 1.1, 1.2 for Mr. Simpson, there's a 1.1, 1.1 for Nicole Brown Simpson and there's a 1.3, 4 for Ron Goldman. MR. SCHECK: And on the GC locus and the polymarker system, what are the types for these three individuals? DR. GERDES: On the GC locus of the polymarker gene, it's a BC for Mr. Simpson and a C for Nicole Brown Simpson and an AA for Mr. Goldman. MR. SCHECK: Now, the next three boxes indicate something called "LAPD typing sheet," "Cellmark type sheets" and "DOJ type sheets"? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What are those? DR. GERDES: These are the recorded results that were found on the typing sheets of--on those dates when these specific references were typed. MR. SCHECK: Now, let's move first to June 15th, 1994 when Mr. Yamauchi did this initial typing. I take it he recorded for item no. 12, the blood drops found in the foyer, Mr. Simpson's genotype, 1.1, 1.2? DR. GERDES: That's correct. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to the reference sample, could you tell us what was recorded and also what you observed on the sheet? DR. GERDES: Yes. There—it was recorded as a 1.1, 1.1, and on the actual typing, I can see a very faint 1.2. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman's reference sample, the LAPD records there a 1.3, 4; and is the term very faint 1.1 what's on their record? DR. GERDES: It's on their report, yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--and you can see that very faint 1.1 on the strip itself? DR. GERDES: Yes. Should I put the arrow on it? MR. SCHECK: And so we'll call the new arrow here-­ DR. GERDES: It's right here (Indicating). - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Okay. So from looking here at the LAPD typing sheet--now, with respect to item no. 12, is it your understanding, sir, that item no. 12 were--drops in Mr. Simpson's foyer that were the last blood drops collected on June 13? DR. GERDES: That's correct. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Well, do you know if Mr. Yamauchi handled item no. 12 in the same time and location that he handled the reference samples from Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman on June 15th? MR. CLARKE: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: Yes, he did. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. What did these results indicate to you? MR. CLARKE: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: These results are consistent with cross-contamination of the 1.2 from item 12 into Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman's reference samples. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: But what about the 1.2 dot on Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample? Is that an artifact or contaminant? DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant because the 1.2 doesn't have that kind of artifact. And if you see anything on there, that means there's DNA there. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's move to the next typing of reference samples of Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman. That was done at Cellmark on August 5th, 1994? DR. GERDES: That's correct. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, was there, however--what is the significance of the faint b recorded on the polymarker system for Nicole Brown Simpson? [...] MR. SCHECK: All right. The b in terms of the polymarker system, is that a contaminant or an artifact? DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Let's move on to the next time the reference samples were typed at the Department of Justice. DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Was that on December 31st, 1994? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. And what do the typing sheets for the Department of Justice indicate? DR. GERDES: The Department of Justice recorded on Nicole Brown Simpson a 1.1, 1.1 with a faint trace 1.3 and a trace of 1.2. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman, what did they record? DR. GERDES: Mr. Goldman, they recorded a 1.3, 4 with a faint trace 1.1. MR. SCHECK: All right. And given the rules of interpretation, what does that mean about a 1.2? DR. GERDES: You would also have to consider the fact in this setup, that there might be a mask 1.2. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. In your opinion, based on the principles of the DQ-Alpha system as you understand it, what does the appearance of that 1. Dot indicate? MR. CLARKE: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: It indicates contamination. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to the 1.3, could that be an artifact? DR. GERDES: In this case, again, that is known to have a cross-hybridization problem under certain circumstances, and the difficulty here is, we also have the 1 allele showing up again because of the 1.1 and, therefore, you can't really tell if this is an artifact or real. MR. SCHECK: And when you said under the circumstances where 1.3 is an artifact are what kind of circumstances? DR. GERDES: With high level of DNA, which this may be because it's a reference sample and the fact that there's also the 1 dot showing. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: What in your opinion is the significance of this pattern of typings? MR. CLARKE: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: My interpretation of this pattern is, it has two possible explanations. The first explanation is that there is cross-contamination of Mr. Simpson's blood into Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman, which is then subsequently typed by the two laboratories that LAPD sent their specimens to. The second explanation is that there are possibly contaminants and artifacts that are found at LAPD that are also found at Cellmark and also found at DOJ, and those artifacts just happen to be consistent with the contamination of the cross-contamination pattern. MR. SCHECK: So in other words, there would have to be--at LAPD, with respect to Nicole Brown Simpson, that 1.2 would have to be LAPD contaminating it? DR. GERDES: Yes. MR. SCHECK: But from--and the 1.1 would be an artifact? DR. GERDES: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Well, what would the b in the polymarker system have to be if this were not cross-contamination that started at LAPD, but another explanation? MR. CLARKE: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: That b would have to be a contaminant that coincidentally is consistent with cross-contamination from Mr. Simpson to Nicole Brown Simpson. MR. SCHECK: And what about the DOJ typing? What about that 1.2? What would that have to be if this were not cross-contamination that started at LAPD? DR. GERDES: That would have to be, again, coincidental appearance of the 1.2 that is consistent with cross-contamination from Mr. Simpson's blood into Nicole Brown Simpson's. MR. SCHECK: And then the 1.1, what could that be? DR. GERDES: 1.-­ MR. SCHECK: 1.1 in Mr. Goldman's sample. DR. GERDES: Oh, in Mr. Goldman's sample, it's the same answer. That's would have to be a DX or an artifact that's consistent with cross-contamination. MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Does that data, Dr. Gerdes--what effect does that data have on your view with respect to the efficacy of substrate controls that were used at LAPD in this case? MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation, calls for speculation, beyond the expertise of the witness. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. GERDES: It undermines my confidence in those controls since there is some evidence here that the cross-contamination occurred. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: I have some additional questions now about RFLP results. I believe you gave us yesterday, concerning your views of the RFLP result on LAPD item 52 and—which was analyzed on the morning of June 14th by Mr. Yamauchi, correct? DR. GERDES: Yes, yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. And you've expressed your opinion, your concerns, with respect to that RFLP result? DR. GERDES: In terms of cross-contamination, yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. DR. GERDES: It could be cross-contaminated. - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-26   2:35:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #369. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#368) Moving on, OJ Trial - Garbage In, Garbage Out Instruction to the jury by Judge Ito. SPECIAL INSTRUCTION NO. D2 Evidence of the comparison of blood drops allegedly found on the 'walkways and driveways of the Bundy crime scene with a blood sample provided by Mr. Simpson has been introduced for the purpose of showing the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. Before you may even consider such evidence, you must first determine whether the blood drops allegedly found at the crime scene were deposited by the perpetrator of the murders on June 12, 1994. If you determine this fact to be true, such evidence may then be considered by you for the purpose of determining whether it tends to show the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. If you determine that the alleged blood drops may have been deposited at some other time, however, you must disregard this evidence and not con: ider it for any purpose SPECIAL INSTRUCTION NO. D3 “Evidence of the comparison of blood which was not discovered on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene until July 3, 1994, and of blood which was not discovered on a sock allegedly found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom until August 4, 1994 with a blood sample provided by Mr. Simpson and a blood sample recovered from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson has been introduced for the purpose of showing the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. Before you may even consider such evidence, you must first determine whether the blood found on the back gate and the sock was deposited by the perpetrator or victim of the murders on June 12, 1994. If you determine such fact to be true, such evidence may then be considered by you for the purpose of determining whether it, tends to show the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. If you determine that blood may have been deposited on the back gate or socks at some time subsequent to June 12, 1994, however, you must disregard this evidence and not consider it for any purpose.” - - - - - - - - - - Lawrence Schiller (American Tragedy, paperback, 388-89) described the prep menu of Barry Scheck, It could could be demonstrated, he wrote, that something odd, suspicious, or just plain wrong had occurred during the colleciton or LAPD lab testing and handling of just about every drop or smear of blood evidence. "The DNA and forensic evidence simply cannot be trusted," Scheck concluded. [...] It's very easy to contaminate blood samples under the best of conditions in a medical laboratory," Scheck said. Then in PCR testing, you amplify the wrong DNA. [...] We will show," Scheck said grandly, "that the LAPD laboratory is a cesspool on PCR contamination. We'll demonstratethey had no special procedures for collection and handling of biological evidence. And we will show they broke the few rules they had for whatever whatever kind of test was going to be used." Scheck, Neufeld and Blasier succeeded in accomplishing that task. Criminalists Fung and Mazzola were destroyed on the stand. Special Agent Martz was destroyed by a leading EDTA scientist, Dr. Rieders. - - - - - - - - - - The blood on the sock and the blood on the back gate were keystones in the defense argument that blood evidence had been “planted” in the case. Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the samples were far less degraded that the samples recovered the morning after the murders; (2) analysis of the sample showed the presence of EDTA, a preservative used to prevent coagulation of blood specimens in test tubes, but not found in natural blood. The stain on the sock was not observed by the detectives who seized it, the criminalists who initially examined it, or the defense experts who initially examined it. The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it. Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The O.J. Files, Evidentiary Issues in a Tactical Context, American Casebook Series, West Group, St. Paul, Minn., 1998, at 37-38. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/the-five-lessons-of-the-oj-trial/ Hard lesson number four is also a message for law enforcement: Garbage in is garbage out. The scientific breakthroughs that brought us DNA technology place a very powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement. Like any other technology, however, it's only as good as the people who operate it. The incredible sensitivity of new testing regimens brings with it a greatly enhanced risk of human error. At the outset of the trial, Clark told the jury that collecting specimens for blood testing was as easy as mopping up your kitchen with a sponge. Apparently, the LAPD. actually believes that. Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The Five Hardest Lessons from the O.J. Trial, originally published in Issues in Ethics - V. 7, N. 1 Winter 1996. - - - - - - - - - - Criminalist Andrea Mazzola was the primary collector of blood evidence and criminalist Dennis Fung only collected about two items. The examination by Peter Neufeld documented and demonstrated that prosecutor Hank Goldberg had used a demonstration board filled with false claims that Fung had participated in collecting items he did not collect at all, including items for which it was shown that he was not even present at the collection to observe. The prosecution was desperate to show that Dennis Fung had participated meaningfully in the collection of the blood evidence. They lied trying. During the testimony of Dennis Fung, the prosecution cast a false light on the participation of Dennis Fung in the collection of evidence. During the subsequent testimony of Andrea Mazzola, the prosecution was embarrassingly outed. Not only was the credibility of Dennis Fung demolished, so was the credibility of Hank Goldberg, and by extension, the prosecution team. During the testimony of Andrea Mazzola, it was clearly shown on video that she put her gloved hands on the dirty ground and then went directly to picking up evidence with her dirty gloved hand. This was a repeated occurrence, demonstrated over and over. Ms. Mazzola also knelt on her knees, got up and brushed off the dirt, contaminating her gloved hands, and then directly went to pick up evidence with her dirty gloved hand. Two pieces of evidence were collected with no glove change upon the claim that the pieces were touching and shared the same trace evidence. Photographic evidence proved the items were not touching. Three items were pheno tested with one swab. No substrate control was obtained. The defense established that this was contrary to the mandatory written procedures. The nonsense result was never submitted for confirmation. Luminol testing, as with phenophthalein testing, is presumptive and not admissible to show the presence of blood in the absence of a positive confirmatory test. Luminol testing in the Bronco was excluded from both the criminal and civil trials, as no confirmatory test was performed. The alleged bloody shoeprints in the Bronco were inadmissible as evidence. The jury foreman later wrote, "I had problems understanding how they found the blood smears on the console of the Bronco. Why were they seen after they had torn the inside of this car completely up?" The blood stains, purportedly in plain sight, were not discovered in multiple examinations of the Bronco, and then, suddenly, they were there. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-27   12:45:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #370. To: nolu chan (#369) Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the Well, that's a lie. Detective Tom Lange testified that he saw it that night and ordered it collected. "The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it." That's a lie also. If blood soaked through the sock and the sock was removed and left on the floor, the blood would come in contact with the opposite surface. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-27   13:04:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #371. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#370) Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the Well, that's a lie. Detective Tom Lange testified that he saw it that night and ordered it collected. Well, that's a lie. Half of Dumb and Dumber said it long after the fact, covering his own ass, and that other dumb ass. The full quote, in context, with the words correctly attributed to attorney Gerald F. Uelman, former Dean of Santa Clara Law School: The blood on the sock and the blood on the back gate were keystones in the defense argument that blood evidence had been “planted” in the case. Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the samples were far less degraded that the samples recovered the morning after the murders; (2) analysis of the sample showed the presence of EDTA, a preservative used to prevent coagulation of blood specimens in test tubes, but not found in natural blood. The stain on the sock was not observed by the detectives who seized it, the criminalists who initially examined it, or the defense experts who initially examined it. The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it. Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The O.J. Files, Evidentiary Issues in a Tactical Context, American Casebook Series, West Group, St. Paul, Minn., 1998, at 37-38. Either Lange and Vannatter kept no notes at the scene, or they disappeared their notes. What appears certain is that Fuhrman's notes went unread until it was too late to recover from their monumental fuckup. Barry A.J. Fisher, Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation, 7th Ed., 2004 At 49: Note taking at a crime scene is essential. Well-written, contemporaneous notes are invaluable later in the investigation and especially at the time of trial. It can be extremely frustrating for an officer assigned an old open case if the case notes of the original investigator's initial observations are inadequate or even shoddy. There are no substitutes for good note taking at all phases of the investigation. At 75: Note Taking Of all the duties and responsibilities of an officer conducting the crime scene search, perhaps the most important is note taking. Note taking is important for several reasons. It forces investigators to commmit observations to writing and to keep a detailed record of everything observed and accomplished. Lange's trial testimony that he saw the spots of blood are at odds with his recorded contemporaneous notes. Allegedly, no contemporaneous crime scene notes were kept by Lange or Vannatter. Apparently they saw nothing worthy of taking notes about. Certainly not blood drops or a bloody fingerprint on the rear gate. Trial testimony of Mark Fuhrman, questions by Marcia Clark: Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT THE REAR GATE WHERE YOU JUST DESCRIBED SEEING THE BLOOD DROPPING ON THE LOWER REAR -- LOWER RUNG AND THE MIDDLE AND THEN THE SMUDGE ON THE LATCH? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT ELSE WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ON THAT GATE, SIR? A: NOT AT THAT TIME, BUT LATER, I SAW A PARTIAL POSSIBLE FINGERPRINT THAT WAS ON THAT KNOB AREA. Q: DID YOU THEN WALK THROUGH THE REAR GATE, SIR, WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS? Comment of Mark Fuhrman regarding above questioning, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 204: I'm not an attorney, but I have been questioned in hundreds of criminal trials. To me the obvious next question should have been, "Did anyone else see this possible fingerprint other than you?" But Marcia didn't ask this. Trial testimony of Mark Fuhrman, questions by Marcia Clark: Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY "THE FIRST ROUND OF NOTES," SIR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? A: MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE WHAT OFFICER RISKE WAS POINTING OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF, AND WHAT I OBSERVED. Q: WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO DO -- WERE THESE NOTES ROUGH NOTES? A: YES. Q: WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO DO WITH THESE NOTES LATER ON? A: USED THEM TO GO BACK TO THESE AREAS AND USE THEM AS A GUIDE IN WHAT TO GO BACK TO AND PRIORITIZE THEM. Comment of Mark Fuhrman regarding above questioning, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 205: In her direct questions concerning my notes, Marcia actually had me describe what Vannatter should have done after receiving them. He should have analyzed the various evidence and put priority on fragile items such as the fingerprint, a piece of evidence that should have been isolated and recovered. Trial testimony of Det. Vannatter, questions by Christopher Darden, Q: NOW, AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WERE YOU EVER GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTS AT ALL? A: YES. Q: WHAT DOCUMENTS? A: I WAS GIVEN MARK FUHRMAN'S NOTES THAT HE HAD COMPLETED BEFORE MY ARRIVAL. Q: AND WHO GAVE YOU THOSE NOTES? A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. Q: OKAY. AND YOU'VE SEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES ON THE ELMO HERE IN COURT, HAVE YOU? A: YES, I HAVE. Q: ARE THOSE THE SAME NOTES DETECTIVE PHILLIPS GAVE YOU? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THOSE NOTES? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS GAVE YOU THOSE NOTES? A: WOULD HAVE BEEN SHORTLY AFTER 4:05, MY ARRIVAL. WE STOOD AND TALKED FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, HE GAVE THEM TO ME. Q: NOW, AS YOU WALKED DOWN THE WALKWAY AT BUNDY AND EXITED THE REAR GATE, DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING ON THE REAR GATE AT ALL? A: YES, I DID. Q: WHAT DID YOU NOTICE? A: I NOTICED WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD WIPINGS ALONG THE UPPER RAIL OF THE GATE AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD DROPS ON THE BOTTOM RAIL OF THE GATE. Q: AND WERE THESE BLOOD WIPINGS AND BLOOD DROPS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS? A: THEY WERE. Q: YOU'VE TOLD US THAT YOU HAVE VISITED APPROXIMATELY 500 HOMICIDE SCENES; IS THAT RIGHT? A: APPROXIMATELY, YES. Comment of Mark Fuhrman regarding above questioning, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 190: While he asked Vannatter whether he received my notes, he never asked whether he had read them. Of course, Vanatter hadn't read my notes. Marcia knew it. And so did Darden, or he would have asked Vannatter if he had. Comment of Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 185: In January 1995, as the prosecution was well into preparation for the trial, I was discussing the case with Marcia Clark and asked her about the print. She looked somewhat taken aback and acted as if she didn't know what fingerprint I was talking about. I didn't know why she reacted that way, since we had gone over my notes in detail during the preliminary hearing. I reminded her about my notes and the ovservation of the bloody fingerprint. I saw the hesitation in her face as she told me. The print was never photographed or lifted. "How could they duck up a crucial piece of evidence like that?" I exclaimed. "It was right there in my notes." Marcia looked at me with sympathy and said, "Mark, they didn't read your notes." Mark Fuhrman had his faults, but he was not incompetent like Fuckup #1 and Fuckup #2. Comment of Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 42, While Dennis Fung was at Rockingham testing the blood on the Bronco door, latent print specialists from SID were at Bundy, eager for something to do. Instead of having the latent print specialists wait until Fund returned to secure all the blood evidence, Lange had them dust the exterior and interior of Bundy for prints. Left to themselves, latent print specialists would not be concentrating on the blood evidence. In fact, they would avoid anything with the obvious indication of blood, knowing full well that their fingerprint dust would most probably contaminate that evidence. But with a fingerprint on the rear gate, the SID personnel should have been directed to photograph and inspect it. Testimony of Mark Fuhrman at Preliminary Hearing, 5 July 1994: Q AFTER YOU MADE THOSE OBSERVATIONS WALKING TO THE RIGHT OF THE PRINTS AS YOU INDICATED, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT? A CONTINUED INTO THE -- CONTINUED WEST ON THE WALKWAY TO A GATE. IT APPEARED TO BE ABOUT FIVE- FIVE-AND-A-HALF-FOOT GATE THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THE FRONT GATE THAT LED INTO THE RESIDENCE. I OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE TOP OF THE GATE, RED STAINS THAT I THOUGHT WAS BLOOD. IT LOOKED LIKE A SMALL SPECOF BLOOD ON THE TURNSTILE OF THE LOCK, AND AT THE BOTTOM RAIL OF THE GATE. Between 5 July and 13 July, a lightbulb must have gone on, and Dumb and Dumbr must have realized their monumental screwup. And they could not unscrew it because Lou Brown had had the lock changed on the gate and if the bloody fingerprint had not been destroyed by the SID print dusting team, it had certainly been disposed of by the locksmith. That part of the gate was not around any more. And the scene had been washed down. I can understand why they may not have wanted to retain any notes documenting their incompetence. However, the evidence was enshrined in Fuhrman's notes taken at the crime scene and handed over to Det. Vannatter. 13) At gate on n/s of resid - two blood spots at bottom inside of gate. This area might have been where the dog was kept. Susp ran through this area. Susp possibly bitten by dog? 14) Rear gate, poss blood smudge on upper rail of gate. 15) Rear gate, inside dead bolt (turn knob type) poss blood smudge and visible fingerprint. Comment of Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 41, When I was turning over the Bundy crime scene to Robbery/Homicide, it never occurred to me to lead two veteran homicide detectives by the hand and show them the bloody fingerprints. It would have been an insult for me to emphasize a single piece of evidence to senior detectives. The fingerprint was clearly described right there in my notes, and I had no reason to think they wouldn't read my notes before walking through the scene, since doing so is standard procedure. The importance of the fingerprint was obvious. From the Investigator's Report, 13 June 1994 According to Det. Lange, at about 0030 hrs. 6-13-94 a resident observed the dog belonging to the decedent 94-01536 wandering about the neighborhood. The resident reportedly walked the dog back to the abvove address and observed the decedents unresponsive. Emergency services were called to the scene and death was pronounced by Eng. 19* at 0045 hr. The decedent 94-05136 was last known to be alive at about 2300 hrs. speaking to her mother on the telephone. Her mother had left her eyeglasses at a restaurant that evening and the decedent reportedly advised her mother that she should ask if an employee could bring them to her residence. And that was some good detecting by Det. Lange. Det. Fuhrman described him as a joke in a detective suit. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   2:44:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #372. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#370) "The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it." That's a lie also. If blood soaked through the sock and the sock was removed and left on the floor, the blood would come in contact with the opposite surface. Your bullshit is refuted by world experts. If you have evidence that Drs. Herbert MacDonnell and Henry Lee were lying in their testimony, bring it. Gary Sims, of the California DOJ, testified that the few reddish brown specks he observed on this inner surface of the opposite side were merely powdered blood that he believed had flaked off the initial stain after it was already dried. Dr. Henry Lee observed the tell-tale little red balls, pointed them out to Dr. Herbert MacDonnell who then also observed them, and Dr. Henry Lee photographed the scientific proof that these microscopic little red balls, that appeared to be blood, had penetrated to surface 3. If the blood was acquired by the sock at the crime scene, it would have dried before the socks could have been deposited at Rockingham. Moreover, it was impossible for your bullshit to have created a compression transfer. The blood was pressed in with a certain pressure. It was not a mere contact transfer. The blood was pressed into surface 1 and through to surface 3. It could have included some slight swiping motion. What you describe is impossible based on the scientific evidence. It could not be from mere contact or from dripping blood. The blood could not possibly have just soaked through to surface 3. If the blood was pressed into the sock by a hand, it was done by one finger only. The scientific evidence on this was conclusive, Dr. MacDonell and Dr. Lee were in agreement, and they brought the photographic evidence to back it up. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Herbert MacDONNELL, renowned expert on blood spatter analysis. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: All right. In your opinion, Professor MacDonell, is the ankle stain that you saw a spatter stain? PROF. MACDONELL: Not based upon just the--what you said or my examination. The examination-- MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the witness' testimony. He never indicated he saw a stain, just a cut-out. THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. MR. NEUFELD: No. PROF. MACDONELL: Not based upon the examination that I made of the socks at that time. I did not find any distribution of blood that I could consider a spatter. I have seen other more convincing evidence of it. MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, with respect to the ankle stain, I want you to focus on that, in your opinion was the ankle stain a spatter stain? PROF. MACDONELL: Oh, no, not the ankle stain. I thought you meant the entire stocking. MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm focusing now on the ankle stain in particular. PROF. MACDONELL: The ankle stain was very large; it was not spatter. MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. That calls for speculation. This witness only saw a hole. There was no stain there; it was cut out. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, first of all, was there stain surrounding the perimeter of the hole that was cut out? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. The cut-out was taken out of the middle of the stain. That is the way you usually do it. MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware that Mr. Sims has already testified that there was a bloodstain on the perimeter of that cut-out area? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I am. MR. NEUFELD: Could you please define what "Spatter" is. PROF. MACDONELL: Spatter" is simply the result of impact to usually a liquid. In this instance we are discussing blood, and it creates a spray of small drops, not like gunshot, but it creates a spray and that spray then is projected, and if it strikes a target, in the case of the target, I mean a surface that it hits, like it might hit the table or a table top or a wall, when it strikes that, when you see a sufficient number of small spots, you can determine that it is the result of an energy source consistent with a spattering, such as just clapping your hands if you had a liquid in your hands." MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that in your opinion the stain on the ankle was not a spatter--spatter pattern or spatter? PROF. MACDONELL: No, it was very large. It was about an inch-by-inch-and-a-half oval. MR. NEUFELD: And in your opinion, sir, what type of stain was that bloodstain? PROF. MACDONELL: That was a transfer pattern resulting from, I'm quite sure but not positive, a compression transfer. A lateral or swiping action is the other possibility, but on the dark socks I could not see any evidence of a feathering out on either side, so I conclude it has to be a compression transfer with no lateral movement sideways, or if any, extremely slight. MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you say a compression movement, would that be consistent with a smear as opposed to a spatter? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. A smear generally I think is interpreted as having some kind of a lateral motion, otherwise it is just a drop or a pool, but it is not as consistent with a smear as it is just having blood on your hand or some object and touching it and pulling it away. For example, a fingerprint made with blood that is identifiable is not a swipe action or a smear or it would not be identifiable. It is a direct compression and release. - - - - - - - - - - MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, are you familiar, sir, with Gary Sims' testimony that when he examined the inner surface of the opposite side of this ankle stain he said, "There was no indication seen of soaking through to the other side," unquote? That is at page 27767 in the transcript. Were you aware that Mr. Sims said that? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. MR. NEUFELD: And sir, are you familiar with Mr. Sims' testimony that the few reddish brown specks he observed on this inner surface of the opposite side were merely powdered blood that he believed had flaked off the initial stain after it was already dried? Are you aware of that, sir? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I am. MR. NEUFELD: Do you agree with Mr. Sims' conclusions? PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I can't disagree with what he has said about what he saw, but I saw things in addition to what he has said. He said he saw powdered blood, powdered red material. He may have. I didn't see very much of that, but I did see some red spots that could be characterized as powdered blood, but to me a powder is ground up. It is like fine sugar, powdered sugar, confectioner's sugar as opposed to flakes, and I saw more of what you might call Cornflakes compared to sugar or something like that. MR. NEUFELD: When you looked through the microscope at the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock, did you see any evidence that the blood had actually soaked through to the other side of the sock? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did. MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what evidence you saw that led you to that conclusion. PROF. MACDONELL: I saw little balls of blood which were obviously wet. MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection, objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. NEUFELD: Could you, without making a conclusion as to what the balls were, could you please describe them for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury? PROF. MACDONELL: I saw some small red balls that appeared to be a dried liquid that was on some of the fibers on the inside of the opposite side and some of these were photographed, one in particular. But again, it is impossible to see from a single photograph the different depths of focus or depths of field, rather, so we had one that was particularly good, Dr. Lee called my attention to it, and we photographed it. There were several. MR. NEUFELD: Without reaching the conclusion of what they actually were, did these little red balls have the appearance of blood? PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, they certainly did. MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Henry Lee, world renowned criminalist. The Connecticut state crime lab run by Dr. Henry Lee was ranked #1 in the nation. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: May I call your attention to close-up of two socks? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And what does that appear to be in relation to the picture above it? DR. LEE: This appear to be a close-up showing this pair of same socks. MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, is there anything about the way those socks are lying on the carpet that is of interest in terms of subsequent analysis? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What is it? DR. LEE: This two socks is clearly in two different location, not on top each other. This two socks both have a similarity. The top appear to be folding downward. These two socks, both side, the tip, the toe area cannot be seen whether or not due to this photograph, two-dimensional representation or in reality was tucked in, which I don't know. One sock appear to be crunched in a three-dimensional setting. The other one also, it's not flat. It's also crunched in certain fashion. These two socks, I can not determine just by looking at them inside out or outside in (Indicating). MR. SCHECK: In terms of the proper practices for collection of these socks, what should be done? DR. LEE: If I do it, I can not say about any other people. These two socks-- MR. GOLDBERG: Not responsive. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in, the toe stuck inside or not or exposed, the top, whether or not in fact fall down works or not. A physical description and any obvious trace material or stain should be noted. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, before we get to this board entitled, "History of the socks, item 13, February 16, 1995 examination at LAPD lab," I would like to put on the board a Prosecution exhibit which is 285 entitled, "Henry Lee's sock examination." DR. LEE: Can I step down, your Honor? THE COURT: You may. MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, where did this examination of the sock take place? DR. LEE: It taken place a small conference room at LAPD laboratory. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you tell us, first of all, whose equipment was being used? DR. LEE: Before I left Seattle, I made a request because I can not bring my own laboratory to L.A. I was in a conference give speech. I have no equipment, no camera, no gears. I said have to provide me with all those equipment, all the gears, glove, anything I need. I was informed, yes, everything you need will be there. MR. SCHECK: All right. When you got there, what was provided to you? DR. LEE: When I get there, they provide a microscope, a box of glove. MR. SCHECK: Now, this microscope, could you describe for us the nature of this microscope? DR. LEE: This microscope appears to be similar to a stereoscope. Have two oculars, so-called binocular. Will view from the top. The object is putting underneath, and the external light source was also provided. MR. SCHECK: Now, what was the quality of this microscope? DR. LEE: It's terrible shape, unacceptable in the scientific standard. MR. SCHECK: Why do you say that? DR. LEE: The ocular is moving. The objective shaky. I can't even focus. Looks like need a lot of w--DW--WD 40, something. MR. SCHECK: What was that? DR. LEE: Some kind of solution. WD 40, degrease type of solution. I can't even focus. I wasn't provide any microphotographer attachment. In other words, I have yeen ability to take pictures through the microscope. MR. SCHECK: What's been called photomicrograph? DR. LEE: Photomicrograph to document what I'm seeing. MR. SCHECK: What about the power of that microscope? DR. LEE: Because the adjustment almost impossible to make a true assessment. So impossible for me to make a--such determination. MR. SCHECK: Can you please describe your activities as depicted on Prosecution 285? DR. LEE: There are seven lawyers in the room, including my good friend here, Mr. Goldberg, yourself, Bob Blasier, Hodgman, he's another excellent attorney, and attorney Clark, another excellent attorney, good friend, and another attorney. MR. SCHECK: You're indicating here Mr. Harmon. DR. LEE: Mr. Harmon. Used to be a friend. Also, there are laboratory people. When I walk in, I can see this feeling, I'm not welcome. MR. SCHECK: Anything said to you as to instructions at the beginning of this examination? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What was that? DR. LEE: I ask what procedure for this examination, what's the rule or regulation, what can I do, what can I not do. MR. SCHECK: What was said to you? DR. LEE: An individual that's not the attorney, it's laboratory scientist, say, "You're the expert. You should know it," in a very mean manner and unprofessional. MR. SCHECK: Could you please go back to the board, describe what happened next in terms of what's depicted here, the course of the examination. DR. LEE: The next question I ask, is there any better equipment I can use. The same manner, "That's the best we can give you." I feel little bit upset for this, uncalled for, unprofessional. THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, you need to ask questions here. MR. SCHECK: Now, this picture over here, there's an indication--you're putting your arm into the bag up to the elbow. Why were you doing that? DR. LEE: To exam whether or not have trace material inside the bag. MR. SCHECK: The second picture shows you with a piece of paper in the bag. What are you doing there? DR. LEE: I notice some trace material. However, I was instruct cannot be collected. So I put hand into the paper bag. MR. SCHECK: What were you doing next with respect to the picture on the far right? DR. LEE: I notice the socks already cut, seven holes from the one sock, three holes from the other sock. It's not in original condition which I understand. MR. SCHECK: Now, it's not depicted on this board, but another photograph has been shown in this courtroom of you holding socks up to a light for examination. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Can you explain why you were doing that? DR. LEE: This is simple basic technique which we use which we call back lighting. You have fabric material, any stain on it, if you lift it up, look, the light shine from the back, it's easily--quickly you can identify potential stain. That's the first, you know, basic technique we instruct student to do. MR. SCHECK: And incidentally, given the bloodstains that were eventually identified in the sock, if in earlier examination, the criminalist had picked up one of these socks and looked up into the light, would they have been able to visualize a bloodstain if it were there? MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. DR. LEE: In theory, should be able to see that. When I pick up the socks, I can see all the stain. MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, there's an indication here of moving from one sock to the other sock. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And did you examine one sock and then the other sock? DR. LEE: Yes. I exam one sock at a time. MR. SCHECK: And between the examination of one sock to the other sock, did you change gloves? DR. LEE: Yes, I did. MR. SCHECK: Any question about that in your mind? DR. LEE: No question about it. MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell us what you were able to observe--I think we're--is there anything else of note on this board? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What is that? DR. LEE: I notice that both socks in one bag, in one envelope. I made a comment, I said why those two socks in one envelope. MR. SCHECK: And what is the significance of putting both socks in one envelope for--in terms of forensic procedure? DR. LEE: Start that initial moment, you pick up the socks, put in one envelope, you already contaminate both socks. You have a cross-contamination. It's no longer its virgin state. MR. SCHECK: Is there any significance in terms of this examination that you are not wearing a lab coat or a hair net? DR. LEE: I wasn't provide with a lab coat nor a hair net. After I look, these both socks already put in one envelope. Doesn't matter what I wear, space suit, body armor. Still contaminated. MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, is there anything else of interest depicted on this board with respect to your examination on February 16th before we move to the Defense board? DR. LEE: Yes. Because the difficulty of this microscope, I start using magnifying lens to exam. A magnifying lens can only go to four times. Not really great magnification. I look at the microscope. Yes, I can see some reddish stain which resemble to blood. However, if I can not focus onto the surface, I'm not sure. As I scientist, if anything I'm not sure, I don't want to come to this courtroom to testify. MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, as you were conducting this examination, what was your--and you indicated that began around 12:40? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: What was your understanding as to when it had to end? DR. LEE: Has to be ended before 1:30. MR. SCHECK: Move to the next board? DR. LEE: No. Not yet. I haven't finished. MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. You have a-- THE COURT: Well, who's doing the examination here, Mr. Scheck? MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, call your attention to the picture in the bottom right-hand column, "Turns inside out." Can you explain the significance of that? DR. LEE: I want to see both side of the socks. MR. SCHECK: Why is that important? DR. LEE: The out--exterior surface and interior surface, when you made transfer, you should see both side, try to understand the nature or mechanism of any of those transfer. MR. SCHECK: With respect to the bottom left-hand photograph, could you describe what's going on there? DR. LEE: I'm taking pictures. However, only this not a photomicrograph, just a regular picture. In addition, I put a ruler on top of the socks. MR. SCHECK: Why did you put a ruler there? DR. LEE: To show the dimension of this cutting. MR. SCHECK: Any other pictures that would assist you in describing the next board that's on the Prosecution's board? DR. LEE: The ruler of this and that is a two different rulers. MR. SCHECK: Oh, these are--and what are these rulers? DR. LEE: The ruler--I carry a lot of rulers. As matter of fact, like a business card. A lot of people collect my rulers or usual, after I exam, just pass away, give it to someone. In this day, I give quite a few ruler to people in the room. MR. SCHECK: So these are two different rulers? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now turning to--I forget the number. THE COURT: 1353. MR. SCHECK: 1353. MR. SCHECK: Could you describe for us what these photographs are on 1353? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Concerning the examination you did on February 16th, 1995. DR. LEE: This board consist of nine pictures, three columns. Column 1, picture no. 1 depicts a portion of view of this brown paper bag, numerous writing on this brown paper bag, initials, numbers, tape, which indicative numerous examination already performed. Second photograph depicts an envelope appear to be from Department of Justice. This envelope also have initials and writings and different date, which again consistent with this envelope being open, socks being exam. The last picture of this first column is an overall view when I took the content out. Consists of two socks, two little subterfuge tubes. Inside of subterfuge tube appear to be little fabric material remain in those tubes (Indicating). Column no. 2 depicts the socks-- MR. GOLDBERG: Narrative, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: Depicts socks 13-A, an overall view, shows the socks with my ruler. On the socks, I notice some trace material adhere on the socks. I did not remove it. Also, I notice there cutting. One of the cutting have blood-like stain on the periphery area. There are some reddish smear on the other side of the socks. MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, let me stop you right there. Would you say that this photograph is what is 13-A, right? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: And this is the cutout from the ankle stain area, 13-A? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And this is--the cut-out section was the material that was used to do RFLP typing by the Department of Justice and cellmark that got RFLP results consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, you've indicated that on what has been characterized in previous testimony as surface no. 3-- DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: --that you saw reddish stain? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Did you put that in your notes? DR. LEE: No. MR. SCHECK: Why not? DR. LEE: I can not document. I can not prove the existence of it. Therefore, I did not put down. MR. SCHECK: And you can't do that because? DR. LEE: Because I don't have a--equipment capable to do a close-up photomicrograph documentation. MR. SCHECK: Could you please move on to the column 13-B. DR. LEE: Column 13-B shows the other socks, overall view picture. It's the first frame. Next picture shows the three cutting on the socks, some marking on the socks. The last frame of the socks again shows they are different stain and trace material adhere on the socks. MR. SCHECK: Anything else of interest with respect to the socks on this board? DR. LEE: No. MR. SCHECK: And I'd ask that the next board be put up, which would be marked 13-- THE COURT: 54. MR. SCHECK: 54? 1354, your Honor, is entitled, "History of socks, item 13, April 2nd, 1995, examination at Taylor's laboratory." THE COURT: Thank you. (Deft's 1354 for id = board) MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, did you have an opportunity to examine the socks again on April 2nd, 1995? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And where did this take place? DR. LEE: This take Mark Taylor's laboratory in California. MR. SCHECK: And were representatives of the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory present? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And when you were conducting this examination? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you please describe for us through these photographs the examination. DR. LEE: The overall picture shows the package April the 2nd when this been transferred to me to exam. Before any cutting, I photograph document, now have more bags, envelopes. MR. SCHECK: Is it your understanding that between the time that you examined the sock on February 16th and this examination, that Agent Martz performed the EDTA testing at the FBI? MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: Do you have an understanding an examination was performed at the FBI prior to your receiving this on April 2nd? MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: Please proceed. DR. LEE: Examine this envelope, I see FBI labels which indicative this-- MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: So first paragraph indicates the package. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: In terms of your examination in the photographs, can you describe what was done next? DR. LEE: Next one, after this envelope was cut open, inside contents of envelope, I photograph this envelope again to document the condition. Now have more signatures and initials. MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph 13-A, 42-A? DR. LEE: 13-A, because this have different numbering system, I see some locations say 42. So that's why we say parenthesis 42-A. That's one socks, the ankle stain depicts in this photo. MR. SCHECK: Now, to your knowledge, is 42-A the Department of Justice reference to the sock and 13 would be the LAPD item number? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Were there any differences between the cutting as you saw it on April 2nd and the one on February 16th? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: What are they? DR. LEE: I saw this hole being enlarged, additional piece being cut away. Initially, it's a rectangle shape. Now, become irregular jagged edge shape. MR. SCHECK: Call your attention now to 13-B, parenthesis 42-B photograph. What's that? DR. LEE: 13-B, 42-B depicts a close-up view, shows that's three holes which been cut from this particular socks. MR. SCHECK: All right. Call your attention now to a photograph that is called close-up 42-A-1. What is that? DR. LEE: This because the quashing, which we want to constantly reexam, is relate to this particular stain. This particular stain, which shows a close-up view, shows the surface 1 and surface 3 (Indicating). MR. SCHECK: Now, incidentally, what kind of equipment were you using at the time of this examination? DR. LEE: I use my own microscope with photographic attachment. Also use a light source, which my own light source. MR. SCHECK: And what is the magnification on that microscope? DR. LEE: It's approximately seven to 17 times. MR. SCHECK: And--why does the color change incidentally between the photographs in the middle that are dark and the close-up of 42-A-1 that appears-- DR. LEE: You have an external light source and start reflecting and photograph the document, going to have artificial light source for color. MR. SCHECK: What is the next photograph in the upper right-hand side labeled, "Close-up exterior surface left side 42-A-1"? DR. LEE: This one depicts an area here, the periphery surface, one in the photomicrograph, approximately 25 times. Shows where bloodstain on the surface still remain on the surface. MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph on the bottom right hand? DR. LEE: The bottom right hand, it's approximately the same magnification. However, shows surface 3, one area of surface 3. MR. SCHECK: Did you make any observations from this photograph B, surface 3?" DR. LEE: Surface 3, if we look at this picture around 5:00 o'clock, this location, I see numerous little dot, reddish color blood-like substances. MR. SCHECK: You actually can see that on the picture entitled close-up interior surface? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Would it be possible to just circle a few of them? DR. LEE: Yes. (The witness complies.) MR. SCHECK: Before we turn to the next--the next board has further close-ups; is that correct? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Is there anything else of interest before we move to the next set of close-ups? DR. LEE: Yes. With this magnification, I can see a different population as a blood-like material. Some appear in a ball shape. Other appear in a crust, flaked type of shape. Some of those flecks, flake appear adhere on the fiber. Other appear to be loosely on the surface. MR. SCHECK: So those are flakes and balls? DR. LEE: And crust. MR. SCHECK: Crust. Any other observations before we move to the next set of close-ups? DR. LEE: No. MR. SCHECK: Can we have the next board, please? This would be, your Honor? THE COURT: 1355. MR. SCHECK: 1355 entitled, "History of socks, item 13, close-up view of bloodstain on item 13-A, (42-A)." (Deft's 1355 for id = board) MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, would you explain to us what these series of six photographs represent? DR. LEE: The six photograph, the top row, three, represent exterior surface with magnification. The bottom row, three frame of picture, represent the interior surface with magnification. MR. SCHECK: So the bottom row is what's known as surface 3? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: Now, we previously had, when Professor MacDonell was testifying, two photographs put into evidence, one exhibit no. 1277, and the other one, 1278. Ask you to examine these and tell us if either of these photographs are also on this board. DR. LEE: Yes. Exhibit no. 1277 represent a view of the 3rd column, top. The landmark is a 2 curvature of fabric showing in the middle portion of this photograph. The second one, which representing this board, the second column, bottom frame, a ball-like reddish stain showing in this location. MR. SCHECK: Okay. And so this photograph, Defendant's 1278, with the circle, the blue circle, that is what Professor MacDonell was referring to as a little red ball? DR. LEE: Yes. The same location, but this have a higher, bigger enlargement. MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, would you please proceed with your description of the examination you performed in terms of these six photographs. DR. LEE: First row, exterior surface, on the surface, fabric surface, have blood-like stain. Those bloodstain basically distribute on the fabric itself. So these two view represent two different locations. When you enlarge it, you see the socks have gaps, little holes. When you look at the fabric itself, the wave pattern looks very tight. The fabric itself very smooth. It's a non-absorbent type of a fabric. The bloodstain basically sitting on the surface, did not absorb into the fabric itself. These little holes, if you focus through the hole, you can see some reddish stain, blood-like stain went through the hole. Next row of picture depicts the surface 3. Again, we can see those little ball-like, bead-like material. However, it's become very difficult to photograph to--into 70 time. The distance, room for focus getting less and less. So you only can focus and photograph one stain at a time. You can not say take a picture, shows a row of balls. You only can show one. The rest going to be out of focus. This picture shows one of the better representation. Subsequently, I took some other picture, and I see some little ball material in here. In addition, there piece of unknown substances was also found on these socks (Indicating). MR. SCHECK: Could you please circle on the photograph to the far--far right-hand corner some of the other little balls that you saw. DR. LEE: (The witness complies.) MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, altogether, how many little balls did you observe on April 2nd? DR. LEE: I observed--observed approximately 10. MR. SCHECK: If--and you say that this observation was made by changing the focus of the microscope? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, why did you just document these two pictures? DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis. MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in order for these red balls to have come to be as they appear on surface no. 3, does this require a transfer between surface 2 and surface 3? MR. GOLDBERG: Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: It not necessary to have a surface 2, surface 3, but surface 1--surface 2 have to be contact surface 3. MR. SCHECK: So surface 1 has to contact surface 3? DR. LEE: No. MR. SCHECK: Surface 2 has to contact surface 3. They'd be lying on each other? DR. LEE: Right. MR. SCHECK: And in terms of the significance of these balls, what does--what does that indicate, the form of those red balls? DR. LEE: It consistent with this transfer being a liquid stage. MR. SCHECK: And how does that distinguished from the--you said there were flakings that you had seen in other photographs. What's the difference? DR. LEE: Those transfer, some could be in liquid stage, did not form a ball, prior to the forming of ball, collect, or due to a secondary transfer from another surface during examination and get transfer. MR. SCHECK: Now, Professor MacDonell testified that the stain on surface 1 and surface 2 and surface 3 was consistent with a transfer stain starting when the socks were laying on a flat surface and no leg was in the sock. Are you aware of that. MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: That's his testimony. I have nothing to dispute with him. MR. SCHECK: So you agree? DR. LEE: I agree. MR. SCHECK: Now, let me ask you--well, I take it, if a leg is in the sock, you can't have contact between those two surfaces? DR. LEE: Very difficult to do such a thing. MR. SCHECK: All right. Let me ask you about some suggestions that have been made about mechanisms of transfer. Let me ask you to assume that this sock were--was at the crime scene and one of the victims, perhaps Miss Simpson, grabbed the sock. Could that have caused the transfer, assuming there was a leg in the sock? MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, calls for speculation, conjecture. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: Before I answer this, the mechanism, manner of transfer, that's two separate thing. Mechanism and manner is different. MR. SCHECK: Well, could you please explain the difference? DR. LEE: A mechanism, for example, if the blood goes through this little hole, did not touch the foot surface too, that's a mechanism. Just like a screen window have little holes. When the screen window wet, the stain going to be on top of the screen window. Unless certain force, certain condition, that little drop of a liquid may go through the hole, and subsequently, you have a contact, can soak through and get the formation. That's called mechanism. Manner can be touching with hand, touch with pointer, touch with an ear, touch with a nose. Those manner can be different, can subject to a lot of interpretation and possibilities. MR. SCHECK: So let me rephrase my question in terms of the manner of transfer. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Assume that these socks were at the crime scene on an individual. If they had been grabbed by one of the victims whose hands were bloody, could that manner of transfer have caused what you see? DR. LEE: It's hard-- MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: It's highly unlikely. MR. SCHECK: Why is that? DR. LEE: If a grabbing, if both--other side of forefinger touch, I should see both sock have a contact or contact smear. In addition, if somebody's leg is inside of the socks, still, when that cause this manner of mechanism of transfer. MR. SCHECK: If--ask you--a suggestion has been made that--you're aware that a phenolphtalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994? MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: Well, ask you to assume that a phenolphthalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994. Could the application of a swab in a phenolphthalein test to this stain be the mechanism of transfer? DR. LEE: If a phenolphthalein test, the technique used properly, in other words, not soaking the swab wet to wet, usually just moist the swab, it's not sufficient liquid to redissolve because the contact of the swab to surface should be brief. Shouldn't have that, but I can not rule out all the possibilities. As a scientist, I only can tell you some may be consistent with, some may be high unlikely. MR. SCHECK: Is this one unlikely? MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: This probably unlikely, but I can not rule out. I'm not the one did the swabbing. MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of the blood crust and the issue of diffusion, does that have some relationship to your opinion that this is an unlikely mechanism of transfer? DR. LEE: Because here have sufficient amount of blood crust on a surface, in general, we use a dry swab or dry filter paper, which will avoid this potential problem since all those crusts, you probably don't need to rub back and forth hard to cause a transfer. MR. SCHECK: It has been suggested that if a bloodstain occurred on this sock and then someone was sweating in the socks, that this would cause the stain to dry more slowly and could be the mechanism of transfer. MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: That's as to the form of the question, your Honor? THE COURT: Foundation is what it is. MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry? THE COURT: Foundation. MR. SCHECK: Foundation? MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, let's assume that a bloodstain was deposited on the sock and then 10, 15 minutes later, some--during that 10-, 15-minute period, someone was sweating in the socks and then the socks were taken off. Could that result--could that be a mechanism or manner of transfer that would be consistent with your observations here? MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. GOLDBERG: Also calls for speculation, conjecture. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: The bloodstain on the surface still in an intact shape, if a bloodstain dissolves, say, the socks with a lot of sweat should become a diffused pattern. But again, I can not rule out any possibility. May be possible, but unlikely. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And this is another one of those examples of something where a leading forensic scientist or a number of forensic scientists can look at an item and they just can't provide us with all of the answers; is that correct? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it? DR. LEE: It does mean something wrong. If at the beginning first day I have an opportunity to look at the socks, I can give you a really, really close estimation, but since a big hole there, I cannot create or recreate a hole. MR. GOLDBERG: Well, weren't there photographs, though, of the socks before the hole was cut out? DR. LEE: I was not privileged to have a photograph shows the bloodstain intact. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But the point is, is that even with all those things, sometimes we can't do anything more than give a rough estimation; is that correct? DR. LEE: Yes, sir, that's correct. MR. GOLDBERG: That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it? DR. LEE: No. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let's talk a little bit about the mechanism of transfer. You've explained what a compression transfer is. Can you just give us a very, very brief additional explanation of that, sir? DR. LEE: The liquid blood either on an object or already on surface have certain pressure applied to it. I cannot come here again tell you how big the pressure, certain pressure. This liquid transfer onto the surface, that is called compression stain. MR. GOLDBERG: And can you give us a brief explanation as to what a swipe is? DR. LEE: A swipe you start generally when first moment contact, that probably can be a compression. Then with a lateral movement you--either the surface--receiving surface move or the applying surface move and could be both surface moved. That is called a swipe. MR. GOLDBERG: And those are two separate things; is that correct, doctor? DR. LEE: They are two separate definition. MR. GOLDBERG: And to a forensic scientist, such as yourself, that has some expertise in the area of blood splatter, that is an important distinction, isn't it, between swipe and compression? DR. LEE: It is important, but sometime again have a gray area. You can't really tell too clearly that is a compression or a swipe. Sometime it is a combination. MR. GOLDBERG: But if you can make a distinction, that is an important one from--for a forensic scientist, correct? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And if Mr. MacDonnell testified that that distinction was not important, would you agree with it? DR. LEE: I don't know exactly he refer to. If you refer a special situation, that is not wrong. If, say, every case you shouldn't distinguish a compression or a swipe, then it is wrong. Certain situation a compression and swipe may be a combination. That is again each individual have their own opinion and I'm not going to argue with other--everybody entitle, other expert entitled to their opinion. Certain scientific fact should not be argued about it. As far as the opinion, they are entitle give their opinion. - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to the socks, getting back to the socks, is the stain 42-A that we've been talking about-- DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. GOLDBERG: --consistent with a person at the crime scene touching the socks? DR. LEE: You just look at surface 1 or you look at the whole socks? MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's take surface 1 so far. DR. LEE: Surface 1, in order to have that, that is my interpretation now, okay? In order to have somebody touch somebody else socks, the pants and the shoes have to have a separation to expose the surface. The best example I can give to you, have to wear the pants like Michael Jackson. Certain portion of socks have to expose. If I wear my pants and socks like that, if touch, have to touch my pants, not going to be the socks, so that is one condition. The second condition the blood has to be liquid, not coagulate, not dry, has to be in liquid state. Third thing has to have certain pressure. I don't--I cannot tell you how much pressure. Not just a gentle touch. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, having said all that, if the pants are pulled up-- DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. GOLDBERG: --or if someone is bent over or however it happens, the sock is exposed and someone didn't grab the socks, but touched the sock with a bloody finger, wet bloody finger-- DR. LEE: Has to be single finger. MR. GOLDBERG: Single finger? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And could it also be a--a result--this transfer, of or consistent with someone wearing that sock and the sock coming up against a bloody object? DR. LEE: Has to have a pressure in that one location, because we look at that--just that one location and very defined parameter. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the answer is yes? DR. LEE: Has to be certain condition to cause that transfer. MR. GOLDBERG: Well, yeah. If someone come into contact with some pressure with some object that has wet blood on it, you can get that transfer? DR. LEE: Right. - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you were asked about the socks being packaged together in an envelope and I just wanted to clarify your testimony on this topic. Is the packaging--let's say that you have two socks at a crime scene and you collect them together and you put them in the same bag together. DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Is it your position that there could be a transfer from one sock to another sock? DR. LEE: Could be. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that transfer could be hair and trace? DR. LEE: Also could be biological material. MR. GOLDBERG: If the socks are wet at the time they are collected? DR. LEE: If the socks are wet, if have some body tissues or body material can cause a transfer. MR. GOLDBERG: Are you going to expect a transfer, in your experience, at that time if the socks are dry? DR. LEE: If have dry skin, tissue, those you don't need any wet material. If it is bloodstain, sometime this touch can have a trace transfer. If it is wet, you definitely going to expect transfer. MR. GOLDBERG: Is packaging the socks together the way that I just described going to change the DNA type on the socks that was deposited there? DR. LEE: I cannot say specifically will relate to this case, but if a case, for example, a simple example, let's say ABO typing, the victim is type A, the decedent is type B. If have a transfer, our reading going to be type AB, a mixture. What AB means could be an AB type. There are people AB type. There could be a mixture of a and B. In other words, the interpretation gets so complicated now. Sometime possible to resolve; other times just impossible. You just call it could be a mixture. MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let me make the hypothetical a little bit more specific then. Let's say that in our hypothetical we have a 15-probe RFLP match-- DR. LEE: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: --on one of the stains on our hypothetical socks that were packaged together at the time they were collected. DR. LEE: Yes, right. MR. GOLDBERG: Does packaging at the time that they were collected change the DNA type? DR. LEE: In theory shouldn't; however, if let's say hypothetical because a lot of impossible, let's say just happen, I have to look at the band, I have a homozygote or heterozygote--let's call the band a heterozygote, two bands instead of one, it is remote, almost remote, but do have a possibility two individual, each one have one band mixed together become two bands. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if we know the contributors to the biological evidence on that sock and let's say we know there is more than one donor-- DR. LEE: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: --to the blood on the two socks-- DR. LEE: Uh-huh. MR. GOLDBERG: --then we can eliminate some of those mixture problems; is that correct? DR. LEE: If we have a complete profile maybe we can be able to do that. MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that even if the two socks are packaged together, a 15-probe match would be an extremely significant piece of evidence? DR. LEE: If it is genuine, that is an important piece of evidence. - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, just very briefly on the issue of collecting clothes and then we will move on to a different topic. Is it your position that in training police officers that where clothes are in a pile, for example, a number of different articles of clothes, they should in fact collect the clothes as a group and package them together in the same package? Is that the way that you train them? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there is not an absolute that you always have to package the clothing separately? DR. LEE: If they are separate, you should package separate. If you have clothing on top of each other, or mingled together, for example, certain people take off their pants, the underpant come with it altogether, you don't have to separate them in the crime scene, you should collect as one group. MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that with respect to the sock photos that you have seen in this case, in your analysis of the sock, we could never exclude the possibility that the sock came into contact with one another prior to being collected anyway? DR. LEE: I only can testify what I see. I saw the picture, there is two socks separate. MR. GOLDBERG: Right. DR. LEE: Clearly. Before that, I don't know. - - - - - - - - - - MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is it possible, doctor, in your judgment that in the process of taking off the socks, if one was cut and they deposited some of their blood on the toe of the sock and they turned the upper part of the sock inside out, that the toe could come into contact with wall 3, which is now inside out? DR. LEE: Any type of transfer has--in this situation has to be wet. Still in liquid stage, only have minute transfer. It's not a large amount of blood or blood drop on it. It's little, tiny bead. So I can not rule out say possibilities. MR. GOLDBERG: The scenario that I just gave you? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. GOLDBERG: And would it be fair to say, as in the case with some of the other photographs, the photographs that you saw of the socks at Rockingham were again second or third generation? DR. LEE: The picture I--my testimony is first generation, base my own observation, own photograph. The picture provide to me is different picture taken by different peoples. MR. GOLDBERG: I'm talking about the Rockingham picture. DR. LEE: Rockingham picture is maybe second, maybe third. I don't know how many generation before get to my hand. - - - - - - - - - - THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you collect that from Deputy Bashmakian, please. All right. Let the record reflect that each of the jurors had the opportunity to carefully review People's 596, the sock photograph. MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor. MR. GOLDBERG: I'd like to move on to another topic if we may, and that's to ask you a couple clarifying questions about bindle no. 47. Now, it is your opinion that there was a wet transfer in that bindle; is that correct? DR. LEE: Yes. That's no doubt in my mind it's a wet transfer. - - - - - - - - - - MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a picture that's 596 on cross-examination of the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Do you recall that? DR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. SCHECK: And you indicated that that was the best quality photograph you had been able to see prior to this occasion. DR. LEE: Yes. That's an excellent photo. MR. SCHECK: See any blood on those socks, Dr. Lee? MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. DR. LEE: I can not determine any bloodstain on there or not. MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear the last part of the answer. THE COURT: He said he cannot determine any bloodstain on there or not. - - - - - - - - - - DR. LEE: He have a great amount of experience and did lot of experiment in the past, publish a book involving interpretation of the bloodstain analysis. MR. SCHECK: And did you examine the socks with Professor MacDonell? DR. LEE: Uh, yes, we did. MR. SCHECK: All right. Did you see the red balls depicted in photo micrographs that he testified about? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Did you take those pictures? DR. LEE: I took those pictures. MR. SCHECK: Do you agree with the testimony of Professor MacDonell that in terms of the mode of transfer, which I believe was the form of the question on cross-examination, that this--the mode of transfer here with respect to the ankle stain on the sock was side 2 having come into contact with side 3? MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Also calls for speculation, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. DR. LEE: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   3:05:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (373 - 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