[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: 118935 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 (1-362) not displayed.       .       .       . #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   #373. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#372) Moving on, CA DoJ Gary Sims v. LAPD Colin Yamauchi - Scheck cross of Gary Sims of Cal. DoJ Superman Collin Yamauchi processed all the samples and gave results with same-day service. Mr. Sims, assisted by Ms. Montgomery, took a week at the California DoJ lab to process less. We're talking the same stuff being retested at Cal DOJ. THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination. MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, at the break you were kind enough to review your notes with me concerning those--the 21 samples. Do you recall that? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. And you indicated that the maximum number of samples that you processed from the initial cutting of the swatches to the reporting of results in one run was 21 samples, correct? MR. SIMS: Yes, and that would include the quality control sample, the extraction blank and then substrate controls intervening the stains. MR. SCHECK: Right. Now, at the break you and I reviewed your notes as to how long--how long it took you to do that procedure with the 21 samples from beginning to end? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And umm, I think you began that on the 8th of September? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Half day? MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what we figured. MR. SCHECK: And then September 9th you said it took you all day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And then September 14th, another half day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And September 15th, at least a half day, maybe three-quarters of a day? MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes. MR. SCHECK: Then September 20th a half day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: September 21st, a day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Altogether, between yourself and Miss Montgomery, who participated in the process, how many days did it take you to process those samples from beginning to end? MR. SIMS: From the point of--of sampling to having a typing result on DQ-Alpha? MR. SCHECK: Yeah. MR. SIMS: That was about 7 working days. MR. SCHECK: 7 working days? MR. SIMS: Approximately. MR. SCHECK: Can you imagine being able to process those samples, 21 samples from beginning to end, in one day? MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination. THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   3:17:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #374. To: nolu chan (#373) MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination. THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. Geez Louise. That entire exchange was a waste of time. Speculation and innuendo isn't evidence. Is that all you got? If the prosecution pulled such a stunt you'd be screaming "mistrial". misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-28   8:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #375. To: nolu chan (#371) 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. I see. So everyone lied. Detective Lange lied. Vanatter lied. Fuhnman is a liar and lies about everything. What's the point of me searching for and posting testimony that destroys your speculation if your response is going to be a flippant, "Oh, he lied"? "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." OJ murdered the two, rushed home, took off his socks and threw them on the floor. Of course the blood was still wet. It transferred and then it dried. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-28   9:05:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #376. To: misterwhite (#374) Geez Louise. That entire exchange was a waste of time. Speculation and innuendo isn't evidence. Is that all you got? Collin Yamauchi allegedly performed the same tests and a few more with results overnight, while it took the State expert a week. The point was well made that the Yamauchi claim that he did not rush, and performed professionally without risking cross-contamination, was exposed as an absurdity. The jury got the message. Even you got the message. Here it is again with the part you focus on denoted by strike-through. THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination. MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, at the break you were kind enough to review your notes with me concerning those--the 21 samples. Do you recall that? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. And you indicated that the maximum number of samples that you processed from the initial cutting of the swatches to the reporting of results in one run was 21 samples, correct? MR. SIMS: Yes, and that would include the quality control sample, the extraction blank and then substrate controls intervening the stains. MR. SCHECK: Right. Now, at the break you and I reviewed your notes as to how long--how long it took you to do that procedure with the 21 samples from beginning to end? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And umm, I think you began that on the 8th of September? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Half day? MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what we figured. MR. SCHECK: And then September 9th you said it took you all day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And then September 14th, another half day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And September 15th, at least a half day, maybe three-quarters of a day? MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes. MR. SCHECK: Then September 20th a half day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: September 21st, a day? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Altogether, between yourself and Miss Montgomery, who participated in the process, how many days did it take you to process those samples from beginning to end? MR. SIMS: From the point of--of sampling to having a typing result on DQ-Alpha? MR. SCHECK: Yeah. MR. SIMS: That was about 7 working days. MR. SCHECK: 7 working days? MR. SIMS: Approximately. MR. SCHECK: Can you imagine being able to process those samples, 21 samples from beginning to end, in one day? MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination. THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. The jury heard the question, and they and everyone else knew the only possible answer. Continue to make believe if you will, it is amusing. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   16:50:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #377. To: nolu chan (#376) The jury heard the question, and they and everyone else knew the only possible answer. I'll say it again. If the prosecution pulled that stunt you'd be crying 'mistrial'. The only possible answer? What's the question? You're saying there could be cross-contamination. Well. Was there or not? If there was, where's your evidence? misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-28   17:25:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #378. To: misterwhite (#377) I'll say it again. If the prosecution pulled that stunt you'd be crying 'mistrial'. It is done in every trial by both sides, as you well know. Only you would think of crying "mistrial!" In fact, there was no mistrial. All that preceded that last question you are obsessed with came in as evidence. The evidence is clear that Collin Yamauchi could not, and did not, process all the samples in one day and also adhere to proper protocols. He exposed everything to cross-contamination. Dr. John Gerdes could not have made that clearer. During the trial, the defense team raised questions about the crime scene practices of the police and even cited a prior edition of this textbook to suggest that the police acted improperly in processing the scene. An important lesson from this case is that appearance and perception, as well as the ability to communicate effectively to a jury, are equally important. Appearances and perception are every bit as important as knowledge, skills, and ability, at least in the eyes of the jury and the public. If the defense can make it appear that evidence was handled in an improper manner, the jury may agree. Barry A.J. Fisher, Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation, 7th ed., pg. 49, referring to the O.J. Simpson trial. A further lesson to be learned from the Simpson case is that the focus of forensic science is shifting from the laboratory to the crime scene. The crime scene investigation process is taking on a more prominent role. Defense attorneys are quick to learn that, if they can show that the initial handling of the physical evidence at the crime scene was faulty and calls into question subsequent lab work, the evidence may be kept out of the trial or at least tarnished in the eyes of the jury. Id. at 50. Fung and Mazzola were a disaster, at the crime scene and on the witness stand. The jury found no satisfactory answer for the EDTA or how the blood on the gate had been exposed to the weather for weeks and had not degraded. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   19:35:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #379. To: misterwhite (#377) Not only did Dr. John Gerdes testify to the protocols violated by Collin Yamauchi, so did Gary Sims, a prosecution witness from the California DOJ. AEROSOL CONTAMINATION - Scheck cross of Gary Sims of Cal. DoJ MR. SCHECK: Now, the--there are other kinds of precautions that one takes in terms of processing samples for purposes of forensic DNA typing, aside from the ones we've previously reviewed, in terms of which kind of samples one would handle at different times and different places? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's start first with aerosols. MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: Now, one kind of aerosol we have already discussed is the kind of spray that can occur when one opens up a tube? MR. SIMS: Yes. If one has not spun it down, that is a concern because you can get liquid accumulating under the top of the cap. MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And this would apply also to one of these lavender-topped tubes that contains reference samples? MR. SIMS: Well, they are under vacuum, so yes, that is a concern when you open one of those for the first time. MR. SCHECK: And when you open one of those for the first time, one has to be quite careful about the aerosol of whole blood from the reference tube? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And in pouring that out, let's say, onto one of these paper cards, one has to take great care? MR. SIMS: Well, one has to be careful about what else is in the laboratory, yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, aside from aerosols from liquids, can one have aerosols from dried biological particles? MR. SIMS: I don't know if they are possibly called aerosols, but you can have, for example, powdered blood, something like that. You have to be concerned about that. MR. SCHECK: Powdered blood would be small particles of dried blood? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, if one were to take a test-tube that contained blood swatches that had dried on the inside of the test-tube-- MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: --and then one takes a pipette, holding the test-tube up and scrapes the bloodstains out of the test-tube with the pipette-- THE COURT: Swatches? MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry? THE COURT: The swatches. MR. SCHECK: Swatches? MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: Out of the pipette? MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: Are you with me? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Could that not cause an aerosol of powdered blood to fall on the surface over which the test-tube was held? MR. SIMS: Well, in my experience, with that kind of a sample you usually see some flakes. It is not as fine a powder but you see more of like a flake, flaky effect. MR. SCHECK: You could see a flake, but in terms of the dried swatch, could be an aerosol? MR. SIMS: Again, I'm not sure that is the right term, but if you are talking about airborne particles, yes. MR. SCHECK: Airborne particles? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And the pipette itself is a flexible instrument? MR. SIMS: Now by pipette do you mean one of those that has a disposable tip on it or do you mean like a glass--can you-- MR. SCHECK: Glass. MR. SIMS: Yes. Well, it is not very flexible; it is glass. MR. SCHECK: Well, one of those thin plastic ones? MR. SIMS: Oh, okay, yes, those are flexible. MR. SCHECK: Right, and he can flick particles? MR. SIMS: Yes, yes. MR. SCHECK: Especially when you are pulling out of a tube? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: So that is another kind of aerosol if--using that definition? MR. SIMS: Yes, yes. MR. SCHECK: And these are particles of blood? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: From which nanograms of DNA can be extracted? MR. SIMS: Well, if these are real small specks, I don't think you could get nanograms. MR. SCHECK: Well-- MR. SIMS: I mean if you-- MR. SCHECK: Again how many? MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor, he cut off his answer. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. Did you finish, Mr. Sims? MR. SIMS: I was going to say if you had a large flake, then that would be nanogram quantities, but not the kind of minute specks that I think you are talking about. Those are not nanogram quantities usually. MR. SCHECK: Well, let's go back to our discussion of specks. MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: All right. MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: How small a particle can one get to derive two nanograms of DNA? MR. SIMS: Well, from that, if it was solid blood, it would be a very small flake, something like that. MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to paper. MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: When examining biological specimens, is it not an important precaution, to change paper just in examining each item? MR. SIMS: I think that is an important precaution, yes. MR. SCHECK: So just so we know what we are talking about, let's say you were examining a blood swatch on a white piece of--what do they call it in labs? Butcher paper? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: After examining that swatch it would be important to remove the paper from which the swatch came before then examining another swatch on that paper? MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, you wouldn't want to put two swatches on the same piece of paper. I would agree with that. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   19:43:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #380. To: nolu chan (#378) The jury found no satisfactory answer for the EDTA or how the blood on the gate had been exposed to the weather for weeks and had not degraded. Well, let's see. The defense never did show the evidence was planted or manufactured, so what does that leave us with? An unexplainable truth. The jury was given no reason to disregard this evidence. It is what it is, even if it can't be explained by the prosecution or the defense. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-28   20:20:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #381. To: nolu chan (#379) Any actual evidence of cross-contamination? No? Next subject. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-28   20:42:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #382. To: misterwhite (#375) What's the point of me searching for and posting testimony that destroys your speculation if your response is going to be a flippant, "Oh, he lied"? "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." What's the point of your providing another unidentified quote, making believe it is testimony? And doing so making believe that it was inconsistent expert scientific testimony? You did not search up what you quoted. It was never testimony at any trial. It was not made by any scientific expert. Once again, you excerpted and ripped out of context, a quote by an attorney from his lawbook, and he was not discussing the manner of transfer of a blood stain. The scientific experts testified that there was a compression transfer and the blood was forced through by applied pressure with a well defined perimeter indicating that, if done by hand, it was not more than one finger that was used to apply the pressure. I provided the expert scientific opinions of Dr. Herbert MacDonnell and Dr. Henry Lee, testified to at trial as evidence, accompanied at trial by undeniable photographic evidence. Again, the full quote, in context, with the words correctly attributed to attorney Gerald F. Uelman, former Dean of Santa Clara Law School: The blue font is of your first pull quote and this current out of context pull quote. I am thje one who search it up and posted it, clearly identifying the author as attorney Gerald F. Uelman. 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. That is not testimony, it is from a book and clearly identified as such, the author is clearly identified as an attorney and not a scientist, and he was clearly not making a point about the manner of transfer. He was making the point that the blood could not have transferred from surface 2 to surface 3 if there was a foot in the sock. It is clearly not inconsistent scientific opinion about the manner of transfer of the blood stain. It is, once again, your underhanded bullshit method of argument, because you are too lazy to search up and provide actual evidence or testimony. As another reminder, you made the claim that the prosecution in the criminal trial produced 10 times the evidence required to enable the jury to return a verdict of guilty. We are now nearly 400 posts into the thread and you have yet to produce any evidence. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   16:11:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #383. To: misterwhite (#375) OJ murdered the two, rushed home, took off his socks and threw them on the floor. Of course the blood was still wet. It transferred and then it dried. Don't leave out that O.J. supposedly did this without getting a detectable spot of blood on the light colored carpet. And the magic socks came and went in a ghostly fashion. Johnnie Cochran's closing argument on the socks was epic. Thje moving luggage straps told a story for which the prosecution could offer no effective rebuttal. Dr. Herbert MacDonnell and Dr. Henry Lee provided the scientific proof that what you suggest was impossible. Deal with it. The jury did and found Dr. Henry Lee most impressive. It is sad that you are willfully unable to understand the conclusions stated by Drs. MacDonnell and Lee. The prosecution presented no effective rebuttal to the expert testimony of Dr. Herbart MacDonnell and Dr. Henry Lee regarding the socks. Like Dr. Henry Lee. Now he was a very impressive gentleman. Highly intelligent, world-renowned. I had a lot of respect for Dr. Lee. There's just something about his approach that makes you respect him. I sort of felt that the prosecution dogged him out basically when he was trying to test some of the items and they wouldn't give him either the proper equipment of the time necessary to investigate like he wanted to. But, basically, I liked him. He was a very impressive witness. Madam Foreman, pg 119 Also Dr. MacDonnell. "They were looking to see how much EDTA was in there and we in order to see it you have to have all of these ions in there for it to be present," Carrie explains. "And Herbert MacDonell stated that the ions were there, all of them. But the guy who tested the EDTA said it wasn't fair and all of the signs showed the same wavelength. When he was asked about it, about all the wavelengths being the same, he said that was just noise in the machine. That the machine was noisy. So the question we had was, How can you call this set 'noise' and tell us we should ignore it, even though it had the same frequencies as the one that represents the presence of the ions? So I think he picked the parts that he wanted. And so that was questionable." "All these factors added up. Something wasn't right there," says Marsha. "The blood was being mishandled, the evidence was being mishandled, they put into my mind that there is a possibility of cross-contamination. The experts came and explained that, yes, there is contamination here. What I'm saying is that I had doubt that these things could have happened." Madam Foreman, pg 120 The jurors saw what the willfully ignorant refuse to see. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fuhrman is a liar He was convicted of felony perjury for having lied under oath. On tape, he bragged about lying and planting of evidence. You must be the last person on Earth to contest the established fact that Fuhrman lied to the jury. Vanatter lied. Yes, Vannatter demonstrably lied under oath. No doubt about it. Vannatter, Affidavit for Search Warrant, June 13, 1994 Detectives observed what appeared to be human blood, later confirmed by Scientific Investigation personnel to be human blood on the drivers door handle of the vehicle. [...] Blood droplets were subsequently observed leading from the vehicle on the street to the front door of the residence. [...] During the securing of the residence a man's leather glove containing human blood was also observed on the south side of the residence. At the time of swearing, Vannatter had no proof of the presence of blood, much less human blood. A phenolphthalein test is not capable of confirming the presence of blood, or discerning between human or animal blood. At best, the positive presumptive test can indicate the possible presence of blood. It was determined Simpson had left on an unexpected flight to Chicago during the early morning hours of June 13, 1994 Arnelle Simpson and Kato Kaelin had stated that Simpson left on a planned trip to Chicago for Hertz. As bad as his blatant lies was his omission of the fact that entry had been gained by jumping the fence in the absence of a warrant. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   16:13:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #384. To: misterwhite (#380) Well, let's see. The defense never did show the evidence was planted or manufactured, so what does that leave us with? An unexplainable truth. You have this hysterical need to reverse the burden of proof. The defense has no burden of proof. The prosecution bears the entire burden of proof. The defense must only create reasonable doubt. Advance to 47m46s Youtube link 47:46 - 59:38 - The magic socks, Ford video and still photos OJ Simpson Trial - September 27th, 1995 - Part 4 OJ Trial Uncut Published on Nov 29, 2016 **THIS HAS BEEN REPOSTED TO PROVIDE A BETTER QUALITY VIEWING CLIP. OJ Simpson criminal trial from September 27th, 1995. (Johnnie Cochran, Raw, Uncut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cochran closing argument, 27 Sept 1995, [excerpt] Then we come to those socks. Those socks. They just don't fit. They just don't fit. They just don't fit. Watch with me now a video. I want you to watch the time counter in this time frame, and you'll understand how important this is. MR. DOUGLAS: 1068, your Honor. (At 6:48 P.M., Deft's 1068, a videotape was played.) MR. COCHRAN: Now, where it says 3:13 P.M., Mr. Willie Ford says--all right. Back it up, please. This is Mr. Willie Ford going up into the bedroom. It's 3:13 where he says it's 4:14 because it hadn't been changed. It's 4:13 P.M. on June 13th, 1994. Okay. Thank you, your Honor. You look at the foot of the bed there where the socks are supposed to be. You'll see no socks in this video. And you'll recall that Mr. Willie Ford testified about this. And I asked him, "Well, where are the socks, Mr. Ford?" "I didn't see any socks." So now, that's interesting, isn't it? At 4:13 on June 13th, 1994, these socks are supposedly recovered, these mysterious socks, these socks that no one sees any blood on until August 4th all of a sudden, these socks that are picked up that Luper says he picks them up because they look out of place. "I don't see any reason to pick them up. I'll just take these socks because they look out of place." The only items that they took out of that place on that date is Lange. Lange takes the Reebok tennis shoes, the ones that he takes home. You remember that. That's all they really take because they don't come back until the 28th before they get that one brown glove. But these socks will be their undoing. It just doesn't fit. None of you can deny there are no socks at the foot of that bed 4:13 P.M. Where then are the socks? Where are these socks, this important piece of evidence? Well, let me show you something. This board here was a board used by Dr. Henry Lee. This is interesting. Bear with me for a moment as you look at this. THE COURT: Is this 1352? MR. DOUGLAS: 52. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: In this photograph here, the one on the left, your Honor, if you'll notice, the socks are at the foot of the bed. If you look close at this photograph, you'll see there's no little white card there. You notice how they put these little evidence cards there when they're going to collect something. No little white card on this photograph here. And this is interesting, because you see these straps on the bed. Now, Luper told us when he testified, these straps were like--he called them some kind of luggage straps. And these luggage straps are down at this point, aren't they? See how they're down? No evidence card and the socks are there. We come over to this photograph here. Notice how the strap is now up on the bed? No longer hanging down anymore. It's been moved up. And Luper says that's when he looks under this bed and he sees that photograph. By the way, how wrong can they continue to be? That's no wedding photograph. That's no wedding. That's a photograph they took at some formal event. You look at that photograph and see. That's how they speculate. And most times, they've been wrong. But this is interesting. The strap is now up on the bed. And you look at the socks. Now it's been posed for you. Here is this no. 13 out here with these socks. Now, you look back at that video, and you'll have it. You'll notice that the video has the strap down. So the video is at a time before this card was placed, before the strap is up, before this is about to be collected. Now, isn't that strange, because at 4:13, there are no socks there. Now, how do we tie all this together? Do you remember, Fung and Mazzola have a log. And on their log, they tell when they collected things. They tell us that they collected the blood in the foyer at 4:30, that they then came upstairs, that they collect--here it is as we speak. MR. DOUGLAS: 1091, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: Can you move it over a little bit, Mr. Harris? Now, you see this where they collected things sequentially and they kept this log. And I think that you'll remember the testimony that at 4:30, they collected the blood in the foyer. Remember that? Let me see if I can point that out for you. In the foyer, red stain. And there's testimony--they testified 4:30. 1630 is 4:30. This is--well, this is at least 17 minutes after Mr. Ford is up there with that camera where there are no socks, right? So 1630, right there. They're downstairs. Then they say they go upstairs and they leave this time blank. But at 1640, they go and they look at this little red spot in the bathroom. Remember that? And they say in their testimony that the socks are collected between 1630 and 1640. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt, 1635. How could the socks be there at 4:35 when you just saw they're not there at 4:13? Who's fooling whom here? Setting this man up, and you can see it with your own eyes. You're not naive. Nobody is foolish here. Then they forget about this little strap exercise and they're posing stuff here. They move this off the bed, move this under the bed. They're going to make a big thing about this photograph under the bed. Then they put this number down here and they take these pictures for you later. But they didn't know that we would know or find out about Mr. Ford's video. So they took that video--you know, we talked about this early on. LAPD should always take videos of everything at that crime scene. They don't do that. But they took this video not because they wanted to help Mr. Simpson. If anything was missing or got broken, this was a civil liability video. Remember, they were going around taking photographs of things that might be missing of whatever if there was ever a suit later on. But they got hoisted by their own petard again because the video has the counter and the number. They will never, ever be able to explain that to you because we've got the testimony in black and white as when they went upstairs and collected them. Those socks from the beginning is going to bring them down. So those are the socks, these socks. No dirt, no soil, no berries, no trace. Nobody sees any blood until August 4th. All these miraculous things start happening, and then--Mr. Scheck will talk more about this. Then we find out it has EDTA in it. Is it planted along with that back gate? How would it be on there? Why didn't they see the blood before that? There's a big fight here. Where is the dirt? Why would Mr. Simpson have on these kind of socks with a sweat outfit? Wait a minute. Now, you don't have to be like from the fashion police to know that. You don't wear those kinds of socks. You wear those kind of socks with a suit. You don't wear those kind of socks with a sweat outfit. Doesn't it make sense to you that those socks were in that hamper from Saturday night when Mr. Simpson went to that formal event? Those kind of socks is what you wear with your tuxedo when he was dressed with those other ladies. They went and took it out of the hamper and staged it there, and you see what happened. Is that not reasonable under these facts? I think you'll agree it is. It's the only reasonable explanation. It's posed there. And the reason for doing this is because they were out of place. But isn't that interesting, in the hamper in which Luper went and they all went, they didn't take anything else? You'd think the police would ask Mr. Simpson, "What were you wearing? In addition to the suit, what were you wearing that night?" They didn't take one thing. Yet we hear all this talk about, I wonder where the clothes went, I wonder where the clothes went. You'd think Mr. Simpson, who told them everything, cooperated with them fully, told them, like he told them about those shoes, what he was wearing. They didn't bother collecting those, did they? No towels, no nothing. She's worried about him taking this quick shower. If he took a shower, there's so much blood, he's covered with blood, why didn't they bring the towels in here? Something is wrong in this case. It just doesn't fit. When it doesn't fit, you must acquit. So the socks-- I could talk about these socks forever, but I'm not going to do that because Mr. Scheck will talk about the forensic aspect of it. But let me just remind you of two quick more things. Dr. Herbert MacDonell came in here and he told you there was no splatter or spatter on these socks. These socks had compression transfer, and he used his hands to show you somebody took those socks and they put something on them and it went all the way through to side 3. Now, with all their experts bringing people back three, four times, they never had anybody to contravene that. How did that get over to side 3? How did it get over there? It wouldn't get there if there was a leg in the sock. Can anybody explain that? Can any of you explain that? Maybe Miss Clark can explain that. Experts can't explain it. Something is wrong. Then finally the EDTA which indicates the anticoagulant from a purple top tube is where that blood is from. The socks, as you know, are something that you want to get emotional about because we've known about these socks for some time. This is to say the least disturbing. It's worse than that though. In my opening statement, I told you about evidence that would be compromised, contaminated and corrupted and I told you something then. I said in this case, there's something even far more sinister. The socks are one example of that. Now, if you want to be fair deciding this case, you've got to deal with these socks. You'll get a chance to see them. Look for the dirt that you expect on them. Look for the spatter that you expect on them. Look and see why it went over to side 3. There's a leg in it. Now, isn't it interesting how you get this blood on this sock with your pants? Your pants have to be almost up. This would take a real contortion to do it. There's no way they could explain it. So let's just leave it where it is and Mr. Scheck will pick up on that. Then we've heard a lot about the so-called blood in the Bronco. ... nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   16:31:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #385. To: misterwhite (#381) Any actual evidence of cross-contamination? No? Next subject. You once again exhibit your hysterical need to reverse the burden of proof. The defense has no burden of proof. The prosecution bears the sole burden of proof. The prosecution must prove that the evidence was not contaminated or manufactured. The defense need only create reasonable doubt. They did. As the jury foreman said, One of the crucial moments where I changed my thinking was when I heard evidence about the glove. The testimony about the drying time of blood on leather was that it would take anywhere from three to four hours, and the glove was not picked up until seven or seven and a half hours later. Another issue was about the blood drops on the socks and the location of the drops. Another episode that changed my mind was basically the picking up of the evidence weeks later and when they tested it, the results were so much different—the DNA content being so much different the the original drops were. And juror Carrie Bess said, "there was EDTA in some of the drops." The significant blood evidence was collected weeks after the murders, along with EDTA and results wildly inconsistent with the original collections, accompanied with a cock and bull stories that the jury did not believe. - - - - - - - - - - CROSS CONTAMINATION - Scheck cross of Gary Sims of Cal. DoJ MR. SCHECK: Right. And we agreed that in handling degraded samples, that is, the fact that samples are degraded creates a risk of cross-contamination in and of itself? MR. SIMS: Yes. There is greater risk with those samples. MR. SCHECK: And handling a reference sample, I am now looking at the test-tube plus one, all right? MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: --reference sample in the same area during the same period, either by pouring off sample from the--popping up the top of the tube, pouring it onto a card and in the same area during the same period, one is handling evidence samples, that kind of situation can increase of risk of cross contamination? MR. HARMON: Objection. "period" is vague, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And handling samples from a suspect and a victim at the same time can create a risk of cross-contamination of sample? MR. SIMS: Can we clarify a little bit about suspect and victim? I think we had a had a little-- MR. SCHECK: You recall that discussion that is represented by that logo, without reviewing it all? MR. SIMS: Yes, I think we talked about that. MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples represented by that scale of samples with high DNA concentration and low DNA concentration? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples from different crime scenes? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And we talked about handling many samples at the same time? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to all those different contamination factors to the right of the line, those represent in a sense situations that can raise the level of risk in terms of making an inadvertent transfer of cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, looking to the factors on the left-hand side-- MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: --if you combine the creation of an aerosol-- THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. This witness has never adopted your characterization of aerosol. Airborne particles perhaps; not aerosol. MR. SCHECK: Thank you. MR. SCHECK: Airborne articles represented by the clip art of fireworks? MR. SIMS: I like that. MR. SCHECK: Thank you. All right. Talking about airborne particles, all right? MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: Combining that with any of these other situations to the right of the line, that is a--sort of a mechanism of transfer that would increase the risk of cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And the paper, you recall our discussion about not changing paper? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: If you combine not changing paper with each of those situations, that is a mechanism of transfer that can increase the risk of cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And with respect to the bunsen burner representing the cleaning of instruments, if one does not adequately clean instruments, that can be a mechanism of transfer that facilitates crosscontamination, raises the level of risk in the other situations to the right of that white line? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And with respect to gloves, gloves, either not changing gloves or washing gloves-- MR. SIMS: Right. MR. SCHECK: --okay, between samples, combined with any of those other factors to the right of the line, can become a mechanism of transfer for cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Thank you. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   16:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #386. To: misterwhite (#381) Any actual evidence of cross-contamination? No? Next subject. Yes, actual testimonial affirmative evidence of cross-contamination. I can only post it, but it is evident nothing can make you read it. However I will repeat an excerpt of it from my #368, by scientific expert Dr. John Gerdes. He gave explicit testimony of contaminated reference samples of blood for Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. 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. Testimony of Dr. John Gerdes 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. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   17:13:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #387. To: misterwhite (#381) Any actual evidence of cross-contamination? Further testimony of the atrocious lab procedures of criminalist Collin Yamauchi creating an unacceptable risk of cross-contamination. When the lab is a cesspool of contamination, the evidence that comes out of it is shit. The prosecution bears the sole burden of proof to show that its evidence is not shit. CROSS CONTAMINATION - Scheck cross of Gary Sims of Cal. DoJ MR. SCHECK: Right. And we agreed that in handling degraded samples, that is, the fact that samples are degraded creates a risk of cross-contamination in and of itself? MR. SIMS: Yes. There is greater risk with those samples. MR. SCHECK: And handling a reference sample, I am now looking at the test-tube plus one, all right? MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: --reference sample in the same area during the same period, either by pouring off sample from the--popping up the top of the tube, pouring it onto a card and in the same area during the same period, one is handling evidence samples, that kind of situation can increase of risk of cross contamination? MR. HARMON: Objection. "period" is vague, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And handling samples from a suspect and a victim at the same time can create a risk of cross-contamination of sample? MR. SIMS: Can we clarify a little bit about suspect and victim? I think we had a had a little-- MR. SCHECK: You recall that discussion that is represented by that logo, without reviewing it all? MR. SIMS: Yes, I think we talked about that. MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples represented by that scale of samples with high DNA concentration and low DNA concentration? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples from different crime scenes? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And we talked about handling many samples at the same time? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to all those different contamination factors to the right of the line, those represent in a sense situations that can raise the level of risk in terms of making an inadvertent transfer of cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Now, looking to the factors on the left-hand side-- MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: --if you combine the creation of an aerosol-- THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. This witness has never adopted your characterization of aerosol. Airborne particles perhaps; not aerosol. MR. SCHECK: Thank you. MR. SCHECK: Airborne articles represented by the clip art of fireworks? MR. SIMS: I like that. MR. SCHECK: Thank you. All right. Talking about airborne particles, all right? MR. SIMS: Okay. MR. SCHECK: Combining that with any of these other situations to the right of the line, that is a--sort of a mechanism of transfer that would increase the risk of cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And the paper, you recall our discussion about not changing paper? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: If you combine not changing paper with each of those situations, that is a mechanism of transfer that can increase the risk of cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And with respect to the bunsen burner representing the cleaning of instruments, if one does not adequately clean instruments, that can be a mechanism of transfer that facilitates crosscontamination, raises the level of risk in the other situations to the right of that white line? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: And with respect to gloves, gloves, either not changing gloves or washing gloves-- MR. SIMS: Right. MR. SCHECK: --okay, between samples, combined with any of those other factors to the right of the line, can become a mechanism of transfer for cross-contamination? MR. SIMS: Yes. MR. SCHECK: Thank you. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   17:17:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #388. To: nolu chan (#387) unacceptable risk of cross-contamination. Meaning it might happen. Then again, it might not. Now, if it HAD happened, THAT would be significant. Did it? Ah, no. But let's play your silly game. Say there WAS cross-contamination. What would the analysis show? Would the real killer's blood turn into OJ's DNA? Or would the sample be useless and not admissable in any court? Seems to me any real cross- contamination would be welcomed by the defense and they would do everything in their power to present such evidence. Alas, they couldn't. All they could do was try to confuse the jury into thinking that conjecture and speculation was the same thing as real evidence. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-29   18:58:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #389. To: nolu chan (#386) Any contaminant was trace amount and had zero efect on the analysis. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-29   19:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #390. To: nolu chan (#382) The scientific experts testified that there was a compression transfer and the blood was forced through by applied pressure with a well defined perimeter indicating that, if done by hand, it was not more than one finger that was used to apply the pressure. Meaning it could have been done by OJ when he removed his socks. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-29   20:11:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #391. To: misterwhite (#381) Any actual evidence of cross-contamination? There was also the testimonial evidence of Dr. Henry Lee affirmatively stating the actual existence of cross-contamination. Excerpted from my #372. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   22:35:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #392. To: misterwhite (#388) Meaning it might happen. Then again, it might not. Now, if it HAD happened, THAT would be significant. Did it? Ah, no. Both Dr. John Gerdes and Dr. Henry Lee affirmatively testified to real and actual crosss-contamination of evidence, including the reference samples of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   22:37:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #393. To: misterwhite (#389) Any contaminant was trace amount and had zero efect on the analysis. And you are full of shit. Documented cross-contamination of the reference samples and the socks must affect analysis. nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   22:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #394. To: misterwhite (#390) The scientific experts testified that there was a compression transfer and the blood was forced through by applied pressure with a well defined perimeter indicating that, if done by hand, it was not more than one finger that was used to apply the pressure. Meaning it could have been done by OJ when he removed his socks. Your new theory is OJ removed his socks with one finger at the ankle? And this cast a Klingon invisibility cloak on the socks when the videographer was there? OP wore dress socks with sweats and threw bloody socks on the light colored carpet without leaving the slightest bit of detectable blood on the carpet. And those magical socks were shown to have not been there at 4:13 p.m., and that is before they were collected. The straps on the bed do not lie. Advance to 47m46s Youtube link 47:46 - 59:38 - The magic socks, Ford video and still photos OJ Simpson Trial - September 27th, 1995 - Part 4 OJ Trial Uncut Published on Nov 29, 2016 **THIS HAS BEEN REPOSTED TO PROVIDE A BETTER QUALITY VIEWING CLIP. OJ Simpson criminal trial from September 27th, 1995. (Johnnie Cochran, Raw, Uncut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cochran closing argument, 27 Sept 1995, [excerpt] Then we come to those socks. Those socks. They just don't fit. They just don't fit. They just don't fit. Watch with me now a video. I want you to watch the time counter in this time frame, and you'll understand how important this is. MR. DOUGLAS: 1068, your Honor. (At 6:48 P.M., Deft's 1068, a videotape was played.) MR. COCHRAN: Now, where it says 3:13 P.M., Mr. Willie Ford says--all right. Back it up, please. This is Mr. Willie Ford going up into the bedroom. It's 3:13 where he says it's 4:14 because it hadn't been changed. It's 4:13 P.M. on June 13th, 1994. Okay. Thank you, your Honor. You look at the foot of the bed there where the socks are supposed to be. You'll see no socks in this video. And you'll recall that Mr. Willie Ford testified about this. And I asked him, "Well, where are the socks, Mr. Ford?" "I didn't see any socks." So now, that's interesting, isn't it? At 4:13 on June 13th, 1994, these socks are supposedly recovered, these mysterious socks, these socks that no one sees any blood on until August 4th all of a sudden, these socks that are picked up that Luper says he picks them up because they look out of place. "I don't see any reason to pick them up. I'll just take these socks because they look out of place." The only items that they took out of that place on that date is Lange. Lange takes the Reebok tennis shoes, the ones that he takes home. You remember that. That's all they really take because they don't come back until the 28th before they get that one brown glove. But these socks will be their undoing. It just doesn't fit. None of you can deny there are no socks at the foot of that bed 4:13 P.M. Where then are the socks? Where are these socks, this important piece of evidence? Well, let me show you something. This board here was a board used by Dr. Henry Lee. This is interesting. Bear with me for a moment as you look at this. THE COURT: Is this 1352? MR. DOUGLAS: 52. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: In this photograph here, the one on the left, your Honor, if you'll notice, the socks are at the foot of the bed. If you look close at this photograph, you'll see there's no little white card there. You notice how they put these little evidence cards there when they're going to collect something. No little white card on this photograph here. And this is interesting, because you see these straps on the bed. Now, Luper told us when he testified, these straps were like--he called them some kind of luggage straps. And these luggage straps are down at this point, aren't they? See how they're down? No evidence card and the socks are there. We come over to this photograph here. Notice how the strap is now up on the bed? No longer hanging down anymore. It's been moved up. And Luper says that's when he looks under this bed and he sees that photograph. By the way, how wrong can they continue to be? That's no wedding photograph. That's no wedding. That's a photograph they took at some formal event. You look at that photograph and see. That's how they speculate. And most times, they've been wrong. But this is interesting. The strap is now up on the bed. And you look at the socks. Now it's been posed for you. Here is this no. 13 out here with these socks. Now, you look back at that video, and you'll have it. You'll notice that the video has the strap down. So the video is at a time before this card was placed, before the strap is up, before this is about to be collected. Now, isn't that strange, because at 4:13, there are no socks there. Now, how do we tie all this together? Do you remember, Fung and Mazzola have a log. And on their log, they tell when they collected things. They tell us that they collected the blood in the foyer at 4:30, that they then came upstairs, that they collect--here it is as we speak. MR. DOUGLAS: 1091, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. COCHRAN: Can you move it over a little bit, Mr. Harris? Now, you see this where they collected things sequentially and they kept this log. And I think that you'll remember the testimony that at 4:30, they collected the blood in the foyer. Remember that? Let me see if I can point that out for you. In the foyer, red stain. And there's testimony--they testified 4:30. 1630 is 4:30. This is--well, this is at least 17 minutes after Mr. Ford is up there with that camera where there are no socks, right? So 1630, right there. They're downstairs. Then they say they go upstairs and they leave this time blank. But at 1640, they go and they look at this little red spot in the bathroom. Remember that? And they say in their testimony that the socks are collected between 1630 and 1640. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt, 1635. How could the socks be there at 4:35 when you just saw they're not there at 4:13? Who's fooling whom here? Setting this man up, and you can see it with your own eyes. You're not naive. Nobody is foolish here. Then they forget about this little strap exercise and they're posing stuff here. They move this off the bed, move this under the bed. They're going to make a big thing about this photograph under the bed. Then they put this number down here and they take these pictures for you later. But they didn't know that we would know or find out about Mr. Ford's video. So they took that video--you know, we talked about this early on. LAPD should always take videos of everything at that crime scene. They don't do that. But they took this video not because they wanted to help Mr. Simpson. If anything was missing or got broken, this was a civil liability video. Remember, they were going around taking photographs of things that might be missing of whatever if there was ever a suit later on. But they got hoisted by their own petard again because the video has the counter and the number. They will never, ever be able to explain that to you because we've got the testimony in black and white as when they went upstairs and collected them. Those socks from the beginning is going to bring them down. So those are the socks, these socks. No dirt, no soil, no berries, no trace. Nobody sees any blood until August 4th. All these miraculous things start happening, and then--Mr. Scheck will talk more about this. Then we find out it has EDTA in it. Is it planted along with that back gate? How would it be on there? Why didn't they see the blood before that? There's a big fight here. Where is the dirt? Why would Mr. Simpson have on these kind of socks with a sweat outfit? Wait a minute. Now, you don't have to be like from the fashion police to know that. You don't wear those kinds of socks. You wear those kind of socks with a suit. You don't wear those kind of socks with a sweat outfit. Doesn't it make sense to you that those socks were in that hamper from Saturday night when Mr. Simpson went to that formal event? Those kind of socks is what you wear with your tuxedo when he was dressed with those other ladies. They went and took it out of the hamper and staged it there, and you see what happened. Is that not reasonable under these facts? I think you'll agree it is. It's the only reasonable explanation. It's posed there. And the reason for doing this is because they were out of place. But isn't that interesting, in the hamper in which Luper went and they all went, they didn't take anything else? You'd think the police would ask Mr. Simpson, "What were you wearing? In addition to the suit, what were you wearing that night?" They didn't take one thing. Yet we hear all this talk about, I wonder where the clothes went, I wonder where the clothes went. You'd think Mr. Simpson, who told them everything, cooperated with them fully, told them, like he told them about those shoes, what he was wearing. They didn't bother collecting those, did they? No towels, no nothing. She's worried about him taking this quick shower. If he took a shower, there's so much blood, he's covered with blood, why didn't they bring the towels in here? Something is wrong in this case. It just doesn't fit. When it doesn't fit, you must acquit. So the socks-- I could talk about these socks forever, but I'm not going to do that because Mr. Scheck will talk about the forensic aspect of it. But let me just remind you of two quick more things. Dr. Herbert MacDonell came in here and he told you there was no splatter or spatter on these socks. These socks had compression transfer, and he used his hands to show you somebody took those socks and they put something on them and it went all the way through to side 3. Now, with all their experts bringing people back three, four times, they never had anybody to contravene that. How did that get over to side 3? How did it get over there? It wouldn't get there if there was a leg in the sock. Can anybody explain that? Can any of you explain that? Maybe Miss Clark can explain that. Experts can't explain it. Something is wrong. Then finally the EDTA which indicates the anticoagulant from a purple top tube is where that blood is from. The socks, as you know, are something that you want to get emotional about because we've known about these socks for some time. This is to say the least disturbing. It's worse than that though. In my opening statement, I told you about evidence that would be compromised, contaminated and corrupted and I told you something then. I said in this case, there's something even far more sinister. The socks are one example of that. Now, if you want to be fair deciding this case, you've got to deal with these socks. You'll get a chance to see them. Look for the dirt that you expect on them. Look for the spatter that you expect on them. Look and see why it went over to side 3. There's a leg in it. Now, isn't it interesting how you get this blood on this sock with your pants? Your pants have to be almost up. This would take a real contortion to do it. There's no way they could explain it. So let's just leave it where it is and Mr. Scheck will pick up on that. Then we've heard a lot about the so-called blood in the Bronco. ... nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-29   23:06:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #395. To: misterwhite (#389) How can any contaminant with a trace amount not have an effect on the analysis? How is that possible? goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-29   23:44:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #396. To: goldilucky (#395) How can any contaminant with a trace amount not have an effect on the analysis? How is that possible? The results would show, for example, that the blood belonged to Nicole with a trace amount (<.0001%) of OJ's blood, possibly due to contamination. Contamination would not turn the real killer's blood into OJ's. Degradation would not turn the real killer's blood into OJ's. Leaving blood samples in a hot car would not turn the real killer's blood into OJ's. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-30   9:35:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #397. To: nolu chan (#394) And those magical socks were shown to have not been there at 4:13 p.m., and that is before they were collected. Wrong. Photographer Willie Ford acknowledged that his video did not show the socks on Simpson's bedroom floor, but he said police criminalists had already collected evidence before he entered the room to videotape it. Another witness called by the defense, police detective Bert Luper, testified that he saw criminalist Dennis Fung collect the socks before the photographer videotaped the room's contents. Oh, wait. Your response is that Ford and Luper are both lying, right? Well, we'll add them to the list containing Lange, Vanatter and, of course, Fuhrman. And Fung. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-30   10:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #398. To: nolu chan (#394) Your new theory is OJ removed his socks with one finger at the ankle? It's not a "new" theory. It's simply a possible explanation for your new claim of "one-finger-compression". And it's more plausible than your "they planted microscopic blood evidence from Nicole on OJ's sock that nobody even saw until weeks later". And they did this after they saw all the other blood evidence in plain sight at both locations and they figured, "Hey. What can it hurt? Let's take a chance of going to prison and add even more blood. Go back to Bundy and get some of Goldman's blood -- no, make it Nicole's blood -- then we'll smear just a little on these socks we just found." " Wouldn't it be funny if these aren't OJ's socks and he tried them on at the trial and they did't fit?" "Now, we're experienced crime scene detectives and know that if the socks were on, there'd only be blood on one side of the sock. But go ahead and press hard so it goes all the way through to the other side as though the blood evidence was planted." misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-30   10:35:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #399. To: misterwhite (#396) And what would those contaminates be composed of exactly? This "Degradation" you discuss, what is that? goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-30   14:13:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #400. To: goldilucky (#399) "And what would those contaminates be composed of exactly?" In this case it's someone else's DNA (the contaminant) mixing with the DNA sample collected as evidence. Degradation occurs when the DNA starts to break down due to time, exposure to the elements, or heat. You end up with less and less usable DNA to test. But DNA does not transform itself from one person to another. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-30   15:56:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #401. To: misterwhite (#400) Degradation occurs when the DNA starts to break down due to time, exposure to the elements, or heat. You end up with less and less usable DNA to test. But DNA does not transform itself from one person to another. So provided with this information on how this process actually works, we can actually conclude that the forensics team for the LAPD knew about "time" being that critical factor involved in this DNA breaking down due to heat, (it was in June and it was rather warm at that time but check the weather temperature for that date). goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-30   16:53:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #402. To: goldilucky (#401) "we can actually conclude that the forensics team for the LAPD knew about "time" being that critical factor involved in this DNA breaking down due to heat" Sure, unless some method was used to keep the samples cool. But keep in mind that the DNA breaking down only served to help OJ. If his DNA was at the crime scene and it degraded to the point where they couldn't tell whose blood it was, he's free and clear. But there was ten times the overall evidence needed to convict. Disregarding a few blood samples here and there would have zero effect on the case. misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-30   19:05:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #403. To: misterwhite (#402) But keep in mind that the DNA breaking down only served to help OJ. That's exactly the point! goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-30   21:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (404 - 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